Oak Island: Was something even there.

[b3y0nd3r]

After spending a lot of time reading various view points on this forum from the different members, the most important question is, "was anything there at all?" Let's please just debate the beginning of the story. Let's keep personal bias and pride out of this.
My position: I guess I would fall under "Believer with reservations"(I want to make sure you know where I stand).

The original story is similar to this:

Young Daniel Mcginnis in 1795, saw lights at night on Oak island in Nova Scotia. In the morning, he went to investigate and found a depression in the ground and a saw off tree branch above it. The next day, he and two other friends, John Smith and Anthony Vaughan, went to dig up what was buried. At the top, they found flag stones in a circular pattern. Then "laid" timbers, with coconut fiber and putty every ten feet. they got to 30 feet and quit.

If this story is false, how come these three return in 1804 to start digging again?<---THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

If it was a scam, then why are they(the original three) in the pit digging at that time, instead of supervising or advising?

The above story was listed from multiple sources(newspapers, magazines,eye witness accounts).

Would we all agree that the beginning story is true?

Let's at least put the beginning of the story to rest, once and for all, then we can all work from there. Let's ALL debate this or agree with this. Cool?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Singlestack Wonder]

There has never been any proof presented in over 200 years of searching that gave any factual evidence of anything significant ever being placed on oak island. It is one of the longest running hoax's in history.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

There has never been any proof presented in over 200 years of searching that gave any factual evidence of anything significant ever being placed on oak island. It is one of the longest running hoax's in history.

So you're saying, that the story is completely false? If so, present your evidence.

 

[ECS]

There has never been any proof presented in over 200 years of searching that gave any factual evidence of anything significant ever being placed on oak island. It is one of the longest running hoax's in history.

Here is a very good timeline concerning Oak Island:
Chronology of the Oak Island Treasure Hunt

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So you're saying, that the story is completely false? ....

Yes, we're saying the story is false. But sure, there was no doubt some dude named "Daniel Mcginnis..." perhaps, blah blah. But all the stuff about "logs" and "flagstones" and the various things he supposedly saw, can all .... thereafter .... be the subject of the "telephone game" gone awry.

If you want a case example, that I saw firsthand, to see how this "treasure fever telephone game" works, I can give you a humorous example in my own area, that .... no amount of effort afterwards can ever put to rest. But trust me: Things that eventually just get purported as "starting premises/facts", can themselves be suspect, and have alternate explanations. And no, this isn't to say that "people lied". They can be quite sincere. But whenever you put in "treasure" to people's minds, then all of the sudden common sense goes out the window. It's just human nature.

You'll see this in some cultures/countries more than others . Where they see "sure-fire treasure symbols in every squiggle they see on a rock". And less pronounced in other cultures. But it's still in all our brains to some degree. Then add 150 yrs, and you end up with a big mess. Anyhow, if you want the humorous local example, let me know. Then extrapolate it out to Oak Island, and you'll see what I mean.

.... If so, present your evidence.

On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you. Not us. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not up to us to prove it didn't happen.

Example: If I told you: I built a house on the top of Mt. Everest , but .... it blew down in a storm, so I therefore stopped using it for vacation getaways. If you expressed doubt in the story (and cited various physical impossibilities that would have made it nearly impossible to have done that), I could reply with crazy ways in which .... given enough money and Sherpa help, that I *could* have done it. So is the burden of proof on you to disprove that I pulled it off ? Or is the burden of proof on me to proove that I did it ? Obviously the burden of proof is on me, not you.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Here is a very good timeline concerning Oak Island:
Chronology of the Oak Island Treasure Hunt

Forgive me for being a doubting Thomas, but I question the "steering" techniques of that link's author. Lots of "it has been said that" type conjectures, that .... are a dead-giveaway to a biased believer "treasure fever" accounting of the facts. Far from being un-biased.

I mean, .... to start off with historical citations of scores of treasures that set out on ships, and lost or stolen or suspected buried, is ALL DESIGNED (let's be honest) to instill in the reader "Aha !! It THEREFORE must be buried on Oak Island!! Never mind that they're all probably at the bottom of the sea, or buried somewhere else on the planet, etc...

If you throw enough conjectures out there, you can devise all sorts of elaborate Schemes.

Kind of reminds of when I was a kid watching documentaries on Bigfoot, or the "Legend of Boggy Creek" or UFO documentaries, sort of hollywood sensationalism. As kids we all left the movie theater with eyes as big as silver dollars, believing in whatever it was. But you can slant any written article or any TV show to steer a reader/watcher in whatever direction you want.

