A Parallel Search - or the Same?

[Charlie P. (NY)]

You're trying to apply logic to a totally spurious assumption that is not borne out with the evidence.

Look at the evidence and THEN make a hypothesis that fits. You're doing the opposite of the Scientific Method. To claim that ALL islands potentially contain buried treasure.

I assume that "real treasure hunters” actually hunt treasures. The clue is in the name. As you’re advocating not hunting for treasure then, presumably, you wouldn’t consider yourself to be a real treasure hunter. So, why are you claiming to represent the group?

"Real" treasure hunters most always have a specific treasure in mind. The good ones do a lot of research before committing to a spot to explore. No one has any idea what, if anything, may have vsited Oak Island that was considered treasure. It's just a rumor that snowballed through speculation and retelling into a local legend . . . that went international. Like the tooth fairy.

Do you have a list of previous treasures (not grave/tomb goods) that were found in the ground buried over 50 feet deep through history? There is no logical reason for even that supposition.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[gjb]

I can say there is a huge Spanish treasure on a mountain top in the Rockies, but it would be up to me to prove the treasure exists, not someone else to prove it doesn't exist.

Why does everyone insist on missing the point. Nobody is asking anyone to prove that there’s no treasure on Oak Island. It’s perfectly valid for someone to demand proof that there is. However, that doesn’t make a declaration that there’s no treasure on the island a matter of fact. It’s not known either way. There may be a treasure and there may not be.

You know that there’s a treasure on the mountain, but the questioner doesn’t. If you provide proof then the questioner will know the answer, but if you choose not to produce the evidence they still don’t know one way or the other. To them, it’s not a fact that there’s a treasure on the mountain and it’s not a fact that there isn’t.

It’s the categorical declaration that there’s no treasure on Oak Island that’s being challenged. This is not a matter of fact it’s a matter of opinion. It’s a guess and, as so many people are pointing out, it’s a declaration without proof - so, it’s not a fact. It can’t be stated to be a fact and so it shouldn’t be stated to be a fact.

It’s an open question.

 

[gjb]

Charlie P. said:

“Look at the evidence and THEN make a hypothesis that fits. You're doing the opposite of the Scientific Method.”

If you're fully conversant with my work, would you please explain in what way I failed to look at the evidence and then failed to formulate a hypothesis that fits.

If you're not fully conversant with my work would you please explain why you're even commenting on it.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Yeah. I'll check the Library of Congress.

 

[gjb]

Yeah. I'll check the Library of Congress.

Actually, you should try the British Library or the half-dozen libraries of permanent record in the UK and Ireland as I know that they hold copies of my books.

We can take it, then, that you're not conversant with my work, so it's obvious your observations were totally uninformed.

 

[ARC]

Its been leaked that in Season 21 they will find a Templar fishing weight...

And that this proves that there was a bustling Templar Village with huge fishing industry and that this said weight was from a net that surrounded the entire island catching any and all fishes and also acting as protection from raiding Vikings seeking treasures.

I have the Tevo set already to catch it in case i forget to tune in.

 

[GoDeep]

People here are falling into the trap of declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

They haven't fallen into any trap, you are falling into the trap of misapplying this statement to Oak Island.

Wouldn’t it be sensible to concede that the matter can’t be proven one way (there is no treasure) and hasn’t been proven the other (there is a treasure) so no absolute claims of fact should be made by either side?

No, that would be unsensible and contrary to the evidence.

Oak Island is a case study in voluminous evidence uncovered. Every trench dug, every boring hole sunk, every swamp drained, every piece of ground scanned, every history record researched, every witness examined, every dye test run, every coffer damn installed, every scrap of human existence found and examined are evidence.

For example, if I wanted to determine if the Romans had a city at a particular sight, and i excavated it and came up with no signs of any human presence, that is evidence itself and we could therefore determine no Roman city exists there. Where one is going wrong is to conflate, for example, boring a hole that comes up "empty" with being an "absence of evidence", it's actually evidence, evidence that nothing is there.

Drill enough holes, examine enough records, excavate enough pits etc and one can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing is there and at this point given the evidence uncovered, only an unreasonable person, would believe something may be there.

