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

[Charlie P. (NY)]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Not "spooks ". But rather.... "facts". Unless you can disprove them, they are facts. Not spooks. Haven't you got that yet ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Now wait a minute.

Which are the ones that are indistinct yet effervescent, sometimes gaseous and mostly invisible in daylight. Were those Oak Island Facts or Spooks?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I guess you would both rather make jokes than debate. This is why no one here can take this debate seriously.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Well, all I got was crickets from you when I made this earlier post:

OK. What kind of treasure does the evidence as found to date on Oak Island indicate?

I maintain that in 180 years of searching there is no evidence that would indicate any treasure at all.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that people have been LOOKING for a treasure, and likely a lot of debris from non-treasure related work on the island.

What is your interpretation of the evidence found so far as to what may lie beneath?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

OK. What kind of treasure does the evidence as found to date on Oak Island indicate?

I maintain that in 180 years of searching there is no evidence that would indicate any treasure at all.

There is certainly a lot of evidence that people have been LOOKING for a treasure, and likely a lot of debris from non-treasure related work on the island.

I am not debating if there is a treasure let alone what type it is. That's pure speculation. I am not sure anyone understands I am just trying to debate the presented evidence.

Either people aren't understanding this OR they are afraid of where the evidence will take us because, if any of the evidence can be proven true then you can no longer dismiss OI as just a hoax.

This is beyond irritating as skeptics outright refuse to recognize presented evidence(whether it be true or false). They rather talk about anything but the evidence. Their trump card is, "well, it's human error" or "the person was lying" neither of which would hold up in a debate.

If you are going to say, "well it's up to the person presenting the evidence to prove the evidence is true", then forget it. I don't want to waste anymore time with that argument. Either accept the presented evidence as evidence and debunk it or move on and have fun with more silly analogies, jokes, human studies, and anything else that tickles your fancy.

 

[will7782]

the "U" shaped structure. i'm a carpenter by trade, so I think of it as what were they building there?

there does not appear to have anything built on top of the "U" other than the notches. it is much like a roof frame. the notches appear to angle to a place above where a ridge beam would be. a very strong structure. an "A" frame. this COULD be used as a hoist with a block and tackle, or pull a boat in at high tide, lash the cargo to the frame. when water lowers, pull boat out leaving cargo attached to frame. getting the cargo from frame to land, OR LAND TO FRAME to load, would not be difficult.

 

[will7782]

anyone have a reasonable explanation how 17th century bones ended up as deep as they were found?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...This is beyond irritating as skeptics outright refuse to recognize presented evidence(whether it be true or false).....

I sympathize with your stance . You're waiting/wanting for someone to come DISprove fibers. Or DISprove gold links. Or DISprove some uncanny suspicious triangle or non-native tree. Or DISprove the original story. Or to concisely prove the origin of 17th century bones at a certain depth, when and how they got there, and to "prove" that they don't mean "treasure", Etc...

But can't you sympathize with the skeptic's dilemma too ? That in all the above cases, it merely is pointing back to the legend as proof of the legend ? It would be like if I claimed to know someone (via a claim I'd heard 3rd hand via stories passed on to me), that there was a fellow who'd seen a unicorn, and then walked backwards from New York to San Francisco. And then triumphantly challenged you to disprove the story. YOU COULDN'T . Any "more plausible explanations" you could propose, could be dealt with in the same game of wack-a-mole we're facing.

eg.: You: "But unicorns don't exist" Me: "prove it". You: "Because there's no evidence of currently living unicorns on earth" Me: Perhaps they hide whenever photographers approach (and then I'd give the example of certain fish, thought to be extinct, yet were found this century).

Thus can you sympathize with our position, that ... we certainly WANT to enter into a logical look at the salacious details of the legend. But we KNOW that it will immediately devolve into a game of wack-a-mole. Where ANY remote far-fletched contingency of how something *MIGHT* be true (given enough slaves and enough year's time), will therefore be a failure, on the skeptic's part, to have shown anything.

If you doubt this phenomenon exists, all you have to do is go back to some of the early threads on T'net about O.I, and you will see some that descended into multiple pages of some of the sillyest of details. Eg.: Ocean currents, country of origin of fibers, buoyancy of fibers, world events at the time. Whether or not a certain king at the time was left or right handed, etc....

Ok, of course I'm exaggerating. BUT YOU GET THE POINT, don't you ? Thus can you see the hesitation for anyone to ever try to prove a negative, like in this case ?