Heck, look at the "America Unearthed" bologna TV show. Anyone with a computer and google can debunk lots of that stuff he purports (eg.: Vikings came to Utah! blah blah). But the show won't include the alternate explanations. No, that would sell. Instead it's all the conjecture stuff. So too does your link appear to be of that ilk.

 

[boogeyman]

A real simple example would be a lot of the "Lost Treasure" stories in the West & South West. There are literally hundreds of them, and at least half made it into the papers of the day etc. and have now proven to be bogus. Even back then the newspapers knew these stories sold papers even though the story was second or third hand. If you look at the Oak Island story, there isn't much real info, it's mostly third fourth hand info, liberally sprinkled with hearsay. Now we have the modern day historians & so called experts adding their speculations, and the story is so muddied up there is no way to determine what's real. Think like an attorney! If you took this case to court with all the second - third hand evidence and speculation would you literally get giggled out of court? Do any of the artifacts have any real provenance?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Tom_in_ca, to me, you are the gold standard when it comes to making people aware of metal detecting rights as well as phoney treasure stories. I hope this debate won't damage our opinions of each other as it pains me to debate you on this, and I secretly prayed you wouldn't get involved.

I am well aware of the "treasure story" affect. Where ones hopes and desires rage to a point that there must be treasure. Even though there clearly is no proof. I am asking to debate the story listed in the post above.

The established story listed above is in debate here. The key being ESTABLISHED. If the story is established, and one says it didn't happen, then the burden of proof is on the one challenging the authenticity.

In a court of US law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case you are accusing the story not to be true.

IE:
The Civil war happened. I don't believe it did so prove it.<-- in this case the person making the accusation needs to provide evidence.

 

[n2mini]

On Topic. Yes the beginning of the story is true. I believe the 3 guys believe there was something to it. The light Mcginnis saw probably had nothing to do with it though, and could have been anybody over there for any reason.. Other then that it is pretty much anybodies guess. So far no proof of anything of value being hidden on the island so it's easy to think it is all a hoax and no way to prove other wise YET!!!!

The Mcginnis great grand daughter that was on the show earlier this year, I don't fully believe her story. Can't prove it of course but when she said that the 3 guys found 3 small chests, I'm like what are the odds of that. 3 people searching and 3 prizes found!! but besides that 1 of the guys came back years later to help with some company to search. Granted maybe he didn't want to own up to the fact that they did find 3 chests and he was probably being paid to help out as well regardless of if they found anything...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... the burden of proof is on the one challenging the authenticity. ...In a court of US law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case you are accusing the story not to be true.

IE:
The Civil war happened. I don't believe it did so prove it.<-- in this case the person making the accusation needs to provide evidence.

b3y0nd3r, read carefully your quotes from above. It seems your starting premise is that it's an authentic story . Ie.: that it's true (as true as we all know the civil war was), hence in that case, you're right, it would be up to the doubters to prove it's not true.

But why that starting premise ? To compare Oak Island to the non-debated authenticity of "did the civil war happen?" is to tell me, right off the bat, .... that this will be fruitless.

Quite frankly, how can ANYONE "disprove" that all those supposed starting "authentic" facts DIDN'T actually happen ? I mean, are we going to come up with some video of Daniel Mcginnis ? It's sort of like if I said I didn't come to your house and steal your lawn mower last night, you could say "prove it". If I showed you a receipt that I was at a restaurant 100 miles away at that exact hour, you could devise a scheme where I merely manufactured a fake receipt on my computer printer. If I showed you video that I was out of state at that hour, you'd claim that was my look-alike body double, etc...

So at NO POINT can I conclusively prove I didn't steal your lawn mower. Thus on the contrary, you'd have to prove I did. Your starting premise (to continue the analogy) is that it's a universal given (ie.: as "authentic" as the "civil war") that every just simply knows is true.

Hence I feel that your starting premise does not logically follow.

PS: I highly respect your posts and input on past T'net threads too !

 

[petetherocker]

In a court of US law, the burden of proof is on the accuser..

True, but this ISN'T a Court of Law,

In any kind of technical paper, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Example: It's not up to climate change deniers to provide proof it's NOT happening, the burden of proof lies with the Scientific community to prove IT IS happening.

 

[Roadhse2]

n2mini....

When that member (Vaughan, I think) came back to work with the company taking up the search...You don't suppose it was to lend some legitimacy to the enterprise to attract investors do you? Sure would make a point or two if you could point to him and say "The treasures there, why else would he be here?"....I'm sure he was paid well as the shill for investors, him being there would be as good or better than a gold chain fragment to get the dollars rolling in...

Unless he squandered his chest of treasures, that there is no evidence he ever found, sold any of, went to a better lifestyle with his new found wealth...or anything else. I'm going with it all being a scam from the git go..

 

[gazzahk]

Oak Island: Was something even there.

