Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[lokiblossom]

No!...The Mystery is not the Gold, Silver, and Jewels that may or may not exist...The Mystery is "Why" and by "Whom"?

Haven't you figured this guy out yet Robot? You're just wasting your time! If you go back and read all his posts you can figure out that its not answers he is looking for.

Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

I wonder if the two dudes on the TV show are digging for a hoped-for-treasure? They keep referring to it as the "money-pit". Thus ..... it seems to be the case. At least for them.

 

[Robot]

Always Waste Time...With Someone...Interested In.. Solving The Mystery Of Oak Island!

Haven't you figured this guy out yet Robot? You're just wasting your time! If you go back and read all his posts you can figure out that its not answers he is looking for.

Cheers, Loki

Loki...You stopped short of your statement!

He is searching for Truth and Justice for Oak Island...My Prime Directive!

 

[franklin]

Give me three months on Oak Island and I will find more treasure than all of the other treasure hunters have found combined for the past 220 years, guaranteed.

 

[will7782]

Ok. And a truly "curious" type, would be open to consider and weigh data/opinion/explanations that might point in another direction . Right ? After all, that's the definition of "curious" eh ? To avail yourself of all explanations. And then ... sure ....... take your pick of which side you think carries the most merit. And the only way to do that, is: To see what an alternative explanation might present. That would be definition of "curious".

Tom, on that you are correct. But here is the rub that the nay-sayers just cannot seem to grasp. There are many here that are still looking for explanations. Please let that sink in. Maybe YOU have enough plausible explanations where YOU feel comfortable in declaring THE FACTS. I for one just don't.

consider the possibility that you are the one that has closed your mind to alternatives.

no whack a mole crap. I have wondered a great deal about the u shaped structure. nobody has come close to convincing me its purpose. I am not convinced that they have actually located box drains. those could be random rocks. the concrete wall with pipes? no idea but would think there searcher related.

notice what I do not mention? take a guess.......

 

[Tom_in_CA]

will7782, fair enough.

.... There are many here that are still looking for explanations. ............

Looking for explanations of what ? Treasure ? Or fibers/logs/pits, etc... ?

.... THE FACTS. I for one just don't........

Good point. So what is the standard for determining "facts" ? Subjective ? or Objective ?

If it's "subjective", then you're right: A believer's "facts" are no better than than a skeptic's "facts" . Then for that matter, we (you and I) can't dispute any notion that anyone promotes . Eg.: UFO's, alien abductions, etc... Becuase their "facts" (subjective via their own experiences) are equally as indisputable. Right ?

....consider the possibility that you are the one that has closed your mind to alternatives........

Ok, and let's assume this is true (because, yes ... I am biased towards a skeptic's viewpoint). Ok: Is that not equally true for you ? Ie.: You are "close-minded" to a skeptic's viewpoint ? Ie.: Why does that finger only point one way ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

will7782, fair enough.



Looking for explanations of what ? Treasure ? Or fibers/logs/pits, etc... ?



Good point. So what is the standard for determining "facts" ? Subjective ? or Objective ?

If it's "subjective", then you're right: A believer's "facts" are no better than than a skeptic's "facts" . Then for that matter, we (you and I) can't dispute any notion that anyone promotes . Eg.: UFO's, alien abductions, etc... Becuase their "facts" (subjective via their own experiences) are equally as indisputable. Right ?



Ok, and let's assume this is true (because, yes ... I am biased towards a skeptic's viewpoint). Ok: Is that not equally true for you ? Ie.: You are "close-minded" to a skeptic's viewpoint ? Ie.: Why does that finger only point one way ?

Because you try to disprove believers and not provided evidence. You act as if the evidence presented doesn't even exist.

Facts are:

No one has disproved the story.

There are too many anomalies on the island to be just sheer coincidence.

Logs, fibers, under ground bones, old wood, strange metallic objects, and other physical evidence have given strength to the story and some event that took place, not detracted from it.

