Why taking a fresh look at the mystery might be pertinent

gjb

Sr. Member
Apr 21, 2016
255
324
UK
Detector(s) used
Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Recent discussions in the Season 11 thread have raised the question of whether or not there might be any evidence of a deposit of some form having taken place on Oak Island and raising the observation that it’s unlikely that such will be found unless it’s looked for.

It was further observed that there could be evidence that has been missed, potentially due to preconceptions and misconceptions about the past and the nature of ‘evidence’, though I do sense that there’s considerable doubt here that such could have happened.

The discussion has been bound up in the vexed question of sources. It’s generally recognised that there are two classes of source: primary sources, essentially created at the time the events took place, and secondary sources such as reports and analysis of the primary sources conducted afterwards. It’s also widely appreciated that primary sources can be misleading due to personal bias and agendas, which is where the assessor’s preconceptions might enter into the mix.

Another problem of historical analysis is what some term ‘presentism’, failing to assess evidence drawn from sources in the context of the period in which the events took place, that is, making judgements based on present day values and present day thinking.

The study and reporting of history inevitably reflects an element of subjectivity, but the expectation is that the reporter or observer should be as objective as possible. Did a lack of objectivity occur in the past and is it happening now? The truth is that we know very little about the assumed activity on the island, but the fact is that many people are declaring that they do, and, in many cases negating components of the mystery, completely dismiss the sources that would potentially provide either evidence relating to the mystery or pointers to it.

In the records of the Oak Island saga there are hints as to the possible existence of original sources, but those who assessed them at the time they emerged summarily dismissed them, and their judgements prevail. But were the original assessments correct, and is it not valid to go back and assess them again? Surely so, but there will be no incentive to do so should people insist that there’s no evidence to be found.

So, maybe we should be taking a fresh look at the sources and the evidence drawn from them and be doing so through the eyes of the past. That will not be easy, and would require an element of study, but this would be preferable to making pronouncements concerning the past without at least trying to understand it or what remains of it for us to study.

The fact that no primary source evidence of an Oak Island deposit has been presented doesn’t necessarily mean that none exists. The pointers to such sources may have been missed or discarded for the wrong reasons, and this won’t be known unless we look for them and attempt to research them if found - also that we do the job as thoroughly and as objectively as possible.

So, as the Oak Island quest seems to be getting nowhere then maybe something has been missed. My reassessment of the mystery was undertaken on this basis, but I could very well have taken a wrong turn or missed something myself. In any event, declaring that there's no evidence to be found is the kiss of death for research!
 

Based on the above logic it can be said that most any island in the world that humans visited could have had a vast treasure deposit made and unless someone proves it did not occur then treasure must have been deposited there.
 

Based on the above logic it can be said that most any island in the world that humans visited could have had a vast treasure deposit made and unless someone proves it did not occur then treasure must have been deposited there.
This would appear to be a somewhat fatuous reply to a serious suggestion, and I assume that you're not really serious. You appear from your comments not to want to see the Oak Island mystery researched, and you're potentially declaring that you know all the answers without doing any investigation.

In any event, nobody is asking or expecting you to do it!
 

not to want to see the Oak Island mystery researched, and you're potentially declaring that you know all the answers without doing any investigation.
lol.. How much research can be done before one needs to accept that no treasure exists.

It likely will never be known if some treasure was recovered from the money pit by the first finders as reported by their descendants and illustrated with the gold cross.

However it has been "proven beyond reasonable doubt" that no massive treasure hoard was ever buried hundreds of feet below the surface in the money pity area of OI. The natural water filled cavities that exist on OI in this location would have made this an impossible endeavour.

All the findings/discoveries made on OI can be easily explained by a combination of hundreds of years of human visitation/habitation and J.Steele's well documented theory of OI being a naval stores enterprise at some point in the past.

For any one who wants to see an actual plausible theory put forward to what happened on OI I suggest her book.

www.amazon.com/Oak-Island-Mystery-Solved-Chapter/dp/1771087919
 

Last edited:
lol.. How much research can be done before one needs to accept that no treasure exists.

It likely will never be known if some treasure was recovered from the money pit by the first finders as reported by their descendants and illustrated with the gold cross.

However it has been "proven beyond reasonable doubt" that no massive treasure hoard was ever buried hundreds of feet below the surface in the money pity area of OI. The natural water filled cavities that exist on OI in this location would have made this an impossible endeavour.

All the findings/discoveries made on OI can be easily explained by a combination of hundreds of years of human visitation/habitation and J.Steele's well documented theory of OI being a naval stores enterprise at some point in the past.

For any one who wants to see an actual plausible theory put forward to what happened on OI I suggest her book.

www.amazon.com/Oak-Island-Mystery-Solved-Chapter/dp/1771087919
Amen Brother!
 

