Is ANYONE else getting TIREd of

[Duckshot]

jeff of pa,
I confess to violating the rules and accept any punishment for having done so.

Gee, I hope they don't hang you on a tree or something.

Merry Christmas to you as well Megolodon.

Enjoy your winter solstice festivities. : )

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

jeff of pa,
I confess to violating the rules and accept any punishment for having done so.

Sshheesskk . And RIGHT on the heels of a clear distinct warning. Off with his head ! People (ahem.....) have been banned for less than that. Haha

 

[Dave Rishar]

People here say, "it's a hoax". Well, where is your proof? Have you carbon tested the coconut fibers? Have you interviewed local residents? Where are the links backing up the hoax claims?

To go back to what I said earlier, give me your best piece of evidence that there's a treasure there.

As has been stated a number of times on this forum, it's often very difficult to prove a negative. I cannot conclusively prove that there is no treasure on Oak Island. Even if we strip-mined the island right down to the bedrock, all someone would have to do is say, "Well, maybe it's deeper than that," and my "proof" would no longer be absolute. We would have to literally excavate the footprint of Oak Island until we hit magma, and even then there'd be people grumbling about how it used
to be there, but we dug too late.

Just out of curiosity, what do the coconut fibers prove to you? To me, they proved the existence of coconut fibers where none were expected to be - an interesting mystery, but not one that proves the existence of treasure.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I find it fascinating that my short, most benign analogy on creation was deleted while the post of those who deny it still stand. Often the case however for those who dare stand for Him.

Don't feel singled out. So were a couple of my rebuttals.

We agree to such editing when we become members here. Sometimes you just have to tolerate foolish viewpoints among friends.


PS - same thing happened to the Bible when the Church decided what the public should know. ;-)

 

[Duckshot]

How come a couple of adults can't have a civil discussion in public without some marshmallow of an observer getting offended?



Nobody here is mean spirited. Take a pill.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Even if we strip-mined the island right down to the bedrock, all someone would have to do is say, "Well, maybe it's deeper than that," and my "proof" would no longer be absolute......

Very well said. And the same type come-back reactions ("wack-a-mole" game) would also be forthcoming for any other part of the story. Any part you attempt to 'diss, someone could find some wacky remote far-out contingent way, where some strange thing *might* have occurred. Thus, PRESTO, you have not dis-proved the story. Hence, it must be iron-clad true. Eh ?

.... We would have to literally excavate the footprint of Oak Island until we hit magma, and even then there'd be people grumbling about how it used to be there, but we dug too late....

Isn't that great ? It's NEVER a possibility that there was and is simply to treasure. That can not be countenanced. If there's no treasure, the story itself is still unassailable and bullet-proof true. It simply means someone already found it.

..... Just out of curiosity, what do the coconut fibers prove to you? To me, they proved the existence of coconut fibers where none were expected to be - an interesting mystery, but not one that proves the existence of treasure.

But don't you know ? If ever you see something uncanny, or find something where you didn't expect it, or have ANY sort of mystery ....... it can only mean one thing : Templar treasure !

That's the only logical explanation, after all. Never mind that if anyone looks long enough and hard enough IN ANY LANDSCAPE ANYWHERE, they will invariably see uncanny things , mysterious out-of-place items , etc... Stuff you never notice or pay attention to. Unless you're tearing the snot out of any place, examining every last mouse fart.

 

[cyperpc]

I think Gary and Minelab miss a great opportunity and should of started this new season with the EQUINOX 800.

 

[Philvis]

I think Gary and Minelab miss a great opportunity and should of started this new season with the EQUINOX 800.

I thought it was at first. That could have been a great commercial for them. "This new multi-frequency..."

