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

[Raparee]

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.

How does the coconut fibre (if that's what it really is) prove that there is a treasure at the bottom of the money pit? How do the gold links prove that there is treasure at the bottom of the money pit? ... or the coffer dam (if that's what it is)? ...or the box drains (if that's what they are)?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

We have been proving the story. The coconut fibers alone prove the story. ....

As previously said : A) pointing to the legend to prove the legend (ie.: circular), and B) Granting that all that is true, it prove: The "fibers" are true. Not that "treasures" are true.

.....You just said the three gold links exist, that proves the story....

As above, if we grant all that for sake of debate, it proves "three gold links" is true. It doesn't prove a treasure is true.

...The coffer dams built to stop the drains....

Ditto

... and the accounts and descriptions of what went on in Smith's ...

pointing to the legend to "prove the legend" . Circular ?

... which in turn, proves the story....

AAAaaaahhh, this is very revealing. It shows that ... yes.... you consider various of-the details , if proved/shown, to THEREFORE prove the desired "story" outcome. Right ? If so, PLEASE do not separate the "debate about links" to be SEPARATE from the "debate about treasure". Ok ?

... I have something bigger coming.

Very much looking forward to it

 

[b3y0nd3r]

How does the coconut fibre (if that's what it really is) prove that there is a treasure at the bottom of the money pit? How do the gold links prove that there is treasure at the bottom of the money pit? ... or the coffer dam (if that's what it is)? ...or the box drains (if that's what they are)?

You missed the boat. No one is talking about treasure. The fact that you don't recognized the coconut fiber as such, even though it has been proven in a lab that it is, shows your bias to the argument. Your arguments will be observed at face value from me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How does the coconut fibre (if that's what it really is) prove that there is a treasure at the bottom of the money pit? How do the gold links prove that there is treasure at the bottom of the money pit? ... or the coffer dam (if that's what it is)? ...or the box drains (if that's what they are)?

Excellent. Which is what I was telling him @

... which in turn, proves the story....

AAAaaaahhh, this is very revealing. It shows that ... yes.... you consider various of-the details , if proved/shown, to THEREFORE prove the desired "story" outcome. Right ? If so, PLEASE do not separate the "debate about links" to be SEPARATE from the "debate about treasure". Ok ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... No one is talking about treasure. ...

Wait. See the above quotes. If "no one is talking about treasure", then ........ HOW ARE YOU DEFINING "STORY" ?

This thread's title is "Oak Island...". Not "coconut fibers" and "gold links".

Please please please, make up your mind.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

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!

A "story" is defined as a fictional narrative (among other things - also "lie" and "falsehood"). Proving that someone told a whopping big tale that became a widespread rumor does not prove that the subject was based in truth. Unless perhaps Oak Island is where the Easter Bunny keeps the gigantic chocolate stash and the green fibers were really the grass for Easter Baskets!

Everyone loves a good yarn. Just because there is a movie or three about Iron Man does not prove that Iron Man ever existed in real life.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

As previously said : A) pointing to the legend to prove the legend (ie.: circular), and B) Granting that all that is true, it prove: The "fibers" are true. Not that "treasures" are true.

*sigh. We are back on treasure again.


As above, if we grant all that for sake of debate, it proves "three gold links" is true. It doesn't prove a treasure is true.

Never said it did.

Ditto



pointing to the legend to "prove the legend" . Circular ?

Don't know what you mean. I was pointing to eyewitness accounts to prove a story. Not a legend.

AAAaaaahhh, this is very revealing. It shows that ... yes.... you consider various of-the details , if proved/shown, to THEREFORE prove the desired "story" outcome. Right ? If so, PLEASE do not separate the "debate about links" to be SEPARATE from the "debate about treasure". Ok ?

Don't understand this logic at all. However, if you mean I am using various parts of the story to prove the story then yes, but the various parts I am using aren't just words, they are pieces of evidence provided by eyewitness accounts and in some cases, tangible.


Very much looking forward to it

I think I understand the wack-a-mole thing you speak of. But it certainly isn't from my side. You keep wanting to push toward the treasure because that lack of treasure is the only thing the skeptics have as a defense. Here is the shocking part. I don't care about the treasure for the 1000th time! You can't debate the treasure because there is no proof of it either way AT THIS TIME!

But if everyone here wants to debate the possibility of treasure then by all means. I will drop the story and we can speculate for all eternity or until they find it(if it does exist). Just let me know.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Wait. See the above quotes. If "no one is talking about treasure", then ........ HOW ARE YOU DEFINING "STORY" ?

This thread's title is "Oak Island...". Not "coconut fibers" and "gold links".

Please please please, make up your mind.

This is just silly. I expected much more of you.

 

[Raparee]

You missed the boat. No one is talking about treasure.

Then for my sake, would you please explain what the story is?

