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

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Now there is something more plausible. If, say, some cache was found six feet deep that was a year's salary all at once for each of them that would set them up pretty well.

And from that seed it blossoms into all and every treasure ever lost or imagined, hidden with stellar charts and codes in The Bible and Templar Aliens, etc.

I'd be less skeptical of that. Especially since the 1795 story wasn't published until the mid 1850's. Lucky and smart. ;-)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Tom_in_CA]

What if Sam Ball, McGinnis, Smith and Vaughan actually found the treasure? The all did seem to mysteriously prosper after being on OI didn't they? ...

Well, don't forget, income mobility in our American culture is very fluid. People can go up and down in income, via regular economics, all-the-time. And yet have nothing to do with whether-or-not they found a treasure.

And re.: the bold italics in your quote above : Let's imagine that research showed any or all of them stayed economically the same. Or actually led a lesser/poorer lifestyle thereafter. I imagine that this would not detract from the notion of O.I. treasure.

See how that works ? If someone of them could be historically shown to have "mysteriously grown wealthy", then we'd all say "Aha! Treasure !". But if they were shown to have stayed the same or decreased, then ..... that would not mean "no treasure". See how the "clues" can only point one-way, and not the other ? See the double-standard ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I think Charlie slipped.

So I think I see the problem here. Skeptics definition of treasure is way too narrow.

I guess I misinterpreted that as a broad generalization by someone who saw "skeptics" as a group with an inherent problem.

Sorry if I was incorrect.

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

Now there is something more plausible. If, say, some cache was found six feet deep that was a year's salary all at once for each of them that would set them up pretty well.

And from that seed it blossoms into all and every treasure ever lost or imagined, hidden with stellar charts and codes in The Bible and Templar Aliens, etc.

I'd be less skeptical of that. Especially since the 1795 story wasn't published until the mid 1850's. Lucky and smart. ;-)

Kinda makes sense doesn't it?

Well, don't forget, income mobility in our American culture is very fluid. People can go up and down in income, via regular economics, all-the-time. And yet have nothing to do with whether-or-not they found a treasure.

And re.: the bold italics in your quote above : Let's imagine that research showed any or all of them stayed economically the same. Or actually led a lesser/poorer lifestyle thereafter. I imagine that this would not detract from the notion of O.I. treasure.

See how that works ? If someone of them could be historically shown to have "mysteriously grown wealthy", then we'd all say "Aha! Treasure !". But if they were shown to have stayed the same or decreased, then ..... that would not mean "no treasure". See how the "clues" can only point one-way, and not the other ? See the double-standard ?

I see what your saying but there is factual evidence of those 4 guys doing quite well after living on OI around Money Pit time, right?

Do you think any cabbage farmer is really gonna make enough cabbage to buy plots on OI and then inland as well?

Plus the McGinnes girls had some gold booty!!!!

Any treasure legend, story or discussion will never veer towards peoples lesser lifestyle unless it was like Fenn and after he hid his treasure he realized that was all his loot! LOL

Oh and PS - Elephants eat telephone poles in my neighborhood!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I see what your saying but there is factual evidence of those 4 guys doing quite well after living on OI around Money Pit time, right?....

Ok, But the trouble is: History is FILLED with stories of "guys doing quite well", after normal experiences in life, work, family and economics.

For example: When I was 22-ish yrs. old, I had zero savings. Could only afford microwave potatoes with salt and butter, for my meals for 7 days straight. And struggled to pay the rent on the room rental. Rode a bike everywhere d/t I couldn't afford a car or gas or insurance.

Now ... 30-ish years later : I own a company, have employees, own a home in an affluent neighborhood, and have a trophy wife. Ok: Did I find a treasure that afforded me all of this ? Or is there possibly (just possibly) other more plausible explanations ?

How about Bill Gates: What could POSSIBLY be the explanation for his wealth, other than having found a fabulous treasure ? That whole computer-biz story is just the cover-up story for the *real* reason of his sudden increase in wealth. Eh ?

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

Ok, But the trouble is: History is FILLED with stories of "guys doing quite well", after normal experiences in life, work, family and economics.

