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

[xaos]

Yes, actually it froze quite a bit over, this lead to the great famine of 1315.

There is no doubt the Knights Templar were in the Med in 1300, and of course were destroyed on Friday the 13th, 1307.

How exactly would coconut fiber be available in the Eastern Med by 1300? While the silk road may have carried the coconut, I am certain it would have been the nut, not the entire nut and shell? Logic.



I am sure they transported entire ships full of fiber to pad Oak Island.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

...... the whole thread is all over the Nutty place ....

Not if you START with the premise of treasure . THEN all of the sudden, you can make what other-wise might seem nutty, will start to "fit". And THEN all of the salacious details (fibers, U's, stones with squiggles on them, artifacts, logs, etc...) will begin to make PERFECT sense.

Gary, You are starting from the wrong point in the chain of logic & evidence. Once you start with the right default premise "givens", THEN it makes perfect sense.

 

[xaos]

Starting from the Med, the current would have carried them to the Caribbean...not the frozen North?

Wait that is how they dug the shaft, it was frozen! Can we mark this thread as solved!

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes, actually it froze quite a bit over, this lead to the great famine of 1315.

There is no doubt the Knights Templar were in the Med in 1300, and of course were destroyed on Friday the 13th, 1307.

How exactly would coconut fiber be available in the Eastern Med by 1300? While the silk road may have carried the coconut, I am certain it would have been the nut, not the entire nut and shell? Logic.


I am sure they transported entire ships full of fiber to pad Oak Island.

Listen, please read a little more history on the Little Ice Age which occurred between the 14th and 19th centuries, and when you decide to check on coconut fibre search 'Coir', and no I don't think they transported entire ships full of coconut fibre to Oak Island, actually I don't think I ever suggested that.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Wait that is how they dug the shaft, it was frozen! Can we mark this thread as solved!

Makes perfect sense to me ! Digging through solid ice. *Of course*. No need to prevent water intrusion, caves-ins, etc.... Genius!

However: This assumes there was ever a "shaft" in the first place . As opposed to telephone game legends gone awry. And assumes there was "mystery" to solve, or a treasure, in the first place.

But as long as we start with those 'givens', then: Your solid ice theory is great ! I mean, gee.... where ELSE does someone decide to bury a fabulous treasure ? Other than through 150 ft. of solid ice, right ?

 

[Carl-NC]

I keep coming back hoping for an honest evidenced backed(on both sides) debate on the story but I am just not getting it.

Here is the evidence to date:

According to stories first published in the 1850's, one or more guys in the 1790's may have stumbled across a depression in the ground on Oak Island, imagined it might be buried treasure, and started digging. 220-r-so years later, people are still digging.

That's as much evidence as we have. It is amusing to watch people try to rationalize non-evidence into evidence, and even more amusing to watch people fabricate treasure origins out of thin air. But there is really nothing worthwhile to debate, it's all based on a story.

On the skeptical side, pretty much everything has rational explanations.

• The depression was an ordinary sinkhole.
• The (legendary) log and flagstone layers are normal sinkhole fill, as demonstrated in a similar sinkhole on the mainland.
• The flooding is normal for the geology of the island.
• The gold links, parchment, cypher stone, etc are utterly unreliable, far more likely plants.
• The "coconut fiber" hasn't even been properly investigated.

What is there to debate?

 

[Robot]

There Are Two Sides To Every Story...Best To Let...The Story Unfold!

Here is the evidence to date:

According to stories first published in the 1850's, one or more guys in the 1790's may have stumbled across a depression in the ground on Oak Island, imagined it might be buried treasure, and started digging. 220-r-so years later, people are still digging.

That's as much evidence as we have. It is amusing to watch people try to rationalize non-evidence into evidence, and even more amusing to watch people fabricate treasure origins out of thin air. But there is really nothing worthwhile to debate, it's all based on a story.

On the skeptical side, pretty much everything has rational explanations.

• The depression was an ordinary sinkhole.
• The (legendary) log and flagstone layers are normal sinkhole fill, as demonstrated in a similar sinkhole on the mainland.
• The flooding is normal for the geology of the island.
• The gold links, parchment, cypher stone, etc are utterly unreliable, far more likely plants.
• The "coconut fiber" hasn't even been properly investigated.

