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

[Tom_in_CA]

I don't know that there was a lot of it. When the museum was going to let some go for dna testing they said they had very little....

Here is a perfect example of where/how the "legend" proves the "legend". If you have any doubts, or want proof, you merely need to point back to the legend. Which , if it says "lots of it", then.... it's beyond dispute . If you have any doubts, you get pointed back to the legend. There can never be any other explanation how of that might have entered the story, or the exact amounts of it, if true.

..... No one has said or shouldn't say that it means there is a treasure, ....

They will certainly retreat from that notion, sure. But ... C'mon ... why do you think there's so much invested in this debate ? I mean, .... this is "treasurenet" after all. Not "fibernet". So I am tempted to think that the persons who put a lot of stock into this, are indeed wanting to jump to "step B", which is: Treasure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[xaos]

I am pretty sure this was Dunfield. He destroyed the island and any landmarks, markers, supporting structures and most evidence for anyones theories and ideas.

Look at post 1379, it has been blown up many times in the past.

Boiling down ocean water is a much better way to extract the salt then to filter it thru coconut fibers and then have to separate it from that..

You cannot remove the salt from seawater with filtration thru coconut fibers

If the fibre material is indeed coconut fibre it is impossible that it ended up on Oak Island naturally.

According to the scientific research provided in post 1531, it is very possible, and has been documented all the way to the Artic Circle. Coconut fibre is one of the very few natural materials that does not decay in saltwater.

Coconuts were not introduced to Florida until 1878, when the Provindencia ran aground....

I am pretty sure this was Dunfield. He destroyed the island and any landmarks, markers, supporting structures and most evidence for anyones theories and ideas.

YEP!!!!!!

 

[lokiblossom]

According to the scientific research provided in post 1531, it is very possible, and has been documented all the way to the Artic Circle. Coconut fibre is one of the very few natural materials that does not decay in saltwater.

No, Thats not what I implied! What I wrote was that if the coconut fibre on Oak Island was dated to several centuries before it was introduced to anywhere in the Atlantic Basin it could not have arrived on Oak Island naturally. In other words if it only existed during that time period in the Indian or Pacific Oceans it could not have floated to Oak Island!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...... He destroyed the island and any landmarks, markers, supporting structures and most evidence for anyones theories and ideas.

So then, how do we even know that the whole "fibers" thing is not simply just embellished telephone game, in the first place ? I mean, obviously no one TODAY can look at them, study them, etc... Right ? Or does it exist somewhere for study ?

I'm guessing it's just a part of the story, from the past. Right ? So then, all we have to go on, is the passed-down story of these "fibers" from a certain depth. Right ? NOT SAYING that *simply* because we can not look at them and study them now DOESN'T mean that this detail wasn't true. But ... on the other hand, it seems like "pointing to the legend to prove the legend" (circular).

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

What I wrote was that if the coconut fibre on Oak Island was dated to several centuries before it was introduced to anywhere in the Atlantic Basin it could not have arrived on Oak Island naturally. In other words if it only existed during that time period in the Indian or Pacific Oceans it could not have floated to Oak Island!

And once "dead" organic matter that lived on land but was then saturated with salt water cannot be dated using Carbon-14 or similar methods. It could be from the 1940's +/- 800 years.

 

[lokiblossom]

What I wrote was that if the coconut fibre on Oak Island was dated to several centuries before it was introduced to anywhere in the Atlantic Basin it could not have arrived on Oak Island naturally. In other words if it only existed during that time period in the Indian or Pacific Oceans it could not have floated to Oak Island!
/QUOTE]

And once "dead" organic matter that lived on land but was then saturated with salt water cannot be dated using Carbon-14 or similar methods. It could be from the 1940's +/- 800 years.

Not true at all! Why was it even dated? Respectable institutions have dated the material at least three times and you are claiming they didn't know what they were doing! Organisms that lived in deep seawater could have skewed results, but not so much those that lived on land. Sure, no results are completely accurate that's why they give a range of plus or minus! The only question to me would be, is it really coconut fibre? That's why a DNA study of the material in question is warranted!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

Not true at all! Why was it even dated? Respectable institutions have dated the material at least three times and you are claiming they didn't know what they were doing! Organisms that lived in deep seawater could have skewed results, but not so much those that lived on land. Sure, no results are completely accurate that's why they give a range of plus or minus! The only question to me would be, is it really coconut fibre? That's why a DNA study of the material in question is warranted!