 

[jeff of pa]

I'm going to present one last example of evolution and then I will be quiet about the subject (faint hoorays heard...) because we are violating forum rules by continuing this discussion (please see the mod's post above).

example:
A migrating flock of birds (all the same species) is blown way off course. Just before they become lost at sea, they get stranded on an island that is a very different environment to them, with different food, climate, and predators. Usually they would all die. The birds are used to feeding on seeds but the seeds on this island have harder shells to avoid dessication. But a few of the birds have slightly stronger beaks and can eat the seeds. Those birds survive and reproduce, passing along the stronger beak genes that allowed them to survive, to their offspring (or most of them). Over many generations, the birds with ever stronger beaks have greater fitness (i.e. reproductive success) and eventually reach the point at which they no longer resemble the birds that accidentally landed on the island. They are now a new species, subspecies, whatever name you wish to apply. But they were not created - they evolved to get to that point.

OK, one more. Megalodon and Duckshot, putting away their differences for their common interests in metal detecting, attempt to boat to an island, let's call it pine island, but a surprise storm blows them way off course. The boat destroyed, they land on an island inhabited only by beautiful young women who offer the hungry robinson crusoes some tofu and sprouts, delicacies prepared by recipes handed down by Knights Templar. Both treasure hunters had previously lived on a diet of garlic flavor spam and cheese curls. The tofu and sprouts diet would require acceptance of new learning and food habits and considerable open-mindedness. One said no - it was wrong, and he starved to death. The other adapted to the new diet and reproduced with the beautiful women, producing a pack of children who accepted their new diet. Is that evolution? Not exactly, but it is an example of a willingness to learn new things and the potential rewards.

Evolutionary biologists are not the agents of Satan. They may be your neighbors who pitch in when you need help. We are not anti-religion. I attended religious schools from k-8 and then all through high school. I know several other evolutionary biologists who also endured strong discipline, some of the best by the Jesuits. We have discussed if this strong discipline, hated at the time, may have led to strong discipline in thought that helped us to succeed. We had religion class every day, not just sunday school. And the nuns and franciscan brothers taught me that there was no necessary conflict between religion and evolution.

We can say no more on this subject here. My mouth is zipped. Merry Christmas.

You are not Violating Forum Rules by Discussing Evolution.
You are Technically Violating the Rule of not staying on subject.
and Discussing Evolution of Life in a Thread about Oak Island.
I Don't personally understand Where Evolution fits a story of supposed Treasure,
unless I'm misunderstanding & Your talking the Evolution of the Hunt itself.

It happens allot here though. Making reminders necessary at times.

Again Evolution is a fact. Discussing Evolution is not against Forum Rules.
Probably Everything Else would be a Better Place though.
Arguing against Evolution , May get sticky though. and may break rules,
Depending on comments.

I suppose Creation can be discussed with Limits in the Paranormal
Section. again With Limits (no preaching scripture)of Course. but also has no connection to oak island,
unless it's the creation of a treasure or scam.

No My post is not here for Discussion.
Discussing My post would be taking the Thread off Topic. & Off Topic responses will Disappear

 

[jeff of pa]

jeff of pa,
I confess to violating the rules and accept any punishment for having done so.

Your Punishment is . You make the coffee


the world is Still turning

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Dave: I suppose that I guess I will have to provide my reasons/facts as to why I believe the story/money pit. As Tom frequently does, he turns it all about the treasure which I wasn't addressing at all. I will begin a series of posts providing what I consider proof over the next few weeks with verifiable facts. However, as no one here has provided any proof of their own as to why the money pit is a hoax/fake/misunderstanding and not an engineered structure, the usual debunkers arguments will be ignored/not valid. The time for them to present their evidence has passed and the chief among them failed to provide any credible information other than speculation/statements. A huge disappointment to me to say the least as I wanted the debunkers to be right. Coconut fibers will be the first post.

Tom: I didn't dispute your "no treasure found" statement. I didn't even say there was any treasure. I simply said that it is a flimsy argument and wouldn't hold water in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion.

