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

[Robot]

What Was... These Freemason’s "Greatest Defense"... Used To Secure... Their Treasure?

These Depositors of Oak Island, to insure their Treasure would be safe, built into their design all the Defense Systems possibly known to man.

But…Their… Greatest One, which they noticed was used from the beginning of time and throughout all known Discoveries…Was the persuasive power… of Skeptics!

From these Skeptic's rantings of…Stone Constructions weighing too much, Lost Cities covered in dust, to no Lost City could ever be built on top of a Mountain…It was Skeptics… who tried to discourage Searcher's efforts from locating Man's greatest achievements.

The Depositors used their genius knowledge of these Skeptics’ Human Nature and knew how easy it would be to use them to secure their Treasure.

All they had to do…was Throw them a Bone…and watch these…Skeptics…Chase Their Tails!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

These Depositors of Oak Island, to insure their Treasure would be safe, built into their design all the Defense Systems possibly known to man.

But…Their… Greatest One, ....…Was the persuasive power… of Skeptics! ....

You gotta hand it to those "depositors". They could plan 100 & 200 yrs. ahead, and foresee skeptics. That they then could stealthily use that to their benefit. Anticipating those skeptic's moves and inevitable habits, they could rely on skeptics like me, to dissuade people from believing/searching. Therefore: To throw people off track. All a part of the plan since the beginning. Pretty ingenious I'd say !

Same for defense systems and booby traps . Of which no good legend would be without, and which made Raiders of the Lost Ark movie so fun ! If a TH'r ever encounters impossible obstacles (holes that fill with water, solid granite rock, etc...), it's ALL THE MORE proof of treasure. Because: Most certainly, that was all engineered to keep it away from would-be-TH'rs. Absolutely brilliant on the depositor's parts I must say.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

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

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

Please re-read my statement, then comment. No where did I say I was giving the definition of a skeptic.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

TIt was Skeptics… who tried to discourage Searcher's efforts from locating Man's greatest achievements.

Something exists or does not regardless of any skeptical opinion. I don't see how skepticism prevents anything. In fact, it is a alternative solution. A skeptic questions an opinion, and in research may prove or disprove something. That is the path to enlightenment. Perhaps it is the motivation needed to achieve the goal ("They laughed, they called me MAD! I'll show them! MWAHAHAHAHA!")

Seems like it was peoples hard work that constructed these achievements. The builders knew right where they were and their exact location. ;-) And most that were "lost" were rediscovered by accident. I can think of one case (Troy) where a man persisted in spite of several contemporary skeptics opinion that he was searching for a fictional place.

I don't think a good skeptic ever looked at a structure or monument and said "that doesn't exist".

When someone else claims "that must have been built by aliens." THAT's when the skeptic has some traction.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

…It was Skeptics… who tried to discourage Searcher's efforts from locating Man's greatest achievements. .....

.... A skeptic questions an opinion, and in research may prove or disprove something.....

Charlie & Robot : Both sides are weighing the plausible options. Right ? And to the extent a skeptic might be WRONG (which, yes, is possible), yet on the other hand, he could be RIGHT. And if the skeptic were RIGHT, then he did a GREAT SERVICE , in alleviating silly-tail-chasing.

Skepticism is beneficial to put TH'rs on real treasures, that have more plausibility. Thus rather than skepticism "tying our hands and preventing the finding of treasures", it actually INCREASES the potential for treasures to be found. In that persons would then spend time on treasures that have more potential to actually be real.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Agreed.

But all it takes to satisfy a skeptic is evidence to the contrary. In the case of Oak Island: treasure.

What does it take to satisfy the other guys? I would think they would also be satisfied with the treasure.

So we are both seeking the same thing. What's the issue?

And skepticism is specific - in this case to treasure on Oak Island. It is not a broad and general term. It's not like gender; where you are either male or female. ;-) It's more like modern gender identity where there are a dozen possibilities.

 

[n2mini]

The problem with "some" of the skeptics on here is they give their opinion as if it is a fact. Like they have all the knowledge of everything ever done on the island. The show finds something and gives a possible origin of it. Our skeptics immediately say they are laying, placed it, or that it is something else before giving the show a chance to really figure it out.. We all know there is no way to prove alot of the stuff on the island at this point. but our skeptics claim it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.. ( you know who that is ) Even you Charlie, was just telling ( in another thread ) how they could have used the boats mast to lower the treasure into a hole in smiths cove and not need to build anything to do it. BUT, then it was posted of course that there was no way for a big enough boat to get close enough to the edge of the water to use it's mast to do that... Yet your old post is still there is if it is a fact. Just bring in a big boat to 2' of water and use it's mast as a hoist. Yet it can't be done.. Don't get me wrong I like most of your posts and thought on here, but you see how easy it is for the skeptics to come across. It's like the "believers" not only have to figure out the real stuff but also debunk the skeptics along the way...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

n2mini, to address your post, point-by-point :

The problem with "some" of the skeptics on here is they give their opinion as if it is a fact. .....