What is there to debate?

Everything You have stated is ...Not True...So Prove It!

 

[xaos]

all this blather, but simple failure to answer the basic questions...

your assumptions are that:

Someone went to great lengths, digging deep tunnels and traps to flood a chamber.

Engineering that would be very difficult, even in modern times...

But....

left a ships block and tackle in a tree above the shaft?
Left markers at intervals that state treasure is below.
and artefacts strewn all over the place

The Knights Templar?
The Masons? (why would Masons help find a treasure when they were guarding a secret?)

the resident idiot savant, found a surface artefact, which being lead, is somehow, historical.

 

[Robot]

all this blather, but simple failure to answer the basic questions...

your assumptions are that:

Someone went to great lengths, digging deep tunnels and traps to flood a chamber.

Engineering that would be very difficult, even in modern times...

But....

left a ships block and tackle in a tree above the shaft?
Left markers at intervals that state treasure is below.
and artefacts strewn all over the place

The Knights Templar?
The Masons? (why would Masons help find a treasure when they were guarding a secret?)

the resident idiot savant, found a surface aretefact, which being lead, is somehow, historical.

We've answered this many times over!

 

[G.A.P.metal]

View attachment 1677244

Everything You have stated is ...Not True...So Prove It!

You are all wrong... a grown man believing in a fairy tale..... your facts don`t make any sense... So Prove It ...You Can`t !!!

 

[lokiblossom]

the resident idiot savant, found a surface aretefact, which being lead, is somehow, historical.

Isn't it cool on a forum like this to be able to call somebody names with out even having to face them!

Is that the idiot calling the pot black, or something like that?

Cheers, Loki

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Here is the evidence to date:

According to stories first published in the 1850's, one or more guys in the 1790's may have stumbled across a depression in the ground on Oak Island, imagined it might be buried treasure, and started digging. 220-r-so years later, people are still digging.

That's as much evidence as we have. It is amusing to watch people try to rationalize non-evidence into evidence, and even more amusing to watch people fabricate treasure origins out of thin air. But there is really nothing worthwhile to debate, it's all based on a story.

On the skeptical side, pretty much everything has rational explanations.

• The depression was an ordinary sinkhole.
• The (legendary) log and flagstone layers are normal sinkhole fill, as demonstrated in a similar sinkhole on the mainland.
• The flooding is normal for the geology of the island.
• The gold links, parchment, cypher stone, etc are utterly unreliable, far more likely plants.
• The "coconut fiber" hasn't even been properly investigated.

What is there to debate?

Eye witness accounts.

I don't care if Mickey Mouse dropped the coconut fiber on OI Smith's cove. It doesn't explain the coconut fiber IN the pit. Or did everyone forget about that?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... What is there to debate?

Carl, yours in post # 1606 is an example of a breath of fresh air on the subject. And the push-backs that followed that post, are always a case-in-point of the psychology of treasure and legends.

No one wants to be "left out". So it is easy to subconsciously put aside more plausible explanations. Lest you/they "miss out". So they grasp on to fabulous contingencies which *could* make some "remote insane" theory theoretically possible. Then ask YOU to DIS-prove it. And if you can't: Then presto: They announce victory.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Carl, yours in post # 1606 is an example of a breath of fresh air on the subject. And the push-backs that followed that post, are always a case-in-point of the psychology of treasure and legends.

No one wants to be "left out". So it is easy to subconsciously put aside more plausible explanations. Lest you/they "miss out". So they grasp on to fabulous contingencies which *could* make some "remote insane" theory theoretically possible. Then ask YOU to DIS-prove it. And if you can't: Then presto: They announce victory.

LOL WOW! So you believe, these are all correct explanations?

• The depression was an ordinary sinkhole.
• The (legendary) log and flagstone layers are normal sinkhole fill, as demonstrated in a similar sinkhole on the mainland.
• The flooding is normal for the geology of the island.
• The gold links, parchment, cypher stone, etc are utterly unreliable, far more likely plants.
• The "coconut fiber" hasn't even been properly investigated.

I agree they may be the most plausible, but that doesn't mean anything without PROOF! Yep, I expect that if someone makes speculations like Carl did, they need to back it up with proof.

