dedicated to b3y0nd3r : An example of a treasure legend evolution :

[Charlie P. (NY)]

McGinnis lived on the island. Smith bought several parcels on the island. Vaughn lived near and participated in the digs until his 60s. If they conned people, they didn't do a very good job of getting away from the island with the money. If they or just assumed there was treasure because of a sink hole, than many other believed them.

Their whole lives were wasted IF they didn't have any evidence of something, which, to use your own logic, doesn't make sense.

People gotta live somewhere. Do you think every person living on islands in Mahone Bay were pulling treasure out to justify their home site location? There are 32 lots on Oak Island.

Heck, you can buy the next island over, Frog Island, with an 11,000 sq ft home for $2.5 million. Sounds like SOMEONE found some treasure somewhere.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Carl-NC]

Their whole lives were wasted IF they didn't have any evidence of something, which, to use your own logic, doesn't make sense.

That's what delusions are all about.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

That's what delusions are all about.

Delusions? If you are equating beliefs to delusions, then you offending a lot of religious people. Also, if you believe it's all "delusions", then why are you here? Why a person of your caliber is wasting so much time correcting us delusional people?

There are a great many things you could(should?) be doing besides wasting time here.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

b3y0nd3r, thanx for reading and considering that attempt at an analogy / example of how treasure legends can evolve.



Yes. No doubt there is "differences". There are differences in every single stories. That doesn't mean the "moral of the story" can't still hold merit as a plausible explanation.

Like if someone tried to use the story of the "boy who cried wolf" , someone else could object and say "It doesn't apply, if the person crying wolf, was a girl, and a not a boy". Or "name of the boy" or "the size of the wolf", or "how long they lived there", etc... has anything at all to do with the very applicable "boy -who-cried wolf " moral of the story. So too could my analogy apply, even if exact names, dates, individual factors, etc... are different. No two stories are every 100% identical (lest....... they'd be the exact same story, doh !) . But the point can still be relevant/applicable.

And I will say, "no doubt" that some stories will spiral and become more grandiose and more inaccurate as it is told over the passage of time.

However, the original story of OI has nothing which I would consider, more grandiose nor inaccurate simply because, it is a plain, detailed, and lack lustered story.

Original story:

Three boys/men dig a hole find wood planks every 10 feet. Find coconut fiber. Find putty.

Pretty boring story. Where is is the meat of it?

My version(if I was trying to impress people/get investors)

Three men found a circle of medium sized stones and in the middle of these stones was a deep impression. Digging down ten feet, they discovered a trap door leading to a large cavern. In the cavern was two skeletal remains of men in traditional Spanish military style clothing and a small ships gun as well as many other common use items. The remains were buried on the island and the gun and the common use items were sold to help finance the dig.

The cavern was adorned with carvings, which later were deciphered to tell a story that massive amounts of Spanish gold and silver were lowered deeper into the pit. In the corner of the cavern was another trap door with very old ladders leading lower levels.

See my point?

 

[TN13]

What exactly is being argued with regard to how "believable" the origin story was? Because it was "boring", it's valid? You have to also realize that story told today can take on a very different color than it might have over 200 years ago. Society has changed a lot. Back then, the story may have sounded very compelling and almost suggestive. Why else would it appear in print?

We have all been exposed to a vast greater variety of information, i.e. science based evidence and historical research debunking so many age old myths and legends. As an example, many years ago when my late grandmother was young, she thought she saw the devil out in one of the fields on their farm at night. It was her uncle from the next farm over just checking out the crops with a kerosene lantern.

Today I would hazard a guess that most people, when they first see or hear something they would consider hard to believe, would assume there was some logical explanation until further evidence is presented. My grandmother was not superstitious or prone to believing in the supernatural but she was living in very different cultural context in the early 1900's. I think it would be interesting to do a survey of newspaper articles from the 1850's to see how common one like OI were (not just treasure legends but other unexplained phenomena).

I'm not saying the origin story of OI doesn't have some kernel of truth. I just wouldn't base it's validity on how dull or exciting it was.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

What exactly is being argued with regard to how "believable" the origin story was? Because it was "boring", it's valid? You have to also realize that story told today can take on a very different color than it might have over 200 years ago. Society has changed a lot. Back then, the story may have sounded very compelling and almost suggestive. Why else would it appear in print?

We have all been exposed to a vast greater variety of information, i.e. science based evidence and historical research debunking so many age old myths and legends. As an example, many years ago when my late grandmother was young, she thought she saw the devil out in one of the fields on their farm at night. It was her uncle from the next farm over just checking out the crops with a kerosene lantern.

