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

[Tom_in_CA]

Because there are people that think the story is fake. So maybe we need another sub-forum: OI treasure debate and OI story debate .

Oh but if only it were that simple The moment a forum is started to discuss the debate of "is there a treasure?", is the minute that these silly ancillary details get tossed out as "evidence", or "lack of evidence" thereof. And presto: You are thrust back down the same rabbit trails of debating how buoyant coconut fibers from India vs Africa are. Or how many coconut fibers can a canary from France or England carry in its beak. And what color the canary was, blah blah blah

As if: The truth or lack-thereof, of whether or not there is a treasure in-the-first-place, EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO with those silly sidetracks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Robot]

You are Right...With this!

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.

Rather than read a few pages of this Thread...Maybe you might read them All?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Oh but if only it were that simple The moment a forum is started to discuss the debate of "is there a treasure?", is the minute that these silly ancillary details get tossed out as "evidence", or "lack of evidence" thereof. And presto: You are thrust back down the same rabbit trails of debating how buoyant coconut fibers from India vs Africa are. Or how many coconut fibers can a canary from France or England carry in its beak. And what color the canary was, blah blah blah

As if: The truth or lack-thereof, of whether or not there is a treasure in-the-first-place, EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO with those silly sidetracks.

I will answer that right now. Yes and no. According to quantum science, both states exist until it is observed by an observer.

 

[lokiblossom]

Oh but if only it were that simple The moment a forum is started to discuss the debate of "is there a treasure?", is the minute that these silly ancillary details get tossed out as "evidence", or "lack of evidence" thereof. And presto: You are thrust back down the same rabbit trails of debating how buoyant coconut fibers from India vs Africa are. Or how many coconut fibers can a canary from France or England carry in its beak. And what color the canary was, blah blah blah

As if: The truth or lack-thereof, of whether or not there is a treasure in-the-first-place, EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO with those silly sidetracks.

I don't think I have seen a debate here about any of those points!

Do you want to start one?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Do you want to start one?....

haha loki-blossom, you don't think you have seen a debate about these points ? All ya gotta do it scroll back on the forum threads. And you will see no shortage of debates. Re.: the "names/dates/events/measurements/abilities-or-lack-thereof", etc....

And even if I, or someone else, "starts a debate" on some ancillary pro/con debate, guess what will happen ? The debates about "how many fibers can a canary carry in his beak" will go on for pages. And eventually, will anyone ever ask themself: "Wait, what does this have to do with whether or not there is a treasure ?"

 

[b3y0nd3r]

haha loki-blossom, you don't think you have seen a debate about these points ? All ya gotta do it scroll back on the forum threads. And you will see no shortage of debates. Re.: the "names/dates/events/measurements/abilities-or-lack-thereof", etc....

And even if I, or someone else, "starts a debate" on some ancillary pro/con debate, guess what will happen ? The debates about "how many fibers can a canary carry in his beak" will go on for pages. And eventually, will anyone ever ask themself: "Wait, what does this have to do with whether or not there is a treasure ?"

Reasons why these debates rage on is because:

One side feels that the other side is not understanding their point of view.

Pride. No one wants to lose, therefore, you can never agree even if secretly you do.

Poor or lack of evidence to convince the other side

Dismissal of logic evidence(this is a big one).

To me, the only evidence the debunkers provide is two fold:

1). No treasure was found therefore there isn't a treasure.

This is such a weak argument I don't see how any person of logic or science can say it is a valid argument. I think we can all agree that we don't know if there is, was, or wasn't a treasure.

2). No one would construct something like that.

Again, how do we know who would do what? How many things lay undiscovered in this world? Both sides cannot claim to know who would build what.

Both of these are CURRENTLY non-provable arguments and should be ignored.

 

[Raparee]

To me, the only evidence the debunkers provide is two fold:

1). No treasure was found therefore there isn't a treasure.

This is such a weak argument I don't see how any person of logic or science can say it is a valid argument. I think we can all agree that we don't know if there is, was, or wasn't a treasure.

2). No one would construct something like that.

Again, how do we know who would do what? How many things lay undiscovered in this world? Both sides cannot claim to know who would build what.