That's just the way it is. You can't go into court with bread crumbs on your mouth and say, "I didn't steal and eat the stolen bread but John Smith down the road is always eating bread and he loves it so he must of stole it". That is exactly what goes on here. What is most plausible is taken as fact.

Where is that hard data?

• The depression was an ordinary sinkhole.-Where is your data on sink hole occurrences in North America specifically in the NS region?

• The (legendary) log and flagstone layers are normal sinkhole fill, as demonstrated in a similar sinkhole on the mainland.-Where is the physical evidence of this? Where are the photographs? Interviews with sink hole experts? How about recorded examples?

• The flooding is normal for the geology of the island.-Flooding occurs just about everywhere in NA.

• The gold links, parchment, cypher stone, etc are utterly unreliable, far more likely plants.- Alright, so if you are going to dismiss eye witness accounts then nothing in recorded history happened.

• The "coconut fiber" hasn't even been properly investigated.-I think it has.

I can prove anything happened/didn't happen. Without evidence though, you wouldn't believe a word of it.

 

[cachenut]

The only thing with more crap in it than the show is this forum. Bwahahaha

 

[Tom_in_CA]

bcy0nd3r: Love your posts! Please don't be dissuaded. These are all great "pro" viewpoints.

Your input shows the mindset of what, admittedly: Brought us all into the hobby to begin with ! Eg.: Goodies, treasure, the thrill of the hunt, etc.... After all, this is "treasurenet", doh! Then it merely becomes an in-house exercise of : What is worthwhile to knock-ourselves silly for? And what isn't ? So with that said :

.... I agree they may be the most plausible, but that doesn't mean anything without PROOF!....

Good that you agree that what Carl proposed are the most plausible explanations! As for proof-to-the-contrary : That burden-of-proof is on the side of the adherents, to show that those skeptical explanations are "least plausible". Why is it on the side of the skeptic to show proof that there is no treasure?

And another thing: Even if we GRANT that the "pro" side is correct on issues like "depressions/sinkholes", "fibers", "logs", "links", and "squiggles on rocks" exist, why is it necessary that there be a treasure ? Because, don't forget, that ALL good treasure legends are 99% true (names/dates/events, etc...). It's that 1% (whether or not there's a treasure) that is invariably the bugaboo. So you can debate fibers and sinkholes till the cows come home. But at a certain point, doesn't someone rise up who says : "What does it matter ?"

.... What is most plausible is taken as fact. ....

Uhhhh, why isn't the things that are "most plausible" seen as what's ... uhhh ... "most plausible" ?

In the same way that if I tried to claim Elvis is still alive, d/t a photo I took of him on the streets of Las Vegas last week. You might say it's "more plausible" that it's a modern decoy look-alike. Right ?

As for the rest of the point-by-point refutation of Carl's : The push-back-lines seem to be along the following: A) Pointing to the legend to prove a legend (circular), and B) putting the burden of proof on the skeptic to show a negative.

 

[PirateLabs]

That's just the way it is. You can't go into court with bread crumbs on your mouth and say, "I didn't steal and eat the stolen bread but John Smith down the road is always eating bread and he loves it so he must of stole it". That is exactly what goes on here. What is most plausible is taken as fact.

Of course you can. It happens in courtrooms all across America every day. Have you never been to court? You can sue anyone for ANYTHING and allege ANYTHING. However, it is up to the Claimant to prove what he claims to be true as true. So if someone claims there was/is treasure on Oak Island, it is up to them to provide proof not the other way around. There is only one way to prove that and we all know what that is.

Speculation, however, is a different matter and I believe that it is more likely that the former slave fellow who owned that block of land on the island and was known to have bought the land, and a house and other things with (supposedly) gold coins, had found a treasure there. Maybe he just found a small chest or pot with the coins inside stashed there long before by some unknown seafaring person. Was that all of the treasure hidden on the island? I speculate that it was but, unless/until another treasure is found, we may never know.

