Season 11

[TruthbeTold]

Maybe you, and many others, should start looking for it instead of declaring that you know the answers to questions without needing to do any investigation.

Not sure why you suggest that one wastes their time.

After many years of stories, unsuccessful digs, and even one company producing a fake 90 foot stone (that ended up being used in the foundation of a building) Dunfield decided to prove once and for all whether there was a money pit or anything else mysterious on the island. He dug up everything to great depths and proved there were no underground structures, flood tunnels, or anything else for that matter.

The only thing oak island is being used for today is the basis for a realty show from the same channel that brought us ancient aliens, skinwalker ranch, blindfrog ranch, and many more fiction based tv shows.

The laginas are acting from a script, period.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[gjb]

Not sure why you suggest that one wastes their time.

I’m surprised you can’t appreciate how odd that sounds. You’re observing that nobody has produced any evidence and implying that therefore no evidence exists, which isn’t necessarily true.

It’s clear that you don’t intend to look for evidence yet you fail to appreciate that this is potentially why nobody has produced any. Very few are looking and, above all, people don’t bother to listen when they do.

Maybe the evidence is there, but this totally negative stand that there is none and the dismissive reaction to what’s been found could be the very reason it’s not being seen for what it is.

It's fine to decide not to look, but quite another thing to declare as a fact that absolutely nothing will be found if one does. If evidence exists, it won't be found unless one looks. So why be critical that no evidence has been presented when you're exhorting people not to look for it?

 

[TruthbeTold]

Based on that logic, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are real until someone proves they are not.

 

[n2mini]

Lots of people keep saying they ( whoever they where ) didn't have the equipment to dig a shaft and or tunnel yet folks were building pyramids over 4000 years ago...

 

[gjb]

Based on that logic, Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are real until someone proves they are not.

Where on earth are you getting all this from? You’re going from bad to worse. Now you’re claiming I said something I didn’t. I’ve never said that the Oak Island treasure is real until someone proves it's not. If anything, I’m implying the opposite.

I’m suggesting that if there’s no hard evidence of a treasure on Oak Island then maybe that’s because the evidence hasn’t been found yet or it hasn’t been seen for what it is. If the former then look for it. If the latter then look more carefully at the information we have in our possession.

You seem not to want to do either, presumably because you’ve no interest in knowing. That’s you’re choice, but your choosing to believe that there’s no evidence doesn’t mean that there’s necessarily no evidence to be found.

Once again, why be critical that no evidence has been presented when you’re not prepared to look for it even in the information that’s already been accumulated? You’re trusting that other people have thought things through correctly and you’re not prepared to investigate yourself to check whether they’ve done the job properly.

I happen to feel that maybe the evidence is there, but it’s being disregarded due to a great deal of shoddy thinking - and not thinking at all - and, more to the point, not even looking.

 

[BuzzMarshall]

I know i tend to poke fun at the goofy cast of characters as like lots of shows these days are more like reality shows that tend to blur the line between fact and fiction, but do believe at one point in time something started the base story which predates man's exposure to a reality show.

I look at this just like a lot of archeological digs that tend to take decades to unfold. The difference in this case is that most digs unfold under a lot less public exposure until something major is found where as this is being forced to unfold in the form of a weekly tv show irrelevant to finding any thing real on a weekly basis so it keeps getting goofy as the cast members keep throwing out dumb idea's.

that said... I believe at one time something was there and whether its still there is anyone's guess.

and to suggest along the lines that History Channel is just fiction sound's like something a mainstream archeologist with their limited thinking would suggest because their narrow thinking is usually based on the idea that if THEY can't explain it then its Not possible no matter how many actual factual remnants are found all over this great planet.

Ya, History Channel may push the limits for some people but for a lot of others who see the factual truth in the existence of thousands of sites around the world where Archeologist's can't explain it other then to turn their heads and ignore or smear others explanations or thoughts just goes to prove how stupid some supposed educated people can be.

To suggest the idea that a couple of hundred years ago a couple of kids rowed all the way over to some little island to start what has become the origin of the Oak Island Legend is even more ludicrous then some to the ideas the Hardly Bro's keep throwing out trying to keep the cash machine going.

Fiction is based in things that don't exist, history seems to support that Oak Island has been used by mankind for many many centuries which the show proves every time they find some human bobble. The fiction in this show really is in the dumb ideas the Bro's throw out trying to stitch together some explanation of whats gone on, which has become the entertainment value that interest's the Media Company's

I love history as the world is FULL of things that exist that trained Archeologist's can't explain so rather then risk being looked down on by their peers they ignore and live in denial as they poke fun at others.

