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

[b3y0nd3r]

Regardless of the skeptics POV, the evidence is still there waiting to be debunked and they can't do it. All they can do you try to discredit the presenter/supporters of the evidence. So to my fellow believers of the evidence, I say stop! Because we are wasting our collective energy trying to defend evidence they can neither disprove, nor have the inclination to disprove.

On several occasions, the skeptics claim the burden of proof is on the person presenting the evidence of proof! Not only does that not make sense, but defeats the whole purpose of the argument/debate.

In other words, if I am in court accused of a robbery and I present a video that shows I was somewhere else at the time of the robbery, I would also have to prove that the video is real, then prove that my proof of the video is real, is real and on and on while the skeptic doesn't have to prove anything? You seriously think that anyone here is that stupid

IF I was a skeptic, I would run samples of the coconut fiber, interview the residents of the area, the crew of the show, Rick and Marty and anyone else I could. I would scour the internet for all scientific data contradicting the original account. Basically, do the foot work.

But, you won't see that. It's far easier for the skeptic to dismiss and to try to talk people out of believing. Use cookie-cutter examples and try to make it fit OI. Basically, the debate is no longer focused upon the evidence and they begin to resort to ad-hominem type attacks.

10 points awarded to the believers if Tom's rebuttal of this post contains, "whack-a-mole", "telephone game", "golden owl", the words "treasure", "eh", or "right?".

The term, "one trick pony" has a new meaning.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

.... They did "find" it, as they were "looking" for it, and at that point, the treasure has been "found"....

Re.: my example of "found", versus "looking for". It appears that you understand this grammatical game, that some people might consider a treasure "found", when in reality, they've only pinpointed a certain meadow, cave, lake-bottom, etc.... where they are certain a treasure lies. Thus in their mind's eyes, they've "found" it.

HOWEVER, you distance the story of O.I. from that psychological/grammatical phenomenon, by pointing out that the persons @ O.I. were first "looking for it", then "found" it. Thus excluding themselves from the possible morphing of definitions. Right ?

Here's the practical problem : SO TOO will every single one of those people, who have this crazy definition of "found", have the EXACT SAME EVOLUTION OF STEPS. They started off "looking for it". Then they "found" it. Yet as you can see, the mere fact that they started off "looking for it", does NOT change that the fact that later, when they announce "found", it can still be this skewed definition of "found".

And again I remind you, this is all sort of a moot point, since it's still merely pointing-to-the-legend, to prove the legend.

And I would like to point out, that what we have here, in the "found" vs "looking for", discussion, is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of wack-a-mole game, right-before-our-eyes.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

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 ?

BEEEEPP!! Sorry Tom, you already agreed that 99% of the story is true. You said this on several occasions. Therefore, by your own admission, the story is true.

No back-peddling allowed here!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... the evidence is still there waiting to be debunked .....

Good post b3y0nd3r. And everything you're saying would be 100% true, if we accept the starting premise that the "legend" = conclusive "evidence". As long as we start with that criteria of "evidence", then you're right . It's a closed case.

But since when is that the starting premise ? If this is our "standard of evidence" for the validity of treasure legends, then you must likewise accept that every-single-treasure-legend , is therefore valid and true. How do we know they are ALL valid and true ? Simple: show the details of the treasure legend itself. After all, the legend factoids are beyond dispute. They , in-&-of-themselves, constitute "evidence". They become the "starting pillar". Right ?

And no one can "disprove" them, because after all: We have STARTED with the implicit premise that : "they are true". Thus the legend believer needs-to-only continue to "point to the legend" as his "proof". See the vicious circle ?

Name your legend. ANY LEGEND, and you will see , among their adherents, that this will have to be true. And you can not conclude that any of them are silly, or have more plausible explanations. By your own standards, you would have to believe all of them (after all, the "legend" says it is so). Eg.: Lost Dutchman, Yamashita, Pearl ship, Peg Leg, Iron door, etc.... You can't have doubts about any of them. By your standards of "evidence", they too must all be true.

Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... No back-peddling allowed here!

Guilty as charged

 

[Raparee]

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.

Stones with holes in them were also dragged behind horses in order to break up clods in fields with a heavy clay soil. A bit more mundane possibility, but more probable, I'd say.

A documented stone cross pointing a certain direction is also a possibility.

