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

[Robot]

Things...Are The Mysteries Of Life!

Robot, you still have not answered what are the "things".

How many have wondered what is inside of a...Golf Ball!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[b3y0nd3r]

What's the "mystery" ? Maybe there's no "mystery" at all . That all the conjectures is merely : Relying on legends-to-prove-legends. And "uncanny things" and "salacious details" can be found ANYWHERE on planet earth . If you let your imagination roam long enough. That mean absolutely nothing. I can walk a mile from my house and find all sorts of conspiracy theory uncanny symbols, markers, depressions, squiggles, a gold link, a fiber, etc.....



Yup. Durned those Freemasons after all. The dry holes is all-the-more-proof of treasure after all. The perpetual finding of "nothing", is all-the-more proof of treasure. Because of course; We all know those crafty suspicious clever Freemasons would set out decoy clues. Anticipating those future would-be TH'rs.

Thus: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper. It's NEVER that there's no treasure . Right ?

So what's the mystery? Who built it, why, how, when, take your pick.

Relying on legends? So says you. Believers have eyewitness testimony, which hasn't been dis-proven in hundreds of years!

I know, I keep saying eyewitness testimony...and here is just one document:

http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/blairstory.pdf

Lets take the structures in Smith's cove. These were built because...they just felt like building something? There must of been a reason. Your logic proves the box drains did exist. Constructing those structures without knowing there were drains is like building a bridge, and not being sure there is a reason to build one and that is plain illogical.

Of course it could all be an elaborate CONSPIRACY to bilk people out of their money...but your type don't believe in conspiracies...right?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So what's the mystery? Who built it, why, how, when, take your pick....

And as I said: I can walk a mile radius from my house, and construct a "mystery" too. I can find uncanny things that you wouldn't be able to prove the source of. Mysterious symmetrical objects. A squiggle. A drain hole. A fiber. A link. A depression in the ground, etc... And I can even find eye-witnesses who said things in the past, or saw things in the present, etc.... And then insist that all this means "treasure".

And as long as I keep labeling it a "mystery", and as long as a skeptic can't prove it DOESN'T mean "treasure", then presto: The treasure is most-certainly there. Eh ?

....CONSPIRACY to bilk people out of their money ...

Nope. No one attempted to "bilk" anyone. No one "lied". I keep saying this over and over again : To disbelieve in a treasure legend is NOT to say "the people lied" (or "bilked", etc...).

ON THE CONTRARY : All the people, along the entire length of the daisy chain, firmly sincerely believe "treasure". They are nothing less than sincere. But .... we all know that "sincerity" and "belief" is not the measure of "truth". Right ? Otherwise, there are sincere people who think they are Napoleon. Or that they were abducted by aliens. Or that they saw Elvis yesterday. None of them is "lying". OK ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

And as I said: I can walk a mile radius from my house, and construct a "mystery" too. I can find uncanny things that you wouldn't be able to prove the source of. Mysterious symmetrical objects. A squiggle. A drain hole. A fiber. A link. A depression in the ground, etc... And I can even find eye-witnesses who said things in the past, or saw things in the present, etc.... And then insist that all this means "treasure".

And as long as I keep labeling it a "mystery", and as long as a skeptic can't prove it DOESN'T mean "treasure", then presto: The treasure is most-certainly there. Eh ?



Nope. No one attempted to "bilk" anyone. No one "lied". I keep saying this over and over again : To disbelieve in a treasure legend is NOT to say "the people lied" (or "bilked", etc...).

ON THE CONTRARY : All the people, along the entire length of the daisy chain, firmly sincerely believe "treasure". They are nothing less than sincere. But .... we all know that "sincerity" and "belief" is not the measure of "truth". Right ? Otherwise, there are sincere people who think they are Napoleon. Or that they were abducted by aliens. Or that they saw Elvis yesterday. None of them is "lying". OK ?

I would say something is/was there in your scenario. It doesn't have to be treasure. Some of us just want to know what happened.

So hundreds of people that were directly involved from the start all sincerely believed and were all wrong? Is that statistically possible? All those people lacked that infallible skeptical logic that is always right no matter what? Hard to believe. OR is it that there is enough evidence there to debunk the skeptical POV?