The fact that you don't recognized the coconut fiber as such, even though it has been proven in a lab that it is, shows your bias to the argument. Your arguments will be observed at face value from me.

Okay, I'll whack at that mole. We have one lab that identified the fibers as coconut. Another lab identified it as hemp (i think ... it's been a while), and another claimed that the fiber had deteriorated to the point where it could not be identified with any accuracy. It has been 'proven' to be coconut in the same way that it has been 'proven' to be hemp. Whatever it is, though, how does this material 'prove' any story.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Exactly. Have there been prior situations were finding coconut or hemp, or even box drains or French drains, was the precursor to uncovering a deeply buried treasure?

That would be reason to investigate further on that site.

Otherwise . . .

Mahone Bay was a busy spot before the French & Indian War. Likely has had a lot of logging, encampments, fishing, could be seal or whale fat rendering even. Why assume treasure?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I don't care about the treasure for the 1000th time! You can't debate the treasure because there is no proof of iteither way .....

Ok, Agreed. Emphasis above. So we can move on. Right ?

I think I understand the wack-a-mole thing you speak of.....

thankyou .

... because that lack of treasure is the only thing the skeptics have as a defense. ....

And is that shocking ? Why WOULDN"T that be evidence, for "lack of evidence" , if "lack of treasure" were shown as evidence of "lack of treasure" ?

... then by all means. I will drop the story and we can speculate....

Ok, what is the definition here of the valitity and value-points of "story", vs "details" (3 linsk, etc...), and "treasure" ? Seems that we need to define our terms.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

I keep coming back hoping for an honest evidenced backed(on both sides) debate on the story but I am just not getting it. So after a week of this merry-go-round, it's best I let it go and move on.

The treasure(or lack of) seems to be what is what people here really want to debate.

So let's speculate. I think it's pirate in origin. Most likely Spanish treasure plundered from South America.

 

[cachenut]

My latest theory is this: A diagonal shaft was dug from the cove down to below the money pit. Then the money pit was dug to within 30 feet or so of the diagonal shaft and left alone and then filled with wood platforms and dirt. When the original treasure hunters dug out that last 30 feet of money pit they released the water trap. This is the reason that stone was placed in the bottom of the pit. It said 40 feet below millions of dollars are buried, Who puts a marker 120 feet down a pit that says treasure buried below. DUH. I would assume any treasure hunter would keep going. They wanted them to dig out the last 30 feet. Anyway this explains the water trap and the pit filing with water up to sea level. Also I would dig a wide hole at the end of the diagonal pit to ensure they hit it when descending which might explain the big crash they heard when the money pit filled. The ceiling falling down. Where then is the treasure chamber? Somewhere along the side of the original money pit perhaps.

Any ideas, commnts (useful). cachenut.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

My latest theory is this: A diagonal shaft was dug from the cove down to below the money pit. Then the money pit was dug to within 30 feet or so of the diagonal shaft and left alone and then filled with wood platforms and dirt. When the original treasure hunters dug out that last 30 feet of money pit they released the water trap. This is the reason that stone was placed in the bottom of the pit. It said 40 feet below millions of dollars are buried, Who puts a marker 120 feet down a pit that says treasure buried below. DUH. I would assume any treasure hunter would keep going. They wanted them to dig out the last 30 feet. Anyway this explains the water trap and the pit filing with water up to sea level. Also I would dig a wide hole at the end of the diagonal pit to ensure they hit it when descending which might explain the big crash they heard when the money pit filled. The ceiling falling down. Where then is the treasure chamber? Somewhere along the side of the original money pit perhaps.

Any ideas, commnts (useful). cachenut.

I can't see that. Digging down to exactly meet a pit from the shore in the 1700 accurately wouldn't be possible. They would have to dig down, then out toward the sea. Just speculating.

 

[Al D]

I can't see that. Digging down to exactly meet a pit from the shore in the 1700 accurately wouldn't be possible. They would have to dig down, then out toward the sea. Just speculating.

Not possible? The jews and the romans did it over 2000 years ago, just to name a few

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Not possible? The jews and the romans did it over 2000 years ago, just to name a few

Documented proof please?

How would they get two simultaneous tunnels to meet?

 

[Al D]

Documented proof please?

How would they get two simultaneous tunnels to meet?

Read up on the excavations of the temple mount

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

See how stories get started. ;-)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-is-beneath-the-temple-mount-920764/

So far they haven't found physical evidence of the "First Temple" (only mentioned in The Bible). Let alone anything underneath the work built by King Herod (a Roman).

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Read up on the excavations of the temple mount

All I can do is just laugh. When the IRS audits you and asks about your income, do you just say, "Well look it up"?

 

[cachenut]

Documented proof please?

How would they get two simultaneous tunnels to meet?

NO. tunnels did not meet on purpose. Easy to do with long string and paper and pencil. digging sprung water trap later.