Both of these are CURRENTLY non-provable arguments and should be ignored.

How about this: I do not believe that there is a treasure because in over 200 years of searching, not one credible piece of material evidence has been presented that indicates that there is, or ever was, any treasure on Oak Island.

Also, it's not up to the 'debunkers' to supply any evidence. The onus is on those making the positive claims (Templars, Bacon, pirates, Norse, Klingons, whatever) to prove their claims by providing credible, verifiable material evidence. That has not been done.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

How about this: I do not believe that there is a treasure because in over 200 years of searching, not one credible piece of material evidence has been presented that indicates that there is, or ever was, any treasure on Oak Island.

Also, it's not up to the 'debunkers' to supply any evidence. The onus is on those making the positive claims (Templars, Bacon, pirates, Norse, Klingons, whatever) to prove their claims by providing credible, verifiable material evidence. That has not been done.

AND as Tom loves to point out, for thousands of years, no one could believe man could fly until the Wright brothers proved them wrong. So again, it is a moot point to argue.

if you provide no evidence to support YOUR side of the story, how is anyone going to take you seriously? Are they supposed to take your word for it? Learn to debate first, then debate.

 

[Raparee]

I have said that no material evidence has been presented that indicates that there is, or ever was, a treasure on OI. My evidence supporting this statement is the lack of material evidence that indicates that there is, or ever was, a treasure on OI.

Besides this, what evidence proving that there is no treasure on OI would you need to see?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I have said that no material evidence has been presented that indicates that there is, or ever was, a treasure on OI. My evidence supporting this statement is the lack of material evidence that indicates that there is, or ever was, a treasure on OI.

Besides this, what evidence proving that there is no treasure on OI would you need to see?

If I supported that there was a treasure, my evidence would be:

The three gold links

The sworn deposition of lose metal like coins rattling around when the drill bit penetrated deeper into the pit

The piece of parchment

COOI:

Evidence from that show would be metal hinges found deep in the pit

bone fragments

book bindings

A Mcginnis family member claiming they found three chests and producing an item from them.

But at this point, even I am not entirely convinced that there is, was, or isn't a treasure.

However, you can't prove there isn't a treasure until the search is completed. So there isn't any evidence you can present. Therefore, the treasure can't and shouldn't be debated.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

AND as Tom loves to point out, for thousands of years, no one could believe man could fly until the Wright brothers proved them wrong. So again, it is a moot point to argue.

if you provide no evidence to support YOUR side of the story, how is anyone going to take you seriously? Are they supposed to take your word for it? Learn to debate first, then debate.

Do you have proof that not one single person thought man could fly before the Wright Brothers?

The Montgolfier brothers flew in 1783. Otto Lilienthal was flying in gliders in the 1890's. Gustav Whitehead flew a powered aircraft in a controlled circuit two years before the Wright Brothers in front of witnesses and a Bridgeport Herald reporter who published the story. Just lacked a camera.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Do you have proof that not one single person thought man could fly before the Wright Brothers?

The Montgolfier brothers flew in 1783. Otto Lilienthal was flying in gliders in the 1890's. Gustav Whitehead flew a powered aircraft in a controlled circuit two years before the Wright Brothers in front of witnesses and a Bridgeport Herald reporter who published the story. Just lacked a camera.

Regardless, it doesn't invalidate my point.

 

[Bud Aurum]

Do you have proof that not one single person thought man could fly before the Wright Brothers?

The Montgolfier brothers flew in 1783. Otto Lilienthal was flying in gliders in the 1890's. Gustav Whitehead flew a powered aircraft in a controlled circuit two years before the Wright Brothers in front of witnesses and a Bridgeport Herald reporter who published the story. Just lacked a camera.

Open Your Mind Charlie...

Your Bud Aurum

 

[PirateLabs]

I will answer that right now. Yes and no. According to quantum science, both states exist until it is observed by an observer.

