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

[will7782]

Charlie, with all due respect, your reply is why these discussions degrade to mud slinging. you bring up the wharf sign so you can "make a point". the fact is, that has nothing to do with anything. I am happy to discuss things, but no desire to sling mud. sorry if I seem pissy.

now, as to the bones, it seems odd that the only pieces of bone found have been with a drill in the manner described. to my knowledge, the only bone material found. which is more likely, the only two fragments of bone discovered, migrate there way down a shaft only to be extracted by the same drill, or the drill picked them up there. two bits of bone migrated together, at the same time, and end up in the same place?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[b3y0nd3r]

Charlie, with all due respect, your reply is why these discussions degrade to mud slinging. you bring up the wharf sign so you can "make a point". the fact is, that has nothing to do with anything. I am happy to discuss things, but no desire to sling mud. sorry if I seem pissy.

now, as to the bones, it seems odd that the only pieces of bone found have been with a drill in the manner described. to my knowledge, the only bone material found. which is more likely, the only two fragments of bone discovered, migrate there way down a shaft only to be extracted by the same drill, or the drill picked them up there. two bits of bone migrated together, at the same time, and end up in the same place?

It's the DNA that intrigues me! Okay European peoples were there, but middle eastern? Plus these were found BELOW searcher depth.

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

will - As to the bones, I am pretty sure they were found going through the piles of debris pulled up by the hammer grab. **Spoils Find**
I dont think they were found in a core sample... I could be wrong.

In the 200+ years of searchers you would think many more would have been found.

 

[Philvis]

It's the DNA that intrigues me! Okay European peoples were there, but middle eastern? Plus these were found BELOW searcher depth.

If it were an intact grave, I'd show more interest. Again, it was just a fragment and while they say it came from 165+ feet, that's mere speculation, because as I said a couple posts up, they were drilling. It could have been all that was left of the remains of a sailor from the middle east on the crew of a European ship. The grave may have been blasted through 50 years ago in prior diggings and just now brought up via the drill bit. That drill has the potential to bring up items originally at shallow depths at much deeper depths. Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting to find a bone fragment of someone from the Middle East up there, but without context, all you can say is you have the fragment from a bone of someone from the Middle East. As I've said before, while it makes it interesting, the biggest disservice the show does to itself is spit out wild speculation. That staff archaeologist should have immediately educated them on the insignificance of the bones due to how they were finding them and repeated that to the audience.

 

[Robot]

Oh Charlie...Apparently this Hidden Wharf...I believe was on the West Side of OI!!

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.

These Signs and Pictures...are for the Hidden Wharf...On the West Side Of The Island!

 

[b3y0nd3r]

If it were an intact grave, I'd show more interest. Again, it was just a fragment and while they say it came from 165+ feet, that's mere speculation, because as I said a couple posts up, they were drilling. It could have been all that was left of the remains of a sailor from the middle east on the crew of a European ship. The grave may have been blasted through 50 years ago in prior diggings and just now brought up via the drill bit. That drill has the potential to bring up items originally at shallow depths at much deeper depths. Don't get me wrong, it's very interesting to find a bone fragment of someone from the Middle East up there, but without context, all you can say is you have the fragment from a bone of someone from the Middle East. As I've said before, while it makes it interesting, the biggest disservice the show does to itself is spit out wild speculation. That staff archaeologist should have immediately educated them on the insignificance of the bones due to how they were finding them and repeated that to the audience.

This is all hypothetical. Where is the statistics on middle eastern sailors on European ships from the 1700s or any other hard evidence?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

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)......

B3yOnd3r : I remember the promise quite well. You're referring to this one :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/595617-anyone-else-getting-tired-5.html

post #71 & #89 = your promise .

#90 = me accepting your promise.

#92 = You breaking the promise .

#94 = I pointed this broken promise out to you.

Thus, no, I will not fall it again.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... That staff archaeologist should have immediately educated them on the insignificance of the bones due to how they were finding them and repeated that to the audience.

With all due respect for archies : In my 40+ yrs. of md'ing, and my many decades of work at museums and historical societies, I have rubbed shoulders with a lot of archies. And have seen a lot of sillyness arise out some of their speculations, explanations, etc.... I mean, they're doing the best they can, but .... they are certainly not perfect in their conclusions, theories, etc.... I've got some rather comical examples I could give. But in the interest of space, will spare you.

