Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Treasure implies something of extraordinary value. Otherwise it is just "valuable".

There is no evidence to support that anything was set, dropped or placed on the ground and later removed. Or to refute it; for that matter.

I only stated that there is no evidence to support treasure having been on Oak Island.

Might someone have dropped a $20 wrench and someone else picked it up? Sure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Robot]

The End Game!

...and that seems to be the modus operandi with many of the claims posted as fact on these threads.
One doesn't even need to prove it "wrong", because when the information is only questioned due to its outlandish and dubious content and the source requested to be cited, the poster of said doubtful "facts" gets bent out of shape and makes derogative remarks concerning the questioner and professional historians for good measure, but NEVER provides any real source material in support of his nebulous statement of "fact".

There is such an academic process and method of the presentation of historical evidence which includes review by professionals in their respective fields of study. The alternative "suppressed" history revelations are NOT in No way real history, but an entertaining parody of true researched and documented history that the gullible conspiracy minded audience mistake for real actual history.
The "proving wrong" is in the nonacceptance of the community of professional academic historians and archaeologists who have dedicated their lifeworks on presenting and preserving the true story of history.

To me…Being a participant on this Thread…is more contingent with being a Player on a Virtual Computer Game, or one of the many Major Fantasy Adventure Movies, or even like the original Pac Man game.



It is “Strange” how a Player on this Thread... enters the game by throwing down his or her “Theory” and is immediately set upon by the games' Opponents.

As they maneuver through the Maze up pops these Opponents…challenging them…with “Bizarre” statements to defend…”I believe this is not possible”…”they could never have done that”…”this seems impossible”.

It is then left to the Player’s challenge to conquer his Opponent with…”I believe it could be done”…”this is not beyond their capabilities”…”I will try to show you how”.

Some proceed further…until they reach…The Gate Keeper!

Here is where they are confronted by the Gate Keeper…not as Gandalf from The Lord of The Rings…“You Shall Not Pass”!



But!

More like the Genie... who requires the answering of his “Riddle” to proceed.



I see you... ECS... as this Powerful Gate Keeper!

I am Player Number 1... on this Thread!



I am almost at your Gate and when I reach it... I will have the “Truth” to your Riddle.

Your Riddle:

“What is the Proof to Solve…The Mystery of Oak Island”?

With my answer to your riddle…I await your reply…Well Done…Pass!

 

[ECS]

To me…Being a participant on this Thread…is more contingent with being a Player on a Virtual Computer Game, or one of the many Major Fantasy Adventure Movies...
I see you... ECS... as this Powerful Gate Keeper!
I am Player Number 1... on this Thread!
I am almost at your Gate and when I reach it... I will have the “Truth” to your Riddle.
Your Riddle:...

...If intrepid Freemasons created a "star map" to a treasure that lacks any real evidence of actual being buried on Oak Island was this an ephemeral mystical arcane moon lite search for more light?
I await your answer.

 

[Robot]

Are You An Opponent?...Or Are You?...The Gate Keeper?

...If intrepid Freemasons created a "star map" to a treasure that lacks any real evidence of actual being buried on Oak Island was this an ephemeral mystical arcane moon lite search for more light?
I await your answer.

Do you wish to act like an Opponent...or await for your Riddle to be Solved?

 

[ECS]

Yes, as you wish.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

It is “Strange” how a Player on this Thread... enters the game by throwing down his or her “Theory” and is immediately set upon by the games' Opponents.

It's not so bad. I entered my therory that there never was anything of value buried on Oak Island based on the evidence and so far most have been pretty supportive . . . in not disrupting that theory by presenting evidendce to discredit it.

Thanks guys!

 

[franklin]

It's not so bad. I entered my therory that there never was anything of value buried on Oak Island based on the evidence and so far most have been pretty supportive . . . in not disrupting that theory by presenting evidendce to discredit it.

Thanks guys!

Man has never colonized the moon?

 

[ECS]

Man has never colonized the moon?

View attachment 1867020

Didn't a Lunar Rover find coconut coir samples on the moon surface proving the Templars buried a treasure there?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Why would anyone go to the moon to make a replica of the ruins of Ardeshir-e Babakan's Palace in Iran? And how did they get the water to form a reservoir and stream?

https://www.irandestination.com/sassanid-archaeological-landscape-iran-destination/

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attract...r_Babakan_Palace-Firuzabad_Fars_Province.html

Even as a distraction from Oak Island discussions.

 

[ECS]

Are you saying that the discovered in a Cracker Jack box lost Templar journal about Knight Templar de Villiers' trip to the moon to bury treasure isn't real, Charlie P?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

It's well known that the Templars faked their 1309 moon landing and the wood-cuts were actually made here on Earth in a darkened cloister.




