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

[Tom_in_CA]

... "I want to find where they lead".....

Lead to WHAT ??

Wait! You can't have it "both ways". Either you do believe they: Lead/point " to treasure", or you "don't believe" they could point to a treasure."

Do you SEE why I am having a hard time believing that (let's be honest), this isn't all .......... at the end of the day ....... about "treasure" ??

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[n2mini]

Correct. Which is why I say: "It's not proof"



Uuuhhh, ok..... and nor can you prove it DID happen. Thus , there's no "proof" (ie.: the "1%" ) on either side. Right ?



Because I am fascinated with treasure-legend psychology. Ever since I got caught up in a treasure(s) hunt in the early 1990s, to "certain treasures" in Mexico (another hot-bed of treasure legends). After that experience, I began to ask myself: "Why did the story sound so compelling at the beginning?" "Why/how is the story spun/told in the way it is?".

And also the methods that my well-meaning/sincere host was advocating for our soon-to-be treasure hunt (eg.: LRL's etc...). I had utterly no answer for. He showed me the compelling advertisements for wands that could "find gold and silver to XX feet deep" and "xx miles away". Heck, pretty hard to argue with pictures where some dude is posed next to the jar of coins he just found. Right ? Hence: My interest began.

To answer your top to replies the believers have 1 of the original 3's family member who claims they did find treasure.. ( granted we don't all believe this ) You have nothing to support your claim other then to call them a liar.. Yes neither one of us can prove anything either way. Just as if I told you I found a 100 dollar bill in the road this morning even if I took a pic of it and sent it to you I can't prove I did find it as I claim I did. You'll say for me to prove it and you know I can't... This is my take on the difference as far as the discussions on here between the Skeptics & Believers. The believers like to discuss what has been found and what hasn't and what it might mean and or who might have left what, what they'd like to see done next. The Skeptics on here just want to say prove it, that doesn't mean anything and no way that is real etc etc... There is no way to carry on a conversation with ya'll. We all know that neither side can prove much of anything at this point and none of us have ever even been to the island much less dug or found anything on it...

 

[lokiblossom]

about a sled(s) ? I believe I answered that. I told you that , yes, I can grant every single detail about "sleds". I can grant "fibers". And little-boys-who-saw lights. And a gold link, etc.... Every single detail about the story can be true and mysterious. Hence: What haven't I answered ??

And since neither of us believes all those details point-to-treasure, then .... I guess we're on the same page, eh ?

That's where your screwed up because not everybody is on the same page, certainly not me. Of course I can't answer for everybody, but myself, i would just like to prove a group of Templars visited Nova Scotia in 1308. Little boys who saw lights is too late a period, a gold link maybe, a lead cross is also a maybe. A 100 foot deep hole is almost certainly not. Fibres, if indeed coconut and dated to the period would be pretty good evidence. Holes drilled in rocks around the beach, could have been used by Norse who were known to have used drilled rocks with iron inserts as temporary anchors, but Templars could have done the same. A documented stone cross pointing a certain direction is also a possibility.

We have found a site near Annapolis Basin that I believe is from a Templar presence by using some interesting information. Also interesting is the fact that Samuel Champlain visited the area in 1604 looking for a site for a settlement, sending some men ashore near that same location including his Priest. When they returned the Priest supposedly left his sword behind and went back for it becoming lost in the area for two weeks. By chance some of the crew were in the area later and saw the Priest waving from shore. Although the name of that Priest is known, very little else is known about him. For some reason that story doesn't seem to make much sense. During that same two year period another very well known Priest before he became famous was supposedly captured by pirates and kept for two years then escaping by converting one of his Muslim captors. Could that have been the same Priest and had he been looking for something? Did Champlain know about it? Champlain also found a cross along the Bay of Fundy in a location not known to have been visited by Europeans. In 1605 Champlain established his settlement in,"YEP",Annapolis Basin.