The parchment piece and gold links may point to something of value(your constant nagging obsession for treasure).

Searchers tried to block drains flowing into the money pit. There is too much constructed items to block imaginary drains. Some form of physical drains must of been found.

The easy road in this "game" of OI is to be the skeptic. Since you can't debunk the evidence, you debunk the presenter of evidence. Anyone can do that. All it takes is to nit-pick someone's character to death or use your famous round-and-round argument you use. Sometimes, you have to take something at face value.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Because you try to disprove believers and not provided evidence....

......No one has disproved the story.....

Uuuhhh, burden of proof rests on whom ?

.... You act as if the evidence presented doesn't even exist. ....

Evidence presented ? The "evidence presented is to perpetually point back to the legend itself. As proof of its own self. See the vicious circle ?

... There are too many anomalies on the island to be just sheer coincidence.

Logs, fibers, under ground bones, old wood, strange metallic objects, and other physical evidence have given strength to the story and some event that took place, not detracted from it. ....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can construct the same general story, with volumes of uncanny shapes, objects, historical facts, etc.... if I walk a mere few mile radius from my house, in Monterey, CA. I can find "unexplained" strange shapes, objects, squiggles on rocks, fibers, logs, depressions, gold links , etc.... And I can suggest explanations of "Treasure" to explain them.

.... The parchment piece and gold links may point to something of value (your constant nagging obsession for treasure)....

"Something of value", eh ? Glad to see a concession for the "reason for all the interest" here. Thank you

.... The easy road in this "game" of OI is to be the skeptic.....

Actually, I can very-much-see how the "easy" road is to be a believer. Not a skeptic. Ie.: the easy "tempting " road is to believe unquestionably. Because: Treasure legends are more subconsciously easy to put skepticism aside on. Why ? Because of the human nature of "not wanting to be left out". Ie.: the "what if ?" psychology claws at our subconscious.

.... nit-pick someone's character ... .

b3y0nd3r, if I did that, it would be called an "Ad hominem". If so, I do not mean to do that. I mean to dispute the 'pro-con' facts of why anyone thinks there's possibly a treasure there. To whatever extent that "locker room talk" goes on, I think you can see it goes both ways. But in-so-far as "Ad hominem", I notice you never replied to this :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/o...y0nd3r-example-treasure-legend-evolution.html

And as you can see, it's very cordial (no nit-picking your "character", no Ad hominem). Thus: I would like you to respond to that, and let us know why a simple explanation like this (expanded over 100+ yrs) couldn't be the explanation for the entire hoopla that has evolved over O.I.

 

[will7782]

will7782, fair enough.

Looking for explanations of what ? Treasure ? Or fibers/logs/pits, etc... ?

Good point. So what is the standard for determining "facts" ? Subjective ? or Objective ?

If it's "subjective", then you're right: A believer's "facts" are no better than than a skeptic's "facts" . Then for that matter, we (you and I) can't dispute any notion that anyone promotes . Eg.: UFO's, alien abductions, etc... Becuase their "facts" (subjective via their own experiences) are equally as indisputable. Right ?




Ok, and let's assume this is true (because, yes ... I am biased towards a skeptic's viewpoint). Ok: Is that not equally true for you ? Ie.: You are "close-minded" to a skeptic's viewpoint ? Ie.: Why does that finger only point one way ?

the one thing that I have not mentioned is treasure, yet it is always the first thing you hit on. as I stated, I am curious about many things. the goings on in the cove really pique my interest. you and others have become convinced that something DID NOT happen on OI. there are plenty others that realize that we don't know, and are open to conjecture. what has been uncovered in the cove is now indisputable, but what was the purpose. I would like to know THAT. from pine tar manufacturing to salt production to weapon storage to fishing outpost have all been suggested purposes. YET, there is no real proof that any of these operations ever existed, other than speculation. you have to agree that there is as much proof of these ideas as Templars or aliens, right? so I admit that I am not convinced as yet. maybe I just am more skeptical than you.