Although, come to think of it, we do have our own Baron von Munchausen in this thread. Possibly several. ;-)

 

[gjb]

So far there is overwhelming proof that those who say anything of value exists on Oak Island are wrong. Total lack of contradicting evidence.

Whether it did exist and was spirited off the island unannounced - harder to dispute.

But the simple answer is . . . you are mistaken if you think there was a treasure on Oak Island.

Unfortunately, until the whole island is sifted through a screen the hopeful will not surrender. And even then the'll just claim you missed a spot. You can't beat the faithful with physical evidence or logic. They run on dreams and fancy.

I see things haven’t changed here, and I’m still not getting this.

We don’t actually know for sure either way, that there was or was not a treasure on OI. I imagine it would be impossible to prove that there was never a treasure on the island, and nobody has yet proven that there was.

I’ve always felt that it would improve discussion here no end if we could simply accept that there are two basic competing hypotheses, with the emphasis on hypothesis:

Theory 1: That there never was a treasure on Oak Island.
Theory 2: That there was, or is, a treasure on Oak Island.

The key word here is theory. Neither hypothesis has been proven, so neither should be declared to be fact. Yet, we see here:

“I entered my theory that there never was anything of value buried on Oak Island.” That’s fine, it’s recognition that this suggestion is theory, not fact, but then we have:

“You are mistaken if you think there was a treasure on Oak Island.” Now, it appears that the theory is being presented as fact. However, this is just a view on the matter. It’s certainly not proven. How could it be?

I agree that things look bad for treasure theorists, but where does the notion that, “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” come from? It’s not the same thing. It’s like saying that the unknown artefact that’s now sitting in the ground waiting to be found never existed. It’s actually there, but it won’t be found by people sitting in an armchair declaring that it isn’t.

The OP of a recent post here on the real treasure seems to sum up the Laginas’ attitude: spin out the search by digging holes and hope that something turns up.

If there’s no treasure on the island then no amount of digging will uncover one. The problem is that if there’s a treasure there then the current haphazard digging seems unlikely to reveal it. So, perhaps we have:

Theory 2a: That there’s a treasure on Oak Island so well hidden that it's unlikely to be found by accident.

That would have exactly the same appearance as Theory 1: That there never was a treasure on Oak Island.

In order to avoid total negativity, if the treasure can’t be found by accident then might it be found by design? Hence, my hypothesis that the instructions on the despised and derided treasure maps could be the only genuine information on them, despite appearances, and that these apply to Oak Island.

Thereafter, assuming this to be so and applying them to the ground markers on the island appears to reveal their intent. Were this view correct, there may be other original documentation, or copies, yet to be found.

The trouble is, so many people declare that they know the answer to the Oak Island mystery, or know what it isn't, without looking, that nobody bothers to look.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I’ve always felt that it would improve discussion here no end if we could simply accept that there are two basic competing hypotheses, with the emphasis on hypothesis:

Theory 1: That there never was a treasure on Oak Island.
Theory 2: That there was, or is, a treasure on Oak Island.

I always have. And am ready to embrace the first convincing evidence that Theory #2 has any traction over Theory #1.

 

[gjb]

I always have. And am ready to embrace the first convincing evidence that Theory #2 has any traction over Theory #1.

This doesn't address the issue. You’re stating that Theory 1 is not theory at all, but a proven fact. So, you should be producing your proof of this. Put another way, you’re declaring Theory 2 to be a false hypothesis, and, so, you have to be able to prove that this is so bearing in mind that no treasure having been found is not proof that one never existed.

There was a time when the city of Troy was a myth. It hadn’t been found, therefore it didn’t exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Absolutely not so. The city was eventually located, but not by those who declared that they knew for a fact that its existence was the stuff of unsubstantiated fable.

There was a time when certain academics declared that there never was a meteor strike at the KT boundary that could have contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs, because there was no crater. The crater had not been found therefore it didn’t exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Absolutely not. The crater was eventually identified, but not by those who sat in their armchairs declaring the futility of the search.

There was a time when it was held that the Viking sagas were myth and the Vikings never settled in the Americas. No such settlement had been found therefore none ever existed. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Not so. A settlement was eventually found, but not by those who declared that they alone had the answer and so there was no point in looking.

It could well be that there never was a treasure on Oak Island, but nobody knows whether this is so. Therefore, nobody should be saying that they do, and certainly not on the basis that no treasure has been found.

The issue is not that Theory 1 may appear preferable to Theory 2, but that both are theories. You're declaring that Theory 1 is not a theory at all but absolute fact, so it’s up to you to produce your proof of this.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

This doesn't address the issue. You’re stating that Theory 1 is not theory at all, but a proven fact. So, you should be producing your proof of this.

