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

[Tom_in_CA]

Why is there no systematic check of surface treasure on Oak Island.....

Because as any good legend hunter knows: The bigger the treasure, the deeper it must be. So ... why bother with shallow fumble fingers stuff ?

Not sure why this notion is, but that seems to be par-for-the-course, that people assume: The bigger the treasure, then it must, of necessity, be "6 meters deep". And , of course, riddled with booby-traps, cryptogram clues, a skeleton, etc....

I guess the Saddle Ridge hoard finder people "didn't get that memo". Their cache of nearly 1500 gold coins was found by merely kicking the duff off the surface of the ground. Doh!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[b3y0nd3r]

Because as any good legend hunter knows: The bigger the treasure, the deeper it must be. So ... why bother with shallow fumble fingers stuff ?

Not sure why this notion is, but that seems to be par-for-the-course, that people assume: The bigger the treasure, then it must, of necessity, be "6 meters deep". And , of course, riddled with booby-traps, cryptogram clues, a skeleton, etc....

I guess the Saddle Ridge hoard finder people "didn't get that memo". Their cache of nearly 1500 gold coins was found by merely kicking the duff off the surface of the ground. Doh!

Will you concede that something was buried there or that the money pit was engineered?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Will you concede that something was buried there or that the money pit was engineered?

This is more of just "pointing to the legend", to ask dissenters : "Do you believe this part or that part of the legend?" Ie.: Pointing to the legend to prove the legend (circular).

And the word "Something" is a loaded term. Because, let's be dreadfully honest: What's this all about ? "Something" ? or "TREASURE" ? Well, gee.... treasure of course. And thus no, I don't believe there's a treasure there, nor ever was.

As for "engineered": What does it matter ? There's engineered holes/pits all over the entire USA . Ok, ... so what ? And again, this "money pit" question just points to the legend. Eg.: "boys began to dig..." blah blah.

Kind of like someone who believes in UFOs can ask a non-believer: "What do you think the alien aircrafts that the govt. is hiding in warehouses?" Don't you see how the question itself is loaded ?

 

[b3y0nd3r]

This is more of just "pointing to the legend", to ask dissenters : "Do you believe this part or that part of the legend?" Ie.: Pointing to the legend to prove the legend (circular).

And the word "Something" is a loaded term. Because, let's be dreadfully honest: What's this all about ? "Something" ? or "TREASURE" ? Well, gee.... treasure of course. And thus no, I don't believe there's a treasure there, nor ever was.

As for "engineered": What does it matter ? There's engineered holes/pits all over the entire USA . Ok, ... so what ? And again, this "money pit" question just points to the legend. Eg.: "boys began to dig..." blah blah.

Kind of like someone who believes in UFOs can ask a non-believer: "What do you think the alien aircrafts that the govt. is hiding in warehouses?" Don't you see how the question itself is loaded ?

It matters to a lot of people including myself!

i wasn't trying to trick you Tom. I don't know what you believe and I was trying to look at it from your point of view.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

How about this answer then: "Engineered" does not necessarily = "treasure".

Thus: My answer on "whether or not it was engineered" (assuming there was even an "it" in the first place): Is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even the words "money pit" and "it", are themselves filled with assumed premises. Which, as I say , are the legend itself.

I understand that you were being sincere (and I appreciate your intellectual integrity to see other's views) But to even ASK the question, in the first place, puts the person who answers in a position of needing to affirm the legend , to be able to comment on "motives" . Ie.: Did "they", put "something" in "there", etc... is akin to the UFO analogy I drew , where the question itself simply assumes a given starting point.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

How about this answer then: "Engineered" does not necessarily = "treasure".

Thus: My answer on "whether or not it was engineered" (assuming there was even an "it" in the first place): Is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even the words "money pit" and "it", are themselves filled with assumed premises. Which, as I say , are the legend itself.

I understand that you were being sincere (and I appreciate your intellectual integrity to see other's views) But to even ASK the question, in the first place, puts the person who answers in a position of needing to affirm the legend , to be able to comment on "motives" . Ie.: Did "they", put "something" in "there", etc... is akin to the UFO analogy I drew , where the question itself simply assumes a given starting point.

Fair enough. Do you believe there was a pit dug at all? If you do, was there logs every ten feet or so? Do you think the fiber like stuff found on island is coconut fiber?

I would love YOUR account on what exactly YOU think happened there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I would love YOUR account on what exactly YOU think happened there.

