Money Pit

[Dave Rishar]

I am unbiased. I want to see the best argument from both sides BEFORE I make a decision.

I, and others, have been making that argument for years on this very forum. If you don't want to wade through that back catalog (and I wouldn't blame you for that, as there's a lot of chaff with the wheat to wade through), this can be hashed out again on a point by point basis if you'd prefer. It might be better to start a new thread though.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[b3y0nd3r]

I, and others, have been making that argument for years on this very forum. If you don't want to wade through that back catalog (and I wouldn't blame you for that, as there's a lot of chaff with the wheat to wade through), this can be hashed out again on a point by point basis if you'd prefer. It might be better to start a new thread though.

I understand that the counter arguments have been made before. Here is my point with these discussions.

If you make a statement of any kind, make sure you are prepared to back it up. So many times, for example, I see, "well no one would bury a treasure that deep".

I say to that, where is your proof to back that statement up?

There are certain people on here that say the Templars buried treasure there. They then provide all kinds of documentation. Rather than debunk the documentation or provide counter-documentation, the debunker attacks the presenter. Why does that keep happening?

 

[Al D]

Yea I think it that He wanted to Find something Special So bad,
He thought he could pull it off, and so did the editors

The rail road spike was the last straw for me, and their long list of “experts”, I am done with watching these buffons

 

[gazzahk]

Templars buried treasure there. They then provide all kinds of documentation.....

Ha ha ha… Sorry I nearly peeed myself laughing. NO DOCUMENTATION of templers ever visiting OI has been offered. As for documentation of them burying treasure there.. Really are you just trying to wind people up? Thanks for the laugh......

 

[Dave Rishar]

If you make a statement of any kind, make sure you are prepared to back it up. So many times, for example, I see, "well no one would bury a treasure that deep".

Because I can't prove that a treasure is not buried there (and no one else can either; even if we excavated the entire island right down to the bedrock, that doesn't prove that there isn't something under the bedrock), I'm forced to approach the problem logically.

Consider the central claim: there's a treasure buried far underground at this spot.

I can't disprove that; the hole can always be made deeper if we don't find anything there. So instead I ask, "Why would someone bury something that deep? Has anyone else buried a treasure that deep on an island? Did they want to make sure that it was never found? It conceivably came to that island via the ocean, so if they wanted it gone for good, the bottom of the ocean is a good choice. If they ever wanted to find it again, ten feet would make a lot more sense - it wouldn't be found on accident either way. And if they did want to hide it, it would make a lot of sense to dig that hole as quickly as possible to preclude someone observing their activity, and there's no way to dig a 90 foot hole quickly." I spend some time kicking this idea around in my head and I can't think of a logical reason for why somebody would do something like that.

This proves nothing of course, especially for someone that truly believes in a treasure at Oak Island. We do have some true believers here. Nothing I (or anyone else) says is going to dissuade them. That's fine. I do what I do for the randoms that swing by because they read a blog post or saw a TV show that wasn't entirely factual, and perhaps don't understand just how truly shaky the whole story is.

Some have said the same thing about me - that I'm stuck in my beliefs and those beliefs cannot be changed. That's incorrect. My beliefs are very easy to change. In this case, all that they have to do to convince me that a treasure exists is to recover a treasure. Not "find," not "prove," not "be absolutely sure of", but to actually recover the treasure...as in, it can be touched and seen.

Until then, we're arguing about angels and pinheads. More on this later.

I say to that, where is your proof to back that statement up?

I can turn this around. Where is the proof that there's a treasure there in the first place?

Again, I can't prove that a treasure is not there. I can only prove that one is. The folks arguing for the existence of a treasure have the burden of proof on them. That's not a cop out. It's just normally impossible to disprove the existence of something. I can (and do) point out logical flaws in theories and debunk accepted facts, but I cannot disprove a buried treasure. On the other hand, it's quite easy to conclusively prove the existence of a treasure...but someone has to dig that treasure up in order to do so, and to date, no one has, but certainly not for lack of trying.

There are certain people on here that say the Templars buried treasure there. They then provide all kinds of documentation. Rather than debunk the documentation or provide counter-documentation, the debunker attacks the presenter. Why does that keep happening?