To me Oak Island is probably rooted in something that has truthful elements to it but over the years has been twisted and misinterpreted for so long its now probably lost to history so who knows.

sorry for the rant, it just irks me to see closed minded people suggest because they can't explain something that it must mean its fiction. After all how many people over the history of the planet have been killed or died over the idea of a creator when none of us will ever know till our time comes.

 

[TruthbeTold]

There has never been a historical basis with actual facts that a treasure ever existed on oak island.

Even the original brothers that stated they found a depression with a block and tackle in a tree next to it didn’t return for quite a while to see what the depression could have been. Depressions occur naturally everywhere in the world, especially on an island with naturally occurring underground water caverns.

Then a multitude of diggers come along over the years and dig in different places, each claiming to have found something mysterious (oak platforms every ten feet, a cryptic stone, flood tunnels, etc.) yet none could ever prove their claims and when pressed on the matter when duped investors demanded progress either came up with a new story (chapel’s vault, fake crypric stone, etc) to keep milking investors eventually leaving the island when funds from investors stopped flowing.

Then every crypto historian in the world developed their own fictional theories about what was buried on the island yet no two stories match.

With no historical basis, zero facts, or evidence, there is only the story of boys who stayed out too late drinking and made up a story of a hole and block and tackle to cover their behinds.

It’s amazing the extent to which people will argue that the oak island story(s) is true and those who ask for actual facts as to the legitimentcy of the story(s) are somehow flawed because they do not believe and blindly follow the story(s).

 

[gjb]

There has never been a historical basis with actual facts that a treasure ever existed on oak island ... etc.

If you’re going to comment on an episode in history then you might at least find out how history is actually studied.

Historical research is a much debated topic that presents various problems, and the Oak Island saga and, particularly, The Curse of Oak Island are cases demonstrating how not to do it. Unfortunately, so too is your reaction and your response to the subject. You’re making some highly pertinent points, but you’re ruining it all by your presentation and approach.

One problem is that you declare to be fact things that are not known to be true on the basis that you choose to believe them. This is what ‘believers’ do and you’re rightly criticising them for doing so. Nevertheless, you’re fully prepared to do it yourself. You’re converting your assumptions or guesses into statements of fact. If you just stopped doing this you wouldn’t get the reaction that you do.

You’re complaining that there’s no evidence to support this or that, but you’re guilty of this yourself. You’re declaring things to be fact with no evidence at all to support your assertions which are actually assumptions.

“There has never been a historical basis with actual facts that a treasure ever existed on oak island.”

That’s an assumption not a fact. However, it’s true to say that nobody has yet reported the discovery of primary source material supporting there having been a treasure on Oak Island. You’re declaring that “there has never been”, but you can’t possibly know that. It doesn’t follow that because none has been recorded that none ever existed, or exists. It may have existed, but hasn’t been found or was lost or destroyed. Nobody knows, and you shouldn’t be declaring that you do.

Furthermore, you’re being far too subjective in your assessments. You’re far too influenced by what you’ve decided is fact without any supporting evidence which is what you’re accusing other people of doing.

“Then a multitude of diggers come along over the years and dig in different places, each claiming to have found something mysterious (oak platforms every ten feet, a cryptic stone, flood tunnels, etc.) yet none could ever prove their claims.”

Now, how on earth could they ever prove their claims? It seems not to have occurred to you that archaeology is destructive, and it’s even more so when not conducted by archaeologists. In the early days, they weren’t keeping records, they weren’t even keeping what they found. They were reusing the material they recovered. There are actually reports stating that this happened, but, of course, you've decided not to believe anything that was written concerning the early events even if it might be correct.

“... and when pressed on the matter when duped investors demanded progress either came up with a new story (chapel’s vault, fake cryptic stone, etc) to keep milking investors eventually leaving the island when funds from investors stopped flowing.”

This is just you’re opinion. I imagine that you don’t have primary source material (letters, diaries or such) to back up your declarations that they felt that way with actual evidence. You complain that people don’t produce ‘evidence’ yet you don’t produce it yourself.

“Then every crypto historian in the world developed their own fictional theories about what was buried on the island yet no two stories match.”

You’re right in the first part, but overstating the second which is only true of the theories. The real test of a historical source is whether it conflicts with something that’s known for a fact - that is, generally accepted to be correct from contemporary documentation. The Oak Island sources do differ in detail but agree on the basics, just as one might expect of different people recording what they did or saw.

“With no historical basis, zero facts, or evidence, there is only the story of boys who stayed out too late drinking and made up a story of a hole and block and tackle to cover their behinds.”