I believe that it's also been documented that Fred Nolan had played around with the position of the stones in this 'cross'.

Champlain also found a cross along the Bay of Fundy in a location not known to have been visited by Europeans.

Reading Champlain's journal, I don't get the impression that Europeans had not explored that deep into the Bay. He was there investigating reports of native copper in the area. Reports that would have been made by the French.

In 1605 Champlain established his settlement in,"YEP",Annapolis Basin.

A good choice for a settlement, too. Tides aren't as high as they are further into the Bay. Good conditions for farming. Natives are friendly. Geographically it's an ideal location, being within easy reach of prime farming settlement areas in the upper Bay of Fundy and up the St. John River valley, not to mention fishing settlements along the South Shore. Again, a bit more mundane than Templar treasures, but much more probable.

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.

He was on the toilet when they passed Mahone Bay.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Good post b3y0nd3r. And everything you're saying would be 100% true, if we accept the starting premise that the "legend" = conclusive "evidence". As long as we start with that criteria of "evidence", then you're right . It's a closed case.

But you already have! However besides the point, the physical evidence found on the island backs the story. Putty, charcoal, old wood, and the now infamous coconut fibers are all mentioned in the original account and were found on the island. AND, if you say, "Well finding these things don't mean treasure", you are right. But, that doesn't mean anything. Because we are talking about the legend and there was no mention of found treasure in the account.

If you also say, "well anyone can find those things anywhere", then come over to good ole NE PA and find them. I guarantee you won't because none of the coal miners here, in hundreds of years, that dug shafts hundreds of feet into the ground and never found anything like what was found on OI.

But since when is that the starting premise ? If this is our "standard of evidence" for the validity of treasure legends, then you must likewise accept that every-single-treasure-legend , is therefore valid and true. How do we know they are ALL valid and true ? Simple: show the details of the treasure legend itself. After all, the legend factoids are beyond dispute. They , in-&-of-themselves, constitute "evidence". They become the "starting pillar". Right ?

10 points!

And no one can "disprove" them, because after all: We have STARTED with the implicit premise that : "they are true". Thus the legend believer needs-to-only continue to "point to the legend" as his "proof". See the vicious circle ?

Name your legend. ANY LEGEND, and you will see , among their adherents, that this will have to be true. And you can not conclude that any of them are silly, or have more plausible explanations. By your own standards, you would have to believe all of them (after all, the "legend" says it is so). Eg.: Lost Dutchman, Yamashita, Pearl ship, Peg Leg, Iron door, etc.... You can't have doubts about any of them. By your standards of "evidence", they too must all be true.

Right ?

another 10 points!

20 points not bad! But your circular arguments aside, this was fun, but it is getting tiresome. You have no proof to debunk. Give it up

 

[Raparee]

On several occasions, the skeptics claim the burden of proof is on the person presenting the evidence of proof! Not only does that not make sense, but defeats the whole purpose of the argument/debate.

In other words, if I am in court accused of a robbery and I present a video that shows I was somewhere else at the time of the robbery, I would also have to prove that the video is real, then prove that my proof of the video is real, is real and on and on while the skeptic doesn't have to prove anything? You seriously think that anyone here is that stupid

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. In a legal sense, if you are in court because the prosecution claims that you committed a robbery, the onus is on them to prove your guilt, not on you to prove your innocence. They claim that you're guilty; they have to prove it. In that same way, those people claiming that something spectacular happened on OI are required to provide evidence that would prove their case. They claim that there's treasure (or whatever) on OI; they have to prove it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

20 points not bad!....

Wow, you actually gave credence points and confirmed this ?

So let me understand this: You acknowledge that if the "standard of evidence", can be any "legend itself", then you acknowledge that ........ therefore ...... we can equally take ever single other treasure legend, as true. After all, they have their "legends too". And after all, the "evidence" can be the "legend itself". I am simply amazed.

Because I would have thought that even you can/could/would "roll your eyes" at the silly-ness of some of the legends that get tossed around. And see them as nothing more than ghost-story-camp-fire legends. But you are acknowledging that ... by your standards of O.I. "evidence", that they too are ... likewise ........ beyond dispute ? Very interesting concession on your part.