Since you mentioned it, I will as well: the Templar theory is an example of what happens when someone gets an idea and then attempts to find evidence to prove it, rather than evaluating the evidence and then forming a theory to explain it. Evaluating the evidence (such as it is, or is believed to be) supports the original pirate treasure theory, even though pirates seldom if ever buried their treasure. One must discard a lot of the existing "evidence" (including the original story, and thus the whole reason why anyone took any interest in Oak Island in the first place!) and engage in some serious speculation to make the Templar thing work. And even then, I still can't think of a good reason to bury something that deep, so we're still left with bad logic.

Why do people get attacked here? I don't think that this happens very much. The mods don't tolerate it. However, my own bias may be causing me to miss it when it happens, so I'll take it for granted that it's a thing. It may be because the debunker has debunked the same set of "facts" on a weekly basis for years, often presented by the same people. At that point, it's a people problem, not a documentation problem. The fact that people are forming theories about what's buried and who put it there, when nothing has been found and no strong evidence exists to suggest that something is there in the first place...well, it's all a bit silly when you think about it. The theories about what's there and how it got there are probably better saved for when that "what" is actually found. Otherwise, we're discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and what color their wings are. When I point out that we haven't found a pin and that angels probably don't exist, that's not me being a jerk; that's me thinking critically and asking questions that ought to be asked. Solid theories survive peer review.

I don't recall being unduly harsh on anyone, but I would not be surprised in the least if I have been. Point out a specific example and I'll explain why I said what I said.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I agree that personal attacks are MUCH different than questioning unsupported hypotheses.

Using the scientific method one would look at the evidence and then make a proposed solution to explain what is observed.

Not make fabulous stories up with no evidence to support them.

Sooooo, in 1795 kids found a tree with a mark on a branch and a depression under it, but 30 feet of digging later they gave up. Based on a story first told some 40 years later. And some of what may have been troughs had what some claim to have been coconut fiber in them were found along the shore somewhere else on the island.

 

[franklin]

Because I can't prove that a treasure is not buried there (and no one else can either; even if we excavated the entire island right down to the bedrock, that doesn't prove that there isn't something under the bedrock), I'm forced to approach the problem logically.

Consider the central claim: there's a treasure buried far underground at this spot.

I can't disprove that; the hole can always be made deeper if we don't find anything there. So instead I ask, "Why would someone bury something that deep? Has anyone else buried a treasure that deep on an island? Did they want to make sure that it was never found? It conceivably came to that island via the ocean, so if they wanted it gone for good, the bottom of the ocean is a good choice. If they ever wanted to find it again, ten feet would make a lot more sense - it wouldn't be found on accident either way. And if they did want to hide it, it would make a lot of sense to dig that hole as quickly as possible to preclude someone observing their activity, and there's no way to dig a 90 foot hole quickly." I spend some time kicking this idea around in my head and I can't think of a logical reason for why somebody would do something like that.

This proves nothing of course, especially for someone that truly believes in a treasure at Oak Island. We do have some true believers here. Nothing I (or anyone else) says is going to dissuade them. That's fine. I do what I do for the randoms that swing by because they read a blog post or saw a TV show that wasn't entirely factual, and perhaps don't understand just how truly shaky the whole story is.

Some have said the same thing about me - that I'm stuck in my beliefs and those beliefs cannot be changed. That's incorrect. My beliefs are very easy to change. In this case, all that they have to do to convince me that a treasure exists is to recover a treasure. Not "find," not "prove," not "be absolutely sure of", but to actually recover the treasure...as in, it can be touched and seen.

Until then, we're arguing about angels and pinheads. More on this later.



I can turn this around. Where is the proof that there's a treasure there in the first place?

Again, I can't prove that a treasure is not there. I can only prove that one is. The folks arguing for the existence of a treasure have the burden of proof on them. That's not a cop out. It's just normally impossible to disprove the existence of something. I can (and do) point out logical flaws in theories and debunk accepted facts, but I cannot disprove a buried treasure. On the other hand, it's quite easy to conclusively prove the existence of a treasure...but someone has to dig that treasure up in order to do so, and to date, no one has, but certainly not for lack of trying.



Since you mentioned it, I will as well: the Templar theory is an example of what happens when someone gets an idea and then attempts to find evidence to prove it, rather than evaluating the evidence and then forming a theory to explain it. Evaluating the evidence (such as it is, or is believed to be) supports the original pirate treasure theory, even though pirates seldom if ever buried their treasure. One must discard a lot of the existing "evidence" (including the original story, and thus the whole reason why anyone took any interest in Oak Island in the first place!) and engage in some serious speculation to make the Templar thing work. And even then, I still can't think of a good reason to bury something that deep, so we're still left with bad logic.

