After 15th Episode of Season 12.... Still any believers...?

[GravelTeeth]

True, you can't edit the IA snapshots. But you can request that IA remove your web site history.

Editing by deletion. It could happen, leaving gaps in the directory structure of any remaining snapshots. Further down in the old thread, though, it was alleged that this had been an editing by addition as well: https://www.treasurenet.com/threads/death-of-research-and-truth.648349/post-6675571 .

I think it is incumbent upon the claimer to show which articles from the glorious past are actually missing from the Archive's version, so that the rest of us can appreciate what was silenced, and also cross-check against the RSS cache I linked to earlier and see if perhaps some people (ahem) are just bad at finding things using the Archive. Of course the Archive is not perfect, and it's completeness, especially for a blog, will depend upon whether or not they crawled the piece in question. For example if there had been blog entries made between last crawl and the site's demise/deprecation, those may not be reflected. That would be an organic result and not the product of manipulation.

From the thread linked in post #149, it sounds like the guys who ran the blog were hired by the COI TV show. Their NDA probably includes a non-disparagement clause (they often do) so as part of being hired they likely agreed to take down the web site contents. Normal stuff.

This begins to enter the realm of the reasonable. It wouldn't even have to be disparagement, but simply a non-compete clause, or, as my job requires, a periodic declaration that we have no secondary income that would represent a conflict of interest to the primary employer. In that scenario we would expect the Archive to be an accurate reflection of what had been there prior to letting the domain expire.

It seems increasingly likely that via the old thread and others, TBT just took the idle (but wrong) speculations of other users as gospel without proper vetting and is now too far invested to stop proclaiming it from the pulpit.

--GT

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[GravelTeeth]

As I do not see posts from members on my ignore list, based on Carl-NC's post above, the typical suspects who argue that mass treasure exists on the island must have commented.

This guy pretending he doesn't look at my posts is the best part of the whole argument. :P

The facts are gone from the site and now the site is an advertisement for Oak Island Tours

False. https://oakislandcompendium.ca/ does not even mention "Oak Island Tours". The only named tour outfit is Salty Dog Tours. The contact page would tend to indicate that the site is run by Tourism Nova Scotia ( https://tourismns.ca/ ), and good on them for spotting an opportunity when they saw a domain name with a built-in audience was available. Your continued pushing of this false narrative is crossing over from sloppy thinking/sloppy research into outright fraud.

The problem is that the old data is not there.

Kindly link us to any of the old articles you refer to. Even if the links are broken. Preferably in context, whether that be on these boards, Reddit, some other forums, whatevah. Show us what we are now forbidden from seeing, or the contextual framework we need to intuit what it was. If you are not willing to do so, you cannot be considered a serious person regarding this issue. Continuing to repeat "we remember it differently" just places you in a weird Mandela Effect bubble.

--GT

 

[SSR]

Who in their right mind would label himself a believer of things we can show are based on things that are historically inaccurate or known to be false? Belief is not a feather in anyone's cap, per se. Those who believe have unfortunately set themselves to an impossible task--to produce reality from fiction without relying on forms of hypnotism.

 

[GravelTeeth]

Who in their right mind would label himself a believer of things we can show are based on things that are historically inaccurate or known to be false? Belief is not a feather in anyone's cap, per se. Those who believe have unfortunately put themselves to an impossible ask--to produce reality from fiction without relying on forms of hypnotism.

I can try to answer this for myself (a strong believer in the possibility, but not the certainty, of Money Pit having been constructed for valuables) and maybe it will resonate with others. Most of the cited and well-hashed inaccuracies, inconsistencies, contradictions, contaminations from other lore, and likely embellishments that plague the Oak Island story have to do with the discovery/origin portion. But if you put all that aside, and just say, okay ... there's a spot of interest that has caused some people to want to dig there, what happened next? Regardless of how or why they chose the spot, the spot was chosen, and very intriguing things were discovered: the 98' platform, the stacked wooden structures, etc. The Onslow Company's worst sin seems to be that they defy any corroborating documentation of their very existence, but the things they found were echoed in the work of the later Truro Company, etc. Add in the Pitblado incident for extra spice, and this is the recipe that keeps me in the pro-camp.