For example: When I was 22-ish yrs. old, I had zero savings. Could only afford microwave potatoes with salt and butter, for my meals for 7 days straight. And struggled to pay the rent on the room rental. Rode a bike everywhere d/t I couldn't afford a car or gas or insurance.

Now ... 30-ish years later : I own a company, have employees, own a home in an affluent neighborhood, and have a trophy wife. Ok: Did I find a treasure that afforded me all of this ? Or is there possibly (just possibly) other more plausible explanations ?

How about Bill Gates: What could POSSIBLY be the explanation for his wealth, other than having found a fabulous treasure ? That whole computer-biz story is just the cover-up story for the *real* reason of his sudden increase in wealth. Eh ?

We can stop on that Gates fantasy. Nobody believes in "Windows" so that is a total fairy tale. Not even believable..... he sold his sole for rock n roll!!!

As for you? I could believe you found a treasure if you said so. You seem like an honest guy. I might even give you some money to dig deeper or left and or right I could benefit from finding more.

Now a cabbage farmer? Gotta be treasure. Eye witnesses to him flaunting those Roman/Viking/Templar/Atlantis/Spanish coins around. I'm thinking that I solved the mystery.

Lets look at my story.... I got the Radio Shack X-100 when I was a poor kid...

Soon I had hundreds in my pocket, buying Wilson A2000 gloves for me and my friends, custom Mongoose BMX bikes, thousands in the bank by the time I was in high school.
How do we think I got there?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Now a cabbage farmer? Gotta be treasure. Eye witnesses to him flaunting those Roman/Viking/Templar/Atlantis/Spanish coins around. ...

haha. To extend/expand this comparison from "Tom_in_CA" to the legend boy's rise-to-affluence. All the same things could be said of me .

Example for a future stretch-da-truth fellow , 200 yrs. from now, pointing back to Tom_in_CA @ 1982 to 2019-ish:

"Now a street sweeper driver ? Gotta be treasure"

And history will even show, to a future stretch-da-truth fellow, that witnesses saw this Tom_in_CA fellow flaunting reales and gold coins. Heck, maybe even the archives of T'net and other forums will still be available. And persons 200 yrs. from now can simply go LOOK at the actual pix of gold coins and reales Tom flaunted.

Hence, yes, .... all this talk of "working my way up through the ranks of the company, to eventually own it", is all a cover story. And those coins I flaunted on forum show & tell ? No, they're not individual coins and finds. They actually must be part of a fabulous large cache (and I'm only showing singular specimens out of the much larger cache).

See ?

 

[lokiblossom]

b3y0nd3r : I agree with everything you're saying here. Yes: discovery of history can be a "treasure" . Thus treasure need-not-be strictly defined as money, fabulous riches, etc... Have I understood you correctly ?

Ok, but the trouble is: That's not what the O.I. faithful (the TV show, the legend, etc...) are believing/wanting. They are NOT chalking up all this hoopla to mere history, of the definition that you are speaking of.

Yes, discovery of history is a treasure and that's what I am into, in this case the history of the Knights Templar, but I was chastised for being off topic. Maybe not now, eh!
Cheers, loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....discovery of history is a treasure and that's what I am into, in this case the history of the Knights Templar,...

Sure. If there was "history of knights templar" there (which I doubt), but if there WAS, then "sure", that's "treasure" that is "treasure-of-cool-history". For history-sake's alone. However again: That's not the "treasure" that the legend, the TV show, etc... is fixated on.

Individual persons might back-track and SAY that's all they're concerned about . We've seen that psychology right here within our ranks, for example: When pressed as to the lack of proof or evidence of a treasure, someone will merely say : " Ok, but ... I'm just fascinated with fibers, whether or not it points to a treasure." But .... seriously now .... deep down inside, NONE of this is about fibers, for example.

If it were a fascination of super early Europeans landing on our shores (templars, vikings, Chinese, etc...), sure, that's cool history "treasure of knowledge". But I have the feeling that O.I. is .... once you boil it down ...... all about "treasure".