Why do people get attacked here? I don't think that this happens very much. The mods don't tolerate it. However, my own bias may be causing me to miss it when it happens, so I'll take it for granted that it's a thing. It may be because the debunker has debunked the same set of "facts" on a weekly basis for years, often presented by the same people. At that point, it's a people problem, not a documentation problem. The fact that people are forming theories about what's buried and who put it there, when nothing has been found and no strong evidence exists to suggest that something is there in the first place...well, it's all a bit silly when you think about it. The theories about what's there and how it got there are probably better saved for when that "what" is actually found. Otherwise, we're discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and what color their wings are. When I point out that we haven't found a pin and that angels probably don't exist, that's not me being a jerk; that's me thinking critically and asking questions that ought to be asked. Solid theories survive peer review.

I don't recall being unduly harsh on anyone, but I would not be surprised in the least if I have been. Point out a specific example and I'll explain why I said what I said.

I will go along with most of your theories about treasure but when it comes to Angels, I will definitely say you have a wrong theory and you are very much wrong. And if you want proof of Angels, just look when a child is born, look at everything lovely in your life and in your world. I guarantee you Angels exist and if we were where we could talk opening about such things, I can definitely prove it to you.

 

[Raparee]

Since you mentioned it, I will as well: the Templar theory is an example of what happens when someone gets an idea and then attempts to find evidence to prove it, rather than evaluating the evidence and then forming a theory to explain it.

Absolutely. Mind if I steal this quote?

 

[franklin]

You can steal all you want but still doesn't make it right because it sounds that way. The Templar's had been all up and down the coast of North America even into Florida long before Christopher Columbus. CC's father in law left him all of the maps of the upper islands and the coast line to Florida. He knew where America was located and how long it was going to take for him to get here. Made a deal with his crew not to turn back because he knew when land was going to be sited.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Ha ha ha… Sorry I nearly peeed myself laughing. NO DOCUMENTATION of templers ever visiting OI has been offered. As for documentation of them burying treasure there.. Really are you just trying to wind people up? Thanks for the laugh......

I should of been more clear. Sources and possible answers is what I should of used.

I am not trying to wind anyone up. i am trying to turn this into an actual debate rather than a "he said she said" and "Here's what I think".

Dave:
We can't really prove too much about the actual money pit. However, are there any records of treasure being buried? How deep? Could a pit be dug that deep for that time period? If I was debating, this type of evidence would be the type I would present.

Logically, I agree with you. It's outlandish to bury something that deep, however, that's just speculation.

I can turn this around. Where is the proof that there's a treasure there in the first place?

You can, IF I made the claim.So to turn it around on me is a waste of time. I made no such statements. However, if someone else did, then by all means ask for their proof to back their statement.

What I meant by attack is not in the hostile form. The classic stratagem for a person that can't support their side of the argument tries to dilute the credibility of the presenter.

I have been nothing but polite in trying to make this a debate rather than a theory-fest. I would ask the same. if you feel I am trying to incite people, i will end my my inquiries and formulations.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Just because it was possible does not follow that it was done on Oak Island. The Catholic Church had a Pope at the time but it does not follow that Oak Island had a Pope on site. Or that he visited it.

But you can't prove that a Pope never visited Oak Island.

Rather than an "actual debate" lets try a "factual debate." What are the facts?

NOTHING found on Oak Island to date indicates that treasure was present.

Why else would anyone dig (supposedly) a hole that deep? We know several guys who tried that were LOOKING for treasure. And found none.

 

[Dave Rishar]

I will go along with most of your theories about treasure but when it comes to Angels, I will definitely say you have a wrong theory and you are very much wrong. And if you want proof of Angels, just look when a child is born, look at everything lovely in your life and in your world. I guarantee you Angels exist and if we were where we could talk opening about such things, I can definitely prove it to you.

What color are their wings? How many can dance on the head of a pin?

I once had the opportunity to assist in delivering a child. To keep the story short, I was working security for a concert and a woman went into labor. This was back in the dark days before cell phones, so while someone went to find a phone to get an ambulance, a few of us security people sort of wound up assisting as we could. Fortunately the process is more or less automatic, as we had no idea what we were doing, but it had been concluded successfully by the time the paramedics showed up. While fascinating, it's actually quite a bit more horrific than people that have not directly assisted in one may understand.