Yes but that does not apply here at all. In the quantum world, by simply "observing" you are adding energy into the objects being "observed" and therefore altering their natural state. (See Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) You can not simply just "see" these particles. In the context of this discussion, you can look at clues or evidence, or lack thereof without altering either. There either WAS a treasure, IS a treasure or NEVER WAS a treasure on Oak Island. Looking at clues does not alter the clues themselves or the reality of which of these three possibilities is true.

Bill

 

[franklin]

Why can we just not watch the show? It doesn't make any difference to us whether there is a treasure on Oak Island or not. What I like is there are people able to get out there and spend millions of dollars to entertain us. If they find a treasure then that will make an exciting ending to six years of movies. If not we have not lost one single dime.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Regardless, it doesn't invalidate my point.

The point that treasure should be thought to exist everywhere it has not been proven definitively not to exist?

That's no point at all. Since treasure is by definition and practice rare it is more suitable to presume it does not exist until proven to definitely be present by discovery. Clues to its whereabouts just narrow down where to look.

 

[cyzak]

I just wish they would find something substantial before Dan Blankenship passes away.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

beyOnd3r, I have to admit, I LOVE your posts. If it wasn't for posts like yours, there wouldn't be equal pro/con discussion. I actually love your inputs. They do totally typify a best-attempt to clarify the "pro" treasure point of view (when it comes to O.I.). Thus, please: Don't let up for a moment ! Don't be discouraged if someone (like myself or others here) poo-poo or come back with counter thoughts/evidence.

.... To me, the only evidence the debunkers provide is two fold:

1). No treasure was found therefore there isn't a treasure.

This is such a weak argument I don't see how any person of logic or science can say it is a valid argument. I think we can all agree that we don't know if there is, was, or wasn't a treasure......

I don't get it. If the subject-at-hand were "Are there leprechauns?" or "Are there unicorns?", then WHY WOULDN'T it be a valid argument, for the "persons of logic or science", to point out the : "Lack of leprechauns and unicorns" as proof of : "Lack of leprechauns or unicorns" ? Since when is that not a logical or scientific argument ?

AND as Tom loves to point out, for thousands of years, no one could believe man could fly until the Wright brothers proved them wrong.....

Hhhhmmm, ok, this is interesting. So the fact that scientists once thought heavier-than-air flight was impossible (which got proved wrong), therefore justifies or proves every single conjectured treasure legend, from here-on-out. Right ? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And as for the "3 gold links", etc... : To me, this just sounds like the "pointing back to the legend" as "proof of the legend".

 

[b3y0nd3r]

beyOnd3r, I have to admit, I LOVE your posts. If it wasn't for posts like yours, there wouldn't be equal pro/con discussion. I actually love your inputs. They do totally typify a best-attempt to clarify the "pro" treasure point of view (when it comes to O.I.). Thus, please: Don't let up for a moment ! Don't be discouraged if someone (like myself or others here) poo-poo or come back with counter thoughts/evidence.



I don't get it. If the subject-at-hand were "Are there leprechauns?" or "Are there unicorns?", then WHY WOULDN'T it be a valid argument, for the "persons of logic or science", to point out the : "Lack of leprechauns and unicorns" as proof of : "Lack of leprechauns or unicorns" ? Since when is that not a logical or scientific argument ?




Hhhhmmm, ok, this is interesting. So the fact that scientists once thought heavier-than-air flight was impossible (which got proved wrong), therefore justifies or proves every single conjectured treasure legend, from here-on-out. Right ? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

First. Thank you for the compliment. I try to be as unbiased in regards to the treasure as much as possible. The story is a different matter.

Second. ""Are there leprechauns?" or "Are there unicorns?", then WHY WOULDN'T it be a valid argument" Simply put. What hint of evidence was there to make either side of the story debatable? Were there unicorn tracks? Were there leprechaun villages? Honestly, no one can say either way. Can they?

How about dinosaurs? For a while, their existence was challenged until it was proven. Photons, molecules, bacteria, single cell organisms, and so on were all unknowns for hundreds of years until proven.

Lastly. "justifies or proves every single conjectured treasure legend," No. It needs to be proved or disproved. To arbitrarily dismiss everything because it hasn't been proven yet is, at the very least, a disservice to yourself.

Is/was there a treasure? I don't know and no one else does either. Yet!