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

[n2mini]

I've been saying regardless of anything actually being in the hole now or ever that it is possible to dig a 100' or more hole and not hit water on the island especially if your the first diggers into virgin soil... So do you believe that is a true statement? A one word answer is all that is needed please...
With all the other "stuff" you add into your posts I have no way of knowing where you stand on anything or what your trying to say.. Just spit it out..

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

I've been saying regardless of anything actually being in the hole now or ever that it is possible to dig a 100' or more hole and not hit water on the island especially if your the first diggers into virgin soil... So do you believe that is a true statement? A one word answer is all that is needed please...
With all the other "stuff" you add into your posts I have no way of knowing where you stand on anything or what your trying to say.. Just spit it out..

Dude, what difference does "yes" or "no" make, if there's no treasure in the first place ?

I've already said that I can GRANT that all the crazy notions of engineering feats are technically possible (given enough slaves, enough years, etc....). So there's your "yes". But what does it matter ?

It's possible for me to walk backwards to New York too. But so what ? It's the same with O.I.: So what ? None of it is going to prove A) that simply being "possible" means that it "happened". Or that B) that simply being "possible" somehow "proves treasure".

Hence: So what ? What's the point ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

So You are saying...they could do it here...But not at Oak Island...Also here...Only because we know it was done here?

I'm saying it may have been possible but there is no convincing evidence any such thing was done on Oak Island.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Wack-a-mole game in action And poor Charlie is getting sucked into it.

It's fun! Snarking on unicorn poop sifters here is better than actually watching the show.

 

[n2mini]

Dude, what difference does "yes" or "no" make, if there's no treasure in the first place ?

I've already said that I can GRANT that all the crazy notions of engineering feats are technically possible (given enough slaves, enough years, etc....). So there's your "yes". But what does it matter ?

It's possible for me to walk backwards to New York too. But so what ? It's the same with O.I.: So what ? None of it is going to prove A) that simply being "possible" means that it "happened". Or that B) that simply being "possible" somehow "proves treasure".

Hence: So what ? What's the point ?

It goes directly to the skeptics that say it could NOT have ever been dug to begin with.. that's all I'm getting at.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It goes directly to the skeptics that say it could NOT have ever been dug to begin with.. that's all I'm getting at.

Ok, yes: it "Could" have been dug. I/we can not disprove that . Lest we enter into the wack-a-mole game.

But in-so-far as the bigger question of : "Is there ... or was there .... a treasure?" What has this proved ? Absolutely nothing.

If the bigger questions is: "Is/Was there a treasure ?" The burden of proof rests on the believers. It does not rest on the un-believers. Lest it devolve into the wack-a-mole game where: Seemingly as long as they show a *possible* way where something *could* have occurred, then presto: It DID occur.

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

Ok, yes: It DID occur.

Tom believes in the OI treasure!!!!
The Bacon, Templar, Alien connection!
No telephony or Wacka mole here!
He is a believer!

Lets go dig some treasure!


Yes I did a lil editing but he is a believer I tell ya!

 

[n2mini]

I was just trying to confirm that it could be dug. Most of the skeptics on here use the "It couldn't have been dug that deep to begin with" as one of their reasons to be skeptic. I was just trying to rid us all of that thinking... Sure, that by no way means there is or was a treasure in the hole of course...

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Obviously those seeking the treasure have dug that deep with simple equipment.

Over, and over, and over again.

And found nothing.

Over, and over, and over again.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... He is a believer! ...

Oooohhhh, Stretch-da-truth, you are MUCH TOO CRUEL !!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I was just trying to confirm that it could be dug. Most of the skeptics on here use the "It couldn't have been dug that deep to begin with" as one of their reasons to be skeptic. I was just trying to rid us all of that thinking... Sure, that by no way means there is or was a treasure in the hole of course...

Ha. And this is the all-too-common fall-back, for the discussion. The believers who are starting the "wack-a-mole" game, will do JUST AS YOU DID here: They will retreat to the fall-back position of : "I was only interested in the science of the fibers" or the "history of mariner ship traffic lanes and ocean currents" or "the science of whether or not a hole could be dug that deep ", blah blah. And " I don't necessarily believe or say this concludes in treasure".