A few months back, I finally made the trip to Cape Flattery. For those that don't know, when you go north and west in Washington state until you run out of Washington, you are at Cape Flattery - a rocky forested outcropping jutting over wave-beaten cliffs, with Tattoosh Island visible off in the distance and the Pacific Ocean stretching on to what seems to be infinity. It was a clear, sunny day and was one of the loveliest things that I've ever seen. It was certainly the most beautiful thing that I've seen this year, and I say this as a guy that lives in the beautiful part of a beautiful state, and enjoys road trips to see beautiful things. It's a long drive that's not on the way to anywhere, but it's a drive that I'll gladly make again.

Both of these events shared something in common: no angels were in attendance.

Absolutely. Mind if I steal this quote?

Not at all.

You can steal all you want but still doesn't make it right because it sounds that way. The Templar's had been all up and down the coast of North America even into Florida long before Christopher Columbus. CC's father in law left him all of the maps of the upper islands and the coast line to Florida. He knew where America was located and how long it was going to take for him to get here. Made a deal with his crew not to turn back because he knew when land was going to be sited.

I don't even know where to begin with this statement.

I have been nothing but polite in trying to make this a debate rather than a theory-fest. I would ask the same. if you feel I am trying to incite people, i will end my my inquiries and formulations.

Did I come off that way? It certainly wasn't my intention. We may be talking past one another.

 

[franklin]

Just because it was possible does not follow that it was done on Oak Island. The Catholic Church had a Pope at the time but it does not follow that Oak Island had a Pope on site. Or that he visited it.

But you can't prove that a Pope never visited Oak Island.

Rather than an "actual debate" lets try a "factual debate." What are the facts?

NOTHING found on Oak Island to date indicates that treasure was present.

Why else would anyone dig (supposedly) a hole that deep? We know several guys who tried that were LOOKING for treasure. And found none.

Maybe this will prove to you that the treasures of the Knight's Templar were buried on Oak Island?

https://screenshots.firefox.com/LiqpzkeoAVQ8rxfh/www.facebook.com

According to Google Earth would be almost 7 nautical miles NE of Oak Island, Nova Scotia.

 

[Raparee]

Maybe this will prove to you that the treasures of the Knight's Templar were buried on Oak Island?

https://screenshots.firefox.com/LiqpzkeoAVQ8rxfh/www.facebook.com

According to Google Earth would be almost 7 nautical miles NE of Oak Island, Nova Scotia.

Pointing statues and secret codes. Nope.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Maybe this will prove to you that the treasures of the Knight's Templar were buried on Oak Island?

https://screenshots.firefox.com/LiqpzkeoAVQ8rxfh/www.facebook.com

According to Google Earth would be almost 7 nautical miles NE of Oak Island, Nova Scotia.

Mmmmmm. No.

IF, the D & M mean degrees & minutes,

IF the letters are code for numbers and decoded properly Maybe the "D" and "M" are coded as well? (I don't understand the "mirror image" reference - maybe they should be digging in the Steppes of Russia?)

O 6
U 3
O 6
S 1
V 4
A 1 (WAIT A MINUTE - you just claimed S = "1" Ooops).
V 4
V 4



IF the measurement is angles and minutes it still only narrows down the region to within 1.15 miles. There are 360 islands in Mahone Bay, plus 1/2 mile onto the mainland by being that unspecific.

IF we assume it was based on London being the Prime Meridian. Greenwich - Royal Observatory Prime was established in 1884, prior to that it was centered on whatever home capital a country chose. England started using Greenwich Observatory's base point in 1851. Maps prior to 1884 would state on the borders where the prime meridian was based (i.e. London, Paris, Rome, etc)

IF there is any affiliation between Shugborough Hall and any treasure to be buried (Templar or otherwise). Why not bury it at the site of that sculpture? That's outlasted anything on Oak Island.

IF the Templars kept any treasure intact after 1304, or had much prior.

IF they (whoever "they were") decided to bury it rather than keep it handy and available.

And THEN - IF they returned later and removed it.

Way too speculative. Far too many "IFs" connected with no proof. I remain unconvinced.

 

[franklin]

Mmmmmm. No.

IF, the D & M mean degrees & minutes,

IF the letters are code for numbers and decoded properly Maybe the "D" and "M" are coded as well? (I don't understand the "mirror image" reference - maybe they should be digging in the Steppes of Russia?)