Today I would hazard a guess that most people, when they first see or hear something they would consider hard to believe, would assume there was some logical explanation until further evidence is presented. My grandmother was not superstitious or prone to believing in the supernatural but she was living in very different cultural context in the early 1900's. I think it would be interesting to do a survey of newspaper articles from the 1850's to see how common one like OI were (not just treasure legends but other unexplained phenomena).

I'm not saying the origin story of OI doesn't have some kernel of truth. I just wouldn't base it's validity on how dull or exciting it was.

This is the perfect example of something taken out of context. I was providing an example of what the OI story should be comparing it to Tom's golden owl story. I hope this helps.

 

[n2mini]

Kinda like UFO's and the new show Blue Book on TV currently...

 

[TN13]

This is the perfect example of something taken out of context. I was providing an example of what the OI story should be comparing it to Tom's golden owl story. I hope this helps.

This is what I was responding to: "However, the original story of OI has nothing which I would consider, more grandiose nor inaccurate simply because, it is a plain, detailed, and lack lustered story. "

 

[franklin]

I do not know why we can not just watch the show? Why all of these debates? The Laginas are only using these debates to make more stupid movies. If they wanted to find treasure, they would use more than one metal detector. They can find more within 8 feet of the surface of the ground than they will ever find by drilling holes 200 feet deep to look at mud, logs and boards that have been excavated to a depth of over 100 feet and then filled back in years ago. Total waste of time and millions of dollars.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

This is what I was responding to: "However, the original story of OI has nothing which I would consider, more grandiose nor inaccurate simply because, it is a plain, detailed, and lack lustered story. "

Never mind.

 

[Toecutter]

When i was in middle the teacher wispered a sort tale to a student and told them to pass it on, by the time it made its way around the room took about 5 minutes it was a completly differnt tale that made no sence... Also those guys herd gold and coins could of bin a hole conversation but all they herd was gold coins.....

 

[Carl-NC]

Delusions? If you are equating beliefs to delusions, then you offending a lot of religious people. Also, if you believe it's all "delusions", then why are you here? Why a person of your caliber is wasting so much time correcting us delusional people?

My response wasn't directed at you or anyone else here, rather your statement:

"Their whole lives were wasted IF they didn't have any evidence of something..."

It's very easy for a person to get caught in the grips of "treasure fever" and chase something that other people would dismiss as nonsense. Once delusions set in and take control the person can no longer step back and take a rational look at the situation, nor can they see any explanations other than the ones that support their delusions. I see it all the time, even today, and even all over TNet. I'm fascinated by the psychology of this, and that's why I'm here.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Somethings to consider:

1. We may never know if the three men, Daniel, Anthony, and John, discovered a tackle hanging from a tree or even a depression. We can know for certain that whatever they saw in the money pit area took hold of all three of them and changed the course of their lives.
2. There is no documented remnants of wooden platforms every ten feet, only stories about the dig. What we do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that they were motivated to keep digging. If there was no flagstone, no platforms, no loose dirt and pick-ax marks along the walls of the pit, do you think they would have kept digging for a hundred feet? Just ask yourself the question, and let me remind you that these men were not retired or bored. They had families to feed and a lot of other hard work to be doing.
3. Oak Island nuts say that enough people saw the inscribed stone that it may have been real, but even without the proof of the strange code, we have the sweat-equity of a second 100 foot hole. These three men found something that motivated them to overcome the first flood and dig a second hole and eventually continue on after a second flooding. Even if we don't have proof of what it was, we know that it was something very real.
4. Some Acorns say that the treasure was found during this first dig. If that were the case, I seriously doubt Anthony and John would have spent there later years still digging. I just don't think that digging deep, vertical holes for no reason is any fun.
5. Some people say that the dig was just a hoax. The life he led portrays Daniel dying with the elusive treasure on his mind. Why do I think that he never gave up believing? I will tell you why, because he passed down enough information to keep his descendants on the quest. His Will and Testament left his property on Oak Island to his sons and daughters. No one would perpetrate a plan to follow the family like a curse, Daniel must have believed in this treasure-hunt with all his heart. The obsession Daniel began, did not stop with his children, each generation was also driven to send their children to search and so on down the line for 200 years.
   We may never know what Daniel found, or what information he discovered, but we can clearly see what he did with it. He passed down what he thought was valuable. Ask yourself, is there a father or grandfather that would try to mislead his entire family? By the lives led and actions of McGinnis men from 1795-1983, I say that it is obvious that Daniel found something very compelling on Oak Island.

 

[Darke]

My response wasn't directed at you or anyone else here, rather your statement:

"Their whole lives were wasted IF they didn't have any evidence of something..."

