Oak Island Pre Sept. 1866. Before TV Prodercers & the Laginas invented the Templers

[franklin]

The "inch" stands for "Enoch" You figure it out.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Riiiiight.


So Noah's grandfather was Egyptian but measured in Hebrew?

It's been pretty well established the Hebrew/Jews had no involvement with the much early pyramids (and of the 67 existing ones). Certainly not the Great Pyramid.

The "cubit" is the length of a forearm: 18" to 21". Certainly much more than an inch (unless it's them Leprechauns again).



And I don't think your excerpt was from the book of Enoch.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And the island we are talking about an island in a bay off Canada.

There's no evidence the Old Dynasty Egyptians ever traveled or traded west of Greece. They weren't big seafarers.

 

[franklin]

You sure do wonder around making assumptions.

 

[franklin]

Riiiiight.


So Noah's grandfather was Egyptian but measured in Hebrew?

It's been pretty well established the Hebrew/Jews had no involvement with the much early pyramids (and of the 67 existing ones). Certainly not the Great Pyramid.

The "cubit" is the length of a forearm: 18" to 21". Certainly much more than an inch (unless it's them Leprechauns again).

View attachment 1635948

And I don't think your excerpt was from the book of Enoch.

No that excerpt was to show that the measurements were the same as the English measurements today. The Great Pyramid also had Pi built into to it 1300 years before the Greek came up with Pi. The screenshot tells you where it came from, you need to look it up, right interesting reading.

 

[franklin]

The Egyptians had nothing to do with Oak Island. I told you it was a friend of the Sinclair Family.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

You sure do wonder around making assumptions.

Not me. My "assumption" that there is no treasure or relics now, nor was ever, buried at Oak Island deeper than 10 ft is proving valid from the evidence so far. And even if something was buried 10 feet or less it wasn't much. Perhaps a soldier's looting.

That is the least "wonderful" assumption possible.

 

[Dr. Syn]

The problem with O/I, at least how I see it, really there is no concrete proof of something actually there. Yes we can try and piece together who "might" have tread on the island, and what "maybe" they might have brought. But that's it, might and maybe's don't always pan out.

Heck, my farm has a bunch of old deep mines under it, back into the early 1800's some of them. And it has all kinds of springs. So a depression in the land showing up can happen, like when one of the shafts collapses. Someone not from the area, or much later in time, digs down and could easily break into one of the old shafts, or "Ancient Tunnels". Old timbers, maybe some broken tools, torches, trail cart tracks, old coins, trash, and such and it's "evidence" that someone buried something.

And yes The English/French/Indians/Yankees/Rebs/Masons/and KKK/even Slaves have all passed over this part of the state. I saw a UFO there once so it could even be Aliens! So they could have stashed almost anything.

Need a flood tunnel, that's easy enough, screwing around and you break through into one of the springs and it must be something that they built to scare off intruders. You can get pure water or tainted water depending on where you break through.

How did they transport all the treasure? Well it's a 15 minute walk to the river that can take you all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. Or maybe they came from the Atlantic, also not that hard to ferry the stuff down a couple of canals, or pack the goodies in on animals. Or any of the bunch who trampled over this place might have met up with one of the others and had to stash their goodies when they got into a fight.

Skeletons? Who's to say if part of the mine collapsed on somebody, be it some wildcatter, an indian, or some animal that crawled in and died there.

Evil gas that mysteriously kills folks digging for the treasure? Well there is natural gas on the farm, got two wells, so hit a pocket of it or some methane pocket and you'll be just as dead.

What else? Oh, a tree, that might or might not have had a block and tackle attached at one time, well there is a Maple tree that is nearly 6 feet in diameter, and has some low hanging branches that at one time had multiple swings and yep even a block and tackle on it for when we butchered animals. Even has grown around the chain that held the block and tackle. I'd lay money on that tree being around when my family settled the place in the 1700's.

Almost forgot about the signs, carved on trees, and rocks, piles of rocks, bent tree limbs, and so on, got all that there.

