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

[b3y0nd3r]

b3y0nd3r, very interesting. You say:



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.

No. There isn't a third choice. It's my two choices, you don't get a choice in that scenario because you made the statement. Your ability to chose ended when the statement was made.

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:



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 !

Sure I most certainly can disprove it. I just have to present the most probable explanation...BASED ON FACTS backed with reputable evidence. Check your character, check your bank accounts, your spending habits. I just have to disprove it to myself.

See underlined.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

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.....

Well, yes, I have a preconception bias. I'll be the first to admit it. Namely: There is no treasure, nor ever was.

If the way I "paint" the proposed proofs, as painting a dingy portrayal of the believers, I wish that weren't the case. I don't know how else to show this doubt. Without the consequence being that : "You're painting us a dingbats". At least for YOU, I have stated that I don't believe that about you. You , as I said, have been fair in the joust of logic. But that doesn't mean I find the logic to be meritorious.

If that paints the believers in a bad light, I can't solve that. Nothing less than "believing" would solve the problem of "preconception towards believers". What is my choice ? To simply believe ? "lest someone is offended ?" And lest my "credibility" be at stake ?

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

Easy. Because time and time again, the various proponents here have DISTANCED THEMSELVES from that "1%" of the story. Which is: Treasure. And have instead maintained that they're *only* interested in history, for history sakes. Eg.: how did fibers get there. What about the boy's story. What about the gold link, etc.... And have maintained that they do NOT believe it points to treasure. And that their interest is strictly for history reasons of the various anomalies claimed by the legend.

So when I said "No one here is claiming there is a treasure", I was merely quoting the ongoing believer's consensus here. And to be (yes , I admit) sarcastic about that. Because, yes, I'm still having trouble believing that this legend is ALL about the hoped for treasure. Why do you think anyone in the world is glued to this ? Why do you think the brother's keep referring to "vaults" and "money pits" and "treasure" ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

No. There isn't a third choice. It's my two choices, ...

Well gee, then that's a "Do you still beat your wife" type of question then.

Sure I most certainly can disprove it. I just have to present the most probable explanation...BASED ON FACTS backed with reputable evidence. Check your character, check your bank accounts, your spending habits. I just have to disprove it to myself.

But that's JUST THE POINT ! You never WILL be able to disprove it. Any evidence to debunk it, I can find a way to show that ... it's still possible. There is NO "reputable evidence" you could give, that I couldn't find some remote contingent feasible way that ....... given enough slaves, given enough conspiracies, and given enough crazy schemes *could* still be "possible". Hence you won't have DIS proven that it COULD have happened.

Hence I will have punted the ball back to your court, in an infinite game of wack-a-mole. The same thing that's happening with O.I. And so long as some crazy scheme is proposed that *could* make a treasure possible (despite the dry holes), then presto: The legend stands as beyond dispute. Right ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

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.

Objection. The "winch-tackle" was never seen or described. Only a mark in a limb that may have been from a rope.

And it was not an eye-witness to the mark; so it is hearsay. That story was second-hand (or more) by later accounts of what the boys saw or found.

So, the treasure could be something we don't know ever existed, something that may have existed but was not wanted, or something later recovered but kept secret, or never have been on Oak Island at all and all "signs" were left by various searchers, or all the "evidence" is unrelated to any activity that involved treasure and just normal activity over the years. So far the only "evidence" would be covered in the last two scenarios.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Objection. The "winch-tackle" was never seen or described. Only a mark in a limb that may have been from a rope.

And it was not an eye-witness to the mark; so it is hearsay. That story was second-hand (or more) by later accounts .

Nope. You're wrong. Read and weep. On the 2nd page of the famous Reader's Digest article:

http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/readersdigest.pdf

As you can see, the winch/tackle block WAS seen in the tree branch . Tsk Tsk. Repent.

 

[Carl-NC]

Objection. The "winch-tackle" was never seen or described. Only a mark in a limb that may have been from a rope.

It goes downhill from there. The various versions are:

There was an oak tree with a block & tackle attached to a limb.
There was an oak tree with markings on a limb as if a block & tackle had been attached.
There was an oak tree with cut-off limb, as if to hide the fact that a block & tackle had been attached to the limb.
The whole oak tree had been cut down, as if to hide the fact that a block & tackle had been attached to a limb.

Prosecutor: "Yer honor, defendent keeps changing his story."
Judge: "The court hearby strikes said testimony from the record as unreliable hearsay."

Time to move on. How about those log platforms every 10 feet?

 

[will7782]

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.

if you take a moment to read and comprehend, you will see that I have only discussed things that are provable, ie: u shaped structure, sled etc... YOU are the one that runs to treasure, fibers, etc... THATS ALL ON YOU you're the mole man

 

[will7782]

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

Bill

if we use tom's reasoning, it could be shown otherwise....... just sayin

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It goes downhill from there. The various versions are: ...

And per the telling in the famous Reader's Digest Article:

http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/readersdigest.pdf

Notice that the "winch tackle" part is not told with a disclaimer like "It has been said that ..... ", or "One version says that.........." Etc... It is all told as factual event happenings. With no qualifications.