I'm not aware of large-scale factual inconsistencies regarding the Onslow/Truro/etc. portion of the saga that would erode at its believability in the same way that the origin story has been eviscerated. Perhaps I am wrong and I just haven't hit the right sources yet, but that is how the situation looks to me.

Cheers.
--GT

 

[FreeBirdTim]

The main sticking point is trying to picture a bunch of drunk, flabby pirates with hand shovels digging a 100 foot hole in the ground with flood channels to protect their booty. A good tall tale, but it just doesn't seem feasible (or necessary) to me.

 

[n2mini]

Who in their right mind would label himself a believer of things we can show are based on things that are historically inaccurate or known to be false? Belief is not a feather in anyone's cap, per se. Those who believe have unfortunately put themselves to an impossible ask--to produce reality from fiction without relying on forms of hypnothistorically inaccurate" and "known" to be false. Just because you don't believe doesn't make it any more of a fact then the ones who do..

How is any of it "historically inaccurate" and "known" to be false. Just because you don't believe any of it doesn't make it any more of a fact then the ones who do.

The main sticking point is trying to picture a bunch of drunk, flabby pirates with hand shovels digging a 100 foot hole in the ground with flood channels to protect their booty. A good tall tale, but it just doesn't seem feasible (or necessary) to me.

I don't think most people who do believe in there being a treasure believe it is pirate booty.. Just one of many theories.. That's not to say that "maybe" Samuel Ball didn't find some along the way..

 

[SSR]

I can try to answer this for myself (a strong believer in the possibility, but not the certainty, of Money Pit having been constructed for valuables) and maybe it will resonate with others. Most of the cited and well-hashed inaccuracies, inconsistencies, contradictions, contaminations from other lore, and likely embellishments that plague the Oak Island story have to do with the discovery/origin portion. But if you put all that aside, and just say, okay ... there's a spot of interest that has caused some people to want to dig there, what happened next? Regardless of how or why they chose the spot, the spot was chosen, and very intriguing things were discovered: the 98' platform, the stacked wooden structures, etc. The Onslow Company's worst sin seems to be that they defy any corroborating documentation of their very existence, but the things they found were echoed in the work of the later Truro Company, etc. Add in the Pitblado incident for extra spice, and this is the recipe that keeps me in the pro-camp.

I'm not aware of large-scale factual inconsistencies regarding the Onslow/Truro/etc. portion of the saga that would erode at its believability in the same way that the origin story has been eviscerated. Perhaps I am wrong and I just haven't hit the right sources yet, but that is how the situation looks to me.

Cheers.
--GT

The OI backstory, as far as we can demonstrate, was only produced after fact. In the 1840s there had not yet been the Vaughn stories that got popularized in the press of the 1860s after John Smith died in the late 1850s. There's an entire search that was financed with some other "plausible" sounding stories. There is also no known documented lore or accounts about any treasure on OI prior to the 1830s. There are written works dating to 1820 and 1829 that do not include such a story in the description of the noteworthy happenings of that county. For example, the accounts of a treasure retrieval at Hobson's Nose nearby is noted in 1830. Regarding that one, the historian Desbrisay, cannot explain why details belonging to it later got attributed to OI. It is as if a story shifted to where the principles in question owned land.

If one hunts for the roots of this story it cannot pass through the searcher groups' allegations and be considered untainted or reliable. The blueprint for the shaft story is recognizable from Zionist myths that were popular in Freemasonic circles. That counts as demonstrable evidence for the earliest descriptions. For the actual evidence of such a shaft there is not any. We know only of searcher efforts and of a missing shaft.

Possibilities are about mental gymnastics. Those who set off trying to delineate what is possible to then cherry pick what is pleasing to them have an embarrassment of choices. We cannot even agree on what is possible.

 

[3cylbill]

View attachment 2197581
That's all I have regarding the saga.

this is why i havent been here in months you just cant let treasure hunters hunt without calling names.... or constantly pounding on them.....or coming up with.....it was an outhouse hole har har har GIVE IT A BREAK

 

[GravelTeeth]

The OI backstory, as far as we can demonstrate, was only produced after fact.