Campfires and torches at night, well way back when we didn't have heaters or flashlights, and we did have the Klan who had a thing with using fire. Or maybe it was one of the many folks who still roam the area with their stills and shine out there.

And a lot of the area was strip mined, so everything that might have been there is now all scattered about, just like O/I.

Holy heck,I need to get ahold of the Brothers, just as much chance of finding the lost treasure on my place as they've gotten from all the experts who've led them down multiple paths. And I'd love the money from the TV show in my pocket.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

[/B][/SIZE]

The Great Pyramid also had Pi built into to it 1300 years before the Greek came up with Pi.

The Babylonians had it at 3.125 before either of them. Pretty close.

Of the 67 pyramids in Egypt Khufu's is the only one that is close (3.1425). In fact, the other two at Giza are different. Khafre's is 2.9965 and Menkaure's is 3.1815. Other pyramids range from 2.6860 to 4.1905

Guess they hadn't pined it quite down. Or it was just coincidence.

But the Rhind Papyrus does show the method the Egyptians used and that they did know the ratio of the Pi (not what they called it) and how to calculate the area of circles. Though it is much younger than the Pyramids the concept could be older.

Wonder if that was the goal why they didn't construct cones instead of pyramids?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

NOT directed at anyone particular.

It's the same old song and dance here. Skeptics=speculation. If you are any type of OBJECTIVE researcher, you need to take all documented, written accounts AS fact until they can be disproved with other relevant facts, NOT speculation. You can't say, "Well they made-up such as such to attract investors" and expect it to hold water. It wont. Where's your proof? What eye witness accounts, written testimony, or physical evidence do you have to contradict the main story? How much time did you spend on the island? Who did you interview in the area? What physical evidence have you gathered? What evidence did you have analyzed?

I have brought up Darcy O'conner in another thread as an eye witness to the physical evidence being presented that there was activity of an unusual nature at the money pit. You know what the response to that was? Paraphrasing, "He is writing a book so he lied". What hogwash! What a weak presentation of an argument!

The burden of proof is on the debunker. Show me your proof, until then I will believe the written accounts, eye witness testimony and other physical evidence.

 

[xaos]

It's the same old song and dance here. Skeptics=speculation. If you are any type of OBJECTIVE researcher, you need to take all documented, written accounts AS fact until they can be disproved with other relevant facts, NOT speculation.

I bet you believe the Bible is an true actual account, and that there actually was a Jesus Christ and 12 Apostles> Perhaps you believe the Quran with a Muhammad, how about Joan of Arc, a King Arthur, or a Bigfoot.

Does Juan Valdez pick the beans for your cup of coffee this morning?

Wasnt Oak Island myth started by John Smith, as he was made his way across the Country by getting tarred and feathered? I seem to recall his scam was to bilk people with myths of treasure on their property, always having to dig deeper (for more money)? Settled where no one would live, and VIOLA! Mormon religion is created! $$$$

I recall a bunch of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot..

I have read the eyewitness accounts on all of the above, but it is up to the "skeptics" to prove it is wrong, rather that the author, or believers like you, to prove it is true?

 

[jeff of pa]

I bet you believe the Bible is an true actual account, and that there actually was a Jesus Christ and 12 Apostles> Perhaps you believe the Quran with a Muhammad, how about Joan of Arc, a King Arthur, or a Bigfoot.

Does Juan Valdez pick the beans for your cup of coffee this morning?

Hey Bigfoot Could be Real !
He would have Actual Blood Flowing through his Veins.
& there are Actual Pictures & Videos out there.

 

[xaos]

hahahaha...

Actual Pictures & Videos out there.

well, to tell you the truth, at the annual picnic, I did see some Bigfoot looking look alikes! and certainly at a few Walmarts around.

I guess if you "believe" the D'Arcy account, even though they went through great lengths to hide the "treasure" hundreds of feet down, with traps, and tunnels to the sea, they left a stone on top, proclaiming the treasure was "40 feet below" ?!?!?

 

[jeff of pa]

I still don't Believe any of the Reports on the Money pit, except it's Deep & has allot of ground Water in it

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

NOT directed at anyone particular.

