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

[Tom_in_CA]

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

Yes. Provided that we "tore up the universe" and "visited all those galaxies" . The trouble is, we HAVEN'T been outside of a speck of our planet's system (which is amongst millions/billions of systems). And yet we HAVE torn about O.I. , limb to limb. Thus no, your analogy doesn't hold.

But I know the pushback "out" that you might appeal to next. Ie.: " a little more to the right. A little more to the right. A little deeper". And so on till infinity. But at no time isn't a treasure most certainly there. Right ?

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

And again, this is failing several counts:

a) it is merely pointing to the legend, as "proof of the legend" (circular).

b) even if "3 gold links " were true, ...... It fails to prove any treasure. Heck, I found "3 gold links" last month , when detecting the beach. Ok, so what ? I could probably turn over heaven and earth in my own back yard, and find "3 gold links", ok, so what ? Same for "bones" , "fibers", "triangles", etc... So what ? It's failing to take into consideration that 99% of all treasure legends are based on real facts. Eg.: real names, dates, events, links, tree-types, fibers, etc.... None of them ever starts with "Once upon a time".

The REAL question is: What about that other 1% of the story ? Ie.: the fabulous treasure ? Just because 99% is true (for sake of argument) doesn't mean the remaining 1% is true.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

.... 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.

So if I understand you correctly, the definition of "discussion" is only the "pro" believing point of view. To have a "con" point of view, is not "discussing". Right ? Just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

And when a "pro" person puts out a post, that's not "opinion". And it's defined as "honest". But if a "con" point of view puts out a post, that's "merely opinion" and "dishonest".

Have I got these definitions right ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Yes. Provided that we "tore up the universe" and "visited all those galaxies" . The trouble is, we HAVEN'T been outside of a speck of our planet's system (which is amongst millions/billions of systems). And yet we HAVE torn about O.I. , limb to limb. Thus no, your analogy doesn't hold.

But I know the pushback "out" that you might appeal to next. Ie.: " a little more to the right. A little more to the right. A little deeper". And so on till infinity. But at no time isn't a treasure most certainly there. Right ?



And again, this is failing several counts:

a) it is merely pointing to the legend, as "proof of the legend" (circular).

b) even if "3 gold links " were true, ...... It fails to prove any treasure. Heck, I found "3 gold links" last month , when detecting the beach. Ok, so what ? I could probably turn over heaven and earth in my own back yard, and find "3 gold links", ok, so what ? Same for "bones" , "fibers", "triangles", etc... So what ? It's failing to take into consideration that 99% of all treasure legends are based on real facts. Eg.: real names, dates, events, links, tree-types, fibers, etc.... None of them ever starts with "Once upon a time".

The REAL question is: What about that other 1% of the story ? Ie.: the fabulous treasure ? Just because 99% is true (for sake of argument) doesn't mean the remaining 1% is true.

For the love of...come on you can't be this non-understanding! I want to debate the presented evidence there you go switching back to treasure. It's either deliberate or you just are still not understanding.

None of what you provided disproved the existence of the gold links. I am beginning to agree with Will's opinion of what is going on.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... None of what you provided disproved the existence of the gold links. .....

Ok, let's acknowledge the existence of "3 gold links". Ok, now what ? And thus, when you go to answer that "now what ?" question: You too can't switch back to the existence, or non-existence, of a treasure. Right ? Because if you did so, that would be "not understanding", and "deliberate" and "switching back". Right ?

Ok, now that we've decided/agreed that 3 gold links exist, and that they have nothing to do with existence of treasure, then ... ok, ... now what ?

 

[will7782]

as b3y0nd3r said, you go back and forth. now I say that you are disingenuous as I have not posed an assertion either way. you SEEM to think that BECAUSE I don't fall in lock step with you, that I am of the opposite opinion.

to answer your question, NO you don't have it right. I've merely wondered how the bones got there. I've not suggested anything. nor do I have any interest in discussing your mole problem. I have my own.

 

[Robot]

Hey Tom...Now I Know... How You Got So Many Posts!

what does this have to do with whether there's a treasure or not ??"

The Smallest Debated Detail...May be what Actually Proves...the Mystery of Oak Island!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The Smallest Debated Detail...May be what Actually Proves...the Mystery of Oak Island!

Haha. Or that "smallest detail" could be innocuous and random.