Let me say this: Until there is a treasure found, all ANYONE can do is speculate. No one can proof something not found. However, can the story and the engineered money pit be proven? THAT, is what I am hoping to provide information on.

 

[Hillbilly Prince]

I don't have to watch it but let me guess.
Blah blah blah, Dudley has spoken with one old lady who remembers a story she heard which was passed down from a 174 year old great aunt. Excited shaky camera action ride to a spot. Much unloading of stuff and hopping about like baboons spotting a lion, furious digging. Peering into hole. Dudley looks back at camera with expression of his first time.
DUDZ SEES SOMETHING IN THE @&%! HOLE!!!!!!!!
And... time for 7 minutes of commercials.
Show returns and recaps the first segment of the show. Then.....Dudley pulls a small piece of iron out and displays it in his unwashed palm. OMG! Dude!! It is stamped Acme Shovel CO. A clue! Perhaps proof people dug a hole on this island at one time?!
We must question the old woman again! But wait! She dieded! Then Maria, the comely equipment manager who has a penchant for wearing tiny khaki shorts, has a crazy idea! Find the old woman's granddaughter who lives in Ireland and ask permission to go through the old woman's love letters from a French diplomat. Will she be found? Will she let us rummage through granny's steamer trunk?
While Maria sets off for Ireland on a tramp steamer, Dudley and the crew will pour over old parchments at the local library and take in the night life.
And meet a fat colorful bar owner who tells a story of what he heard from the old families who settled the island and alledgedly had offical Knights Templar tattoos on their right hand.
Meanwhile...Maria is seen wandering in an ancient Irish grayeyard which has Celtic crosses. We illogically are given a brief history of Ireland. What we do not see is Maria going to a pub, getting hammered on Guiness, and then just getting hammered.
I'm done

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... failed to provide any credible information other than speculation/statements. ...

Ok, the skeptics have provided only "speculation". Right ? Thus let me guess: The adherents ... on the other hand .... HAVE provided "credible information". Right ? That is implicit in your quote above.

So if the adherents make a claim, we can know that's "credible information. " eh? But let me guess: If the skeptics make a claim, well gee .... we can just label that as "speculation". How convenient.

Why can't that finger-pointing work both ways ? Why can't that be the other way around ? How is the legend/story simply defined as "credible" ? Who says ? If that were the case, then every single legend is to be given utmost credence, since : When anyone says "where's the proof?", the adherents just point to the legend itself as "proof". Do you see the vicious circle ? You have a legend, and you just start with the premise "it's true". And point to that as the "proof".

Well gee, I can start a legend about a treasure in my own backyard. 150 yrs. from now, if anyone says "where's the proof?" the believers would merely need to point to the legend I started. Remember: Legends can be born out of erroneous speculation about what sincere people saw. Or what others thought was said/done by the first person. And the next person picks up a "musing" as fact. (ie.: the telephone game kicks in). And in the entire daisy-chain, no one is insincere, or "lying", etc.... The moment any muses/whispers "treasure", you can never put it to rest. The human psyche wants SO HARD to believe, that we careful thinking aside. I have seen this happen first hand.

After all, no one wants to be "left out". So we latch on to it, and subconsciously bolster every single "what if ?" while subconsciously putting aside any other explanations. Why do you think these legends are so fun to read ? Because they capture the imagination.

You are making the following logical error : "Assuming one's own point of view, as their evidence for their proof for it.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Ok, the skeptics have provided only "speculation". Right ?

I posted all week here for anyone to provide something tangible, credible, verifiable. I haven't seen it have you?

Thus let me guess: The adherents ... on the other hand .... HAVE provided "credible information". Right ? That is implicit in your quote above.

Negative. That is you putting words in people's mouths. I never said THEY have because I already believe and have no interest in what other believers post in regards to their own theories. Remember, REGARDLESS of anything, I believe. It was the skeptics job to make me disbelieve.

So if the adherents make a claim, we can know that's "credible information. " eh? But let me guess: If the skeptics make a claim, well gee .... we can just label that as "speculation". How convenient.

