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

Tom_in_CA said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but in the case of dating the material that is alleged to be 'coconut fibre', it is documented that it has been C-14 dated by at least two respected entities before the TV show.

Cheers, Loki
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!
lokiblossom said:
Perhaps, but in the case of dating the material that is alleged to be 'coconut fibre', it is documented that it has been C-14 dated by at least two respected entities before the TV show.

Cheers, Loki
Click to expand...

Ok then. For sake of argument, let's say that what you are saying is beyond dispute. Ok, then what ? You're on record as saying that this doesn't necessarily point to "treasure", and that you don't necessarily believe there's treasure. So ... what's the point of the "dating of fibers" ??

Question: When you acknowledge in the other post that "fibers" is not a necessary connection to "treasure", are you of the opinion that other things there ARE indicative of treasure ? If so, then it seems that those other things should be the focus of concern on proving. If we can all agree that fibers don't prove or disprove anything related to treasure, then: We should be talking the things that someone DOES think point to the necessity of treasure. Eh ?
 

Tom_in_CA said:
Ok then. For sake of argument, let's say that what you are saying is beyond dispute. Ok, then what ? You're on record as saying that this doesn't necessarily point to "treasure", and that you don't necessarily believe there's treasure. So ... what's the point of the "dating of fibers" ??

Question: When you acknowledge in the other post that "fibers" is not a necessary connection to "treasure", are you of the opinion that other things there ARE indicative of treasure ? If so, then it seems that those other things should be the focus of concern on proving. If we can all agree that fibers don't prove or disprove anything related to treasure, then: We should be talking the things that someone DOES think point to the necessity of treasure. Eh ?
Click to expand...

It depends on what one considers treasure. I believe that what is hidden in Nova Scotia is something the Knights Templar had in their possession since the 12th century. There may also be a monetary treasure as they were
documented to have been carrying 160,000 florins of gold and large amounts of silver when they left Cyprus in the Spring of 1307, but that is not my concern.

Cheers, Loki
 

lokiblossom said:
It depends on what one considers treasure. I believe that what is hidden in Nova Scotia is something the Knights Templar had in their possession since the 12th century. There may also be a monetary treasure .....
Click to expand...


Ok. Fair enough. And if by "Nova Scotia" you are including Oak Island under that rubric, then let's discuss what clues you DO think "point to treasure" (other than pointing to the legend(s) themselves). If you're saying it's "not fibers", fine. We should probably be discussing what you DO think points to treasure on O.I. then. Since it sounds like we can all agree that fibers don't point to anything of the sort.
 

Tom_in_CA said:
Ok. Fair enough. And if by "Nova Scotia" you are including Oak Island under that rubric, then let's discuss what clues you DO think "point to treasure" (other than pointing to the legend(s) themselves). If you're saying it's "not fibers", fine. We should probably be discussing what you DO think points to treasure on O.I. then. Since it sounds like we can all agree that fibers don't point to anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

It is the fibres. They are a major clue at least in pointing the theory out to skeptics, if they are indeed coconut fibre. I think that they are but others not so much. They have been so identified by experts, but other experts have said they were not sure. The Lagina's had another expert claim they were but we have seen no documentation of it. I don't think anything points to a treasure on Oak Island. I had a chance to have a bit of the material sent out for DNA testing several years back but didn't follow through because I had thought the testing already done had proved the point. I hadn't read enough on the subject and I had only seen what I wanted to see when I did read.

Cheers, Loki
 

alan m said:
True, I do not know a lot about TV hype and BS, but I do know a lot about C 14 dating and the chain of custody.
Click to expand...

I never watch the TV show but I do know about BS when I see it. Didn't you write that no respectable lab would have tested the material? And yet at least two have, and neither were from the TV show. Also there was at least one lab that identified the material as coconut fibre and one that wasn't sure.

Cheers, Loki
 

Last edited:
Loki, In post # 1566 you say, regarding the : "things that point to treasure on Oak Island" :

lokiblossom said:
It is the fibres. They are a major clue at least in pointing the theory out to skeptics, ....
Click to expand...

