Raparee
Hero Member
The Lagina's haven't found anything. This structure has been known and uncovered a few times since the 1960's.
Oak Island the Strange, the Bizarre, and Maybe the "Truth!
- Thread starter Robot
- Start date
The Lagina's haven't found anything. This structure has been known and uncovered a few times since the 1960's.
sasquash
Sr. Member
OP
OP
Robot
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 2,039
- 1,740
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- Thread starter
- #1,323
And What Tree Species Would You Label These?
It was very Strange... that the original owner, an engineer and I believe member of the Original Depositors of Oak Island... of Lots 8 and 22...in 1762...named his property on Nova Scotia...as Acacia Grove!
It was very Strange... that the original owner, an engineer and I believe member of the Original Depositors of Oak Island... of Lots 8 and 22...in 1762...named his property on Nova Scotia...as Acacia Grove!
Last edited:
Raparee
Hero Member
... named for Robinia pseudoacacia, not or true acacia.
OP
OP
Robot
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 2,039
- 1,740
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- Thread starter
- #1,325
False Acacia?
Have you seen any Data verifying this as the species of tree you claim?
I do not see in any pictures having this tree with an umbrella canopy, like those in the picture of Oak Island.
Black Locust...False Acacia.
I find it hard to believe a World Renowned Arboriculturist the likes of Charles Prescott, son of Jonathan Prescott would make such a grand mistake calling his home Acacia Grove, when it wasn't.
Though his horticultural interests varied widely, he named his estate Acacia Grove for all the acacia trees he planted there, it was through his interest in apples that he would leave his longest lasting impression. By introducing many apple varieties new to the Annapolis Valley, Charles Prescott influenced apple production for years to come.
Have you seen any Data verifying this as the species of tree you claim?
I do not see in any pictures having this tree with an umbrella canopy, like those in the picture of Oak Island.
Black Locust...False Acacia.
I find it hard to believe a World Renowned Arboriculturist the likes of Charles Prescott, son of Jonathan Prescott would make such a grand mistake calling his home Acacia Grove, when it wasn't.
Though his horticultural interests varied widely, he named his estate Acacia Grove for all the acacia trees he planted there, it was through his interest in apples that he would leave his longest lasting impression. By introducing many apple varieties new to the Annapolis Valley, Charles Prescott influenced apple production for years to come.
- May 9, 2012
- 23,965
- 81,315
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Don't let some one calling something what it is not in Nova Scotia dissuade you from the truth.
Black locust are not acacia trees.
Acacia trees are not growing on Oak Island as a result of Prescott.
Elephants and giraffes browsing on his black locust on the island? Maybe...But not on their native acacia.
OP
OP
Robot
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 2,039
- 1,740
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- Thread starter
- #1,327
What is Bizarre with this...Painting?
Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all appear to be of the same size, , no smaller ones or larger ones, all arranged in a designated area...as if they were Planted at the Same Time?
Is it not Bizarre, the "Trees" in question have no pictures showing them growing on the Mainland or any of the several hundred Islands, surrounding Oak Island?
Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all died at roughly the Same Time?
Is it to be Believed, the "Trees" in question are what gave Oak Island its Name?
There were large Red Oaks on the island as shown by pictures of Lot 5's untouched Habitat.
Maybe the Truth Is, the "Trees" in question had a purpose for Being There!
Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all appear to be of the same size, , no smaller ones or larger ones, all arranged in a designated area...as if they were Planted at the Same Time?
Is it not Bizarre, the "Trees" in question have no pictures showing them growing on the Mainland or any of the several hundred Islands, surrounding Oak Island?
Is it not Strange, the "Trees" in question all died at roughly the Same Time?
Is it to be Believed, the "Trees" in question are what gave Oak Island its Name?
There were large Red Oaks on the island as shown by pictures of Lot 5's untouched Habitat.
Maybe the Truth Is, the "Trees" in question had a purpose for Being There!
- May 9, 2012
- 23,965
- 81,315
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Raparee
Hero Member
"Acacia" was (and still is) a common name for R. pseudoacacia.
OP
OP
Robot
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 2,039
- 1,740
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- Thread starter
- #1,331
Where Do You...Find This...Stuff?
Robinia is more used in the English language spoken in Europe and Black Locust is a more common term in America, and other English-speaking countries.
Pseudo...Means...False Acacia...Not Real...Never Was!
Its like saying a Pig is the common name for a Horse.
Robinia is more used in the English language spoken in Europe and Black Locust is a more common term in America, and other English-speaking countries.
Pseudo...Means...False Acacia...Not Real...Never Was!
Its like saying a Pig is the common name for a Horse.
sasquash
Sr. Member
Last edited:
Raparee
Hero Member
Common names can cause confusion, which is why binomial nomenclature was developed. In Cape Breton, it's common to hear people say "juniper" when they are referring to larch (Larix laricina). We have eastern white cedar in this area, everyone calls it cedar, but it's not really a cedar.
