I have brought the proof at hand, circumstantial as is appears.
Circumstantial as it appears, yes. Are there other proofs that are less circumstantial that point at other factors?
Your non acceptance of what I offer is non consequential.
Why is my non-acceptance of what you're offering inconsequential? You're trying to convince people of something, and I'm not convinced. I've explained why, and I thought that I did so in a clear and rational way. Were our roles reversed, I'd be very concerned.
Very debatable. I'm not alone in this opinion.
...answer with evidence at hand, and your saying Icelander came here leaving Runic, Templar and Norse legends with Christian symbols as validation of the occupation...I say the same symbols were left by creative Templar as markers, but to what...
Perhaps you should tell us more about those legends then, including their provenance. Do we know for certain who carved them?
If I were a Templar carving up rocks with mysterious symbols in order to hide a treasure that was buried in the area, what sort of inscriptions would be appropriate to convince random passers-by that there was nothing worthy of investigation in the area?
As for you being Trump...not a chance, Trump and his supporters aren't waiting for the Media tell them what to think...They look for their own answers...
Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. I think that I would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
All joking aside, define "media." Does your definition of "media" include works of fiction being marketed as pseudohistory? If I had a theory about a buried treasure that didn't jive with two centuries of tradition associated with said treasure, would I attempt to disprove the parts that didn't work with my new theory, or would I simply pretend that those two centuries hadn't happened? Would that make my theory more or less solid?
Really! I kind of take offence to that comment seeing I am one of those "Oak Island Guys"...
Ah. Things are becoming clearer now.
I am not one of those "Oak Island Guys," but I read a bit and I think critically. Does the fact that I have no money on the line make my opinion less, or more valid than someone that does?
What do you think about the Icelander theory? I'm not convinced that they went to Oak Island, but it would take no stretch of the imagination to think that they could have. In my mind, that establishes this theory as being far more plausible than the Templar one. I don't have a good reason why they would have brought coconut fibers with them, but I'm not sure why Templars would have done that either.
Erik the Red was a Viking and his son who is said to have discovered North America was considered a Viking in his early days so I believe I was somewhat accurate in using the term. If not please correct me.
I knew what you were referring to, so I'd say that that was close enough. That was not what I was referring to when I mentioned that your terminology was imprecise.