It's okay that you glossed over the evidence I presented so you can provide your consistent dissertation on human psychology and behavior. I didn't expect anything more

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I would say something is/was there in your scenario. It doesn't have to be treasure. Some of us just want to know what happened.....

But here's the problem: The entire reason for the crazy-interest in O.I. is NOT because of "cool logs", or "cool fibers" and "why they are/were there". On the contrary, the "something" (that everyone is hoping for, if they're honest) is: Treasure.

.... So hundreds of people that were directly involved from the start all sincerely believed and were all wrong?....

There were not "hundreds of people directly involved". It only takes one or a couple. Who become convinced that there is "probably a treasure" (d/t whatever it was they saw and whatever conclusions they drew). Ie.: the little boys (if the legend is to be believed). No one , after that, is part of the "directly involved" crowd. Everyone thereafter, all the way up to the Lagina Brothers, is simply going off those original person's sincerities. It's infectious ! You can't help but to believe a good treasure yarn. Hence you/we too are all "quite sincere". But we are not "directly involved".

....It's okay that you glossed over the evidence I presented ....

And you know EXACTLY why I don't engage in debates about the logs, fibers, links, salacious legend details, structures, drains, etc.... Because it will immediately devolve into the wack-a-mole game.

I could play the same wack-a-mole game for the things-I-can-find within a mile of my house. And .... likewise ... you too couldn't prove they *don't* mean treasure. Any "more plausible" explanation you could offer, for the things I find near my house, I could just come back (in the "game") to show a possible contingency. That .... it's *still* possible that it means treasure (given enough slaves, enough years, enough conspiracy motives, etc....). And at each turn, you would not be able to refute my hypotheticals. Isn't the wack-a-mole game wonderful ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

So hundreds of people that were directly involved from the start all sincerely believed and were all wrong? Is that statistically possible? All those people lacked that infallible skeptical logic that is always right no matter what? Hard to believe.

It is statistically likely because you have to include the billions of people on earth who felt it wasn't worth visiting the island at all. Only those who already felt there "was a chance" actually travelled to the island - so your sample was biased.

And so far the evidence (none) leans heavily towards that being the truth. 28 at bats, 28 strikeouts.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Only those who already felt...

And don't forget, that even those persons were not "directly involved" . They were all just "catching the zeal" of those that made the original musings. So ... there's not "hundreds directly involved", in the first place.

If the legend is to be believed: It's a few boys who started digging. Not "hundreds". Everyone else, since then ... is not "directly involved". Except to jump on the band-wagon, that someone else started.

 

[etex]

It is statistically likely because you have to include the billions of people on earth who felt it wasn't worth visiting the island at all. Only those who already felt there "was a chance" actually travelled to the island - so your sample was biased.

And so far the evidence (none) leans heavily towards that being the truth. 28 at bats, 28 strikeouts.

Why did it go into extra innings? 9 x 3 = 27

 

[b3y0nd3r]

And don't forget, that even those persons were not "directly involved" . They were all just "catching the zeal" of those that made the original musings. So ... there's not "hundreds directly involved", in the first place.

If the legend is to be believed: It's a few boys who started digging. Not "hundreds". Everyone else, since then ... is not "directly involved". Except to jump on the band-wagon, that someone else started.

Are you directly involved in this thread? Did you start this thread?

That's what I thought.

Same thing. If I show up at OI with a shovel looking for whatever, I am then directly involved. Us talking about it are not directly involved. I see we now have to argue semantics.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Why did it go into extra innings? 9 x 3 = 27

28 is the count of the seperate attempts or groups since 1795 who have searched, drilled, excavated or mined the island. That's from a time-line listed earlier.

 

[etex]

28 is the count of the seperate attempts or groups since 1795 who have searched, drilled, excavated or mined the island. That's from a time-line listed earlier.

So they have a no hitter going

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If I show up at OI with a shovel looking for whatever, I am then directly involved. ....

Hey there b3yOnd3r : "Semantics" ? Well, it's pretty easy : Look at this quote from your post # 2124

.... So hundreds of people that were directly involved from the start all sincerely believed and were all wrong? Is that statistically possible? All those people lacked that infallible skeptical logic that is always right no matter what? Hard to believe. ....

As you can see, from the bold italics above, the appeal to the truth of the story, was to point out "those involved from the start". As if to imply: "How could someone say that 100's of people, who were involved 'from the start', are all simply delusional ?"