If that's not evidence of how easy telephone game works, then I don't know what is. Something that is merely conjectured along the way, is ..... in the next telling of the story: Simply incorporated in as fact.

 

[lokiblossom]

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.

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

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.

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.

He was on the toilet when they passed Mahone Bay.

Stones with holes dragged behind horses? Never heard that one, but maybe you could explain it! How about the stones that were too big? You could of course consider that locals used drilled stones for mooring. I think that might be a better argument!

The Stone Cross I was talking about is well documented, I didn't know about any changes, maybe there are two stone crosses.

Is there any documentation of an earlier European presence in the Bay of Fundy? How do you know the reports were made by the French?

Yes, I agree Annapolis Basin was a great location for a settlement, but so would have been Bar Harbor or where St. Johns is today, remember they already had tried a settlement on the Western side of the Bay.

He was on the toilet? How long was he on the toilet? How long does it take to sail across the mouth of Mahone Bay?

What about the lost Priest? Perhaps he was the famed St Vincent de Paul! Also remember I am only talking about possibilities!

I still think the coconut fibre could be evidence. But again remember I said "could be"!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... but maybe you could explain it!...

Yes yes Raparee. Explain it. So that we can have page after page of wack-a-mole discussion on "stones with holes in them". Eg.: How big ? What color ? What kind of rock ? What religious denomination was the rock ? Were fibers attached to the rock ? If so, what kind of fibers ? How big was the holes ? etc...

And the moment Raparee can't answer or defend the "rocks possibly used as old-time plow weights", then presto: The ball is punted back to the skeptic's side. And the treasure legend remains bullet proof true.

Wack-a-mole is so much fun. I love it.

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes yes Raparee. Explain it. So that we can have page after page of wack-a-mole discussion on "stones with holes in them". Eg.: How big ? What color ? What kind of rock ? What religious denomination was the rock ? Were fibers attached to the rock ? If so, what kind of fibers ? How big was the holes ? etc...

And the moment Raparee can't answer or defend the "rocks possibly used as old-time plow weights", then presto: The ball is punted back to the skeptic's side. And the treasure legend remains bullet proof true.

Wack-a-mole is so much fun. I love it.

Like I said before, your only purpose is to make fools out of everybody else on this particular forum. I think some of the other posters are beginning to see this. I have always had good discussions with Raparee and have always respected his/hers, points. As a matter of fact, I'm sure he/she, will agree that I have changed my position on the coconut fibre somewhat because of those discussions.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Yes yes Raparee. Explain it. So that we can have page after page of wack-a-mole discussion on "stones with holes in them". Eg.: How big ? What color ? What kind of rock ? What religious denomination was the rock ? Were fibers attached to the rock ? If so, what kind of fibers ? How big was the holes ? etc...

And the moment Raparee can't answer or defend the "rocks possibly used as old-time plow weights", then presto: The ball is punted back to the skeptic's side. And the treasure legend remains bullet proof true.

Wack-a-mole is so much fun. I love it.

Tom a word to the wise, keep it up and I'm going to play "wack a mole".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... "wack a mole".

Loki & TH'r : Sorry, I got a little carried away in my locker room sarcasm on post # 1951. My apologies.

 

[PirateLabs]

Nope. You're wrong. Read and weep. On the 2nd page of the famous Reader's Digest article:

http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/readersdigest.pdf

As you can see, the winch/tackle block WAS seen in the tree branch . Tsk Tsk. Repent.

Hmmm...sixteen year old boy...winch was sixteen feet up in the tree branches. I think the number sixteen (16) may play an important role in this mystery. If you take 16 and add the digits...you get 1+6=7. If you divide this by 7, you get 1. Then, multiply this by the number 16 and what do you get? Exactly...16 again! This is incredible.

Bill

 

[sasquash]

I need a drink ...

 

[etex]

Is Tom a guy? I thought it was short for Tomacita

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...implied that I, we, were gay and that is a violation of the rules ....

If it's of any consequence: I took no offense. There is bound to be some pokes and jabs. We all gotta grow a thick skin. I don't think Loki meant any real harm.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Well, since both Tom and I are males, you certainly implied that I, we, were gay and that is a violation of the rules of this forum I do believe. Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed...just ask a Moderator. I will not file a complaint this time but I suggest that you quit this insulting behavior and follow the rules of this forum. Do I need to post a link to these rules for you? Or, You could ask Treasure Hunter if you like. You have done this twice now and I do not think he gives 3 chances.

Bill

PS Here are the rules in case you can not find them for some reason: TreasureNet - Rules

No one called anyone gay everyone is using forum names, hell I could be a 75 year old 400 lb woman. All please post by our rules

 

[Raparee]

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.

Actually the claim being made by the skeptics (for the most part anyhow), is that no evidence has been presented which supports the OI story. That's akin to a prosecutor accusing you of robbing a bank, providing no evidence to support his case, then expecting a guilty ruling based on the accusation alone.