If I dug enough holes in and around Monterey, CA beaches, bringing in bulldozers, drills, etc.... I'll bet that I could come up with fibers, gold links, "U's", out of place trees, symmetrical triangles, etc... Throw in a few faded newspaper clippings filled with names/dates/events. Draw in historical mention of pirates who skirted our coast. Conjecture some "strange lights" someone saw years ago, etc....

And each salacious details may be 100% true ! (or should I say .... a detractor/doubter couldn't DIS-prove any of them).

And you could decide: a) "Innocuous and random" [in which case, they're not even a "mystery"], or b) "a mystery that may prove a treasure". Which is more likely ?

 

[Robot]

If You Could Do All That!

Haha. Or that "smallest detail" could be innocuous and random.

If I dug enough holes in and around Monterey, CA beaches, bringing in bulldozers, drills, etc.... I'll bet that I could come up with fibers, gold links, "U's", out of place trees, symmetrical triangles, etc... Throw in a few faded newspaper clippings filled with names/dates/events. Draw in historical mention of pirates who skirted our coast. Conjecture some "strange lights" someone saw years ago, etc....

And each salacious details may be 100% true ! (or should I say .... a detractor/doubter couldn't DIS-prove any of them).

And you could decide: a) "Innocuous and random" [in which case, they're not even a "mystery"], or b) "a mystery that may prove a treasure". Which is more likely ?

I'd Say You Had A...Mystery!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

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 ??"

Did I hear someone paging me?

Regarding a comparison to finding life on another planet - the closest earth-like planet that we know of in another solar system is orbiting Alpha Centauri. The New Horizon probe, fastest "space-ship" we have currently, took 13 years to get to a planetoid out past Pluto. 4 billion miles! Alpha Centari is 25 trillion miles away. So, if it was headed in the right direction that probe would take 78,000 years to reach our closest neighboring solar system.

There my be "other" life in our own solar system. At this rate it will take a while to get enough probes around. And, even if we were looking right at it in a video, would we recognize what alien life would look like?

Maybe someone out there will contact us (if they use similar radio methods). Our radio signals are spreading out into space for the last 100 years. Hopefully they won't start with "The Curse of Oak Island" and cross Earth off as lacking intelligent life worth contacting.

Or, the first transmission from space may be "What does coconut fiber have to do with treasure, anyhow?" and future Earth scientists will be baffled.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'd Say You Had A...Mystery!

Ok. That's a fair answer. Then the same types of mysteries exist at scores of places all over planet earth.

And for that matter, every single treasure legend that's ever circulated around , is equally meritorious to be called a "mystery". Because they too have "mysteries" , "cryptograms" and "dying miners who dragged themselves into wild west saloons", and "booby traps" and "skeletons". Thus we also shouldn't doubt ANY treasure legend that EVER hit the pages of a 1970s treasure magazine. Those were each filled with "lost mine" and "stolen stage coach loot" stories. And they ALL, likewise, have cool story narratives. Real names, dates, events (fibers, bones, traps, etc....). Never can we look at any of them and have a tinge of doubt. Or dare write them off to more plausible explanations. They remain "mysteries". Not innocuous or random odds of no-treasure.

 

[Robot]

Now...You're Talking My Language!

Ok. That's a fair answer. Then the same types of mysteries exist at scores of places all over planet earth.

And for that matter, every single treasure legend that's ever circulated around , is equally meritorious to be called a "mystery". Because they too have "mysteries" , "cryptograms" and "dying miners who dragged themselves into wild west saloons", and "booby traps" and "skeletons". Thus we also shouldn't doubt ANY treasure legend that EVER hit the pages of a 1970s treasure magazine. Those were each filled with "lost mine" and "stolen stage coach loot" stories. And they ALL, likewise, have cool story narratives. Real names, dates, events (fibers, bones, traps, etc....). Never can we look at any of them and have a tinge of doubt. Or dare write them off to more plausible explanations. They remain "mysteries". Not innocuous or random odds of no-treasure.

 

[travis.gore.79]

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.

Vikings typically built sod homes.

 

[Robot]

Paging...Paging...Charlie...Was Tom Sending Out...An...SOS?

Did I hear someone paging me?