I love it Over 220 yrs. later. Thus NEITHER of us is going to be able to say "exactly what happened" there. I could say "nothing at all". In which case, you'd merely point to the legend. It's a vicious circle. And yes, I acknowledge you used the word "think". But in the same sentence are using "exactly"

So with that in mind, I'm going to dedicate a new thread, to show you real-world scenarios of how some things, 220 yrs. later, can end up exactly like this, with exactly your questions posed to me. Watch for a new thread I'll post in a minute .

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

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

Thanks! Gotta start young with the Radio Shack special and it was all easy after that!

I will keep saying this:
I still believe the 4 men found what little treasure was hidden on OI.

 

[Robot]

What?...With Over 20 Pages...Of Disclaimer's Postings..You Are Now Going To Leave Us?

Tom in Ca

Thank You...For Boosting This Thread...To Nearly A Quarter of a Million...Viewers!

We Are In Your...Debt!

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

How about this answer then: "Engineered" does not necessarily = "treasure".

Thus: My answer on "whether or not it was engineered" (assuming there was even an "it" in the first place): Is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even the words "money pit" and "it", are themselves filled with assumed premises. Which, as I say , are the legend itself.

I understand that you were being sincere (and I appreciate your intellectual integrity to see other's views) But to even ASK the question, in the first place, puts the person who answers in a position of needing to affirm the legend , to be able to comment on "motives" . Ie.: Did "they", put "something" in "there", etc... is akin to the UFO analogy I drew , where the question itself simply assumes a given starting point.

Just answer Tom, lots want to see what your angle is.

I will continue to say:I still believe the 4 men found what little treasure was hidden on OI.

I don't believe in some huge engineering feat. Just Sam found something (chest/cache) with some valuables in it and so the the 3 guys. That's pretty much it.

 

[franklin]

Did the three families keep any records or diaries of what exactly they dug? We hear they dug the depression and then forgot about it for about six years, then a company was formed and they dug it deeper to the ninety foot level. Is there any records of this first company? I know the first we hear about anything is not until the 1850's or after the Civil War. Surely the first company would have kept something wrote down especially since it was a failure after hitting water. Surely they would have laid this documentation upon the second treasure seeking company?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Will you concede that something was buried there or that the money pit was engineered?

At this point I wouldn't. We don't even know where the original pit was and all evidence is, at this point, here say. If the Laganias come across the original pit (if it wasn't completely destroyed by the 27 some previous tries to dig it up - based on the chronology Xaos linked to) then perhaps evidence will be presented.

 

[Carl-NC]

A skeptic to me, is just that. A person that has an opposing view.

That's not what a skeptic is, that would be an opponent.

A skeptic is someone who is unconvinced by the available evidence.

 

[franklin]

That's not what a skeptic is, that would be an opponent.

A skeptic is someone who is unconvinced by the available evidence.

Carl, always great to read your post. I love a good treasure story as well as anyone else. The problem with the treasure supposedly being buried on Oak Island is the first rule of researching and locating a treasure, documentation to prove a treasure actually exist and was buried in the area. THERE IS NONE.

The companies trying to find a treasure on Oak Island are going about searching for treasure completely in the wrong directions and are spending their millions in the wrong places. When trying to find a treasure over 100 to 200 feet below the surface is really a great waste of money especially when you do not know where exactly to look. I could take a lot less expense and find more treasure than the Legina Brothers within the same areas they have permission to search. Exploratory holes is a waste of money. Take gpr scans, deep seeking metal detector scans, metal detector surveys and dig no more than 10 feet deep and they may come up with truck loads of treasure. It is absolutely insane to keep digging probing holes.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The problem with the treasure supposedly being buried on Oak Island is the first rule of researching and locating a treasure, documentation to prove a treasure actually exist and was buried in the area. THERE IS NONE....

Well, if I could be allowed to speak on behalf of the believers: They would say that there IS "documentation". The legend itself ! Of boys who saw some lights. Saw evidence of recently dug hole & winch-system. And then dug there themselves believing that all this meant "treasure". And found odd -stuff at intervals down in the hole. Further "documentation" would be to show various ships, of entities that might have had riches, were known to have passed by the area.

Thus: WHAT MORE DOCUMENTATION COULD YOU ASK FOR ??

(and yes, Carl's posts are always a breath of fresh air)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And now to speak on the skeptic's behalf, for the above post :

a) All of the prior post's starting points is merely "pointing to the legend to prove the legend itself" . Ie.: Circular. Can't anyone accept, for a moment, that *perhaps* parts (or all or most) of the "boy story" was subject to telephone game ? Embellishment as time went on? By sincere well-meaning treasure-fever people ?

