Crow
Silver Member
- Jan 28, 2005
- 3,725
- 10,361
- Detector(s) used
- ONES THAT GO BEEP! :-)
- Primary Interest:
- Other
I am "Amazed" that any Treasure Hunter would object to the expressing of any opinions towards what may be a solution to the Mystery of Oak Island.
Gary Drayton presented his findings and it is up to us to view it with an open mind.
Only then can we as Treasure Seekers analysis the evidence presented and claim any evidence as to how it may support or disprove one's theory.
The coin previously shown was a 17th Century Spanish Cobb or better known as a Pirate's "Pieces of Eight", the coin I neglected to show is below and was found by Gary Drayton on Oak Island.
I would imagine with your knowledge of Templar's coinage that you would confirm its validity and maybe help explain its presence on Oak Island.
View attachment 1144655
Mysterious artifacts unearthed in treasure hunt on Oak Island - Boston Standard
Hello Robot.
As usual you twist things around when you get called out in post number when you try to pass off alleged poor 8 real coin as a Templar coin. The simple fact as I clearly stated I have enjoyed peoples theories. My issue is way you have presented as well as others the information here by twisting it out of context to suit your needs. Just as you twisted again my post " would object to the expressing of any opinions?" I have no issue or even a opinion with your theory and I have no doubt your very interested in the topic.
But what I do take issue with is the lack of method on how you came to the conclusion that the following artifacts is " Proof is growing 100 items to date" Clearly you having trouble with on how you present things.. Thus devaluing your work to others to be seen as Pseudoscience.
Clearly you and a few others have that trouble distinguishing between facts and assumptions. An Assumption is un proven, thus cannot be relied upon as fact. All research mush go through rigorous scrutiny, Yet you boldly claim they are part 100 items of Proof. With no scientific or historical evaluation of historical content of items.
That my friend is Pseudoscience. is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
While indeed I do accept a little leeway as this is an informal forum on treasure legends and no need for formal academic document either. However, when you post things and you presented them as "this is Proof" Or "that is..". It sends signals to me and others here straight away that your pumping an agenda based on a for gone conclusion which is of course based on an assumption. Especially when the items shown are out of contex for what they are.
If you presented the above items in different way such as claiming "Perhaps this is evidence?" or Maybe "these artifacts have importance?" You posts would be much less painful to read and Thus be receiving lot less negative feedback.
As for treasure hunters there are no treasure hunters here. No one in their right mind would ever wear publicly the tag of treasure hunter.
Crow