 

[cyzak]

If you think about it wouldn't they have to have some type of shelter to live in back in the day. I mean if it was the Vikings everyone new back then you did not mess with a Viking.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I am not debating if there is a treasure let alone what type it is. That's pure speculation. I am not sure anyone understands I am just trying to debate the presented evidence.

Either people aren't understanding this OR they are afraid of where the evidence will take us because, if any of the evidence can be proven true then you can no longer dismiss OI as just a hoax.

This is beyond irritating as skeptics outright refuse to recognize presented evidence(whether it be true or false). They rather talk about anything but the evidence. Their trump card is, "well, it's human error" or "the person was lying" neither of which would hold up in a debate.

If you are going to say, "well it's up to the person presenting the evidence to prove the evidence is true", then forget it. I don't want to waste anymore time with that argument. Either accept the presented evidence as evidence and debunk it or move on and have fun with more silly analogies, jokes, human studies, and anything else that tickles your fancy.

YOU don't understand is that what I and others are asking YOU is what YOUR interpretation of the evidence is. I have stated my interpretation clearly. Now it is your turn. Make a statement.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I sympathize with your stance . You're waiting/wanting for someone to come DISprove fibers. Or DISprove gold links. Or DISprove some uncanny suspicious triangle or non-native tree. Or DISprove the original story. Or to concisely prove the origin of 17th century bones at a certain depth, when and how they got there, and to "prove" that they don't mean "treasure", Etc...

But can't you sympathize with the skeptic's dilemma too ? That in all the above cases, it merely is pointing back to the legend as proof of the legend ? It would be like if I claimed to know someone (via a claim I'd heard 3rd hand via stories passed on to me), that there was a fellow who'd seen a unicorn, and then walked backwards from New York to San Francisco. And then triumphantly challenged you to disprove the story. YOU COULDN'T . Any "more plausible explanations" you could propose, could be dealt with in the same game of wack-a-mole we're facing.

eg.: You: "But unicorns don't exist" Me: "prove it". You: "Because there's no evidence of currently living unicorns on earth" Me: Perhaps they hide whenever photographers approach (and then I'd give the example of certain fish, thought to be extinct, yet were found this century).

Thus can you sympathize with our position, that ... we certainly WANT to enter into a logical look at the salacious details of the legend. But we KNOW that it will immediately devolve into a game of wack-a-mole. Where ANY remote far-fletched contingency of how something *MIGHT* be true (given enough slaves and enough year's time), will therefore be a failure, on the skeptic's part, to have shown anything.

If you doubt this phenomenon exists, all you have to do is go back to some of the early threads on T'net about O.I, and you will see some that descended into multiple pages of some of the sillyest of details. Eg.: Ocean currents, country of origin of fibers, buoyancy of fibers, world events at the time. Whether or not a certain king at the time was left or right handed, etc....

Ok, of course I'm exaggerating. BUT YOU GET THE POINT, don't you ? Thus can you see the hesitation for anyone to ever try to prove a negative, like in this case ?

Either you forgot OR you ignored that I promised you once before I wouldn't do that and here we are once again(the third time I think).

So let's try this as an example. Why don't you post something that you believe to be true on another thread and make sure you let me know what thread. Anything you know to be true and I will show you how a skeptic should debate.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

YOU don't understand is that what I and others are asking YOU is what YOUR interpretation of the evidence is. I have stated my interpretation clearly. Now it is your turn. Make a statement.

I have none. I thought that was rather obvious. No logical interpretation can be reached without a proper debate see if the evidence is genuine. You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Robot]

Welcome to the Show...Will!

the "U" shaped structure. i'm a carpenter by trade, so I think of it as what were they building there?

there does not appear to have anything built on top of the "U" other than the notches. it is much like a roof frame. the notches appear to angle to a place above where a ridge beam would be. a very strong structure. an "A" frame. this COULD be used as a hoist with a block and tackle, or pull a boat in at high tide, lash the cargo to the frame. when water lowers, pull boat out leaving cargo attached to frame. getting the cargo from frame to land, OR LAND TO FRAME to load, would not be difficult.

I applaud you for your ability to "Think Outside The Box"!

This Inability of Thinking by Searchers and Posters on this Forum is exactly what the Original Depositors counted on.

It is a part of my Theory that the Original Depositors worked off of Frog Island and ferried their treasure over to Smith's Cove and due to the shallowness of the bay needed a Wharf as you explained to unload their cargo.