Produced after the fact and recounted after the fact are rather inseparable at this juncture. Your first paragraph has several worthy criticisms that deserve to be considered, but they don't have quite the bite that the government documents refuting whole swaths of the discovery story have, falling generally into the category of circumstantial lack of evidence rather than direct evidence against. For example, there is a distinct lack (that I'm aware of, anyway) of individuals that were part of any of the early search syndicates coming forward as whistleblowers to say "I took part in a scam, we lied for such and such reasons." The most critical historical piece I'm aware of was Bowdoin's published essay, and if I recall correctly this came only after he was denied further search permission by the landowners, making his stance subject to the same motivational criticisms as that of the searchers/believers.

Since parsing out the truth is largely a subjective endeavour at this point, we've all got to glom onto which parts of the data have the ring of truth to us individually. I am somewhat swayed by the ridiculousness of the syndicate efforts, full of failures and accidents, bad planning, worse execution, on and on. This, to me, does not sound like the stuff that people brag about as a way of raising funds, nor does it sound like a crafted fictional narrative meant to entice. It's too absurd. Therefore I tend to believe it. I think the best evidence for the earlier (Onslow and forward) stories being reliable is the overlapping personnel that later characters like Blair and Chappell had available to them to tap for data. In other words, some guys who were part of Onslow were later part of Truro, and some guys from Truro were part of later efforts, etc.

We cannot even agree on what is possible.

Yep. Alas.

--GT

 

[n2mini]

One of the men that worked with the Restalls and was there the day they died is on the show every now and then. Granted he might be like all the others to just draw a pay check but if he didn't whole heartily believe in
the story and what they were doing back then and now he wouldn't be a part of it after being there on death day, I wouldn't think...
Has anyone found any news paper articles about anything at all in the OI area in 1795-1800? If not then why would be there anything about the MP Dig if there isn't anything else being written about. Might be cause they didn't deem it news worthy, or it was kept kinda hush hush, or there wasn't any kind of newspaper in the area to begin with..

 

[Carl-NC]

We cannot even agree on what is possible.

I think we can agree, everything is possible. Unfortunately, all of it's not even wrong.

 

[Limitool]

I think we can agree, everything is possible. Unfortunately, all of it's not even wrong.

"I believe it, therefore it is true."

Like that signature Carl.... I always told my kids that whatever your thinking or believing that's your present reality... Make sure your right.

 

[SSR]

How is any of it "historically inaccurate" and "known" to be false. Just because you don't believe any of it doesn't make it any more of a fact then the ones who do.

I don't think most people who do believe in there being a treasure believe it is pirate booty.. Just one of many theories.. That's not to say that "maybe" Samuel Ball didn't find some along the way..

No three boys sailed to an unhabituated island. No alleged pit discovery occurred in a clearing in 1795 with precise details that are borrowed from the Hobson's Nose account of 1830. There is historical proof of an adult John Smith (who already lived on the island since 1788) purchasing the land from a Lunenburg Merchant, Casper Wollenhaupt in 1795 which nullifies the origin story. Smith, Vaughn and Ball all worked for Wollenhaupt on his land which included lot 18. Wollenhaupt was a local politician and had supply contracts with the garrison at Halifax and to supply the native population starving on reserves since 1760.

There were known Smith cove fishing operations from NY in 1753-58 to explain cove works below and above tidal levels. There was a known important colonial migration to Shoreham township (which includes OI) in 1763. The was a known detailed planning and layout of OI in 1762 by Charles Morris. There is a known and demonstrable relationship of points of interest used in the "treasure" stories to the plan of 1762 to explain the apparent "planned" geometry. There is no previous official British military presence at OI. Island was first charted for the British Navy in 1751 as part of a plan to deport the local French population and settle New Englanders in new townships. The only nearby military remnants were identified by the British in 1751 as belonging to the French at the mouth of the La Have river (long abandoned fort Sainte-Marie-de-Grace). OI faced the French Acadian village of Mirligueche and was always in eyeshot of locals during the French regime in Canada (until 1751). It was not a secretive location in colonial times. The French explored all this area for minerals in the early to mid 1600s. It sent back a large quantity of azurite which had been mined coastally near OI (thinking it was semi precious lapis lazuli).

