My word...I'm away from here for a few days and things get crazy. Let's see if I can't catch up.
The point about Gordon having solid proof is that the archies didn't want to believe him. And when they found him to be right, they stole his find. And this is the outfit you want running everything?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking whether or not I'd like a legitimate professional to be involved with the operation? If that's what you're asking, yes, I would.
No, you're wrong. They do trip over one another to claim amazing finds, it's just that those finds are usually found by others, who are not archaeologists. Now we can't have that, right?
A verified find? I'd very much like to have one of those. That's exactly what's missing from Oak Island, an honest to God find that's been properly vetted. That's what I want to see. That's probably what you want to see as well. That doesn't seem to be what the people who have been digging holes in that island wanted to see though, or else they'd make the appropriate arrangements...which they haven't done, ever.
I'm pretty sure that none of this is being done to impress YOU.
I'm absolutely certain that none of this is being done to impress ME. As much as I'd love for something to be there, I have no skin in this game. I'm merely pointing out the problems. Please stick with those problems. As interesting as I may be, I am not the problem with Oak Island.
You would waste more money on an archaeologist when there's nothing there to be found? Wouldn't that be adding to the money pit (money drain)?
I'd "waste" money on making the operation scientifically sound. I know that this is a very new concept with Oak Island, but it's something that's needed. I want the next "find" that turns up to be inscrutable. I want experts to look at it. I want a history for it. Basically, I want this story to be based on more than, "Well, this one guy said..."
Am I asking too much here?
@Dave Rishar
This is a treasure hunt. Your standard for "proof" is impossibly high. If we had a treasure map that pointed to a fresh hole in the ground, there would be no hunt, there would only be newspaper articles and dinner table conversation.
My standard for proof is actually rather low: find something significant. If we can't find something significant, why are we speculating about what may be there?
Numerous eyewitnesses describe a man-made shaft dug to at least ninety feet. Eye witnesses describe wooden platforms, flood tunnels, made-made beaches and swamps, as well as an array of bizarre artifacts and phenomena.
Numerous eyewitnesses to the Michael Brown case explained in detail how he was shot in the back. He was not shot in the back, which is probably why the grand jury declined to indict. Some of them didn't even know what kind of car Officer Wilson had been in, although they'd reportedly seen everything go down. (And by "car," they did not know that he was in a SUV.) Witnesses get things wrong. It's not always intentional, but there's a reason why the emphasis is on forensics and not witnesses. People remember things incorrectly...assuming that they had firsthand knowledge of the case, which they don't always have.
Since you brought it up though, the original witnesses back in the day were convinced that this was pirate treasure. One old guy claimed to have been part of the group that buried it. Why is everyone convinced that it's something else now?
There is more than enough evidence here to warrant a "treasure hunt." If you consider the fact that hunting on the island is really only possible seven months of the year due the the harsh weather we get here in the winter, we really haven't been looking for very long.
Only two hundred years, give or take. Not very long at all on the geographical scale of things.
Not to mention the first hundred years of searching was done with very little info to go on and archaic tools.
The same tools that would have been used by anyone allegedly burying a treasure there, and a firsthand account of where it was. I'll give you that. Were the tools not up to the job? Was the story incorrect? Think about this one carefully before answering.
Again, there is more than enough evidence collected over the years to warrant a very thorough and modern investigation.
Your definition of evidence is apparently not the same as mine. People are welcome to spend their money as they wish, just as they have been for centuries. My main concern is that no one has died this time.
Dave Rishar
Although they came from a reality show (which I place little faith in), the whole coconut fiber found in the cove area was very interesting. THAT is where facts meet the tale. The tale is that the cove was dammed off and drained. A trench was dug, and a thick mat of coconut fiber was laid down. Over that was placed pieces of flat rock to form drains that led to whichever level it was of the Hole (10X). Over the years, many people have said that was all fantasy. On the show, they found coconut fiber right where it was supposed to be. Very good evidence was also shown that at one time the cove had been dammed off for some reason. The water in 10X raises and lowers with the tide. Die Bombs have been dropped into 10X and the die comes out not only from the cove, but two other places as well.
Fact: they found fibers, and this is very interesting.
Fact: the water level in 10X follows the tides, although there's a geological explanation for that.
Not a fact: everything else that you wrote. Look it up if you don't believe me.
If the Woods Hole expedition turned up a smoking gun, why didn't Trident make it public? A positive report would be to their advantage.
So, forget for a second all the stories of Cat Kidd, The Templars, The Masons, The Lost Tribe, Viking Hoards, etc. Just look objectively at what has been found. Does what was found support or oppose the story as told?
What has been found? What has really been found?
Dave Rishar you wrote,
"I hope that one of these holes hits something, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that this won't happen."
-you wrote that after the shows date of them finding something drilling
maybe your "something" is something of irrefutable evidence...
If I recall a previous post you wrote about having to catch up with this seasons show as it seems interesting or something like that.
So with this post I wonder if you're even watching the show because on this past week's show the drilling did hit "something". (please don't read that with malice)
As I've already said, I haven't seen the second season yet. If they dug up a treasure trove, feel free to let me know about the details. A treasure trove would be irrefutable evidence, in case you're wondering.
I have honest questions for you and Charlie.
I cannot answer for Charlie, but I can answer honestly for myself.
When did you start your interest in Oak Island?
Generally, as a child. I only started doing real research in the last year.
Have you actually studied Oak Island outside of this thread here?
Yes. In fact, I've provided information that was apparently unknown outside of this subforum in the past, so I'd say that I've certainly studied Oak Island outside of here.
Have you read any of the books or articles printed?
Possibly. Give me a list and I'll give you further answers. Let me qualify that by saying that if a book or an article is a load of crap, I'm going to call it as such. Just because someone wrote it, doesn't mean that it is.
Have you visited various websites about Oak Island?
More than you would believe. Again, I brought things here that were apparently unknown, and they were very easily found. This is one of the reasons why I'm skeptical not of the facts (although I certainly am), but of the amount of research that has been done by various forumites here. This was simple stuff. Someone should have caught it years before I happened along. Why didn't this happen?
Have you watched the History Channel TV show?
If so, how many? All?
Only the first season. I have absolutely no knowledge of the second season; you'll just have to believe me when I say that. I haven't even read about it, but I'm willing to read about it now. Did they find treasure?
I am more than happy to answer your questions. There's no need for thanks, although I do appreciate it. I wish you all a good day.
What are you guys putting in those cookies?