here is the deal. facts are NOT subjective. how those facts are interpreted and sometimes manipulated ARE subjective. there was a sled found in the cove years ago, we have a pic of it. and we are told that it is proof of pine tar production. there are so many issues that I have with that. feel free to help me out. in the the drawing of a guy stirring pine tar, he is using a common barrel. not a clumsy and over built box. if it were a legitimate operation, they'd have brought the proper equipment. not to mention what another person asked, "why drag trees to OI to process them?" makes no sense. so the facts are, there is a sled and you can make tar from pine trees. all else is conjecture.


what is your opinion of the sled?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Uuuhhh, burden of proof rests on whom ?

I am from AMERICA. In AMERICA, the burden to of proof rests with the prosecution.

Just in case you need a refresher: "The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case..."

From Cambridge: "the act of officially accusing someone"

Evidence presented ? The "evidence presented is to perpetually point back to the legend itself. As proof of its own self. See the vicious circle ?

Regardless of where it points, it's still evidence presented to be debunked, which no one has successfully done.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can construct the same general story, with volumes of uncanny shapes, objects, historical facts, etc.... if I walk a mere few mile radius from my house, in Monterey, CA. I can find "unexplained" strange shapes, objects, squiggles on rocks, fibers, logs, depressions, gold links , etc.... And I can suggest explanations of "Treasure" to explain them.

AND how many millions of dollars have you made from it? Must not be convincing.

"Something of value", eh ? Glad to see a concession for the "reason for all the interest" here. Thank you

You can twist my statements how you like. I can't vouch for anyone but myself. I am here for answers. Not treasure.

Actually, I can very-much-see how the "easy" road is to be a believer. Not a skeptic. Ie.: the easy "tempting " road is to believe unquestionably. Because: Treasure legends are more subconsciously easy to put skepticism aside on. Why ? Because of the human nature of "not wanting to be left out". Ie.: the "what if ?" psychology claws at our subconscious.



b3y0nd3r, if I did that, it would be called an "Ad hominem". If so, I do not mean to do that. I mean to dispute the 'pro-con' facts of why anyone thinks there's possibly a treasure there. To whatever extent that "locker room talk" goes on, I think you can see it goes both ways. But in-so-far as "Ad hominem", I notice you never replied to this :

The last bit of MY statement you were replying to was meant as a comment toward skeptics in general. Not specifically you. I didnt even see the below link before.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/oak-island/599967-dedicated-b3y0nd3r-example-treasure-legend-evolution.html


And as you can see, it's very cordial (no nit-picking your "character", no Ad hominem). Thus: I would like you to respond to that, and let us know why a simple explanation like this (expanded over 100+ yrs) couldn't be the explanation for the entire hoopla that has evolved over O.I.

I will look into that thread.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

the one thing that I have not mentioned is treasure, ...

It doesn't need to be "mentioned". It's implicit. It's the entire reason the story/legend/thread/topic exists, in-the-first place.

....what is your opinion of the sled?

My opinion of the "sled", and every other salacious detail of the legend is that : Any/all of them (gold links, logs, U's, fibers, winches, little boys-who-saw-lights, sleds, etc...) can all be 100% true. Ie.: I can "grant" all of them, for-sake-of-argument (lest it end up in the wack-a-mole game). But I maintain that: SO TOO can anyone construct similar stories, from a 50 mile radius of their own home. No matter where you live in the USA, you can look long enough and hard enough at the landscape, for anywhere mankind has lived/worked long-enough, and find "squiggles on rocks". And a "fiber". And a "gold link". And "someone who saw lights", etc...

The entire thing can be chalked up to the same telephone game psychology as I presented here :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/o...y0nd3r-example-treasure-legend-evolution.html

Which, as you can see, need-not- mean: Treasure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I will look into that thread.

thank you. I respect that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case.....