I understand that you’re being humorous, but you’re making up stories yourself and suggesting they’re true. Stick to what’s actually been reported.

You’re choosing to believe that there are zero facts because you’ve decided to exclude all the primary sources concerning the Pit’s discovery, simply because you don’t want to consider that there could be even an element of truth in what’s been written. Just because you choose to exclude all the early accounts doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s right to do so.

“It’s amazing the extent to which people will argue that the oak island story(s) is true.”

I have to agree with that, but I don’t think you’ll find many on this forum who would argue that it has to be true, rather that it's not known either way. You seem to be the one arguing that you do know - that it’s not true - when it's unlikely that anyone could ever prove that particular assertion.

“... and those who ask for actual facts as to the legitimacy of the story(s) are somehow flawed because they do not believe and blindly follow the story(s).”

If you’d studied history at all seriously you’d appreciate the problem associated with the term ‘facts’. There are different types of ‘facts’ in history. Some are dates and some are conclusions drawn by historians from their studies of primary sources.

Evidence actually comes from the sources - which you're completely rejecting! You’re actually declaring that there are no facts because you exclude all the early accounts of activities. However, most researchers don’t, “blindly follow the story”, they proceed cautiously recognising that there could be flaws in the reports.

What’s actually happening is that some are curious as to what might have taken place on Oak Island and would like to know what that was, and investigation is one way to maybe find out.

They’re not the ones declaring that they know the answers without supporting evidence - you are. And they're prepared to investigate to see if there might be evidence - whereas you're not.

Paradoxically, you're not only declaring that there's no evidence but also trying to discourage people from looking for it.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Yet here we are, no factual evidence or historical storyline that anyone ever buried anything of value on the island.

Actual treasures that have been found and documented had a historical basis and facts backing them up.

Oak island has none of that. Just story tellers arguing that their fictional story is the real one.

Then again maybe martians landed on oak island and used the pit as a latrine. That is just as plausible as all of the other tall tales. It has the same amount of factual evidence.

 

[3cylbill]

Yet here we are, no factual evidence or historical storyline that anyone ever buried anything of value on the island.

Actual treasures that have been found and documented had a historical basis and facts backing them up.

Oak island has none of that. Just story tellers arguing that their fictional story is the real one.

Then again maybe martians landed on oak island and used the pit as a latrine. That is just as plausible as all of the other tall tales. It has the same amount of factual evidence.

Sorry TbT...all those treasures where ..X ...marks the spot are gone ... sometimes you have to ask WHY .. because why not ....will get you nowhere....I will never dis a treasure hunter..for trying.....

 

[gjb]

Yet here we are, no factual evidence or historical storyline that anyone ever buried anything of value on the island.

That's certainly a point of view, and it's where we came in. I appreciate that it's what you choose to believe and that you see no need to investigate to determine if it’s necessarily correct.

However, I just feel that there may be pointers in the 'evidence' to suggest fairly strongly that there's a case that should be tested on the island with the possibility of the existence of a deposit being researched in the archives if results prove positive. However, in which archive I couldn't say for sure.

“Actual treasures that have been found and documented had a historical basis and facts backing them up.”

I assume that you mean sizeable treasures rather than just valuables. I’m not an expert on treasures, but I’m trying to think of one that wasn’t a family treasure. Which treasures are you referring to? That would be interesting to know, as I can't recall having come across one.

“Oak island has none of that. Just story tellers arguing that their fictional story is the real one.”

I’d agree with that, but I don’t see why this should mean that there’s necessarily no treasure on Oak Island which is what you seem to be stating is the case. It could be that the original searchers just happened to jump to the right conclusion with little or no basis for doing so.

My research has been directed at examining whether this might have been so, and I feel that there are indications in the sources potentially supporting this.

However, I feel there would be no point in your looking at my work as I assume you’d declare it to be wrong without even seeing it as you’ve made up your mind that no evidence can possibly exist: therefore it would have to be wrong even if it’s right!

“Then again maybe martians landed on oak island and used the pit as a latrine. That is just as plausible as all of the other tall tales. It has the same amount of factual evidence.”

I thought your response was a great improvement on previous efforts until you threw in this little gem! If you think about it, some of the crackpot theories that have been put forward have a great deal more factual evidence than a Martian latrine: some of the treasures referenced are deemed to have existed and most of the people concerned actually did. It’s just that the two usually don’t sit at all well together.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Ok. Then please show any evidence or facts that show that there was at one time a treasure of some sort buried on oak island.

Usually when asked for actual evidence is when some folks ask others to disprove a negative negative or become more defensive and offer up more excuses as to why everyone is wrong in disbelieving fiction.