Thus as for a "staff archaeologist" on the show: Go figure, it's Hollywood. They will get the soundbites trimmed down, and the most sensational type one is hired. Then add in some cliff-hanger music, raised eyebrows, and ....... presto, ANY conjecture can be made to sound so appealing. And since it's a "scientist", then .... well gee...... it simply has to be true. Eh ?

As I say: I have nothing but respect for archies, but a) they're human too, and b) this is Hollywood sensationalism, where ratings and leading-the-audience is what entertainment is all about.

 

[Philvis]

This is all hypothetical. Where is the statistics on middle eastern sailors on European ships from the 1700s or any other hard evidence?

If I remember correctly, the dating came back to late 17th/early 18th century for the bone fragment of Middle Eastern descent. If it was 14th/15th century, prior to acknowledged European contact, that would be much more interesting. My main thing is that the depth from which they say it came means absolutely nothing. It very well could be a Middle Eastern guy part of a crew burying treasure, but the date range squashes Knights Templar theories as far as that person is concerned. I'm just speculating it more likely was that of a sailor buried there using Occam's Razor's principle, especially because of the date range. I'm not knocking anyone. I just think, while very interesting, the bone fragment scientifically is not of any use unfortunately when it comes to it being 'found' below any known searcher tunnels because of how it was found.

 

[will7782]

just like a 500 year old coin can be dropped tomorrow..... a sailor whos ancestors came back with Marco Polo, for example, would still register as Asian. dig up a US cemetery in france and you'll have dna from across the globe. BUT, that isn't to say he came to OI after a brief stay in france either.

I just think we have to find more bones if it w2as a "traditional" interment.

 

[Philvis]

With all due respect for archies : In my 40+ yrs. of md'ing, and my many decades of work at museums and historical societies, I have rubbed shoulders with a lot of archies. And have seen a lot of sillyness arise out some of their speculations, explanations, etc.... I mean, they're doing the best they can, but .... they are certainly not perfect in their conclusions, theories, etc.... I've got some rather comical examples I could give. But in the interest of space, will spare you.

Thus as for a "staff archaeologist" on the show: Go figure, it's Hollywood. They will get the soundbites trimmed down, and the most sensational type one is hired. Then add in some cliff-hanger music, raised eyebrows, and ....... presto, ANY conjecture can be made to sound so appealing. And since it's a "scientist", then .... well gee...... it simply has to be true. Eh ?

As I say: I have nothing but respect for archies, but a) they're human too, and b) this is Hollywood sensationalism, where ratings and leading-the-audience is what entertainment is all about.

Oh I agree! I was just saying that is what should have been said, haha! I really hope they were level set about the drilling and what it means in regards to context with those smaller items. I fully understand there has to be sensationalism to sell what most people would find mundane. As a former archaeologist, I WISH most of the projects I worked on was nearly as exciting as the Oak Island stuff makes things out to be. And yes, we did speculate quite often. Boring finds all the time are not very fun.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

philvis and will7782, you are getting sucked into the "wack-a-mole" game. Someone, like yourselves, questions a salacious detail that is supposed to be a "proof" of a treasure. You can do your durndest to try to show more plausible explanations, in order to show the Occam's razor principle. But instead will sucked into the never-ending 20-page pro/con back/forth debate on :

a) how deep were the supposed bones ?

b) could there be another explanation to that supposed "depth" ?

c) what was the genetic makeup of the bones ? age ?

d) broken or sawed bones ?

e ) male or female ? Animal or human ?

f) what color shirt was the guy with the drill bit wearing ?

Etc... etc... Till finally, on the 21st page, someone's going to pop in and ask "Wait a minute .... what does this have to do with whether there's a treasure or not ??"

 

[Philvis]

philvis and will7782, you are getting sucked into the "wack-a-mole" game. Someone, like yourselves, questions a salacious detail that is supposed to be a "proof" of a treasure. You can do your durndest to try to show more plausible explanations, in order to show the Occam's razor principle. But instead will sucked into the never-ending 20-page pro/con back/forth debate on :

a) how deep were the supposed bones ?

b) could there be another explanation to that supposed "depth" ?

c) what was the genetic makeup of the bones ? age ?

d) broken or sawed bones ?

e ) male or female ? Animal or human ?

f) what color shirt was the guy with the drill bit wearing ?

Etc... etc... Till finally, on the 21st page, someone's going to pop in and ask "Wait a minute .... what does this have to do with whether there's a treasure or not ??"

Leave me alone Tom! This conversation is enabling me to dodge work I'm being paid for! Haha!