Hhhmm, well ..... the way I look at it, the "prosecution", in this case, is the person making the claim of "treasure". Not the other way around. Therefore, in the case of O.I., that would make the believers to bear the burden of proof. Not the other way around . Eh ?

..... Regardless of where it points, it's still evidence presented to be debunked, which no one has successfully done.....

Well as a matter of fact, they have. Many here , including myself, have given what they consider more plausible explanations. And sure, you do not consider those "successful" . That's fine. But don't think for a moment that skeptic's haven't put forth material. And also don't forget that I can grant EVERY SINGLE ONE of the details (fibers, gold links, little boys, etc...). Hence you'd be right: None of those "details" has been "debunked". Yet don't forget : They can all be true, yet: Zero treasure.

Because as I've said: Every single treasure legend is probably 99% true, eh ? Real names, dates, events, etc... Right ? None of them ever start with "once upon a time", eh ? But if the remaining 1% of the story isn't true (the "treasure" part), then what good does it do to debate or someone to debunk the 99% ? No good at all, eh ?

And ....... gee ...... last I checked ......... No treasure. That would certainly show the "1%" of the story to be true. And no: To surmise that "maybe it was found by someone 100 yrs. ago, that simply kept mum, and retired to a life of fortune", does not prove the 1%. It's a nice speculation , but ....... alas ....... it would only be speculation. Not proof.

 

[will7782]

It doesn't need to be "mentioned". It's implicit. It's the entire reason the story/legend/thread/topic exists, in-the-first place.



My opinion of the "sled", and every other salacious detail of the legend is that : Any/all of them (gold links, logs, U's, fibers, winches, little boys-who-saw-lights, sleds, etc...) can all be 100% true. Ie.: I can "grant" all of them, for-sake-of-argument (lest it end up in the wack-a-mole game). But I maintain that: SO TOO can anyone construct similar stories, from a 50 mile radius of their own home. No matter where you live in the USA, you can look long enough and hard enough at the landscape, for anywhere mankind has lived/worked long-enough, and find "squiggles on rocks". And a "fiber". And a "gold link". And "someone who saw lights", etc...

The entire thing can be chalked up to the same telephone game psychology as I presented here :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/o...y0nd3r-example-treasure-legend-evolution.html

Which, as you can see, need-not- mean: Treasure.

Look. I'm interested in what happened there. YOU are interested in debunking the story of treasure. Not connected ideas.

You avoided a simple question. I don't know why you avoided it, but you did. Jumped right into your mole role play game. To call one of the few FACTS, a "salacious detail" shows your intent.


I really thought you had more game than that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... You avoided a simple question.....

about a sled(s) ? I believe I answered that. I told you that , yes, I can grant every single detail about "sleds". I can grant "fibers". And little-boys-who-saw lights. And a gold link, etc.... Every single detail about the story can be true and mysterious. Hence: What haven't I answered ??

And since neither of us believes all those details point-to-treasure, then .... I guess we're on the same page, eh ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Hhhmm, well ..... the way I look at it, the "prosecution", in this case, is the person making the claim of "treasure". Not the other way around. Therefore, in the case of O.I., that would make the believers to bear the burden of proof. Not the other way around . Eh ?




Well as a matter of fact, they have. Many here , including myself, have given what they consider more plausible explanations. And sure, you do not consider those "successful" . That's fine. But don't think for a moment that skeptic's haven't put forth material. And also don't forget that I can grant EVERY SINGLE ONE of the details (fibers, gold links, little boys, etc...). Hence you'd be right: None of those "details" has been "debunked". Yet don't forget : They can all be true, yet: Zero treasure.

Because as I've said: Every single treasure legend is probably 99% true, eh ? Real names, dates, events, etc... Right ? None of them ever start with "once upon a time", eh ? But if the remaining 1% of the story isn't true (the "treasure" part), then what good does it do to debate or someone to debunk the 99% ? No good at all, eh ?