Really ? As an example to the contrary, look at my post # 1705 : See how I acknowledge the possibility that I/we could be wrong ? Stop and think for a moment on the VERY TERM I keep using all the time : "Most Plausible..". As you can see: The very definition of that term is to suggest "most likely". As opposed to "Absolutely Is" . And I've stated in prior posts that, yes, these are my "opinions". Which by inference implies exactly what the word "opinion" means: Just my opinion.

Thus no: We (at least me anyhow) are not stating their "opinions as if it is facts". See ?

.... Like they have all the knowledge of everything ever done on the island....

Ok. And why doesn't that finger point both ways ? The adherents, as well, do not have "all the knowledge of everything ever done on the island". So if this lack of omniscience disqualifies a skeptic from speaking, then why doesn't it equally stop the adherent from speaking ? See the double standard ?

.... skeptics immediately say they are laying, placed it, or ...

Again: No. I have gone on record repeatedly saying there is no "lying" or planting going on. I have repeatedly said that all-parties involved are no doubt QUITE SINCERE. But sincere can also be "sincerely wrong". For example: In my example of the const. worker who was convinced gold had been found by an md'r @ a local site near me: At NO TIME was that worker "lying". It was all a matter of interpretation of data. Not "lying".

 

[n2mini]

As I said "some" I did not call you out. and I like you, I don't say the things I believe in as a fact unless it can be backed up. and I don't say the things they have found on the island mean much of anything. The believers only have what has been written over the years and that does not make anything a fact as we all know... but it is something and all we have to go on.. I hope that some of what has been written is true but who knows at this point.. There are some stuff that was written years ago that is true but that doesn't mean everything is... but surely you have read some posts of others that come across as if they are stating a fact and some even say that and we know it is not... Those are the ones I'm speaking of... You may not fall into that category..

 

[b3y0nd3r]

The problem with "some" of the skeptics on here is they give their opinion as if it is a fact. Like they have all the knowledge of everything ever done on the island. The show finds something and gives a possible origin of it. Our skeptics immediately say they are laying, placed it, or that it is something else before giving the show a chance to really figure it out.. We all know there is no way to prove alot of the stuff on the island at this point. but our skeptics claim it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.. ( you know who that is ) Even you Charlie, was just telling ( in another thread ) how they could have used the boats mast to lower the treasure into a hole in smiths cove and not need to build anything to do it. BUT, then it was posted of course that there was no way for a big enough boat to get close enough to the edge of the water to use it's mast to do that... Yet your old post is still there is if it is a fact. Just bring in a big boat to 2' of water and use it's mast as a hoist. Yet it can't be done.. Don't get me wrong I like most of your posts and thought on here, but you see how easy it is for the skeptics to come across. It's like the "believers" not only have to figure out the real stuff but also debunk the skeptics along the way...

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!

Exactly my point to a "T"! MOST Skeptics never provide documented evidence(at least I've never seen it), they Just post conjecture.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Skeptics never provide documented evidence(at least I've never seen it), they Just post conjecture.

So adherents ... on the other hand ..... provide "documented evidence". Right ? The adherent's points are not labeled conjecture. Only the skeptic's points are labeled conjecture. Right ? Just want to make sure I've got the definitions correct here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... MOST Skeptics never provide documented evidence.....

Don't forget: The burden of proof (ie.: the need to show " documented evidence") is on the side of the claimants. Not on the side of the skeptics.

Otherwise: a giant game of wack-a-mole ensues (which we have seen over and over). Where , for example, 20 pages of debate ensues over fibers, ship masts, the speed-at-which someone's affluence/prosperity grew, the # of slaves and years it would take to do a certain project, etc....

Thus, no : The burden of proof is on the claimants, not the skeptics.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Don't forget: The burden of proof (ie.: the need to show " documented evidence") is on the side of the claimants. Not on the side of the skeptics.

Otherwise: a giant game of wack-a-mole ensues (which we have seen over and over). Where , for example, 20 pages of debate ensues over fibers, ship masts, the speed-at-which someone's affluence/prosperity grew, the # of slaves and years it would take to do a certain project, etc....

Thus, no : The burden of proof is on the claimants, not the skeptics.

We are at an impasse as the burden of proof is on the accuser. Wait...are you saying it's the Skeptics job to do nothing but either agree or disagree? If that's the case then this debate is over before it began.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I guess we need a notarized letter from the Czar of All Worldly Treasure that no treasure currently exists on Oak Island; with an amendment adding none ever did. And then a catalogue of what would constitute "treasure" to avoid confusion on what the documentation stated the non-existance of.