Again I am not concerned with what other people believe. It is your job to shoot down their theories, not mine.

Why can't that finger-pointing work both ways ? Why can't that be the other way around ? How is the legend/story simply defined as "credible" ? Who says ? If that were the case, then every single legend is to be given utmost credence, since : When anyone says "where's the proof?", the adherents just point to the legend itself as "proof". Do you see the vicious circle ? You have a legend, and you just start with the premise "it's true". And point to that as the "proof".

I intend to show why it is.

Not true, but not false either. It's a statement that needs to be proved or disproved.

Well gee, I can start a legend about a treasure in my own backyard. 150 yrs. from now, if anyone says "where's the proof?" the believers would merely need to point to the legend I started. Remember: Legends can be born out of erroneous speculation about what sincere people saw. Or what others thought was said/done by the first person. And the next person picks up a "musing" as fact. (ie.: the telephone game kicks in). And in the entire daisy-chain, no one is insincere, or "lying", etc.... The moment any muses/whispers "treasure", you can never put it to rest. The human psyche wants SO HARD to believe, that we careful thinking aside. I have seen this happen first hand.

Not correct. It is a statement. not true or false until proved or disproved otherwise. If I wanted to disprove it, I would fly out and interview your relatives and any living acquaintances. Check the location of the house. Trace back the ownership of the house via the courthouse. Check existing maps going back to the earliest possible time period. Run soil samples, evidence samples. Basically investigate, like skeptics here should of done with Oak Island.

After all, no one wants to be "left out". So we latch on to it, and subconsciously bolster every single "what if ?" while subconsciously putting aside any other explanations. Why do you think these legends are so fun to read ? Because they capture the imagination.

You are making the following logical error : "Assuming one's own point of view, as their evidence for their proof for it.

Negative. And you are making the following error(s):Just because I didn't present my evidence first, doesn't mean I don't have any. Assuming I am just like the others and not really listening to what I am saying.

I understand entirely what you are saying. Because I believe that puts means I should have to prove why I believe. But it makes no sense for me to provide an argument when I am not trying to convince anyone to believe me. I am the one asking to be dissuaded!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I am the one asking to be dissuaded!

A person should be self-persuaded when there is lack-of-evidence for it, in the first place. That lack-of-evidence for it, should be adequate to dissuade you. But it's not.

If your "evidence" is the story itself. Then you can NEVER be dissuaded by anyone. You will just retreat to pointing at the story itself, as evidence for itself. See the vicious circle ? Therefore : No one can ever dissuade you.

 

[xaos]

This follows on Johns Smiths original scam. 12 commandment golden tablets are buried here, pay me to dig. You come out and ask where it is, it sinks deeper..

Tarred and feathered all the way to the Great Salt Lake.

To this day, does the LSD church say that those tablets are in the basement, and only very, very few are allowed to see them?

New thread on the latest debacle, the lead cross Curse of the Curse of Oak Island

 

[Tiredman]

Which show do you speak of? If it's what I think it is, I don't think we will be allowed to criticize that show!

I don't know which one you mean, but I will enjoy the comments about it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... New thread on the latest debacle, the lead cross Curse of the Curse of Oak Island

I enjoyed your post there. And commented on it there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don't know which one you mean, but I will enjoy the comments about it.

If it's the treasure we're thinking of, then ... no ... you won't be seeing comments about it. At least not dissenting ones.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

A person should be self-persuaded when there is lack-of-evidence for it, in the first place. That lack-of-evidence for it, should be adequate to dissuade you. But it's not.

If your "evidence" is the story itself. Then you can NEVER be dissuaded by anyone. You will just retreat to pointing at the story itself, as evidence for itself. See the vicious circle ? Therefore : No one can ever dissuade you.

Totally baffled by this response. All that I posted and this is what you have to say? Okay. I appreciate your honesty.