Good Work!

 

[Philvis]

anyone have a reasonable explanation how 17th century bones ended up as deep as they were found?

Hi Will, those bones were found via drilling and then essentially scooping material out. It was not cored. Because it was not cored, there is no way to determine if those bones were truly in situ at 165ft (just making up a number as I don't remember). That material could have come from the 6 foot layer that had just been pushed down or fallen from the sides as the drill went up and down, or fallen debris from the scoop device they used. The only way to 'prove' that material came from such a depth would be to excavate by hand level by level, or have a machine that takes cores. Drilling is not a precise way. I'm not a gambling man, but I would definitely put money that those bones did not originate at the level they said in the show.

 

[will7782]

I get that. it is reasonable that two individuals could share a grave, or be very close. I would think that more bones or even graves would have been noticed by now, given all the excavation.

 

[xaos]

All of these coffer dams and drains have been created by treasure hunters.

1850
(Summer) Truro Company workers dig another shaft (No. 3) down to 109 feet, then dig horizontally to the Money Pit. Water breaks through again, filling 45 feet in 20 minutes. Bailing done with two pumping gins powered by two horses, night and day for a week, only partially effective. Workers notice for the first time that the water is salty, and the level rises and falls with the tide. This indicates there is a channel from the sea to the pit. [1.92] [4.29] [5.43] [7.26]

While excavating the Smith's Cove beach area, they find that the beach was artificially created. They find 6-7 inch deep matting of coconut fiber and eel grass over a 145 foot wide area from low to high water mark, covering 4-5 feet of beach rocks free of sand and gravel. [1.193] [4.31] [5.44] [7.29]

Note: Just how much coconut mat can a ship carry!. Perhaps, this is just left over from a hurricane in the South and the debris was carried north by the Gulf Stream?

A cofferdam of rock and clay is built at Smith's Cove to hold back the seawater while excavating the beach area. During construction, they notice remains of an old dam. (probably from the 1804 excavations).
When the area is drained, they dig just inside the dam, finding that the clay was removed and replaced by beach stones. Under the rocks are five 8-inch wide drains of flat stones over pairs of parallel lines of stones converging to a single larger drain at the high tide line, leading inland.

As the drains are excavated, they are found to slope down toward the shore. Halfway to the shore, a high tide overflows the dam and destroys it.

Slope DOWN to the shore....the finger drains were draining the site, not a trap to fill a treasure tunnel....

1866?
The Oak Island Eldorado Company builds a 375 foot long 12 foot high dam of wood and clay at Smith's Cove. The dam fails to keep water out of the Money Pit, and the sea quickly destroys the dam.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I get that. it is reasonable that two individuals could share a grave, or be very close. I would think that more bones or even graves would have been noticed by now, given all the excavation.

It was pretty common for people to be buried on their own property in the 18th and even 19th century (I know of two family plots on local farms even now).

That Island had been so dug, plugged, drilled and refilled in the last 200 years there is little hope of ANYTHING being undisturbed to a typical six-foot grave depth.

Apparently someone even took the signs that would have let the brothers know where the "Hidden Wharf" was had been removed.

 

[Philvis]

I get that. it is reasonable that two individuals could share a grave, or be very close. I would think that more bones or even graves would have been noticed by now, given all the excavation.

In most soils, the majority of bones don't last too long. If someone is buried in a fairly acidic soil type, there will be very little bone material left after 75-100 years, much less 200-400 years. That island has been dug up so much, and with bulldozers to top it off, the odds of finding bones without a controlled excavation will be slim. I've excavated 150 year old graves here in Virginia (lots of red clay), and at 6 feet down, the only thing left were the nails that lined the coffin. I've also excavated 1000 year old graves here with optimal soil conditions (sandy and base PH levels) and 85-90% of the skeletal remains were intact. Not knowing the soil conditions there, I'd guess they were not conducive to keeping remains intact, especially with all the haphazard digging that has occurred there over the past 200 years.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

It was pretty common for people to be buried on their own property in the 18th and even 19th century (I know of two family plots on local farms even now).

That Island had been so dug, plugged, drilled and refilled in the last 200 years there is little hope of ANYTHING being undisturbed to a typical six-foot grave depth.

Apparently someone even took the signs that would have let the brothers know where the "Hidden Wharf" was had been removed.

Metal tested pre-1750. Hmm exactly what Darcy O'Conner was saying.