Granted there might have never been a treasure buried 100' deep but I think the Lagina's have proven that it's possible to have dug 100+ feet deep before hitting water. Would be eaiser if your the first people digging in the area. So in theory someone could have buried "something" in the MP area. The more it got dug up the easier it was for the next dig to get flooded out.. Especially once the original spot got lost and everyone was just digging anywhere near the area they thought it was at... Not sure how deep they were but there are pics of man made tunnels under ground big enough for you to stand upright in...
 

All of the tunnels were made by previous folks digging for what they thought was a treasure.

No original tunnels have ever been found and documented on the island.
 

Your correct. Just saying that it is possibly to dig deep without getting flooded. Just because it's an island doesn't mean your going to hit water at 50, 80, 100 feet. It's not floating..
 

Recent discussions in the Season 11 thread have raised the question of whether or not there might be any evidence of a deposit of some form having taken place on Oak Island and raising the observation that it’s unlikely that such will be found unless it’s looked for.

It was further observed that there could be evidence that has been missed, potentially due to preconceptions and misconceptions about the past and the nature of ‘evidence’, though I do sense that there’s considerable doubt here that such could have happened.

The discussion has been bound up in the vexed question of sources. It’s generally recognised that there are two classes of source: primary sources, essentially created at the time the events took place, and secondary sources such as reports and analysis of the primary sources conducted afterwards. It’s also widely appreciated that primary sources can be misleading due to personal bias and agendas, which is where the assessor’s preconceptions might enter into the mix.

Another problem of historical analysis is what some term ‘presentism’, failing to assess evidence drawn from sources in the context of the period in which the events took place, that is, making judgements based on present day values and present day thinking.

The study and reporting of history inevitably reflects an element of subjectivity, but the expectation is that the reporter or observer should be as objective as possible. Did a lack of objectivity occur in the past and is it happening now? The truth is that we know very little about the assumed activity on the island, but the fact is that many people are declaring that they do, and, in many cases negating components of the mystery, completely dismiss the sources that would potentially provide either evidence relating to the mystery or pointers to it.

In the records of the Oak Island saga there are hints as to the possible existence of original sources, but those who assessed them at the time they emerged summarily dismissed them, and their judgements prevail. But were the original assessments correct, and is it not valid to go back and assess them again? Surely so, but there will be no incentive to do so should people insist that there’s no evidence to be found.

So, maybe we should be taking a fresh look at the sources and the evidence drawn from them and be doing so through the eyes of the past. That will not be easy, and would require an element of study, but this would be preferable to making pronouncements concerning the past without at least trying to understand it or what remains of it for us to study.

The fact that no primary source evidence of an Oak Island deposit has been presented doesn’t necessarily mean that none exists. The pointers to such sources may have been missed or discarded for the wrong reasons, and this won’t be known unless we look for them and attempt to research them if found - also that we do the job as thoroughly and as objectively as possible.

So, as the Oak Island quest seems to be getting nowhere then maybe something has been missed. My reassessment of the mystery was undertaken on this basis, but I could very well have taken a wrong turn or missed something myself. In any event, declaring that there's no evidence to be found is the kiss of death for research!
I don't have an iron in this fire, but I have spent some time investigating OI since I first heard of it, when I was a teen. John London and I used two books with photos of the clues and hints that have been found on the Island to find the site works like many others we have solved. So far in all the episodes aired on the History Channel, as far as I know, none of the clues were interpreted as to their true meaning. I watched the first few shows when the series began, but saw the searchers are mostly guessing about everything. John and I were amused by the amateurish way the stone objects were used in the hunt. One day when the TV series is over, if I'm still around I'll throw in my two cents worth of knowledge about Oak Island.
There is actually a photograph revealing in symbolism that some treasure was removed a century ago, more or less.
HBB
 

I could bury a treasure chest three feet down in any field in my town and no one would ever find it. There is absolutely no reason to bury a treasue chest 100 feet down. If you're hiding treasure, you'd want to hide it as fast as possible and not take days digging a 100 foot deep hole to bury it. It's just a tall tale that won't go away.
 

FreeBirdTim

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just tell things like the references I find.
I know you are not familiar with the type of treasure we hunted. You want everything to be as you envision it. The **** treasure is usually buried less than 30 feet. But the really large storehouses they built or if it's an abandoned mine they use, the big casinos are deep inside a sealed tunnel under a mountain or such.
Don't ever think that didn't happen, there are more things a person don't know than there are that they do know. Take a chill pill and wait until the true story about the big mystery treasure troves are revealed. I believe that is coming pretty soon.
HBB
 

Hi rennes - seems we keep the same hours.
I always have trouble with the assertion that treasure was already removed. I gotta ask, "Why was the hole filled back in?"
You seem to be asking for leaps of faith.
Proof will be discovered in the future, yet no identification of targets or people involved is supplied. Need more.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top