Yet in post # 1550 you say:

lokiblossom said:
You forget, I'm the one who says there is no treasure buried on Oak Island! ....
Click to expand...

And in post #1534 , you say :

lokiblossom said:
.... And, in no way does the existence of the coconut fibre prove there ever was a treasure buried on Oak Island! ....
Click to expand...

Can you clear this up this series of seemingly contradictory positions ? :icon_scratch: ???
 

Tom_in_CA said:
Loki, In post # 1566 you say, regarding the : "things that point to treasure on Oak Island" :



Yet in post # 1550 you say:



And in post #1534 , you say :



Can you clear this up this series of seemingly contradictory positions ? :icon_scratch: ???
Click to expand...


A major clue in pointing out "my" theory to skeptics. I also wrote on post 1566 that "I don't think anything points to a treasure on Oak Island".

Cheers, Loki
 

lokiblossom said:
I never watch the TV show but I do know about BS when I see it. Didn't you write that no respectable lab would have tested the material? And yet at least two have, and neither were from the TV show. Also there was at least one lab that identified the material as coconut fibre and one that wasn't sure.

Cheers, Loki
Click to expand...
Do you know anything about certified testing labs and lab accreditation?
you might want to look into it.
 

lokiblossom said:
... "I don't think anything points to a treasure on Oak Island".....
Click to expand...


ok, then what does this mean in # 1566 :

lokiblossom said:
It is the fibres. They are a major clue at least in pointing the theory out to skeptics, ....
Click to expand...

Ie.: a "major clue" for WHAT ? Treasure ? or Fibers ? What's the point of proving or disproving "fibers"? Unless the ultimate objective isn't (as the forum name and thread title hint at) going to involve treasure at some point ?
 

Last edited:
Are... The Finds On Oak Island...Starting To "Measure Up"?

Meassurement 2.jpg


It is Strange...that many finds on Oak Island...Have been Ignored of a very important Clue!

There have been numerous pieces of evidence talked about and some found on Oak Island.

Searchers talked of logs every 10 feet descending down the Money Pit Shaft.

The Money Pit Shaft's size being 13 Feet by 13 Feet.

Smith's Cove's Hidden Wharf's length stated as 66 feet 6 inches.

Smith's Cove's Cut log's lengths... as yet unmeasured.

Many material Stones and Artifacts found.

What is Bizarre, is that I do not believe the measurement's of these items have been investigated, as to who might have left their fingerprints on them.

That is, what was their measurement compared to a Foot, prior to the early 19th Century, which is when most Countries joined the Metric System and stabilized what would be a Foot.

Example: 1700's

England - Ell = 45 imperial inches

Scotland - Ell = 37.06 imperial inches

France - Pied Du Roi = 12.79 imperial inches

Spain - Vara = 32.91 imperial inches

South America - Vara = 34.1 imperial inches

Portugal - Vara = 43.5 imperial inches

It is Untruthful to equate any of today's finds as a measurement of what we understand a measurement of Feet to be.

Trying to match the Correct Measurement... to the Country and Time... May, Prove who the real original Depositors Were!
 

Robot said:
We know there were...logs, boards, artifacts and stones...let's start there!
Click to expand...

Ok, those are "depositors of" : logs, boards, artifacts, and stones.

But the depositors that I'M speaking of, is: Depositors of treasure.

Because "stones", "logs", "artifacts", and "boards" ... are to be found anywhere on earth. Why do these in-particular ones have to be indicative of a treasure ?
 

Tom_in_CA said:
ok, then what does this mean in # 1566 :



Ie.: a "major clue" for WHAT ? Treasure ? or Fibers ? What's the point of proving or disproving "fibers"? Unless the ultimate objective isn't (as the forum name and thread title hint at) going to involve treasure at some point ?
Click to expand...

OK, I get where you are going with this, your right I'm off topic, sorry folks, I stand corrected, but I didn't think anybody stayed much on topic around here.

Cheers, Loki
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Munit Haec et Altera Vincit

⬅️ Previous Thread

Oak Island - the real mystery is if there even is a mystery?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
High Plains Prospectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top