Champlain also a little earlier the same voyage had sailed down the Southern Shore of Nova Scotia noting and naming every little bay and island even naming one after his Mother, but sailed right by Mahone Bay with no mention of it.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Re.: Tom_in_CA's claim that to say "There was possibly a treasure [hence can't say there is no O.I. treasure], yet it was simply found 100+ yrs. ago" :

... You have nothing to support your claim other then to call them a liar.....

1) NEITHER of us has any thing to "support or our claim". However, by the same token, if that is the case, then NEITHER of us has "proof". Right ? Ie.: that finger points both ways, right ?

2) I have REPEATEDLY gone on record saying that ... in the case of treasure legends and unconventional TH'ing methods/beliefs, that NO ONE IS LYING. Everyone is QUITE SINCERE. But ..... dude, .... haven't you read some of the "treasure found" posts, even here on T'net, that ...... once you study into them deeper (cross-examine the claimant), you find out that the definition of "found" , is to have honed down a suspected treasure to a certain cave, meadow, lake-bottom, etc..... And now it's just a matter of getting equipment to dig deep enough, overcoming govt. hurdles, etc.... Yet, rest assured , they "found" a treasure. Eh ? All depends on how you define "found" and "find", eh ? But at no time are they anything less than 100% sincere.

Or like in the case of my other post: That construction worker, was NOTHING LESS THAN SINCERE, right ? Ie.: he wasn't LYING, right ?

...Just as if I told you I found a 100 dollar bill in the road this morning even if I took a pic of it and sent it to you I can't prove I did find it as I claim I did. You'll say for me to prove it and you know I can't,,...

Well, gee, let's take this illustration method a bit further, to be EVEN MORE believable : If I told you I farted this morning, I guess it would be highly suspect to be a false statement, unless I could "prove" it to another person . Eh ? I mean, C'mon dude: finding a $100 bill, or farting, versus "finding a fabulous treasure on a remote speck of island" ? And once a legend evolution is going, then it's ONLY NATURAL for there to be variants of the story that ...... yes ......... like this ....... will suggest that it's been found already. Go look at ANY treasure-legend (Yamashita, Lost Dutchman, pearl ship, etc....), and the lore is equally filled with stories of "persons who probably already found it".

.... We all know that neither side can prove much of anything at this point ...

But one thing we CAN do: Is show "more plausible explanations" and "psychology evolution of treasure-legends".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... not everybody is on the same page, ....

Loki, Looking over your post # 1903, then everything you're saying there is about history of there, and other places. Not of the necessity or notion of those things necessarily pointing to "treasures". In which case, yes, we're on the same page. Not every oddity, or little-boy-story-legend points to "treasure".

Landscapes, across the USA, are FILLED with "fibers" and "uncanny squiggles" and "cross that seem to point a certain direction" and "windows that cast a shadow on a certain spot at 2:03pm on the eastern solstice day", and "gold links found " (just take a quick look at any beach md'ing forum, if you want to see "gold links found" accounts), a winches from trees, and depressions in the ground, and logs, and U's, etc.... I can walk a 5 mile radius from my house, and construct ALL THE SAME sorts of conjectures too, if I stood on one foot, squinted, and thought real hard. Yet.......would not , of necessity, point to treasure. Curious and history ? SURE ! But treasure ? Where's the proof ?

 

[PirateLabs]

Loki, Looking over your post # 1903, then everything you're saying there is about history of there, and other places. Not of the necessity or notion of those things necessarily pointing to "treasures". In which case, yes, we're on the same page. Not every oddity, or little-boy-story-legend points to "treasure".

Landscapes, across the USA, are FILLED with "fibers" and "uncanny squiggles" and "cross that seem to point a certain direction" and "windows that cast a shadow on a certain spot at 2:03pm on the eastern solstice day", and "gold links found " (just take a quick look at any beach md'ing forum, if you want to see "gold links found" accounts), a winches from trees, and depressions in the ground, and logs, and U's, etc.... I can walk a 5 mile radius from my house, and construct ALL THE SAME sorts of conjectures too, if I stood on one foot, squinted, and thought real hard. Yet.......would not , of necessity, point to treasure. Curious and history ? SURE ! But treasure ? Where's the proof ?