Common names tend to be local, which is why in some areas R. pseudoacacia is referred to as robinia, in some as locust, and in the eastern part of Canada, it's largely referred to as acacia.
Last edited:
Raparee
Hero Member
Another good example. That is not a true cedar, either. True cedars are found in the Mediterranean area, and in parts of Asia. This tree is in the cypress family, and yet there are communities in that area named Cedar Grove, or whatever.... in the same way that Prescott named his property Acacia Grove after the locust.
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
I haven't read this thread, from start to finish. Just now scanned the last several pages. Re.: the debate about tree species, native vs non-native, implications thereof, etc....
This is just SO typical of the "wack-a-mole" game that goes on. The pro or con side tosses out a purported support or doubt, that hinges on some fringe element of the story. Eg.: a tree that is on the island. Ie.: can it prove visitors at an early time ? Can it prove visitors from a certain country ? Can it survive the ocean journey ? What is its DNA makeup ? What is the rate of growth of said-tree ? Etc... Etc... etc....
Other examples of this psychology are : To debate fuel capacity and MPG of ships during WWII, if talking about Yamashita. Page after page of debate. Or page after page of discussion on whether or not manual labor can dig a tunnel xx ft deep, and how long that would take, blah blah blah.
And as you have seen: The debate grows to pages and pages, as is shown here.
But at a certain point, doesn't anyone stop and ask themselves: "Wait !? What does this have to do with whether or not there is a treasure ?" If treasure-proponents COULD INDEED show some historical fact (tree types/origin, names, dates, events, etc...), then does that necessarily prove a desired outcome of "treasure" ?
What I'm trying to say is: A treasure story can be 99% true ! (ie.: based on real names, dates, events). Yet if the 1% of the story about the treasure ISN'T true, then ... what good does it do to debate the other 99% ? EVERY TREASURE LEGEND is built around "facts" (they never start with "once upon a time"). And you can sort "fact from fiction" till the cows come home. If there were no treasure, then ....... drum roll ..... there's no treasure.
This is just SO typical of the "wack-a-mole" game that goes on. The pro or con side tosses out a purported support or doubt, that hinges on some fringe element of the story. Eg.: a tree that is on the island. Ie.: can it prove visitors at an early time ? Can it prove visitors from a certain country ? Can it survive the ocean journey ? What is its DNA makeup ? What is the rate of growth of said-tree ? Etc... Etc... etc....
Other examples of this psychology are : To debate fuel capacity and MPG of ships during WWII, if talking about Yamashita. Page after page of debate. Or page after page of discussion on whether or not manual labor can dig a tunnel xx ft deep, and how long that would take, blah blah blah.
And as you have seen: The debate grows to pages and pages, as is shown here.
But at a certain point, doesn't anyone stop and ask themselves: "Wait !? What does this have to do with whether or not there is a treasure ?" If treasure-proponents COULD INDEED show some historical fact (tree types/origin, names, dates, events, etc...), then does that necessarily prove a desired outcome of "treasure" ?
What I'm trying to say is: A treasure story can be 99% true ! (ie.: based on real names, dates, events). Yet if the 1% of the story about the treasure ISN'T true, then ... what good does it do to debate the other 99% ? EVERY TREASURE LEGEND is built around "facts" (they never start with "once upon a time"). And you can sort "fact from fiction" till the cows come home. If there were no treasure, then ....... drum roll ..... there's no treasure.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Robot
Bronze Member
- Mar 10, 2014
- 2,039
- 1,740
- Primary Interest:
- Other
- Thread starter
- #1,338
Tom...I am a little disappointed...with your Psychoanalysis!
I have followed your "posts" and always thought you to be an open minded poster.
To Solve a Mystery...No Clue is too Small...And the more Scrutinizing of any Clue...The better the odds of Solving the Mystery.
I have followed your "posts" and always thought you to be an open minded poster.
To Solve a Mystery...No Clue is too Small...And the more Scrutinizing of any Clue...The better the odds of Solving the Mystery.
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
Hey there Robot: A part of being "open-minded", is to be "open" to view-points that allow for the possibility of no treasure. In other words: The term "Open-minded" works both ways. Right ?
And as for "scrutinizing clues" (your words) , is that the old addage of "sorting fact from fiction", right ? But as I was saying: Let's say that 99% of the story is indeed based on "facts" (tree types, origin of trees, growth rate, etc...), then ... sure: A treasure proponent CAN INDEED sort those "facts from fiction", right ? And he can show them to be "fact", right ?
But wait: If there were no treasure (the 1% of the story), then what good is it doing? To debate those ancillary names, dates, events, trees, etc.... ?
Because there are people that think the story is fake. So maybe we need another sub-forum: OI treasure debate and OI story debate
.Top Member Reactions
-
3529 -
2084 -
2027 -
1153 -
1132 -
924 -
848 -
810 -
808 -
780 -
770 -
536 -
531 -
462 -
451 -
428 -
E
422
-
415 -
410 -
406