Cheers, Loki

Any respectable lab would not have even attempted to C14 date such material where there was no available baseline

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And they would not have accepted material brought to them with God knows what cross-contamination. Would not be allowed in court because it lost all "continuity of possession" and was improperly collected and protected.

But even if it is old coconut fibers . . . so what? Do treasures typically lie deep beneath coconut fibers? Not in any case, ever, in all history, not even once.

 

[lokiblossom]

Any respectable lab would not have even attempted to C14 date such material where there was no available baseline

But your argument is invalid because they did!

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

But even if it is old coconut fibers . . . so what? Do treasures typically lie deep beneath coconut fibers? Not in any case, ever, in all history, not even once.

You forget, I'm the one who says there is no treasure buried on Oak Island!

Cheers, loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You forget, I'm the one who says there is no treasure buried on Oak Island!

Cheers, loki

Ok, so that puts you in the camp of the skeptics on this issue. Ok. But curious: If you're not trying to conclude about existence-of-treasure, then why a detail, such as this fibers thing, is so important to prove then ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... . . . so what? Do treasures typically lie deep beneath coconut fibers? ....

I'll be the devil's advocate here and say:

Yes. At least in this case. Because WHY ELSE would persons ... 250 yrs. ago ....... put these odd markers at various intervals (of which fibers was one-such-interval) UNLESS they were putting a treasure beneath it ? Why ELSE would someone have gone to all the trouble ? No one buries fibers like this, *for no reason*. Thus we MUST conclude: TREASURE !

... Not in any case, ever, in all history, not even once.

This is an easy devil's advocate one to "wack" as well:

Prove it. Prove that no one in history ever did that. And I'll bet if I looked long enough and hard enough, I could probably find some treasure that.... in true history.... had a "layer" that had to be gone through, before the treasure was reached. Therefore: Why not fibers in this case ? Thus the ball is punted back to you. You have to DIS-prove it never happened in all of history. Lest I can triumphantly claim that it VERY MUCH COULD OR DID happen. And can dream up all sorts of contingent reasons why.

 

[Raparee]

Ok, so that puts you in the camp of the skeptics on this issue. Ok. But curious: If you're not trying to conclude about existence-of-treasure, then why a detail, such as this fibers thing, is so important to prove then ?

Templars, pointing statues, "missing" ships, lost treasure, Annapolis basin, etc, etc, etc. There's a whole thing.

 

[Al D]

But your argument is invalid because they did!

Cheers, Loki

And you base your position on what some characters said on a TV show?
good grief

 

[lokiblossom]

And you base your position on what some characters said on a TV show?
good grief

You don't know much about this yet do you alan!

Cheers, loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And you base your position on what some characters said on a TV show? ....

Yes. The TV show and legend are the "given starting premise". Ie.: the "default position". And if anyone asks for proof, you merely point them to the TV show . Which has "scientists" and "archaeologists" after all. And point back to the legend. They are proof of themselves. Eh ?

 

[lokiblossom]

Ok, so that puts you in the camp of the skeptics on this issue. Ok. But curious: If you're not trying to conclude about existence-of-treasure, then why a detail, such as this fibers thing, is so important to prove then ?

What 'Raparee' wrote! If you really are curious you could read my thread on the subject!

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... my thread on the subject!....

Link ?

 

[lokiblossom]

Link ?

"My abbreviated theory for the Knights Templar treasure in Nova Scotia" its on the first page of this Oak Island forum! Although, over the years I have changed a few things.

Cheers, Loki

 

[xaos]

What I wrote was that if the coconut fibre on Oak Island was dated to several centuries before it was introduced to anywhere in the Atlantic Basin it could not have arrived on Oak Island naturally.

And once "dead" organic matter that lived on land but was then saturated with salt water cannot be dated using Carbon-14 or similar methods. It could be from the 1940's +/- 800 years.

Exactly! Who ever said that anything from Oak Island has been dated that old? I have never seen that data.

In case you are wondering about the fibers thing...

Has the recent folly, other than looking at fibers and claiming it is coconut, and as some sort of proof of a buried treasure, ever tested to see what it is, or carbon dated it?

One should be aware that a sample needs to be at least 25 years old for the carbon dating to be relevant. How old would a coconut fiber be, seems like less than a year old??

Historical FACT: samples of the fiber were sent to 3 different places, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Botanical Museum of Harvard University...

ALL identified the fibers as Manila Hemp NOT coconut.....



Season 50...latest attempt to find the bottom of the Money Pit
​

Lets see where this goes.