Simple solution is to produce anything of intrinsic or historical value.
We're waiting. Scientific method insists we change our opinions to accomidate facts.
Got any?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and you should be fully aware of that - it's a fundamental truth of archaeology.
Furthermore, the scientific method does not advocate your stance of deciding that you know the answer without having to do any investigation - and then badgering or bullying people into agreeing with you.
Such investigation will consist of generating hypotheses that then get tested - exactly what's happening on the island. The testing of hypotheses then assists in gathering information in order to proceed with the inquiry - just what's happening on the island. This may result in further hypotheses to be tested - what's happening on the island.
Some of the Oak Island hypotheses seem extremely weak to me, but that's their business.
‘That there is no treasure on Oak Island’ is simply an alternative hypothesis to ‘that there is treasure on Oak Island’. You can’t possibly test ‘that there is no treasure on Oak Island’, but you can test whether there might be (and may even prove that there is). That’s exactly what they're attempting to do on the island.
You don't move forward without looking, and some of that looking will be unproductive and an apparent waste of time. That just happens when using the scientific method.
How many times does this have to be explained to people before it finally sinks in? Testing hypotheses is what the scientific method is all about. If you're going to advocate the use of the scientific method then accept everything it entails.
Furthermore, the fact that you don’t want to concede the possibility of a certain hypothesis being correct, and don’t want to see it discussed, investigated or tested, is no reason to pillory the person presenting it.
Personal bias will inevitably pervade the scientific method, that's human nature, but it should really have no place at all in it. If you want to deal in facts, it's not a proven fact that there's no treasure on Oak Island. That's just what you want to believe.
It would seem that, to use the academic jargon, you feel that the research question underlying the hypotheses being considered and tested is ill-founded. That's just your view.
There's an inquiry underway, and that's a fact, and your view contributes nothing at all to that, it can't move the inquiry forward. So, what on earth is the point of your expressing it over and over again? It doesn't change, it adds nothing. It's just tedious and unproductive repetition.
One has to wonder what on earth your motives can be for doing this.