It's the same old song and dance here. Skeptics=speculation. If you are any type of OBJECTIVE researcher, you need to take all documented, written accounts AS fact until they can be disproved with other relevant facts, NOT speculation. You can't say, "Well they made-up such as such to attract investors" and expect it to hold water. It wont. Where's your proof? What eye witness accounts, written testimony, or physical evidence do you have to contradict the main story? How much time did you spend on the island? Who did you interview in the area? What physical evidence have you gathered? What evidence did you have analyzed?

I have brought up Darcy O'conner in another thread as an eye witness to the physical evidence being presented that there was activity of an unusual nature at the money pit. You know what the response to that was? Paraphrasing, "He is writing a book so he lied". What hogwash! What a weak presentation of an argument!

The burden of proof is on the debunker. Show me your proof, until then I will believe the written accounts, eye witness testimony and other physical evidence.

I think you have the scientific method backwards.

You look at the facts and assemble a explanation based on evidence and observed phenomenon.

THEN you develop a hypothesis to explain it.

THEN you test it and, if it works and others can observe and verify the results, it becomes a theory.

You cannot prove a negative result. For example, I cannot "prove" that Elvis never visited Mars. But I don't have to. I'm not making that claim.

Outrageous claims demand outrageous proof. The burden is on the claimant to support the claim.


My proof is nothing of substance has been found in 30 some attempts.


What you are describing we call "make believe".

 

[xaos]

This is an example of todays society and the misdirected and flawed thought process...

One can claim whatever they want, and it is up to someone to prove one is wrong....it is not up the the author to prove anything, nor even to refute their claim. Just sit back and make everyone else provide the proof they are wrong. (then discount them as skeptic)

One should not have to dig 600 feet to show that the "story" simply is not realistic, probable, nor even possible.

 

[jeff of pa]

We are not allowed to Discuss Religion Here.
I won't feed Your attempt to Discuss it Here.

Only Religious content here must be Connected to the Hole in the ground !

If You wish to Discuss Religion Became a Charter Member & Use the Politics Forum Please .
I'll be Happy to reply There & Not Delete your off the Topic of [Oak Island] Posts.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

So by your responses, you have proved me right yet again. No one provided any proof to the contrary that the accounts of the money pit are incorrect.

Instead, you choose to try to debunk the person presenting the argument, RATHER than the argument itself.

What I believe and don't believe as well as my character are totally irrelevant to the discussion. The claim is made, there was something buried at Oak island. You say there wasn't. So again, where is your proof there wasn't?

 

[jeff of pa]

So by your responses, you have proved me right yet again. No one provided any proof to the contrary that the accounts of the money pit are incorrect.

Instead, you choose to try to debunk the person presenting the argument, RATHER than the argument itself.

What I believe and don't believe as well as my character are totally irrelevant to the discussion. The claim is made, there was something buried at Oak island. You say there wasn't. So again, where is your proof there wasn't?

The Proof there wasn't, is at Same place there is Proof there was something Purposely Buried There
There may have been things Purposelessly Buried on Oak Island.
Many people Bury their trash,.. & in the Olden days, Their Poop Too.
And I wouldn't Rule out a Pirate or Property owner Burying
a Cache over the Years. Or Ship Burying Their dead.

I still Don't believe The Money pit was ever Used for a Treasure, Unless it was only 5 or 6 Feet from the Top. IMO Nobody !Nobody ! is going to dig 100 Feet down on an Island,
in order to Bury Something. Not even if it was Triffids or the Blob.

You are Right though.

Originally Posted by b3y0nd3r: What I believe and don't believe as well as my character are totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It is Fine to debate the validity of the Subject,
It is Not fine to Debate The character of any Member Who Discusses the subject.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

So by your responses, you have proved me right yet again. No one provided any proof to the contrary that the accounts of the money pit are incorrect.

Absolutely I proved it. Because I said nothing is there. So, by your definition of reliable theories my claim is valid and you must assume that to be true. And you can't prove otherwise.


See why your method sucks?