Tom: I already found that treasure located within 5 miles of your house. All I did was to follow all of the signs and symbols and rumors and...there it was. Well...at least I KNOW where to dig once I get some equipment and some backers. Thanks for the tips, ha ha.

Bill

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom: I already found that treasure located within 5 miles of your house. All I did was to follow all of the signs and symbols and rumors and...there it was. Well...at least I KNOW where to dig once I get some equipment and some backers. Thanks for the tips, ha ha.

Bill

Haha, no doubt it was the "turtle" marker clues, that led you to the spot, right ?

Ok, call in the LEO's. Wave your magic wands around, and make a big stink about the "6 tons of gold buried there". So that, of course, you can get all the required permits to tear up the roads and sidewalk to get it. And then once the LEO's and city and county and utility Co. says "no", then ...... you know what that means don't you ? It is the proof that they know the treasure is there, and want to keep it for themselves.

And if you FINALLY get to dig, and nothing is there, you know what that means don't you ? It means those durned LEO people must've come and dug it in the night. Or that someone came years ago and got it. It will NEVER mean that "a treasure wasn't there".

Good thing we got all them turtle clues !

 

[will7782]

Lead to WHAT ??

Wait! You can't have it "both ways". Either you do believe they: Lead/point " to treasure", or you "don't believe" they could point to a treasure."

Do you SEE why I am having a hard time believing that (let's be honest), this isn't all .......... at the end of the day ....... about "treasure" ??

exactly the point, tom. WHERE??. I am not convinced it is treasure. stop telling me that I am.

I starting to think that you are just arguing to argue.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

exactly the point, tom. WHERE??. I am not convinced it is treasure. stop telling me that I am.

I starting to think that you are just arguing to argue.

Ok, I see your point. But keep in mind, that it doesn't necessarily have to "lead" to or "mean" anything. Eh ? For example: I can take a walk , for an hour, all around my neighborhoods where I live. And I can take pictures of various landscape features. Eg.: perfect circles (paver stones). Squiggles on rocks (graffiti that kids left), Rectangles (the planks on the neighbor's fence), the big dipper (by looking up in the night sky), fibers, etc... But as you can probably agree, all of them would lead to and mean NOTHING .

Right ? So too , IMHO, does the O.I. lead to and mean nothing at all, except random landscape features.

But since all such features at O.I. have historically been told in the context of "treasure", then you can see why ... when someone says "where does it lead ?", that it's easy to think that they hope for "treasure".

 

[PirateLabs]

Haha, no doubt it was the "turtle" marker clues, that led you to the spot, right ?

Ok, call in the LEO's. Wave your magic wands around, and make a big stink about the "6 tons of gold buried there". So that, of course, you can get all the required permits to tear up the roads and sidewalk to get it. And then once the LEO's and city and county and utility Co. says "no", then ...... you know what that means don't you ? It is the proof that they know the treasure is there, and want to keep it for themselves.

And if you FINALLY get to dig, and nothing is there, you know what that means don't you ? It means those durned LEO people must've come and dug it in the night. Or that someone came years ago and got it. It will NEVER mean that "a treasure wasn't there".

Good thing we got all them turtle clues !

Everything is under control, for the moment. Right now, I am trying to ship in some coconut fibers for these damn elephants. You have any idea how much these things can eat? It is a lot I can tell you. Also, it does not stay inside them forever, if you know what I mean. I need a bulldozer but not for digging.

Bill

 

[Robot]

Congratulations Will!..You Are Now Understanding..Who..Tom.In.Ca...Actually Is!

I starting to think that you are just arguing to argue.

