Season 10 - Starts on November 15th, 2022

[gazzahk]

Foiled again by those pesky government regulators.....

Lucky the pink blob is full of gold... or is it?

Maybe the government bureaucrat is part of the secret Templar plan to keep the treasure hidden..

The plot thickens.. Next week what new twist will the team have. who thought looking for treasure could have so much real life drama...

The Curse of Oak Island: Mining company finally gets the OK to explore the Money Pit

The Curse of Oak Island recap: The team learns that Dumas will recommence work on the garden shaft and finds out more about the Roman coin.

www.monstersandcritics.com

 

[gazzahk]

Many of us enjoy the show for whatever reasons and would like to come on here and discuss the good, bad and ugly of it.

Discussion is good. Just no need for pernsonal insults they turn discussion into something else.

On the topic of oak island this is a great place for discussions.

I am personally amazed this show has run so many seasons. But the legend of oak island is fascinating wether you believe in the treasure or not.

 

[gjb]

On the topic of oak island this is a great place for discussions.

I wouldn’t exactly agree with that from my experience in the past. There was a time when discussion flourished here, but this gradually faded out when naysayers began to dominate the board.

In fact, I’ve been pilloried by naysayers when trying to present my thoughts on the mystery for general discussion and I imagine that others have kept a low profile to avoid the same thing happening to them. This promoted no discussion whatsoever.

 

[BennyV]

On the topic of oak island this is a great place for discussions

In theory.

In reality it’s not. Due to one member.

 

[gjb]

In theory.

In reality it’s not. Due to one member.

... who often raised some very good points. It was just the presentation and contempt that was reprehensible, and the encouragement it gave to others to act similarly.

I’ve walked away from the forum a number of times because I felt there was no longer any pleasure in contributing or participating and I’m hoping that, an administrator having stepped in, things will get back to the way they were.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

In fact, I’ve been pilloried by naysayers when trying to present my thoughts on the mystery for general discussion and I imagine that others have kept a low profile to avoid the same thing happening to them. This promoted no discussion whatsoever.

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?

 

[gjb]

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.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

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.

Not just absence of evidence. Absence of motive and also absence of witnesses or documentation (of any original “treasure burying”).

Didn’t realize I was badgering anybody. I just think the show is pointless and it would have been better to make a two hour documentary after they have produced, with proper documentation and site analysis, both the historical and scientific results of the find.

They’re running it like other “reality shows” and have wasted a lot of airtime. I gave up watching it and find this forum much more entertaining. Guess I’m disgruntled that the History Channel has sold out and no longer provides viewers with history.

But I never insisted anyone agree with me. Don’t even recall insulting anyone here. I have no “personal bias” other than I ask they show me rather than talk fantasy. Then I will gladly accept that the 29th search of the area was the successful one.

 

[MikeN]

For this week:

• Lot 5 searches resume with some finds
• The Lot 26 well from the 11th century excavation begins.
• Most interestingly, Dumas has returned to the island and begins the Garden Shaft rehab. They don't give many construction details and so far don't show many action clips of the Garden Shaft reconstruction. It still leaves many technical questions in my mind about how they can do this without getting washed out by the water and guarantee that the shaft won't collapse. Perhaps Dumas considers their process proprietary and won't allow live cameras.

In one sense, the Garden Shaft is a like the previous giant hammer grab shaft, except that they can change directions. In other words as the hammer grab contacts the Chappell Vault and pushes it out of the way - this time the tunnel can pursue it as it moves. Or just continue in whatever direction has the most interesting objects.

 

[gazzahk]

Now they have a new expert who using mystical maths shows the templars built Nolans cross as a map... We should have all that treasure soon now the secret of the cross has been solved...

The Curse of Oak Island: Sacred numbers in Nolan's cross pinpoint the Money Pit

The Curse of Oak Island recap: A new theory for the Money Pit location confirms the team's belief in the importance of the garden shaft.

www.monstersandcritics.com

 

[MikeN]

Now they have a new expert who using mystical maths shows the templars built Nolans cross as a map... We should have all that treasure soon now the secret of the cross has been solved...

The mathematical formula has been discovered, but what if the lines really should have been drawn referenced to the left arm of the cross instead of the right arm? There was some talk that they wanted to investigate the new intersecting 'point' with some exploratory drill holes but Dumas closed that part of the site while they were working. But they should start drilling at the point defined from the other arm...

 

[BennyV]

... who often raised some very good points. It was just the presentation and contempt that was reprehensible, and the encouragement it gave to others to act similarly.

I’ve walked away from the forum a number of times because I felt there was no longer any pleasure in contributing or participating and I’m hoping that, an administrator having stepped in, things will get back to the way they were.

I agree with your statements.

It just gets to the point where it’s like why bother even posting. I’m a member of this site and a moderator of a fishing website so I see this on a regular basis. I am glad the moderator stepped in to keep the conversation on topic and done in a respectful manner.

 

[BennyV]

Not just absence of evidence. Absence of motive and also absence of witnesses or documentation (of any original “treasure burying”).

Didn’t realize I was badgering anybody. I just think the show is pointless and it would have been better to make a two hour documentary after they have produced, with proper documentation and site analysis, both the historical and scientific results of the find.

They’re running it like other “reality shows” and have wasted a lot of airtime. I gave up watching it and find this forum much more entertaining. Guess I’m disgruntled that the History Channel has sold out and no longer provides viewers with history.