No, I'm not. Theory 1 is still a theory because a very real possibility exists that if a treasure was in place that someone was smart enough to remove it and keep quiet about it. After all - that is the sensible approach.

But, as it is a negative declaration ("no treasure existed") it is impossible to prove. You cannot prove a negative declaration. You can only prove positive declarations. And so far no one has proven Theory 2. But they are both still viable. I just happen to find Theory 1 more likely.

 

[gjb]

No, I'm not.

I have to disagree. You may not be saying it now, but you said it a few posts back. When you declared, "you are mistaken if you think there was a treasure on Oak Island," you were surely equally stating that, “you are right if you think there wasn't a treasure on Oak Island,” and that sounds very much like a declaration of fact to me. Or have I missed some subtle nuance?

For the rest, that’s exactly my point. The two hypotheses are actually two sides of the same coin, but which one is preferable is a matter of personal opinion. Nevertheless, one might consider the matter on a purely scientific level.

Some may believe that Theory 2 is a false hypothesis, but, as you note, Theory 1 is surely a barren hypothesis. After all, the current existence of a treasure in Theory 2 is capable of being tested simply by digging, but how could Theory 1 ever be tested? In fact, is it capable of negation without, in effect, actually testing Theory 2?

So, in this operational respect, if looking for a null hypothesis for test, Theory 2 would be the preferred hypothesis, that is, for anyone wishing to determine whether or not there is a treasure on Oak Island at present, because, if refined to specify a location, it can be tested. This is not the case when expressing the research question in the form of Theory 1. If a hypothesis can’t be tested then, surely, it has to be undesirable as a working hypothesis, though this doesn’t make it wrong.

So, Theory 1 ends up as the ‘do nothing’ scenario, but some prefer to hold off from denying a potential truth by continuing the search for answers hoping for a resolution on the basis that you don’t find answers if you don’t look for them. The risk, of course, is wasting one’s time on a fruitless quest.

Thus, the choice is: run the risk of being wrong having done nothing or run the risk of being wrong having tried to find the answer. Those who prefer the second option - action rather than inaction - have not yet been proven wrong.

Obviously, the Laginas’ work is mostly geared towards testing Theory 2, but they’ve also touched upon aspects of Theory 1 in that the driving force behind the mystery need not necessarily have been a treasure. This has prompted some interesting considerations.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I await convincing evidence that treasure exists or existed on Oak Island.

This is not the same as a scientific theory - that can be repeated by experiment or observed in nature. This is a binary choice of past history: yes or no.

Regarding Oak Island the "theories" take the definition of hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

 

[gjb]

I await convincing evidence that treasure exists or existed on Oak Island.

This is not the same as a scientific theory - that can be repeated by experiment or observed in nature. This is a binary choice of past history: yes or no.

Regarding Oak Island the "theories" take the definition of hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

There's a huge conflict between your second and third sentences. The conduct of inquiry is all about hypothesis testing. One assumes a hypothesis is correct and attempts to determine whether that assumption is borne out by testing.

If you assume that there never was a treasure on Oak Island you cannot test that assumption. If you assume that there is a treasure on Oak Island then you can test whether that is so.

How on earth do you think anyone can get convincing evidence that a treasure exists or existed on Oak Island without testing whether the assumption is correct - without looking? If you don't look for original documentation you won't find it. If you don't look for clues you won’t find them, if you don’t look for corroborating evidence you won't find any.

If you want to know whether the answer to a puzzle is yes or no then formulate a question that can be checked out (a hypothesis that can be tested) and then test it. All of us do this in every day life.

Deciding that you prefer not to look for an answer won't give you an answer and doesn't make your decision right. You don’t have to espouse the Philosophy of Science, but academics find it extremely useful. Archaeologists use it, historians use it, and metal detectorists use it.

Your decision not to detect in a field that’s so far proved unproductive doesn’t mean that there’s not a hoard buried in it. It just means that if there is then you choose not to find it.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

What puzzle? Who says Oak Island is a puzzle? That's an unsupported assumption.

Okie dokie. An awful lot of belly-button lint and still no treasure.

I encourage EVERYONE to go search. But please don't come back or release the video UNTIL it is found.

Better yet. Send a few nice and in focus images.

 

[gjb]

What puzzle? Who says Oak Island is a puzzle? That's an unsupported assumption.

Okie dokie. An awful lot of belly-button lint and still no treasure.

I encourage EVERYONE to go search. But please don't come back or release the video UNTIL it is found.

Better yet. Send a few nice and in focus images.

Oak Island isn't a puzzle? There's no mystery? There are no unanswered questions? You have all the answers? You're truly a host of contradictions.

It seems that everyone else here supports your stand on this, so I'll just leave you all to it. The forum obviously prefers the unreasoned to the reasoned, the unstructured to the structured, the untutored to the tutored, and good luck to you all with that.