In fact, it's actually been SHOWN that some aspects of the story DIDN'T exist in the earliest tellings of the story. Thus Speculations on what someone muses, can later enter the story itself , upon further tellings. And Yes: I realize that a researcher can simply "toss out" those aspects as questionable, if they could acknowledge that they appear to be added. But doesn't that MERE FACT tell you/us that: Yes, the "game" is entirely possible ? Ie.: If you accept that some parts were evolved into it, then presto: So too could this phenomenon go all the way back to earlier times as well.

b) And even if we accept the entire legend premise: Since when does all this (fibers, links, lights, etc...) , of necessity = "Treasure" ? Odd stuff happens all the time at oodles of places. Strange out of place squiggles or symmetrical designs, and square nails, etc... exist at tons of places. I could travel less than a mile from my house, and construct a similar story, with 100% real factors of "clues", "local history", etc...

c) Speculations on possible passing wealth-laden ship route conspiracies: Can be said of ANY place where people historically lived, worked, & traveled. There can ALWAYS be *some possible reason* that someone could construct, of why it's entirely feasible that some treasure *can possibly* exist, at most any place where people historically lived and worked. Does that mean that, .... therefore.... there *IS* a treasure ? No ! Of course not.

 

[lokiblossom]

And now to speak on the skeptic's behalf, for the above post :

a) All of the prior post's starting points is merely "pointing to the legend to prove the legend itself" . Ie.: Circular. Can't anyone accept, for a moment, that *perhaps* parts (or all or most) of the "boy story" was subject to telephone game ? Embellishment as time went on? By sincere well-meaning treasure-fever people ?

In fact, it's actually been SHOWN that some aspects of the story DIDN'T exist in the earliest tellings of the story. Thus Speculations on what someone muses, can later enter the story itself , upon further tellings. And Yes: I realize that a researcher can simply "toss out" those aspects as questionable, if they could acknowledge that they appear to be added. But doesn't that MERE FACT tell you/us that: Yes, the "game" is entirely possible ? Ie.: If you accept that some parts were evolved into it, then presto: So too could this phenomenon go all the way back to earlier times as well.

b) And even if we accept the entire legend premise: Since when does all this (fibers, links, lights, etc...) , of necessity = "Treasure" ? Odd stuff happens all the time at oodles of places. Strange out of place squiggles or symmetrical designs, and square nails, etc... exist at tons of places. I could travel less than a mile from my house, and construct a similar story, with 100% real factors of "clues", "local history", etc...

c) Speculations on possible passing wealth-laden ship route conspiracies: Can be said of ANY place where people historically lived, worked, & traveled. There can ALWAYS be *some possible reason* that someone could construct, of why it's entirely feasible that some treasure *can possibly* exist, at most any place where people historically lived and worked. Does that mean that, .... therefore.... there *IS* a treasure ? No ! Of course not.

Of course there is some truth in all legends, but you would know that having attained the wealth you spoke of earlier!

Cheers, Loki

 

[franklin]

With the sources that they have on "The Curse of Oak Island" you would think they could research archives and come up with documented proof. Something of a ship's log or a person that say they buried something of value on Oak Island. If the treasure was so large they would definitely want to come back and recover. I have been waiting patiently on Diana Muir's second book to see what Prince Henry Sinclair did on his voyage of 1399. I know speculators will say the journals are fictitious but I consider them a valuable source that needs checked out. Diana is going to put out 20 some odd volumes on the journals. Her next two is about Knight's Templar genealogy and that too I am interested in. I am trying to find a source that say someone stopped on Oak Island to bury a treasure. So far I have seen no evidence other than gematria proof made by Petter Admundsen. I would like to find another source or two to back up his claim. If there is any source to find?

https://screenshots.firefox.com/8MR6xA4yIfga4Cv6/www.facebook.com

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Of course there is some truth in all legends ....

Sure. No good treasure legend ever started with "once upon a time". There's truth to all treasure legends. So the "faithful" will therefore think: "It's just a matter of sorting fact from fiction". Right ?

However, if there's no treasure (the 1% conclusion) then: It won't matter how much sorting fact from fiction that people do.

That's the failure of Oak Island phenomenon: People have KNOCKED THEMSELVES SILLY for 100 yrs. showing various aspects of the story to be TRUE (eg.: fiber buoyancy, ocean currents, the names of some boys and what color shirts they wore, etc...). And each time that some aspect turns out to be TRUE, then it seems to point all-the-more to "treasure", right ?

But it fails to take into account that all-good-treasure legends are based on fact (names, dates, events, etc....). All of which can be "proven". Yet none of which necessarily means: "treasure"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

With the sources that they have on "The Curse of Oak Island" you would think they could research archives and come up with documented proof. ...

To which they would say they HAVE got "documented proof" : The legend.