 

[lokiblossom]

Sure. If there was "history of knights templar" there (which I doubt), but if there WAS, then "sure", that's "treasure" that is "treasure-of-cool-history". For history-sake's alone. However again: That's not the "treasure" that the legend, the TV show, etc... is fixated on.

Individual persons might back-track and SAY that's all they're concerned about . We've seen that psychology right here within our ranks, for example: When pressed as to the lack of proof or evidence of a treasure, someone will merely say : " Ok, but ... I'm just fascinated with fibers, whether or not it points to a treasure." But .... seriously now .... deep down inside, NONE of this is about fibers, for example.

If it were a fascination of super early Europeans landing on our shores (templars, vikings, Chinese, etc...), sure, that's cool history "treasure of knowledge". But I have the feeling that O.I. is .... once you boil it down ...... all about "treasure".

Not all about treasure in my opinion, and yes a lot of it is about fibres. Fibres are an integral part of the whole story almost from day one!

Cheers, loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Fibres are an integral part of the whole story....

Ok, I'll bite: What "whole story" ? The story of TREASURE !! Of COURSE. 'Fess up loki. Confession is good for the soul after all

 

[lokiblossom]

Ok, I'll bite: What "whole story" ? The story of TREASURE !! Of COURSE. 'Fess up loki. Confession is good for the soul after all

I was simply answering your statement"NONE of this is about fibers"! And no, I am not about gold or silver.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

I am starting to think Tom doesn't believe in Treasure on Oak Island.
Now for poor people to all of a sudden come into wealth, that looks fishy.
I am pretty sure the time line will show that for the 4 men in question.

Your analogy of Poor Young Tom then 30 years later is pretty much every ones story. Most people take years to build up to the business, nice house and car, trophy wife, etc.... unless you come from wealth, you gotta earn it over time.
Exceptions are Lottery winner and treasure finder!

No lottery way back when on OI right? So, Im gonna say those 4 found some loot and that helped them do better in life.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Now for poor people to all of a sudden come into wealth, that looks fishy.
I am pretty sure the time line will show that for the 4 men in question.

Your analogy of Poor Young Tom then 30 years later is pretty much every ones story. Most people take years to build up to .....

AAaahhh, good move Stretch So my push- back, is met with a counter push-back. And I must say: Yours is an ingenious push-back. It acknowledges mine as true (that poor to eventual affluent doesn't mean "treasure"). So then, in order to wriggle around this truth, we must enter another factor : The speed-to-which a person ascended to that position.

If it's through hard work and business, sure, you're right: Not likely to happen overnight. And sure, no "stock markets" or "lottery tickets" back then, that could have accounted for it. And regular work/business results = too slow. So : For everything you're saying to be true, we have a SLEW of "devil in the details" to have to be accepted as premises, or dismissed as not applying :

a) We have to go back to some historical record proof of eventual wealth (tax filing statements ? etc...). I mean, is this "salacious details" even true, IN THE FIRST PLACE ? And no, I would not accept the "legend" as proof of this. Because that would merely be "pointing to the legend" as "proof of the legend" (circular).

Don't forget: If someone conjectures 150 yrs. ago that "It has been said that McGinnis was suddenly wealthy". Then here's what happens next: 30 or 40 yrs. later, at the next telling of that tidbit: the "It has been said ..." part of that sentence, gets dropped. The "suddenly wealthy" part is all that rings true, and thus: The legend evolves. Hence I'd want to see some corroborating original substantiated evidence, aside from just "pointing at the legend".

b) this wealth would have to be "sudden", as you yourself say. If the "proof" just shows he died affluent, or that years later, he "passed out cool old coins", then .... that lacks the proof of "sudden".

c) And there *could* be other ways to come into sudden wealth back then : Inheritance is a main way. Theft is another way. Etc...

Thus for your proof of "someone probably found the treasure", to rest on the "sudden wealth" of the individuals in the legend, you've got a LOT of closing of loose ends to do. But I admit: That was a genius move to show that the Tom_in_CA story wouldn't hold merit, if we added in the key word "sudden".

 

[etex]

haha. To extend/expand this comparison from "Tom_in_CA" to the legend boy's rise-to-affluence. All the same things could be said of me .