Polemic (polemicist) or Controversialist.

polemic (noun): A person who argues or writes in opposition to another, or who takes up a controversial position; a controversialist. Cf. polemicist n. [OED]
polemicist (noun): An author of polemics; a controversialist. [OED]

---

controversialist (noun): a person who likes to disagree with other people and say things that make people angry or think about a subject [Cambridge]
​

debater
a person who disputes; who is good at or enjoys controversy
eristic
2. a person who engages in disputation
the art or practice or debate or argument
gainsay
Gainsay comes from an Old English word that means "contradict" or "say against," If you know someone who constantly corrects others, tells them that they're wrong, and says, "That's not true," more than anyone else, you have first-hand experience with the art of the gainsay.

 

[n2mini]

1) NEITHER of us has any thing to "support or our claim". However, by the same token, if that is the case, then NEITHER of us has "proof". Right ? Ie.: that finger points both ways, right ?

but I have the family members of 1 of the original 3 claiming they found it/something. Atleast admit you are calling them liars.. and if your not this was all over years ago...

 

[lokiblossom]

Everything is under control, for the moment. Right now, I am trying to ship in some coconut fibers for these damn elephants. You have any idea how much these things can eat? It is a lot I can tell you. Also, it does not stay inside them forever, if you know what I mean. I need a bulldozer but not for digging.

Bill

Are you Tom's Wife?

Cheers, Loki

 

[etex]

Haha, no doubt it was the "turtle" marker clues, that led you to the spot, right ?

Ok, call in the LEO's. Wave your magic wands around, and make a big stink about the "6 tons of gold buried there". So that, of course, you can get all the required permits to tear up the roads and sidewalk to get it. And then once the LEO's and city and county and utility Co. says "no", then ...... you know what that means don't you ? It is the proof that they know the treasure is there, and want to keep it for themselves.

And if you FINALLY get to dig, and nothing is there, you know what that means don't you ? It means those durned LEO people must've come and dug it in the night. Or that someone came years ago and got it. It will NEVER mean that "a treasure wasn't there".

Good thing we got all them turtle clues !

The FBI came and got it

 

[will7782]

Ok, I see your point. But keep in mind, that it doesn't necessarily have to "lead" to or "mean" anything. Eh ? For example: I can take a walk , for an hour, all around my neighborhoods where I live. And I can take pictures of various landscape features. Eg.: perfect circles (paver stones). Squiggles on rocks (graffiti that kids left), Rectangles (the planks on the neighbor's fence), the big dipper (by looking up in the night sky), fibers, etc... But as you can probably agree, all of them would lead to and mean NOTHING .

Right ? So too , IMHO, does the O.I. lead to and mean nothing at all, except random landscape features.

But since all such features at O.I. have historically been told in the context of "treasure", then you can see why ... when someone says "where does it lead ?", that it's easy to think that they hope for "treasure".

hey tom, you just solved several questions! great job! the round pavers came from home depot and were made at a casting plant ! those crazy drawing were done by the neighborhood degenerate vandal.


now, where did that sled come from ?


do you understand now?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... but I have the family members of 1 of the original 3 claiming they found it/something. Atleast admit you are calling them liars.. ..

n2mini, I have repeatedly said that :

1) In all these treasure legends (O.I. is no exception), that no one along the daisy chain is "lying". They are all very sincere. Read my example in the other thread. See how "no one was lying" (about the "found treasure"), EVEN when the source of info was scarcely 24 hrs. old . Ie.: so fresh that you'd have thought it CAN'T be subject to the telephone game. Yet, obviously, it was.

2) And I have repeatedly said, when it comes to people saying they "found" a treasure, that you can see MANY examples, here on T'net, where that exact same language (ie.: the "found" word) is used. Yet when you study it further (engage them in back-&-forth forum discussion), you begin to see that they haven't actually FOUND (past tense) ANYTHING. Instead, they've pinpointed a location, and now it's simply a matter of retrieving it. Eg.: getting a detector that goes 6 meters deep, or over-coming govt. hurdles, etc.... Yet in their mind's eyes, they've "found" a treasure.