As for me having said in the past, that I can "grant" all the details (fibers, logs, little boys, gold links, U's, etc...) , "for sake of argument" : I can see that this has come back to haunt me now. Notice I said "for sake of argument" (but not necessarily that I agree). Because I was trying to point out (as it seems we agree) that none of them necessarily point to "treasure" anyhow. And then that sort of back-fired on me too. Because you and some other adherent's simply come back to ACTUALLY AGREE. And try to say that they're "only interested in the fibers, logs, links, finger drains", etc...

Anyhow ... You did a good job at making my words come back to bite me

 

[Tom_in_CA]

In the case of O.I., if the burden-of-proof is on the skeptic, and not the claimant, then let's try this out for size.

Tom_in_CA's statement: "I found $400 million in gold in my backyard"

Is that statement "automatically true", until someone comes along to DISPROVE it ? And if they can't DIS prove it, then ..... logically ...... it's gospel truth , eh ? If they say "show us", I can just say "well gee, it's a little more to the left, a little more to the right, a little deeper", and so on till infinity, eh ? But at no time is there not $400 million in my backyard that I "found", right ? If you say "that's impossible", or that the "logs probably mean something else", I can merely engage you in the wack-a-mole game.

At all points during the discussion of the "$400 million" in my back-yard (that I'm calling the media about, enlisting lawyers over, starting TV shows about, starting forums about, etc....), it is always beyond-dispute true. Why ? Simply because I said it, and no one can "dis"prove it, right ? Any attempt they make to disprove it, I can find some remote insane feat of physical insanity, conspiracy theories, etc... to "bat away" any skeptical push-back. And therefore "punt the ball back to their court". And it remains bullet-proof true, right ?

Ok, who's going to come to my backyard and dig ? I grant mining rights for $500 per hour. Hey, but don't worry: Since the $400 million is "beyond dispute", then ...... gee.... what's a piddly $500 on your part to come excavate it ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Wow, you actually gave credence points and confirmed this ?

So let me understand this: You acknowledge that if the "standard of evidence", can be any "legend itself", then you acknowledge that ........ therefore ...... we can equally take ever single other treasure legend, as true. After all, they have their "legends too". And after all, the "evidence" can be the "legend itself". I am simply amazed.

Because I would have thought that even you can/could/would "roll your eyes" at the silly-ness of some of the legends that get tossed around. And see them as nothing more than ghost-story-camp-fire legends. But you are acknowledging that ... by your standards of O.I. "evidence", that they too are ... likewise ........ beyond dispute ? Very interesting concession on your part.

As for me having said in the past, that I can "grant" all the details (fibers, logs, little boys, gold links, U's, etc...) , "for sake of argument" : I can see that this has come back to haunt me now. Notice I said "for sake of argument" (but not necessarily that I agree). Because I was trying to point out (as it seems we agree) that none of them necessarily point to "treasure" anyhow. And then that sort of back-fired on me too. Because you and some other adherent's simply come back to ACTUALLY AGREE. And try to say that they're "only interested in the fibers, logs, links, finger drains", etc...

Anyhow ... You did a good job at making my words come back to bite me

Tom, stating this right upfront: Regardless of what happens between you and I, I will always hold you(character and all(believe it or not)) in high regards and with deep respect.

Now back to the mental tug-o-war.

Good gravy...how does supporting one legend mean that I support all legends? Not only are you trying to dilute the debate by adding things that do not pertain to the debate, but also assassinate my credibility in the process by placing in a subtle context that I'm a loon because I believe every ghost story/legend that comes down the pipe simply because it exists. Won't work my dear Thomas.

I see by your previous statement you are more interested in the psychology of the believer than the actual OI phenomenon. Having finally understanding your POV on this subject and proven 99% of OI true, I will now just debate you on the psychological aspects of the believer/skeptic.

Driving this fact home, the skeptics have conceded that the OI story and all evidence is 99% true. This is a victory! LOL

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I will always hold you(character and all(believe it or not)) in high regards and with deep respect. ....

And I gave you the same accolades at the intro to my other post. And I meant it. I can tell if someone is not truly considering another's point of view. But for you: I can tell you at least read and try to formulate logical push-backs. To which I much respect about you as well.

......how does supporting one legend mean that I support all legends?....