Example for a future stretch-da-truth fellow , 200 yrs. from now, pointing back to Tom_in_CA @ 1982 to 2019-ish:

"Now a street sweeper driver ? Gotta be treasure"

And history will even show, to a future stretch-da-truth fellow, that witnesses saw this Tom_in_CA fellow flaunting reales and gold coins. Heck, maybe even the archives of T'net and other forums will still be available. And persons 200 yrs. from now can simply go LOOK at the actual pix of gold coins and reales Tom flaunted.

Hence, yes, .... all this talk of "working my way up through the ranks of the company, to eventually own it", is all a cover story. And those coins I flaunted on forum show & tell ? No, they're not individual coins and finds. They actually must be part of a fabulous large cache (and I'm only showing singular specimens out of the much larger cache).

See ?

Show us the rest. We know you have them. Don't deny it, that will just be proof you do have them

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

AAaahhh, good move Stretch .

Thus for your proof of "someone probably found the treasure", to rest on the "sudden wealth" of the individuals in the legend, you've got a LOT of closing of loose ends to do. But I admit: That was a genius move to show that the Tom_in_CA story wouldn't hold merit, if we added in the key word "sudden".

Thanks Tom. I have a few up my sleeve for when I need them!

I know lotto winners, I know wealthy hand me downs as well and wish I knew some treasure finders. I have found some good stuff but not enough to retire.

I still believe the 4 men found what little treasure was hidden on OI and all the rest has spewed forth from others wanting to A: find more and B: bilk others out of their money.

Did you like my Radio Shack x-100? That was almost as cool as my Deus!

Gonna dig for some timeline info on Sam Ball for ya.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... that will just be proof you do have them

Well yes ! Of course ! The conspiracy is working well. Lack of treasure just means: PROOF OF TREASURE !

Like: Someone comes on a forum asking tips about a treasure they are seeking. A year or two later, someone "bumps" the thread to the top, in order to ask : "What became of the treasure? Did you find it ?". And another person, musing over the silence on the topic says :

"Probably because they're retired to Malibu, sitting cocktails on the beach, and driving a Lamborghini. Too rich to be bothered with silly md'ing forums after finding their riches already. "

I realize that the person answering was just joking around. But it DOES spell the psychology of how "lack of treasure " = "proof of treasure" , to some people . Even if only in jest, yet ... sure enough: It will ring true for someone who is holding on to any shred of hope.

 

[lokiblossom]

Well yes ! Of course ! The conspiracy is working well. Lack of treasure just means: PROOF OF TREASURE !

Like: Someone comes on a forum asking tips about a treasure they are seeking. A year or two later, someone "bumps" the thread to the top, in order to ask : "What became of the treasure? Did you find it ?". And another person, musing over the silence on the topic says :

"Probably because they're retired to Malibu, sitting cocktails on the beach, and driving a Lamborghini. Too rich to be bothered with silly md'ing forums after finding their riches already. "

I realize that the person answering was just joking around. But it DOES spell the psychology of how "lack of treasure " = "proof of treasure" , to some people . Even if only in jest, yet ... sure enough: It will ring true for someone who is holding on to any shred of hope.

Got to say I'm proud of you and Stretch with your wealths and trophy wives. And you have done an excellent job with those who still think there may be a treasure somewhere on Oak Island. I have to say though, that although I know very little about actual treasure hunting I do hope something of value is eventually found just to prove you wrong.

Cheers, loki

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... I do hope something of value is eventually found just to prove you wrong....

Yes, if something of value was found (the fabled long-sought treasure), then yes: That would prove the skeptics wrong.

Ironically though: If nothing of value was found (200 yrs. effort , no less), that doesn't prove adherents wrong though. That only proves: A) a little deeper, more left, or more right. Or B) Someone else already found it. NOT that there was/is "no treasure". Thus you can see the double-standard of evidence here, eh ?

 

[franklin]

Why is there no systematic check of surface treasure on Oak Island. They need hundreds of metal detectors on the ground. Eliminate the surface treasures before doing all of the other excavations. At least this way treasure may be found.