I am sorry I can not recall that former slave fellow's name at this time. I have followed this story of a possible treasure on oak island since the 1970's when I read about it in the newspaper the first time. I find the show interesting and fascinating even if somewhat over the top in the hype dept. but, it is a show and shows need folks to watch in order to remain a show. I find all of the speculation in the forums interesting too...from both sides. Arguing about it pointless I believe because on the one side, you can not prove a negative, and on the other, the treasure must be produced to prove it is there. Everything else is just discussion and speculation.

Bill

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Of course you can. It happens in courtrooms all across America every day. Have you never been to court? You can sue anyone for ANYTHING and allege ANYTHING. However, it is up to the Claimant to prove what he claims to be true as true. So if someone claims there was/is treasure on Oak Island, it is up to them to provide proof not the other way around. There is only one way to prove that and we all know what that is.

Speculation, however, is a different matter and I believe that it is more likely that the former slave fellow who owned that block of land on the island and was known to have bought the land, and a house and other things with (supposedly) gold coins, had found a treasure there. Maybe he just found a small chest or pot with the coins inside stashed there long before by some unknown seafaring person. Was that all of the treasure hidden on the island? I speculate that it was but, unless/until another treasure is found, we may never know.

I am sorry I can not recall that former slave fellow's name at this time. I have followed this story of a possible treasure on oak island since the 1970's when I read about it in the newspaper the first time. I find the show interesting and fascinating even if somewhat over the top in the hype dept. but, it is a show and shows need folks to watch in order to remain a show. I find all of the speculation in the forums interesting too...from both sides. Arguing about it pointless I believe because on the one side, you can not prove a negative, and on the other, the treasure must be produced to prove it is there. Everything else is just discussion and speculation.

Bill

Sorry, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. I think you are referring to Sam Ball

 

[b3y0nd3r]

bcy0nd3r: Love your posts! Please don't be dissuaded. These are all great "pro" viewpoints.

Your input shows the mindset of what, admittedly: Brought us all into the hobby to begin with ! Eg.: Goodies, treasure, the thrill of the hunt, etc.... After all, this is "treasurenet", doh! Then it merely becomes an in-house exercise of : What is worthwhile to knock-ourselves silly for? And what isn't ? So with that said :



Good that you agree that what Carl proposed. are the most plausible explanations! As for proof-to-the-contrary : That burden-of-proof is on the side of the adherents, to show that those skeptical explanations are "least plausible". Why is it on the side of the skeptic to show proof that there is no treasure?

And another thing: Even if we GRANT that the "pro" side is correct on issues like "depressions/sinkholes", "fibers", "logs", "links", and "squiggles on rocks" exist, why is it necessary that there be a treasure ? Because, don't forget, that ALL good treasure legends are 99% true (names/dates/events, etc...). It's that 1% (whether or not there's a treasure) that is invariably the bugaboo. So you can debate fibers and sinkholes till the cows come home. But at a certain point, doesn't someone rise up who says : "What does it matter ?"



Uhhhh, why isn't the things that are "most plausible" seen as what's ... uhhh ... "most plausible" ?

In the same way that if I tried to claim Elvis is still alive, d/t a photo I took of him on the streets of Las Vegas last week. You might say it's "more plausible" that it's a modern decoy look-alike. Right ?

As for the rest of the point-by-point refutation of Carl's : The push-back-lines seem to be along the following: A) Pointing to the legend to prove a legend (circular), and B) putting the burden of proof on the skeptic to show a negative.

Not chasing my tail this week Tom . AS you said in the past, 99% can be true and the treasure(the 1%) is false. Im just really interested in the 99%. But if you want me to speculate on a treasure, I have already did that.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... AS you said in the past, 99% can be true and the treasure(the 1%) is false. Im just really interested in the 99%. ....

Ok then, I'll bite: If can agree that 99% is "true" (names, dates, events, fibers, squiggles on rocks, U's, logs, strange lights, etc...), and that 1% is false (the supposed treasure part), then :

What are we talking about ? If you acknowledge there's no proof of treasure (the 1% of the proof), then ....... what are we all here talking about ? Why does anyone care about "fibers" ? "uncanny out of place squiggles" ? etc... ? Heck, I can walk out my own front door, and ... within a mile of my house, find every single thing that's talked about in this legend. Ok, so what ? If we can all agree that they don't necessarily mean "treasure", then : What are we talking about ?