If you follow back through our discussion, you would see how. I tried to point out to you, that if someone uses the details of a legend, as "proof of that legend", then that's simply circular. And if someone is DOING THAT, then they would likewise need to hold that same standard of "evidence" to all the other treasure legends floating around (Peg leg, Yamashita, Peal ship, lost Dutchman, etc...). They TOO have their "legends". So why isn't their own internal evidences (ie.: the "legend itself") sufficient as evidence to prove them ?

If you can agree that the other legends "salacious details" do not PROVE (as "adequate evidence"), their own stories, then why does O.I. get treated any different ? Why can the adherent merely triumphantly point to the "story", as proof of the story ? If that is "evidence", then SO TOO are all the other legends bullet-proof-beyond-dispute. Eh ?

.... Driving this fact home, the skeptics have conceded that the OI story and all evidence is 99% true. This is a victory! LOL

Now you have really made me regret ever having "granted that for sake of debate" . Doh!

 

[b3y0nd3r]

In the case of O.I., if the burden-of-proof is on the skeptic, and not the claimant, then let's try this out for size.

Tom_in_CA's statement: "I found $400 million in gold in my backyard"

Is that statement "automatically true", until someone comes along to DISPROVE it ? And if they can't DIS prove it, then ..... logically ...... it's gospel truth , eh ? If they say "show us", I can just say "well gee, it's a little more to the left, a little more to the right, a little deeper", and so on till infinity, eh ? But at no time is there not $400 million in my backyard that I "found", right ? If you say "that's impossible", or that the "logs probably mean something else", I can merely engage you in the wack-a-mole game.

At all points during the discussion of the "$400 million" in my back-yard (that I'm calling the media about, enlisting lawyers over, starting TV shows about, starting forums about, etc....), it is always beyond-dispute true. Why ? Simply because I said it, and no one can "dis"prove it, right ? Any attempt they make to disprove it, I can find some remote insane feat of physical insanity, conspiracy theories, etc... to "bat away" any skeptical push-back. And therefore "punt the ball back to their court". And it remains bullet-proof true, right ?

Ok, who's going to come to my backyard and dig ? I grant mining rights for $500 per hour. Hey, but don't worry: Since the $400 million is "beyond dispute", then ...... gee.... what's a piddly $500 on your part to come excavate it ?

You made the claim. I have two choices; Believe you or call you a liar. EVERYONE knows, if you call someone a liar, then you better have evidence to back it up. Correct? Therefore it falls on me to disprove you because, wait for it, I am skeptical of your claim.

This is so good to prove my point I just can't believe you presented it LOL So let's break this down bit by bit

Starting premise: "I found $400 million in gold in my backyard"

If I did believe.
I would say congrats, can I have some, and move on.

If I didn't believe.

First thing I would have to do, is gather information: Who, what, where, and when.

Once I know who it was, then I would find out out how credible the person is.

What the area is like.

Where the gold could of come from.

When he found it.

This may take months of hard work to do.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim 1. In a legal sense, if you are in court because the prosecution claims that you committed a robbery, the onus is on them to prove your guilt,2not on you to prove your innocence. They claim that you're guilty; they have to prove it. In that same way, those people claiming that something spectacular happened on OI are required to provide evidence that would prove their case. They claim that there's treasure3(or whatever) on OI; they have to prove it.

1: Correct! The claim here is> The story isn't true.

2: Correct! The skeptic IS the prosecution. As in prosecuting beliefs.

3: Now now! No where in the original story did they claim there was treasure.

Here is the OI story: You have two choices believe or not. If you don't believe then it's just like saying they are lying. If that's the case, prove they are lying.

 

[PirateLabs]

Are you Tom's Wife?

Cheers, Loki

I am not gay thank you very much. If you are, I suppose that is your choice but, I am not.

Bill

 

[Tom_in_CA]

b3y0nd3r, very interesting. You say:

.... I have two choices; Believe you or call you a liar. .....

I would say there is a 3rd choice: " mistaken, yet sincere". Hence Tom-in-CA has A) Not "lied" (since I sincerely believe there is a $400 million treasure in my yard), and B) You don't have any need to "believe" it, since, Tom is most-likely mistaken.

See how it's not 2 choices ? See how it's 3 choices ? So too can it be for O.I.

....This may take months of hard work to do.

Hmm, so going with the option of "If b3y0nd3r didn't believe", then you're saying that, in that case, the burden of proof WOULD be on you, do DIS prove it. Right ? In the same way that O.I. falls to the skeptic's to disprove. Ok, I'm with you so far.