O 6
U 3
O 6
S 1
V 4
A 1 (WAIT A MINUTE - you just claimed S = "1" Ooops).
V 4
V 4



IF the measurement is angles and minutes it still only narrows down the region to within 1.15 miles. There are 360 islands in Mahone Bay, plus 1/2 mile onto the mainland by being that unspecific.

IF we assume it was based on London being the Prime Meridian. Greenwich - Royal Observatory Prime was established in 1884, prior to that it was centered on whatever home capital a country chose. England started using Greenwich Observatory's base point in 1851. Maps prior to 1884 would state on the borders where the prime meridian was based (i.e. London, Paris, Rome, etc)

IF there is any affiliation between Shugborough Hall and any treasure to be buried (Templar or otherwise). Why not bury it at the site of that sculpture? That's outlasted anything on Oak Island.

IF the Templars kept any treasure intact after 1304, or had much prior.

IF they (whoever "they were") decided to bury it rather than keep it handy and available.

And THEN - IF they returned later and removed it.

Way too speculative. Far too many "IFs" connected with no proof. I remain unconvinced.

"A" and "S" = 1 also "J" = 1 why because you place 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 with the alphabet below them then "A" "J" "S" all line up under 1.

I know this won't convince you either. If I laid the Knight's Templar treasure in your hand you would still say I need more?

Also consider your history book. The "Pilgrims say they came over to escape religious persecution? And the history book says the same. The "Pilgrims" were from Holland they were not persecuted for their religion. Still not convinced what about all the men that signed the Magna Carta. They have in that document that King James was Defender of the Faith. If "Defender of the Faith" where is the persecution?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"A" and "S" = 1 also "J" = 1 why because you place 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 with the alphabet below them then "A" "J" "S" all line up under 1.

What do you make believe stood in for 0 (zero)? No wonder the treasure is lost. ;-)

I know this won't convince you either. If I laid the Knight's Templar treasure in your hand you would still say I need more?

Try me. It would be treasure and I would be convinced it had value. The proof of the Templars having owned it at some time, or placed it where found would require a visit to the evidence found with it.

"Defender of the Faith" because the English Monarch is(was) the head of the Church of England. Appointed by God by virtue of who screwed who and all that rot. How about: Mongols, Catholics, Muslins, Zorasters, Idolators, and anyone who didn't pay taxes or royalties to England. The usual.

The Puritans were in disagreement with the Protestant Church of England. So neither the Catholics nor the Protestants much liked them. No one did. They were jerks. Look how horribly they behaved once they got to America.

My maternal ancestors came from Holland/Netherlands and settled in New Netherland in Heemstede. Now Hempstead, NY. They were Dutch Reformed Church (Protestant). Never did get along with the Puritans.

And, what have Puritans got to do with Oak Island, Templars, treasure or ANYTHING? Focus, focus.

 

[franklin]

All of the History of everything from the time of the Knight's Templar to the burial at Oak Island, to the recovery of the treasure to where the treasure is today is all clearly laid out in my mind. The old history of Europe prove everything exist and was took to Scotland. Left Scotland from Rosalyn Chapel to Oak Island according to decipherments of books that were printed during the time of Sir Francis Bacon. The King James Holy Bible takes over after that and the Declaration of Independence tells where all of the treasures are today. All of the codes have been broken, if not by myself, by other researchers and I have verified their work by reworking all of them and proving them to myself. Now if you can not figure any of this out maybe you should research and read more on the subject. Want to buy the books I have bought. I do not need them anymore. My work is finished.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

No, thanks. I'm not particularly religious but thinking the KJV is constructed around a code is the wildest of any hypothesis on the Island so far. You win.

But I still have to ask - was the same code in the earlier consolidation of the Old Testament books and Gospels and New Testament books, especially the two earlier versions in English?

 

[franklin]

Yes. It has been there in all the different languages ever since God gave Moses the first five books of the Holy Bible. Amazing. I believe with all my heart and soul that God placed it there for us to find one day. God has kept up with everything even from the Beginning to Today and in to our last day. The Holy Relics and the Knight's Templar's Treasure burial was planned before the World itself was made.

Count the periods and the commas on the First Page of Genesis and add them to the Last Page of Revelation. You will come up with 151. Now add the Standard English Gematria for Christ Jesus.