But as I've said before : Nonsense. No one is there because of "fibers" or the science of hole-digging-ability. Be honest: The ONLY reason this discussion exists (on *Tresure*net, after all), is because (drum roll) : Treasure. No one is there wondering about the other stuff. Why does the TV show exist ? Because of coconut fiber distribution patterns in the world ? Because of debate over whether or not a hole could be dug in 1700s by primitive tools or not ? OF COURSE NOT . The entire debate, and this thread, exists for a singular solitary reason: Whether or not a treasure exists.

So please, spare us the retreat into the false fall-back position of "I was only wondering if someone(s) could dig a hole that deep back then".

 

[n2mini]

You still don't understand what I was trying to get with my posts, but sense you are not going to get, it I'll man up and quit discussing it with you... Your one of the many on here that I don't understand why you bother to post and or watch the show... I never mentioned there being a treasure now or ever in my posts with you...

 

[Eyeswideopen731]

Cheese o mother! I thought you were a giant for about 20 seconds there as I was scrolling through reading these lol.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I never mentioned there being a treasure now or ever in my posts ...

You didn't have to. No one has to. It's implicit. No one has to "proclaim" that "treasure" isn't the end-goal issue. In the pro/con discussion of the various salacious legend details, science discussions about them, etc....

No one on earth cares diddly-squat about this silly speck of land, other than for a singular reason: Possible treasure. That is the ONLY reason you, or anyone else, is interested in the discussion of fibers or hole-digging-ability, sea-water levels, etc....

 

[Carl-NC]

I've been saying regardless of anything actually being in the hole now or ever that it is possible to dig a 100' or more hole and not hit water on the island especially if your the first diggers into virgin soil... So do you believe that is a true statement? A one word answer is all that is needed please...

Depends on the geology of the island. Manhattan Island is solid bedrock so you can dig pretty deep and never hit water. That's why they build tall skyscrapers that start out 100 feet deep.

On Oak Island many holes have been dug (not just The Hole) and they all flooded at about the same depth. So the evidence suggests that, on Oak Island, you cannot dig a 100' hole without getting flooded. The geological analysis of the island agrees with this.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... On Oak Island many holes have been dug (not just The Hole) and they all flooded at about the same depth. So the evidence suggests that, on Oak Island, you cannot dig a 100' hole without getting flooded.....

No, that is therefore not what the "evidence suggests". This would merely mean that: Booby trap flood tunnels were installed over the ENTIRE ISLAND ! (durned them jesuits and freemasons anyhow). See Carl ? You are starting with the incorrect starting premise: Treasure. Once you've got that correct starting point, then everything else can be made to fit (given enough slaves and enough years).

 

[lokiblossom]

No one on earth cares diddly-squat about this silly speck of land, other than for a singular reason: Possible treasure. That is the ONLY reason you, or anyone else, is interested in the discussion of fibers or hole-digging-ability, sea-water levels, etc....

Absolutely not true, I know of several besides me who post here and do not expect to see any treasure brought out of Oak Island.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Absolutely not true, I know of several besides me who post here and do not expect to see any treasure brought out of Oak Island.

Cheers, Loki

Then why (oh why oh why oh why) all the attention ? Are you trying to say that A) you don't expect to see (ie.: don't believe) in the treasure story, yet B) are fascinated by holes and fibers on some random island (one of thousands of islands) off the east coast of Canada ?

You're seriously trying to tell me that your interest is utterly based nothing on the legend ? So are we to infer that you therefore take similar interest in hydrology and sink holes and fibers at other random spots on the planet too then. Right ?

 

[cachenut]

Does anyone here actually talk about treasure or is it all witfool texting. Tweeting is gouging out Americas brain.

 

[Robot]

Oh Charlie...Now You Believe...In...Unicorns?

It's fun! Snarking on unicorn poop sifters here is better than actually watching the show.

Oak Island...Treasure Hunting...Has really taken it's Toll!