But I never insisted anyone agree with me. Don’t even recall insulting anyone here. I have no “personal bias” other than I ask they show me rather than talk fantasy. Then I will gladly accept that the 29th search of the area was the successful one.

You ever see a baby pigeon? I haven’t but I see grown pigeons all over the city.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Worked at a wastewater treatment plant - lots of outdoor piping and heat ducts. Saw pigeons at all stages of life and death. The falcons liked the adults and the rats and squirrels liked the chicks and eggs.

You gotta get out of the city to see nature.

 

[gjb]

Worked at a wastewater treatment plant - lots of outdoor piping and heat ducts. Saw pigeons at all stages of life and death. The falcons liked the adults and the rats and squirrels liked the chicks and eggs.

You gotta get out of the city to see nature.

I'm sure you're fully aware of the point that's being made and you're simply refusing to acknowledge it.

You're a detectorist. I've worked locations that have not been productive in the past simply because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've walked away from locations having found nothing but might still go back, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There could be a hoard in any field I've walked away from. I just don't know, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've actually taken a view that the likelihood of my finding a deposit of anything of significance is not great, but I know I could be wrong.

If I conclude that it's probably a waste of my time pursuing the matter then I walk away. You're telling us that looking for a significant find on Oak Island is a waste of time. So, why aren't you walking away?

 

[gjb]

Not just absence of evidence. Absence of motive and also absence of witnesses or documentation (of any original “treasure burying”).

This is amazing! You’re a detectorist - you’re a treasure hunter and this is a treasure hunting forum. The clue’s in the name. You know full well that not only did, and do, people lose things but that they also hide things of value. The motive is obvious, so you don’t have to look for one.

Furthermore, people find treasure hoards without recourse to witnesses or witness statements and without there being any documentation on the matter - simply by looking on and in the ground or in old buildings. You don’t necessarily need documentation. It’s not a prerequisite.

What’s more, what documentation there might have been is mostly rejected with contempt - that is, apparent instructions for locating a deposit. The true treasure hunter would actually take the time to study these on the basis that there might be something to them. The dilettante just dismisses them out of hand, often in a superior and contemptuous manner.

You don’t need to look for a motive for a treasure deposit, though it would be worthwhile looking for documentation. However, you may not find any, but then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Just what exactly is “evidence of absence”? How do you leave a sign or physical evidence that something didn’t happen? It’s been described as the “Argument from Ignorance” and is a fallacy of informal logic and a false dichotomy.

Just as I could say you must have howled at the moon last night because you cannot prove you did not.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: The Argument from Ignorance

The ad ignorantiam (the argument from ignorance) is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.

philosophy.lander.edu

 

[gjb]

Just what exactly is “evidence of absence”? How do you leave a sign or physical evidence that something didn’t happen? It’s been described as the “Argument from Ignorance” and is a fallacy of informal logic and a false dichotomy.

Just as I could say you must have howled at the moon last night because you cannot prove you did not.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: The Argument from Ignorance

The ad ignorantiam (the argument from ignorance) is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.

philosophy.lander.edu

You’re almost there, but you just haven’t quite grasped it yet. You’re the one presenting argumentum ad ignorantiam.

As I’ve observed, you can’t prove that there’s no treasure on Oak Island. However, you’re actually the one telling us that because nothing has been found on Oak Island then there is nothing to be found. Your reasoning seems to be:

If something took place then there would be evidence of it.
No evidence has been found.
Therefore nothing took place.

Specifically, nobody has yet found a trace of treasure so therefore there is no treasure. This is argumentum ad ignorantiam and it’s coming from you. Surely, you must now see the errors in this.

You’re actually the one presenting the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, not me. So, you explain it!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Nope. I’m saying the depression and cavities are natural for that region. The bits of wood are flotsam and backfill/relics underground are from past digs; and there is plenty of evidence for all that.

 

[gjb]

As this is a treasure hunting forum then the objective would surely be to follow up the legend and possibility that there may have been a treasure on Oak Island and that, if this be so, it might still be there. This is one objective of The Curse of Oak Island which is actually the subject of this thread.

I’m sure that everyone here is fully aware that there may never have been a treasure on Oak Island. It’s not something we have to be told - and certainly not repeatedly. Moreover, we’re all fully aware that this is just one possibility. It’s also possible that there was a treasure and it’s been removed, just as it’s possible that it wasn’t removed.

Furthermore, it’s possible that this supposed treasure was in the Money Pit and it’s possible it’s somewhere else. If it’s somewhere else then we’re not likely to find evidence of it at the Money Pit. Thus, not finding evidence at one location might suggest that it’s in another not that it doesn’t exist.

So, maybe nothing is being found because the search is being conducted in the wrong place. Maybe it’s because the treasure has been removed and maybe it’s because there never was one in the first place. The latter is something we all know and we don’t need to be told time and time again.

This is a treasure hunting forum presumably premised on the possibility that there may have been cases of planned treasure deposits. Choosing to believe that this was not so in the case of Oak Island should not prevent anyone from contemplating the implications and consequences of there having been a treasure and thereby making a positive contribution to the discussion and to the forum.

We know full well that there may be no treasure on Oak Island, but there are other possibilities and most of us are here in order to see these discussed without the constant interruption and harassment of naysayers repeatedly stating the obvious as if nobody else has ever thought of it or ever heard it before.