And ....... gee ...... last I checked ......... No treasure. That would certainly show the "1%" of the story to be true. And no: To surmise that "maybe it was found by someone 100 yrs. ago, that simply kept mum, and retired to a life of fortune", does not prove the 1%. It's a nice speculation , but ....... alas ....... it would only be speculation. Not proof.

I am absolutely dumbfounded. Absolutely. This is the second time you have agreed with me that (probably)99% of the story AND the evidence presented is true and that 1%(the treasure) isn't true. Well, drum roll please, I agree with you(stated again) that the treasure or existence of treasure is pure wild speculation. That is, YOUR definition of treasure.

However, since we both agree on all the evidence, treasure aside, I have just one question. What the hell is the money pit?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Well, drum roll please, I agree with you(stated again) that the treasure or existence of treasure is pure wild speculation. ....

Ironically, you're right: If the believers in O.I. are NOT "believing" in a treasure (ie.: gold and silver ), as you are saying . And are only "believing" in fibers, logs, little-boys-who-saw lights, booby-trap drains, etc... Then yes: the "skeptic" and the "believer" , in that case, would be on the same page.

I've had a little trouble believing that ........ deep-down-inside, the "believers" HAVE to be relying on the 1% (treasure). Lest why else does anyone in their right mind care-less ? Why else it on "treasure"net after all ? Why are those 2 dudes digging to insane depths on the TV show ?

But since the folks here are adamant that they don't believe there's treasure, then : I guess that solves it. We're all on the same page. No treasure.

 

[n2mini]

Here we go again and again.. You mentioned that ""That would certainly show the "1%" of the story to be true. And no: To surmise that "maybe it was found by someone 100 yrs. ago, that simply kept mum, and retired to a life of fortune", does not prove the 1%. It's a nice speculation , but ....... alas ....... it would only be speculation. Not proof.""

Lets just say for sh&^% and giggles that someone did find the treasure over 100 years ago and did keep mum.. How is anyone going to prove it.. I'm one of the people who thinks that is exactly what happened. I can't prove it but that doesn't mean that just because I can't that your right as you can't prove it didn't happen either...

Here you say, ""
Because as I've said: Every single treasure legend is probably 99% true, eh ? Real names, dates, events, etc... Right ? None of them ever start with "once upon a time", eh ? But if the remaining 1% of the story isn't true (the "treasure" part), then what good does it do to debate or someone to debunk the 99% ? No good at all, eh ?

but here you are debating it, why... if that is what you believe...

 

[will7782]

And since neither of us believes all those details point-to-treasure, then .... I guess we're on the same page, eh ?



YOU say they do no point to treasure. I say "I want to find where they lead".



Most definitely not on same page.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....let's just say for sh&^% and giggles that someone did find the treasure over 100 years ago and did keep mum.. How is anyone going to prove it.....

Correct. Which is why I say: "It's not proof"

..... but that doesn't mean that just because I can't that your right as you can't prove it didn't happen either......

Uuuhhh, ok..... and nor can you prove it DID happen. Thus , there's no "proof" (ie.: the "1%" ) on either side. Right ?

..... but here you are debating it, why......

Because I am fascinated with treasure-legend psychology. Ever since I got caught up in a treasure(s) hunt in the early 1990s, to "certain treasures" in Mexico (another hot-bed of treasure legends). After that experience, I began to ask myself: "Why did the story sound so compelling at the beginning?" "Why/how is the story spun/told in the way it is?".

And also the methods that my well-meaning/sincere host was advocating for our soon-to-be treasure hunt (eg.: LRL's etc...). I had utterly no answer for. He showed me the compelling advertisements for wands that could "find gold and silver to XX feet deep" and "xx miles away". Heck, pretty hard to argue with pictures where some dude is posed next to the jar of coins he just found. Right ? Hence: My interest began.