Proof that local Germans executed the surveying and layout work at OI for Morris exists. Evidence in the form of German lore of strange geometric "goings on" in the planning of Lunenburg county has been referenced by those who want to use that to account for the unexplained.

Well understood accounting for Ball's arrival and petitioning for land at OI during the Loyalist migration. Proof of subsequent petitioning for additional abandoned Planter lands at OI by Ball who was required to show he was farming the land. Proof that Ball had access to lucrative supply contracts. OI and nearby areas are well know agricultural producers for the rocky South Shore.

 

[SSR]

I think we can agree, everything is possible. Unfortunately, all of it's not even wrong.

If you assume a blank slate, everything seems possible as an explanation, including the magical. Absolutely everything is constrained by what we can know. It is super hard to know anything (requires a lot of effort to establish). We should never discount what we can know/show to save some suggestions which would otherwise seem possible and pleasing to our biases. When you do that you are entering the territory of people like Graham Hancock who make a living peddling unwarranted "possibilities". We do know enough about early OI to limit the possibilities of fictions masquerading as truths.

 

[SSR]

One of the men that worked with the Restalls and was there the day they died is on the show every now and then. Granted he might be like all the others to just draw a pay check but if he didn't whole heartily believe in
the story and what they were doing back then and now he wouldn't be a part of it after being there on death day, I wouldn't think...
Has anyone found any news paper articles about anything at all in the OI area in 1795-1800? If not then why would be there anything about the MP Dig if there isn't anything else being written about. Might be cause they didn't deem it news worthy, or it was kept kinda hush hush, or there wasn't any kind of newspaper in the area to begin with..

Restall did more to kill the OI stories than anyone. He jus kept eliminating wrongheaded ideas as he went along. In the end he had nothing left to entice his investors but dishonest "takes" meant to keep the dream alive.

David Tobias was Dan's money. Both had different views of what was going on. Tobias hired expert historians to search for the historical OI backstory. They produced a report that essentially "killed" the venture. Tobias left with his Shakespearean theories. Dan, spurred on by fringe star chart theories from an American woman abandoned the MP in favor of a point he divined.

I would not for a minute assume that everyone who has spent time a OI searching was on the same page. Restall's wife wasn't.

 

[n2mini]

Restall's wife as she said in her old interview that her husband told her he was getting close to it. He believed and she believed in her husband. Right or wrong they believed in it...

If the 3 buys/men didn't start their dig, how did this story go on for over 200 years now. Why would the Onslow company come in to continue a dig if there was no dig to begin with.. There has to be a beginning dig or this thing never gets going..

 

[Limitool]

Restall's wife as she said in her old interview that her husband told her he was getting close to it. He believed and she believed in her husband. Right or wrong they believed in it...

If the 3 buys/men didn't start their dig, how did this story go on for over 200 years now. Why would the Onslow company come in to continue a dig if there was no dig to begin with.. There has to be a beginning dig or this thing never gets going..

See it's statements like in bold above that people make then repeat without a thought given then or now as to why or how...?

How would any individual know if he was "getting close to it"? Based on what?
And what was he digging for and based on what?
Who said a treasure was buried 100+ on O.I.?

The "beginning dig" was based on hope I believe. From there stories and mankind's imagination took over and the cycle of hope, stories and digging is just repeated over and over and over to this day.

 

[AstralDruid]

This saga has removed all of the intrigue of treasure hunting !!. It should be ignored from here onwards......................

 

[Limitool]

This saga has removed all of the intrigue of treasure hunting !!. It should be ignored from here onwards......................

Agreed... Oak Island has ran its course I believe. But for some the hope continues and I wish them the best.

 

[mtdoramike]

When it comes to treasure hunters, they believe what they want to believe and nothing will change their minds. Take Mel Fisher, he chased that rainbow for decades, lost 2 family members, but in the end he stuck with it and won out in the end. I don't see that with Oak Island, do I believe someone buried loot on the island, yes. Do I believe it is still there, no. But if it is, it's not where they re looking, where everyone one else has looked before. If anything, where they are digging is a decoy, which is my best guess. But either way, Marty is going to be the one who gives up the ghost on this adventure because he's never been that into it like his brother.