 

[gjb]

They haven't fallen into any trap, you are falling into the trap of misapplying this statement to Oak Island.

Oak Island is a case study in voluminous evidence uncovered. Every trench dug, every boring hole sunk, every swamp drained, every piece of ground scanned, every history record researched, every witness examined, every dye test run, every coffer damn installed, every scrap of human existence found and examined are evidence.

If they bore a hole and it comes up empty, that isn't "absence of evidence", it's actually evidence, evidence that nothing is there. Drill enough holes, examine enough records, excavate enough pits etc and one then can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing is there and at this point given the evidence uncovered, only an unreasonable person, would believe something may be there.

It's not about evidence in general it's about specific evidence. It's being claimed that absence of evidence of a treasure on the island indicates that there's no treasure. This is an example of declaring that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and it's definitely a trap for the unwary. It doesn't necessarily follow.

Most of the exploration has been done at the Money Pit. It may be reasonable to conclude that the likelihood of recovering a treasure from there is looking highly unlikely, but that doesn't prove that there's no treasure there. It may simply be out of reach. We don't know for sure, and such fruitless exploration at the Money Pit certainly doesn't suggest that there's no treasure whatsoever on Oak Island. It could be somewhere else.

 

[GoDeep]

It's not about evidence in general it's about specific evidence.

Exactly, and there is voluminous specific evidence that no treasure exists now, or ever did.

 

[gjb]

Exactly, and there is voluminous specific evidence that no treasure exists now, or ever did.

This is really getting tedious. It’s repetitious and arguing for arguing’s sake. I despair that anyone would make the above claim.

It may be possible to produce evidence that a treasure might have existed by bringing up something of value, but how might bringing up nothing of value shed light on the possibility that there was once a treasure that has since been removed?

Furthermore, how are the discoveries at the Money Pit evidence that there never was, and isn't, a treasure somewhere else?

 

[GoDeep]

This is really getting tedious. It’s repetitious and arguing for arguing’s sake

Couldn't agree more. You're spot on.

If you have some new evidence, by all means share it, otherwise this is just a circular exercise in futility.

 

[Ocean7]

I assume that "real treasure hunters” actually hunt treasures. The clue is in the name. As you’re advocating not hunting for treasure then, presumably, you wouldn’t consider yourself to be a real treasure hunter. So, why are you claiming to represent the group?

hmm that's an interesting remark 'real treasure hunter.' I looked back through 8 pages of posts to your 1st thread on Apr 21, 2016. I didn't see one post showing any treasure you have found. I did see that most of your posts are on 'Oak Island' with a small percentage on the 'Tayopa treasure'.
So pontificate away. When no one is listening anymore or responding - you'll just start another thread on your favorite subject. I suppose you have a PhD too? Piled higher and deeper.
Anybody that is tired of this B.S. is Not a 'real treasure hunter' according to you.
Or so it would seem.
BTW a) are you part of the team on TV series for Oak Island?
b) have you ever appeared on the TV series for Oak Island? Theorist?
c) have you written a book on Oak Island?
d) have you written a movie script on Oak Island?

whatever. Soon the series will come to an end along with all the chatter,
and in the final analysis none of this will matter.

good day mate and here's to your next bobby dazzler!

 

[gjb]

Couldn't agree more. You're spot on.

If you have some new evidence, by all means share it, otherwise this is just a circular exercise in futility.

Thank you. That's the first sensible thing I've heard on this thread. However, I've already shared a large portion of my work which clearly hasn't been read and, despite this, has been declared in this very thread to be nonsense.

Furthermore, my suggestion is that there may have been a treasure on Oak Island, and you know that you and many people here have decided that it's a fact that there never was a treasure - even, as I suggest, at a specific location somewhere other than in the Money Pit.

Hence, what point would there be in debating with people who have decided that what I'm presenting is rubbish without having seen it and from experience to date will doubtless persist in declaring it to be so even when they have?

That would be a true exercise in futility.

 

[GoDeep]

Furthermore, my suggestion is that there may have been a treasure on Oak Island, and you know that you and many people here have decided that it's a fact that there never was a treasure - even, as I suggest, at a specific location somewhere other than in the Money Pit.