 

[RTR]

I would say this about the topic.
IF,.... they don't find anything that ' Will change history '. Then, its NOT due to lack of TRYING !!!
Or, lack of EXPENSE ,Or lack of dedication !
IF its there (be it whatever ) They WILL find it .

 

[b3y0nd3r]

B3yOnd3r : I remember the promise quite well. You're referring to this one :

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/595617-anyone-else-getting-tired-5.html

post #71 & #89 = your promise .

#90 = me accepting your promise.

#92 = You breaking the promise .

#94 = I pointed this broken promise out to you.

Thus, no, I will not fall it again.

I didn't break the promise. In case there was a misunderstanding, the promise was "I promised you I wouldn't contest ANY evidence provided." There was no evidence provided. Just a statement. "The evidence is: No treasures recovered, despite SERIOUS hardcore digging up the landscape for 150 yrs." A statement is not evidence unless provided by a witness.

So there is no other life in the universe because no one has found any other right? There are no other diseases because no one found any other ones, right? There is no unknown fish in the ocean because they haven't been found, right? There is no treasure because no one found it yet, right? See this line of thinking proves nothing. Where is the evidence!

But anyway, I have yet to see anything besides conjecture.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Leave me alone Tom! This conversation is enabling me to dodge work I'm being paid for! Haha!

Yup. The "wack-a-mole" game is VERY enticing. A skeptic or believer is challenged for his view, and ... presto: You get sucked in. And let's be honest: Who DOESN'T love a good treasure story ?? So they get curious why you DON'T believe, and you get curious why they DO believe, and .... presto: 20 pages of some silly detail that doesn't prove or disprove a "treasure" IN THE FIRST PLACE .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... There was no evidence provided. Just a statement. "The evidence is: No treasures recovered, despite SERIOUS hardcore digging up the landscape for 150 yrs." .....

I don't understand. How is lack of treasure not ... uh ... evidence for .... "lack of treasure" ?

.. ... So there is no other life in the universe because no one has found any other right? ....

Wait, something's wrong with this example. They tear up an island. And dig 100 holes to insane depths. Right ? Ok, how far have we explored our universe ?? Has the same exhaustive effort been done to our universe ? Last I checked: We only made it to the moon. And with cameras to a few planets beyond that. In our singular "speck" of the "universe".

For the analogy to be fair and parallel, we'd have to have had a situation where a single teaspon of beach sand on O.I. was turned over. And then , sure, someone trying to announce "no treasure on the island" would have a non-conclusive investigation, baseless arguement, etc...

Thus can we conclude that your "universe " example was... uh ... "lacking" ?

.... Where is the evidence! ....
But anyway, I have yet to see anything besides conjecture.

Wait, isn't that what we are asking YOU ? Is this the burden of proof being shifted again ??

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Yup. The "wack-a-mole" game is VERY enticing. A skeptic or believer is challenged for his view, and ... presto: You get sucked in. And let's be honest: Who DOESN'T love a good treasure story ?? So they get curious why you DON'T believe, and you get curious why they DO believe, and .... presto: 20 pages of some silly detail that doesn't prove or disprove a "treasure" IN THE FIRST PLACE .

Yup.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I don't understand. How is lack of treasure not ... uh ... evidence for .... "lack of treasure" ?




Wait, something's wrong with this example. They tear up an island. And dig 100 holes to insane depths. Right ? Ok, how far have we explored our universe ?? Has the same exhaustive effort been done to our universe ? Last I checked: We only made it to the moon. And with cameras to a few planets beyond that. In our singular "speck" of the "universe".

For the analogy to be fair and parallel, we'd have to have had a situation where a single teaspon of beach sand on O.I. was turned over. And then , sure, someone trying to announce "no treasure on the island" would have a non-conclusive investigation, baseless arguement, etc...

Thus can we conclude that your "universe " example was... uh ... "lacking" ?



Wait, isn't that what we are asking YOU ? Is this the burden of proof being shifted again ??

My universe example is correct. We should have some proof by now. Right?

I have provided proof. The three gold links is just one example. It is physical, tangible evidence witnessed by multiple people.

 

[will7782]

tom, I have pondered three distinct issues here. the purpose of the "U" shaped structure, human bone fragments, and I touched on the swamp. I have posed serious and thought out questions. you try to dismiss peoples thoughts calling it your dreamed up "whack a mole" plot. if you want to have a discussion, great, but trying to dismiss another persons opinion with nothing more than your own opinion is dishonest, at best.