Regarding a comparison to finding life on another planet - the closest earth-like planet that we know of in another solar system is orbiting Alpha Centauri. The New Horizon probe, fastest "space-ship" we have currently, took 13 years to get to a planetoid out past Pluto. 4 billion miles! Alpha Centari is 25 trillion miles away. So, if it was headed in the right direction that probe would take 78,000 years to reach our closest neighboring solar system.

There my be "other" life in our own solar system. At this rate it will take a while to get enough probes around. And, even if we were looking right at it in a video, would we recognize what alien life would look like?

Maybe someone out there will contact us (if they use similar radio methods). Our radio signals are spreading out into space for the last 100 years. Hopefully they won't start with "The Curse of Oak Island" and cross Earth off as lacking intelligent life worth contacting.

Or, the first transmission from space may be "What does coconut fiber have to do with treasure, anyhow?" and future Earth scientists will be baffled.

 

[cyzak]

Vikings typically built sod homes.

What about if they did not have sod available at that time of year I know they built lodges called long houses out of rocks and logs.Plus the weather is horrible I dont now if a sod house could hold up with the weather there.

 

[Robot]

Vikings...Typically Built With...What Ever Was...Available!

Vikings typically built sod homes.

https://flixtor.to/watch/tv/2477226/vikings

 

[xaos]

this is exactly why we look at the artefacts being out of context.

as an example, an archaeologist, looking at my property , could easily justify that the Vikings, Egyptians, Romans, Jews, Chinese, and a host of other groups, had been to my property, along with the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Sumerians, Aztecs, and of course, aliens.

 

[Robot]

Vikings...Heck No!...Season 6...Episode 11...The Script...On The Stone!

I Believe.. The Script Shown On This Stone!... To be Brahmi.



The only person familiar with Oak Island and with this Script was known as The Buzzard.

https://www.cmi.ac.in/gift/Epigraphy/epig_tamilorigin.htm




For Olivier Levasseur...See my posts...Starting at # 428

The...Plot Thickens!

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Ok. That's a fair answer. Then the same types of mysteries exist at scores of places all over planet earth.

And for that matter, every single treasure legend that's ever circulated around , is equally meritorious to be called a "mystery". Because they too have "mysteries" , "cryptograms" and "dying miners who dragged themselves into wild west saloons", and "booby traps" and "skeletons". Thus we also shouldn't doubt ANY treasure legend that EVER hit the pages of a 1970s treasure magazine. Those were each filled with "lost mine" and "stolen stage coach loot" stories. And they ALL, likewise, have cool story narratives. Real names, dates, events (fibers, bones, traps, etc....). Never can we look at any of them and have a tinge of doubt. Or dare write them off to more plausible explanations. They remain "mysteries". Not innocuous or random odds of no-treasure.

AH HA! You finally did what I was hoping you would do! What is the difference between them and OI...the story! Prove the story, and you prove the existence of something that really went on and isn't just random chance as you suggest!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

AH HA! You finally did what I was hoping you would do! ...

Well I am glad to hear that

... What is the difference between them and OI...the story! ...

When you say "the story", are you talking about exact details ? If so, then yes you're right : Each story is different than the others. Eg.: Names, dates, events, locations, etc... are all different in each "story" . Ok ?

Or were you trying to imply that this O.I. story is singularly meritorious, while all the others are not ? Well, gee, why AREN'T all the others equally meritorious ? They have all sorts of salacious details too. If you talked to any believers of those, they too would consider their legends to be bullet proof true.

.... Prove the story, and you prove the existence of something that really went on ....

I agree! Ok, we're all waiting around for the O.I. believers to prove the story, as you say. Ok, go ahead

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Well I am glad to hear that



When you say "the story", are you talking about exact details ? If so, then yes you're right : Each story is different than the others. Eg.: Names, dates, events, locations, etc... are all different in each "story" . Ok ?

Or were you trying to imply that this O.I. story is singularly meritorious, while all the others are not ? Well, gee, why AREN'T all the others equally meritorious ? They have all sorts of salacious details too. If you talked to any believers of those, they too would consider their legends to be bullet proof true.

No I wasn't.

I agree! Ok, we're all waiting around for the O.I. believers to prove the story, as you say. Ok, go ahead

We have been proving the story. The coconut fibers alone prove the story. You just said the three gold links exist, that proves the story. The coffer dams built to stop the drains and the accounts and descriptions of what went on in Smith's prove the box drains which in turn, proves the story.

I know, not good enough for you. Don't fret. I have something bigger coming.