There is no way to know really.. I find the descendants claim credible that three chests were found... (Discussed in detail in other thread). It may also be the case that previous treasure hunters did find treasure and did not tell anyone. They may of decided they did not want to share their find with there investors so just said they found nothing.. Who knows what people like Dunfeild really pulled out of the holes he dug....

Interesting read Gold, legends, and old maps: the story of an Oak Island family's treasure http://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/b...s-the-story-of-an-oak-island-familys-treasure

 

[gazzahk]

n2mini....

When that member (Vaughan, I think) came back to work with the company taking up the search...You don't suppose it was to lend some legitimacy to the enterprise to attract investors do you? Sure would make a point or two if you could point to him and say "The treasures there, why else would he be here?"....I'm sure he was paid well as the shill for investors, him being there would be as good or better than a gold chain fragment to get the dollars rolling in...

Unless he squandered his chest of treasures, that there is no evidence he ever found, sold any of, went to a better lifestyle with his new found wealth...or anything else. I'm going with it all being a scam from the git go..

Interesting article re Vaughan - On the trail of Oak Island's Lieutenant Daniel Vaughan The Blockhouse Blog - The Oak Island Compendium

From these apparently prosaic beginnings, Daniel Vaughn and his family started a ship-building business in St. Martins. Daniel’s son David Vaughn launched their first ship in 1803, the "Rachel",*and other ships quickly followed. The Vaughns built ships, and they sailed and traded very successfully. At the peak of their success, the Vaughn business had offices in seven ports around the world – including New York, Seattle and Liverpool. And the question that I can’t answer is: Where did the Vaughns get the money to start a ship-building industry?

 

[G.I.B.]

The beginning of the story actually starts at the beginning- burying a treasure.

It would have taken a hundred people to dig as deep as they believe the treasure is, with the technology of the time.

From that, the hundreds of starving and broke people would have to leave the treasure in place while living out a paupers life cold and hungry.

Then, hundreds of people would have had to remain silent until all of them died without showing anyone, telling anyone, or passing along where it was all the time knowing where their wealth and salvation was buried.

But they did, before leaving in hunger, carve out maps, symbols, and clues to where it was for others to someday solve.

...really?

 

[gazzahk]

The beginning of the story actually starts at the beginning- burying a treasure.

It would have taken a hundred people to dig as deep as they believe the treasure is, with the technology of the time.

Most of the treasure hunters had the same tech. ie shovels and picks. It did not take Dan 'hundreds' of people to dig 10X




This shaft was dug in the 1860's without modern tech.

I do not know why people think it is that difficult to dig a 100+ ft hole

Fred Nolan theory has British naval engineers and soldiers behind the pit. I am sure they would of been able to do this without much trouble

(I am not saying I believe the money pit legend but to claim it could not have been done is not true....)

 

[Honest Samuel]

Tonight show is a repeat of last week show. I am outrage.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There is no way to know really....

Sure there is. It's called "the preponderance of evidence". And it points to "no"

.... I find the descendants claim credible that three chests were found... (Discussed in detail in other thread).....

I confess to not following the "other thread" you allude to. But you have to promise, that if I show other "credible" and/or "more plausible" explanations to the claims, that you will concede that point. Otherwise, it's like trying to prove that "invisible leprechauns don't exist under your bed" type of thing. Agreed ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The beginning of the story actually starts at the beginning- burying a treasure.

It would have taken a hundred people to dig as deep as they believe the treasure is, with the technology of the time.

From that, the hundreds of starving and broke people would have to leave the treasure in place while living out a paupers life cold and hungry.

Then, hundreds of people would have had to remain silent until all of them died without showing anyone, telling anyone, or passing along where it was all the time knowing where their wealth and salvation was buried.

But they did, before leaving in hunger, carve out maps, symbols, and clues to where it was for others to someday solve.

...really?

Well gee, of COURSE that's what happened. Prove it DIDN'T G.I.B. !! Afterall, they had to bury it deep enough that the metal detectors enthusiasts of the 1700's didn't come find it.

The fellows in the 1700s no doubt got on the internet, determined that the deepest detectors available at that time, could go XX # of feet deep, on an XX sized object. Thus it's merely a matter of digging a slightly deeper pit than that ! Makes perfect sense to me !

 

[gazzahk]

Sure there is. It's called "the preponderance of evidence". And it points to "no"

I confess to not following the "other thread" you allude to. But you have to promise, that if I show other "credible" and/or "more plausible" explanations to the claims, that you will concede that point. Otherwise, it's like trying to prove that "invisible leprechauns don't exist under your bed" type of thing. Agreed ?

I am very interested in the legend and would like to believe I am open minded so would be very appreciative to see any evidence that you can offer.