Mystery of Oak Island Solved

[Tom_in_CA]

I do not really see how referring to loonies who think they see mythical creatures has anything to do with the money pit legend.......

You're right. It didn't have to do with the O.I. issue. It had ONLY TO DO with the question of whether a legend believer (of ANY legend or myth etc...) can be called a "liar". FORGET whether the legend or myth is true or not. It applies to BOTH side of the aisle . Believers and skeptics alike: Neither side is "lying". For sake of argument, we can even say, for example, that the O.I. faithful are correct. In that case, I would say that the skeptics, all along, weren't "lying" to have held their views.

And: What "little old lady's story" are you referring to ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[gazzahk]

And: What "little old lady's story" are you referring to ?

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/...s-the-story-of-an-oak-island-familys-treasure

That the originally finders found 3 small treasure chests...

 

[gazzahk]

You're right. It didn't have to do with the O.I. issue. It had ONLY TO DO with the question of whether a legend believer (of ANY legend or myth etc...) can be called a "liar".

What has being liar got to do with the money pit legend... If someone was lying there would been evidence of treasure.... I am sorry I really do not see the relationship between people who "claim" to have had hallucinations and those who hope to find a lost buried treasure... There are not mythical creatures involved with the money pit legend. Who is being accused of lying?

 

[travis.gore.79]

That's right. Stories that cannot be verified cannot be accepted as fact.

Our history books are full of 1/2 truths and some just lies.

Yet still thought as facts.

 

[gazzahk]

If you believe the Money Pit Hole never even existed that means you do not believe any of the original story about the 3 boys/guys/men digging to start with... Their hole was there. May or may not have or had treasure in it of course..

Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying it is not true... Still I would of needed to see so evidence before putting my time/money into the search. I really struggle to understand why people like Dan, Fred and the Reinstells believed there could be treasure there... I know it is much easier to do research these days BUT you would of thought they must of questioned why they thought treasure was there.... A truely fascinating story is my view....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

https://www.oakislandcompendium.ca/...s-the-story-of-an-oak-island-familys-treasure

That the originally finders found 3 small treasure chests...

thanx. It's just more of the "legend" to substantiate the "legend". Even the context of the "little old lady" narrative itself uses words like "... informed through family legend ..." & "... reportedly .." & "... the tale..." etc....

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What has being liar got to do with the money pit legend......

Phheeww, this is getting difficult. Let's try it this way , in a series of hypothetical statements:

Believer: "3 boys saw/found these 10 suspicious circumstances on an island in 1795. They suspected treasure. They began digging. It got called the money pit."

Skeptic : " I don't believe it. The boy-story itself is prone to fanciful boy imaginations, and telephone game ever since then. All the 10 'circumstances' could have innocent and more plausible explanations anyhow".

Believer: "Oh, so you're calling the boys liars?" or "Oh, so you're calling me a liar ?"

Skeptic : "No. I think you/they are quite sincere. Thus not a liar. The existence or non-existence of the claim (myth, legend, ghost, etc...) is NOT a factor. Hence, the money pit can be totally never-existent, yet no persons, along the way, were "liars". They all sincerely believed in a treasure or UFO abduction or whatever.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Our history books are full of 1/2 truths and some just lies.

Yet still thought as facts.

Really ? Then this must also apply to O.I. too then, eh ? Full of 1/2 truths, lies, yet thought of as fact ?

If so, I propose to you that perhaps, in the case of O.I, that 90% of it is "TRUE" . (See how generous I'm being ? ) However, unfortunately, if the 10% part that is not true, is the "treasure" part, then : Gee golly, the 90% about fibers, sink holes, gold links, little boys who-saw-lights, etc.... is pretty durned boring and routine . Could be said of any landscape on the planet.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I really struggle to understand why people like Dan, Fred and the Reinstells believed there could be treasure there.......

.... you would of thought they must of questioned why they thought treasure was there.....

Actually, no: It's QUITE understandable. Mankind , even very intelligent folks, the world-over, is FILLED with this phenomenon. It is EASIER to believe in a treasure story, than it is NOT to believe in it. The human mind wants *so* hard to believe. "Lest you be left out". No one wants to be laughed at all the way to the bank, eh ? There's that nagging doubt in our minds of the "what if?" factor.

We subconsciously put critical skeptical thinking aside. And subconsciously find contingencies to fix parts of the tale that *should* have made the story un-workable. We find a way where it could *still* possibly be true. Because, after all, who doesn't want to find a treasure ?

And ... gee.... what if Mel Fisher had been a "skeptic" ? What if Christopher Columbus had been a skeptic ? What if the Wright Brothers had believed that heavier than air flight was impossible ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And ... gee.... what if Mel Fisher had been a "skeptic" ? What if Christopher Columbus had been a skeptic ? What if the Wright Brothers had believed that heavier than air flight was impossible ?

Maybe they were. None of these things were possible before they started. Fisher - anyone could have stumbled on the wreck. He did a LOT of research. It wasn't "I'll find it because that would be swell!" He was looking for a known wreck and just had to narrow down the spot. Research is an accumulation of statistics and not related to hope or enthusiasm.

Although C. Columbus was lost, wrong, and the Greeks had a better idea of the size of the world LONG before him and Gustav Whitehead flew heavier than air controllable airplane in 1901 - two years before the Wrights. He just lacked a camera crew but he did have a reporter on site. Otto Lillienthal was flying unpowered gliders in 1894. But maybe they were skeptical enough to approach the problem logically and move when prepared. The Wright's big contribution was the air propeller - not the crummy airframe they built. Curtiss (from NY) had a MUCH better design (with ailerons and a better control yoke) a bit later but the Wrights (*) sued the pants off anyone trying in the US and it put us behind other countries by 10 years by WWII. Curtiss took his design to Europe and won events and set records the Wright Flyer coins not have.

(*) Actually Wilbur was the idea man and when he died in 1912 Orville never had an original thought except to pursue lawsuits on new innovation and cripple the US development of better machines.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Maybe they were. None of these things were possible before they started. ....

Huh ? I lost ya. All those things were "possible" before they started. Ie.: The world was NOT flat. Heavier than air flight WAS possible. And the Atocha DID exist .

Hence when someone tries to silence the skeptic , by pointing to examples like those, they are committing a logical fallacy. They are using examples from the perspective of 20/20 hindsight. Kind of like if you watch NFL slow-motion replays, you can ALWAYS be a perfect arm-chair quarterback, and announce: "The quarterback should have thrown left, not right", blah blah. Well gee, yeah, and how do you know that ?? BECAUSE IT'S PAST TENSE. doh !

It doesn't mean that any conjecture or notion, no matter how silly, is THEREFORE POSSIBLE. Just because: They flew, they sailed, they found the Atocha, etc... That doesn't make "all things possible". It only proves that THOSE things were possible. Not that ALL things are possible.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Well, if all those things were able to be done then it's no big deal who did it. Just a matter of timing.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

As to whether someone can point to examples of those past adventurers/searchers, as evidence that therefore: Skeptics should not be skeptical :

We also have to keep in mind that there WAS evidence, that Columbus had, that the earth was not flat. There WAS evidence of the Atocha's historical reality. And there WAS evidence that heavier than air flight was possible.

None of those things can be said of O.I.