And then you go on to list the various methods you might use to discredit my story, Right ? And then you conclude with:

....This may take months of hard work to do.

On the contrary. I propose that it will take an infinity. There's not a single shred of evidence, that you could propose as "more plausible explanations", that I couldn't effortlessly bat away. I could find some remote contingency, no matter HOW MANY DRY HOLES were dug in my yard, to explain away the apparent lack of evidence.

Just like O.I., it can never be done. The believer's will have some *possible* way, that a treasure exists at some insane depth. And any suggestions of the unlikelihood of it, will be met with a far-fetched remote possible way in which it *could* still be true. And the ball gets punted back to the skeptics. That's exactly what we see with O.I. (hence the term I invented "wack-a-mole").

So.by your own standard-of-evidence, the $400 million in my backyard is a meritorious claim, that is assumed true, till proven otherwise. You can never disprove it. In that case, my offer stands: $500 per hour mining claim rights. I'll even provide the beer and pretzels !

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Regardless of the skeptics POV, the evidence is still there waiting to be debunked and they can't do it. All they can do you try to discredit the presenter/supporters of the evidence.

If Oak Island were a murder trial so far there is no dead body, no missing person report, no weapon and no motive.

By "evidence" of a treasure you must be assuming that something other than any treasure itself is somehow valid evidence that treasure exists on Oak Island.

When that evidence - the treasure - is presented I will cease to be a skeptic. I will then freely admit I was wrong and the treasure can speak for itself.

But so far there does not seem to be anything to indicate a treasure of any kind is or was on the island.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... Now now! No where in the original story did they claim there was treasure...

Uhh, ok ... And no one here on this thread is claiming so either. Right ? Everyone, for the past 200+ yrs, just has this "fascination" with fibers, logs, drains, winches, little-boy-&-lights, U's, etc... That's all it is, right ? The 2 guys there now in the TV show are just interested in mariner history , logs, fibers, etc... Nothing at all to do with a hoped-for-treasure. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If Oak Island were a murder trial so far there is no dead body, no missing person report, no weapon and no motive.

....

They would probably say that all that "evidence" DOES exist. To carry forth the analogy, you have the sink-hole depression, with the winch-tackle above it (there's your smoking gun "weapon" of your analogy). You have the "missing person reports" : That is the various unaccounted for treasures-of-history (that no doubt ended up on O.I.). Eg.: templars, jesuits, freemasons, etc... And those sinister groups had "motives" too. And as for the "dead body" (which would be analogous to the "treasure"), well, ...... that doesn't mean it's not there. That either means A) someone already found it 150 yrs. ago, or B) a little more to the right, a little more to the left, a little deeper.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

They would probably say that all that "evidence" DOES exist. To carry forth the analogy, you have the sink-hole depression, with the winch-tackle above it (there's your smoking gun "weapon" of your analogy). You have the "missing person reports" : That is the various unaccounted for treasures-of-history (that no doubt ended up on O.I.). Eg.: templars, jesuits, freemasons, etc... And those sinister groups had "motives" too. And as for the "dead body" (which would be analogous to the "treasure"), well, ...... that doesn't mean it's not there. That either means A) someone already found it 150 yrs. ago, or B) a little more to the right, a little more to the left, a little deeper.

Not only does this show you have per-conceptions toward believers, but it clouds people's perception of your credibility. I expected better from you. Disappointing.

Also your quote:

"Uhh, ok ... And no one here on this thread is claiming so either. Right ? Everyone, for the past 200+ yrs, just has this "fascination" with fibers, logs, drains, winches, little-boy-&-lights, U's, etc... That's all it is, right ? The 2 guys there now in the TV show are just interested in mariner history , logs, fibers, etc... Nothing at all to do with a hoped-for-treasure. Right ? "

I want you to look carefully at this chain of events and explain to me how we got to your bolded statement above.

We were debating the legend. In the legend, no one mentioned they found a treasure(as in coins and jewels). The Canadian guy veers off course from the subject of the legend so I remind him that we(meaning you and I) weren't debating treasure but the legend. All off the sudden, for reason I could speculate as just wanting to defend him, the debate has turned into, "beyonder said no one here on this forum is claiming OI has any treasure". Geez. Give you an inch and you take the moon.

Baffling.