Which, BTW, is a good debate point. Because you're right : It would be hard for "100s of eye-witnesses" to "all be mistaken" . After having seen the exact same thing. But in this case, it was 1 or 2 who started the whole conjecture (if the legend is to be believed). And mind you: They didn't see any "treasure" ... in the first place. It was only conjectures and musings, even from the beginning. Nor were there "100's".

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Hey there b3yOnd3r : "Semantics" ? Well, it's pretty easy : Look at this quote from your post # 2124



As you can see, from the bold italics above, the appeal to the truth of the story, was to point out "those involved from the start". As if to imply: "How could someone say that 100's of people, who were involved 'from the start', are all simply delusional ?"

Which, BTW, is a good debate point. Because you're right : It would be hard for "100s of eye-witnesses" to "all be mistaken" . After having seen the exact same thing. But in this case, it was 1 or 2 who started the whole conjecture (if the legend is to be believed). And mind you: They didn't see any "treasure" ... in the first place. It was only conjectures and musings, even from the beginning. Nor were there "100's".

"From the start" is a phrase that means from beginning to end(or current). You are thinking "At the start" which means everyone was there when the discovery was first made.

from the start-immediately when something begins and all the time after that.

at the start-beginning/start (of something)to be present or involved when something starts → in. be in at the beginning/start

You are confusing the two.

 

[Sager12]

Wow, thanks I love conspiracy and wonder how I haven't heard about The Oak Island mystery before. Just googled and found an awesome video - "Curse of Oak Island"

 

[Robot]

Welcome To The Show...Sager12

Wow, thanks I love conspiracy and wonder how I haven't heard about The Oak Island mystery before. Just googled and found an awesome video - "Curse of Oak Island"

Feel free to Post any Theories you might have!

 

[Robot]

Season 6...Episode 23...Have They Found The Tomb of...Sir Francis Bacon?

On Episode 22...The Lagina Brothers using Seismic Readings...Show a Cavern and Tunnel leading from it back to the Money Pit.



This aligns with My Star Map for the Freemasons.



Francis Bacon's Tomb...Star 1 CYG

What they do not show is... At this Apex...Is another Tunnel running "North" towards the...Real Treasure Vault!

 

[xaos]

yet season after season, year after year, decade after decade...nothing.

Wow, thanks I love conspiracy and wonder how I haven't heard about The Oak Island mystery before. Just googled and found an awesome video - "Curse of Oak Island"

I find it difficult to believe anyone over the age of 5 has not heard of the oak island scam.

Next episode, Lagina decides to drop the muppet look and shaves. Finds birthmark that is a map to the money pit....

Next time you its on, when they speak, watch their blink rate.....

​

 

[Tom_in_CA]

yet season after season, year after year, decade after decade...nothing.



I find it difficult to believe anyone over the age of 5 has not heard of the oak island scam. ....

"Scam" ?? How dare you call it that ! After all, you can't *prove* there's not a treasure there.

"Decade after decade" doesn't prove there's "nothing". That merely means: A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper. But at NO TIME is a treasure not most certainly there. Or that it *was* there, and simply removed in the past. But never never never are we to conclude: "No treasure".

 

[ECS]

...
The Zeno brother's Diary has now been verified as being Fact by the new book of genealogist and author, Diana Muir, and her finding of the "Lost Journals of Prince Henry Sinclair in 20 separate Journal Books in a basement in Greenville, Tennessee...

Muir used the Zeno narrative as a starting point for her series if books, even repeating some of the questionable misinformation found in the Zeno work, which in no way verifies the Zeno work "as being Fact".

 

[ECS]

You need to read Ralph de Sudeley's Journals and you will see that the Zeno narrative was for real.

Ralph de Sudeley's voyage to the New World as written in the Cremona Documents is another work of fiction similar to the Sinclair Journals and Zeno narrative that have NO contemporary documented supporting evidence that these adventures outside of their respective pages, and in no way can it be considered as proof that the Zeno work recorded a real voyage of the fictional character, Prince Zichmni.

*NOTE*: Ralph de Sudeley was a knight that served in the Holy Land during the Crusades, claimed to have discovered Holy Relics while there, brought them back to England and put them on display in his cabinet of curiosities museum, charged admission, and sold splinters of the True Cross as souvenirs.