It's very easy for a person to get caught in the grips of "treasure fever" and chase something that other people would dismiss as nonsense. Once delusions set in and take control the person can no longer step back and take a rational look at the situation, nor can they see any explanations other than the ones that support their delusions. I see it all the time, even today, and even all over TNet. I'm fascinated by the psychology of this, and that's why I'm here.

Yup, it's definitely interesting at what people will grasp at to support a scenario. Some people will even expand their own stories if there's too much of a lack of evidence or support. Each time they tell the story it gets grander and grander.

 

[TN13]

Never mind.

Of course.

 

[TN13]

I'm sure back in that day the area was flush with pirate lore and tales of treasure cashes. Confirmed pirate activity was in that area of the country only decades before. Seems like a fertile environment for buried treasure fever. There certainly could have been evidence of something going on on OI but to just assume the original searchers knew or even had a good idea it was buried riches seems like a huge leap. I'm sure they wanted to believe that ideas was true.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... See my point? ...

Yes, but as I've said before:

a) all those points in your post #24, is pointing to the Legend as proof of the legend. And yes, I see that you are making a "wise appeal" to the earliest versions . Yes that acknowledges the telephone-game-legend treasure-fever psychology. Yet it doesn't address that ..... EVEN EARLY VERSIONS can have "more plausible explanations". (as was the case of my opening post in this thread).

b) Any such "uncanny things" can exist all over the place, anywhere in the USA, if someone studies the ground in their county, city, parks, forests, etc.... As I've said: I can likewise walk a 5-mile radius from my house, and find "out of place" and "mysterious" things too.

c) I can GRANT all those details (for sake of argument), and we can both agree that they do not necessarily point to treasure.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

What exactly is being argued with regard to how "believable" the origin story was? Because it was "boring", it's valid? You have to also realize that story told today can take on a very different color than it might have over 200 years ago. Society has changed a lot. Back then, the story may have sounded very compelling and almost suggestive. Why else would it appear in print?

We have all been exposed to a vast greater variety of information, i.e. science based evidence and historical research debunking so many age old myths and legends. As an example, many years ago when my late grandmother was young, she thought she saw the devil out in one of the fields on their farm at night. It was her uncle from the next farm over just checking out the crops with a kerosene lantern.

Today I would hazard a guess that most people, when they first see or hear something they would consider hard to believe, would assume there was some logical explanation until further evidence is presented. My grandmother was not superstitious or prone to believing in the supernatural but she was living in very different cultural context in the early 1900's. I think it would be interesting to do a survey of newspaper articles from the 1850's to see how common one like OI were (not just treasure legends but other unexplained phenomena).

I'm not saying the origin story of OI doesn't have some kernel of truth. I just wouldn't base it's validity on how dull or exciting it was.

excellent post. Your example of the person in the field with the Kerosene lantern, that some kid thought was a "spook", is an excellent example . I mean, let's be honest: Since when hasn't EVERY LITTLE BOY (ourselves included) come up with crazy notions when we were little kids ?

When I was a little kid, myself and the neighborhood little kids all hatched an idea that one particular neighborhood adult person was "flushing puppies down toilets". How in the world did we come up with that idea ? Simple (as I came to realize when I reached my teens): Because they had flushed a dead goldfish down the toilet. That morphed into live fish. Which morphed into pets. Which morphed into puppies, etc... And trust me: Us kids were CONVINCED that "mean old misses Jones flushes puppies down toilets" !

Thus when I read the "story of the little boys who saw lights on Oak Island" and thus "went over to dig", I have to ask myself: Why are they exempt from the time-honored tradition of simply possibly having been "little boys with wide imaginations" LIKE EVER HUMAN BEING WAS WHEN THEY WERE LITTLE AND MIS-INFORMED ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... not superstitious or prone to believing in the supernatural ....

Also: My stance no this legend or other legends, is NOT to "cast aspursions" on religion, the after-life, supernatural, etc.... In my opinion the evidences for "something beyond the here and now" (God) IS there. But for O.I.: I believe there are more plausible explanations, for all the factors.

 

[franklin]

If you go to Chronicling America and read old newspapers on treasure stories or lost treasure, you will find several stories that con men made up to entice investors into sinking their money into holes where the perpetrators knew there was no treasure to begin with. Several on Captain Kid, some on lost Indian Silver Mines others on hermits that hid large caches of gold. But if you read further into the future of the newspapers you will find where these stories were all bogus and nothing but people mining the pockets of the greedy rich. Smith family on Oak Island were kin to the Smith that founded the Mormon Religion on bogus claims of dowsing and finding treasure. Then with the modern age of computers and other means of getting to the investors we end up with a show called, "The Curse of Oak Island" "The Curse of the Confederate Gold" and "The Curse of Aliens and UFO's" Wake up people, search and find your own treasures and leave the suckers to have at it.