In fact, that is going on RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK (by another legend that I am not allowed to mention by name). And others that I can point to in the archives of other legends. And in each case: The proponent(s) is/are QUITE sincere in their use of the word "found". They are not "lying". And ... I guess, it's all in how you define the word "found". Eh ? That might be a factor in your ".... family member found such & such...."

Personally, I say that's an incorrect grammatical use of the word "found". The better wording would be "looking for" and possibly "very close", or "honed down", etc.... But to say "found", implies that you have the stuff right there that you found.

3) If that is not the type "found" that those "family members" you refer to, are guilty of, then I have another factor to point out: To point back to someone, that supposedly 150 or 200 yrs. ago "found" something, is to be "pointing to the legend to prove the legend". Ie.: circular. Because even those parts of the story about "... found..." are merely more of the legend itself. Which is fine. But just be aware, that it' merely pointing to the story, to prove the story-circular.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The FBI came and got it

Notice I carefully chose the words "LEO", instead of "FBI". So as not to be seen as guilty of alluding to another ... uh ... never mind

 

[n2mini]

If they did find any kind of treasure as the family members say. They did "find" it, as they were "looking" for it, and at that point, the treasure has been "found". Done, gone, spent at this point in time... everybody else is "looking" for more /other treasure... as I think the original did along the way or why buy up property on the island as a couple of them did...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... do you understand now?

Good job. To show that my example doesn't hold merit. Since, of course, all those mundane routine things that I list, can be SHOWN to have innocent explanations. Credit to you for dismantling my point in this way. Ok, let's examine that:

Needless to say, in my example, I have INCLUDED IN THE VERY EXAMPLE, the "mundane innocuous non-treasure " explanations. And anyone can still walk out there, tomorrow, look at the same things, and equally conclude "they mean nothing".

HOWEVER, can you see that the same level-of-scrutiny can NOT be done @ Oak Island's salacious details. No one can go out and start-over, dig the supposed original pit, to see the supposed layers, see the supposed winch, see the supposed "curious lights", study the supposed gold link, fibers, etc.... All we have is the "legend", we do not have the "mundane innocuous" explanations that all-of-it might have had (eg.: telephone game, uncanny things that meant nothing at all, etc...).

NONE of them can be cross-examined, in the same way that my neighborhood illustration can be cross-examined. Right ?

A skeptic can toss out *possible* explanations (that show it likely has nothing to do with treasure). Sure. But then guess what happens when the poor skeptic tries to do that ?? You know all too well what will happen next: Wack-a-Mole game. Eg.: 20 pages of debates over fibers, the ocean currents that might or might not carry them. Their buoyancy rate. African fibers vs India fibers. Blah blah blah blah. It will never end. Because the proponent starts with the assumption "the story/treasure is true", and then merely works BACKWARDS, to "fill in all the blanks". And as long as any of the odd details can be shown, by some crazy technological feat, or some conspiratorial reason of history, to have a shred of remote contingent possibility, then ...... Presto: The ball is punted back to the skeptic's court. And so forth , and so on, till infinity, the wack-a-mole game goes.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... as the family members say.....

A very revealing quote from you : "... as the family members say....".

Ok, and where do we have recorded that the family members "said" that ? We all know that this is from where ? Drumroll: The legend. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY IT'S NOT A TRUE FACTOID. But you have to admit that: It's merely the vicious circle of "pointing to the legend to prove the legend".

If we start with the premise that the "legend is gospel true" and couldn't *possibly* have been subjected to innocent telephone game, mundane explanations, etc.... Then yes, the "found" part is gospel true. But since when is that ? Why this starting premise ? I have no more ability to DISPROVE it, as you do to PROVE it. Right ?