I haven't seen anyone presenting it as "fact", what i have seen is the voluminous facts uncovered to date which supports no treasure having ever been on Oak Island.

Sure, we can play the old "could there be?", sure, and there could be treasure on any of the countless islands the world over or in my back forty. That's just pointless speculation.

All we can do is use the evidence to make the best informed decision possible.

 

[gazzahk]

However, I hit problems because, as in this thread, people have decided that they know this is wrong because, for example, they claim to know that the treasure legend is a hoax and that, as no treasure has yet been found, they also know for a fact that there never was one.

We should be careful about what we decide we know and why we decide we know it.

I fully accept that the story told by the descendants of the original finders may be true. That is - the original finders of the pit discovered a small amount of treasure at around 20 feet deep.

However, I also accept that there is no real evidence of this other than oral family history and a gold cross alleged to be part of the hoard.

However, there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any treasure associated with the legend being located elsewhere on Oak Island.

Your whole supposition is based purely on "what if"... You have no reason to support the view that the legend of the money pit is somehow incorrect and that a treasure actually does exist but simply somewhere else.

The idea/argument that the whole area of the pit has been disturbed could mean the treasure has been broken up and dispersed in simply implausible. If this was the case evidence of the treasure would of been found.

Further to this would mean that some party dug a 200+ foot hole to bury a single box of treasure (or very small amount).

Your are asking people to accept what you say simply because you think it may be true. Without any evidence at all.

As to the argument that there may of been treasure recovered by earlier searchers that will never be known. The often quoted example of S.Ball one must remember S.Ball never dug 200+ feet shafts in the money pit area. We do know that no one (other then the descendants) have claimed a find of treasure.

But you seem convinced in your view and are perfectly entitled to it. I am just surprised that you find it difficult to accept that no others think your views are credible.


The Possible Treasure of Oak island Money Pit

 

[gazzahk]

I can say there is a huge Spanish treasure on a mountain top in the Rockies, but it would be up to me to prove the treasure exists, not someone else to prove it doesn't exist.

Which mountain? I have am idea for a reality TV show. Drop me a PM and lets get rich....

 

[gjb]

gazzahk said:

“Your are asking people to accept what you say simply because you think it may be true. Without any evidence at all.”

This is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.

People here insist on commenting on my work and declaring it to be nonsense when they clearly haven’t even bothered to look at it.

This is an appalling attitude to research and investigation. You’re showing outright prejudice and signalling to everyone that you just can’t be bothered to know what other people are presenting and that you cannot, and will not, be objective.

 

[gazzahk]

gazzahk said:

“Your are asking people to accept what you say simply because you think it may be true. Without any evidence at all.”

This is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.

People here insist on commenting on my work and declaring it to be nonsense when they clearly haven’t even bothered to look at it.

This is an appalling attitude to research and investigation. You’re showing outright prejudice and signalling to everyone that you just can’t be bothered to know what other people are presenting and that you cannot, and will not, be objective.

There is no need for personal insults...

As many posters have said. The onus is on you to offer evidence of your claims.. If you have no evidence then do not be surprised that other people do not find them credible.

Rather then insulting people offer your evidence.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

It’s always been a common theme here for folks who are called out for promoting the hoax to divert attention away from the fact that ZERO evidence has ever been presented supporting any of the claims they promote.

 

[GoDeep]

gazzahk said:

“Your are asking people to accept what you say simply because you think it may be true. Without any evidence at all.”

This is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.

People here insist on commenting on my work and declaring it to be nonsense when they clearly haven’t even bothered to look at it.

This is an appalling attitude to research and investigation. You’re showing outright prejudice and signalling to everyone that you just can’t be bothered to know what other people are presenting and that you cannot, and will not, be objective.

I've read your past posts and they are mostly speculative in nature.

I may have missed it though, so if you have some solid evidence, would you be willing to give a brief recap now?

Edit: Reread your long posts, which are 99 percent off topic, your hypothesis in a nutshell is:

"Could the rock "markers", be indicating the treasure is elsewhere"

Sure, and they could just as well be random rock placements. Unless you have actual evidence (say an authenticated diary of someone who purposely laid them out), we're just speculating. Drawing lines through them saying it forms a cross, triangle, points to England or any other dubious claim is pseudo-science.