Hi All,
I am new to this forum but not to history/treasure/adventure. I ended up here via searching for others reactions on the show and I think, although the show was poor at best, it will work wonders for generating traffic to this forum.
I decided to post because a few things about oak island really strike me as interesting as well as the people who are intrigued by this mystery.
First and foremost, I understand as well as anyone when chasing a treasure one needs an open mind and to suspend disbelief in alot of situations. If they didn't they would follow the traditional history of the area and probably never ever find anything. However as a historian/alternative historian, I do believe that skepticism still need to be used as tools. I often found anomalous pieces of information when researching and start trying to build upon it. But everything has to be reasonably internally consistent given the information available. When you read tales of a pirate in a nearby cove, which also has a oral tradition of pirate 'x' burying a treasure and then historical record of a death or arrest I think these are great signs. However, oak island to me is not that story.
All of the main Oak Island 'evidence' or 'legend' is internally inconsistent and folklore. I'm not saying some of it isn't true I'm just saying if you take that 'evidence' to be true your standards are low at best. This is not meant as an insult but rather as a injection of objectiveness from a guy who loves tall tales and adventure. For example, in my search for mystery I find one generally needs a good idea of the who. The who in this case is a little shaky. Templars? I've seen people here use rune stone, shakespeare and various other things to tie templars in but even if they are right in their interpretation of info truthfully and objectively it seems obvious that the 'evidence' doesn't really make a strong case for oak island if it even made a strong case for everything else. It is sort of a "well it could be oak island" without any specific reason for it. Next is pirates, in this area treasure troves are usually pirates. Pirates for this location is possible, though the supposed nature of the tunnels, depths etc. would seem to rule it out. Pirates buried usually because they were being pursued or had other immediate risks of capture or death. Although clay, to construct this system seems outlandish. They would have buried it in an attempt to hide it until they could come get it but such a complex system would make that very difficult. It would also make the original construction difficult and time consuming. I won't rule it out. But ruling it in is a leap of faith. Also, as a slight detour the pirates would have to be coming from further south for the story to work. Most pirates in this area pillaged stuff in this area - which was treasure troves and huge dollar values of furs, fish and salt. Not really treasures you would stash or that would have value today in their current state.
Secondly, the other 'evidence' is really weak. If you don't know the 'who' the only way to find a treasure to find the location and work backwards to find the who. Most evidence of the location is blatantly false, or at best is wishful thinking. Dave Rishar has beaten most of it apart but I will quickly run through it. The original stories about the three boys is folklore even if true. The system purported being built by the treasure hiders could not have been done while island was inhabited without notice. A block and tackle hanging over hole is nonsensical. If it was there, there is no treasure or at least not the nature people speak of. They wouldn't leave a block and tackle after the work to hide the treasure and even if they did they would have had to stash it around then (1795) as it wouldn't have lasted long just hanging there. As they couldn't have done it then (not the way people say they did anyways) do to the construction requirements then the block and tackle is untrue or red herring. The gold chain fragments have had varying descriptions , I am not sure they even still exist but even if they do while interesting is irrelavant. Same for the tools recovered. They are probably from previous attempts but even if they are not they are not unique enough to prove otherwise. The famous cipher rock is gone and there is no proof it ever existed. This is not me being negative its true. It doesn't exist and no cpies were made of it that are known ( I think) and none are verifiable if they were. The inscription doesn't make sense even if it is true. Flood tunnels are unproven to even exist. Pyramid swamp is created in modern times by road but is not a perfect triangle nor any different than swamps lots of places. Not saying its not the 'key' but why? Its not unique UNLESS you agree the island already has treasure then who knows. The platforms of oak is legend. Even the legend it comes from says there was an shallow 'platform' of oak (realistically some oak wood found) and appearance of intervals of ten feet. Long way from oak platforms every ten feet. Video of chests and dead bodies is inconclusive at best. And so on and so on and so on. IF the evidence was actually real there would be a case, but most of it if real is unprovable at this time to have existed.
I could go on and on but I want to keep this reasonable. The point is the story that puts treasure there is based on very little to nothing. Or more importantly based on the same thing every treasure story in every coastal community is. So if you listen to this one you should listen to them all. The evidence constantly used to prove something is there is all unerfiable at best and most of it is not consistent with itself (thats my biggest problem, it doesn't even fit each other) .So why do people dig there and stay obsessed? Because others have. The more people dig and spend money and make shows the more creditable it becomes. But thats not good logic for true treasure hunters is it?
Finally I would like to thank Dave Rishar for his clarity and I would like to question those who have taken it personally. I have not read his tone as condescending but rather a factual (maybe slightly pompous
). If people can present theories saying its an alien remoleculizar than he can present a viewpoint that says its not real. I personally am the fringe lunatic of my social group when it comes to alternative history. MY well educated friends batter me with similar arguments to Dave's. Thats a good thing. If you are right his arguments can only help you refine your idea. I don't believe he, nor I, are trying to be skeptics and rain on peoples parade. He has given enough effort to prove he likes treasures and desperately at hart wants to believe. As do I. But there has to be something worth believing in. Treasure stories exist everywhere and truthfully alot of them are more plausible than this. The effort should be put there.
. Time is running out. There has been a lot of good ideas posted. If you had the chance to talk to Marty and Rick Lagina what ONE THING would you like to have them check out on Oak Island. Please just post what you would like to see done , please don't post about the past TV Show or what you would like to see on a new TV Show. Just what would you do if you had the chance and why. Thank You
( I have posted this on the Hope Stone site, Oak Island). A earth magnet will stick to the stones. I talked to Bounty Hunter and they said our equipmet was messed up . I still don't know why . But back to the stones on Oak Island ,
Marty said no and thats where I am. I am sure when they jumped in the water and thought they hit it big, the film crew had a lot to do with this part to. Marty and Rick did a good job , its the way the film crew showed them that looks bad. I've been there and done that.