Tough to come up with documentation that states nothing exists somewhere.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

The problem with "some" of the skeptics on here is they give their opinion as if it is a fact. Like they have all the knowledge of everything ever done on the island. The show finds something and gives a possible origin of it. Our skeptics immediately say they are laying, placed it, or that it is something else before giving the show a chance to really figure it out.. We all know there is no way to prove alot of the stuff on the island at this point. but our skeptics claim it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.. ( you know who that is ) Even you Charlie, was just telling ( in another thread ) how they could have used the boats mast to lower the treasure into a hole in smiths cove and not need to build anything to do it. BUT, then it was posted of course that there was no way for a big enough boat to get close enough to the edge of the water to use it's mast to do that... Yet your old post is still there is if it is a fact. Just bring in a big boat to 2' of water and use it's mast as a hoist. Yet it can't be done.. Don't get me wrong I like most of your posts and thought on here, but you see how easy it is for the skeptics to come across. It's like the "believers" not only have to figure out the real stuff but also debunk the skeptics along the way...

To quote myself with the entirety of that message:

Why not build the hoist on the ship and leave no evidence at all? Come too think of it - the ship already had a mast and yards. Instant hoist. Fishing boats lift heavy nets, warships lift cannon, etc.

Ever watched anyone replace a 300 lb diesel auxiliary engine in a 30 ft sailboat using the mast and boom?

I see no mention of treasure. None at all. So there is your documentation of no treasure. ;-)

 

[PirateLabs]

Don't forget: The burden of proof (ie.: the need to show " documented evidence") is on the side of the claimants. Not on the side of the skeptics.

Otherwise: a giant game of wack-a-mole ensues (which we have seen over and over). Where , for example, 20 pages of debate ensues over fibers, ship masts, the speed-at-which someone's affluence/prosperity grew, the # of slaves and years it would take to do a certain project, etc....

Thus, no : The burden of proof is on the claimants, not the skeptics.

Exactly. I said this a bit earlier. Besides, in this specific case of Oak Island, how can a skeptic "Prove" there is no treasure there anymore? (Or ever was) You can't "Prove" a negative.

Now, I am a skeptic but I would never make any claims that the stuff they have found on the island was planted...I think that is making an accusation and not just being skeptical.

Bill

 

[Robot]

Never...Under Estimate...The Power Of A Skeptic!

Throughout History...Skeptics have slowed and even stopped the searching for World Knowledge and Discoveries.

The Freemasons of Oak Island observed within their Parliament and The Royal Society of London, this slow procession of applications for Discoveries.

They saw the numerous applications stopped from fulfillment by the Powers of Skeptics.

Projects like the Transit of Venus was nearly stopped by Skeptics, claiming it would not work and accusations towards its time and expenditures.

Albert Einstein complained that the Atomic Bomb could have been completed and used against Hitler, if not for negative people.

Today's Skeptics have slowed the progression to what could be the Second Largest Wall in the World, second only to China's Great Wall.

It is of note...that China had very little...Skeptics...opposing that Wall!

The Depositors of Oak Island to protect their Treasures were very quick to pick up and use...The Power of Skeptics!

Today's Skeptics... Can be heard over and over again, with lists after lists of why no one should continue their Search...Fulfilling the Brilliant Design... Of these Freemason Depositors!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

We are at an impasse as the burden of proof is on the accuser. Wait...are you saying it's the Skeptics job to do nothing but either agree or disagree? If that's the case then this debate is over before it began.

Good points.

Let's apply it to another legend that has person's on both sides of the isle : Bigfoot or Loch Ness monster. There is "debate" on Bigfoot and Loch ness, right ? Then on your view: Is the existence of these things a "given", unless there is evidence that proves-to-the-contrary ? Or is the existence of these things contingent on there being proof of their existence ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Throughout History...Skeptics have slowed and even stopped the searching for World Knowledge and Discoveries.

The Freemasons of Oak Island observed within their Parliament and The Royal Society of London, this slow procession of applications for Discoveries.

They saw the numerous applications stopped from fulfillment by the Powers of Skeptics.

Projects like the Transit of Venus was nearly stopped by Skeptics, claiming it would not work and accusations towards its time and expenditures.

Albert Einstein complained that the Atomic Bomb could have been completed and used against Hitler, if not for negative people.

Today's Skeptics have slowed the progression to what could be the Second Largest Wall in the World, second only to China's Great Wall.

It is of note...that China had very little...Skeptics...opposing that Wall!

The Depositors of Oak Island to protect their Treasures were very quick to pick up and use...The Power of Skeptics!

Today's Skeptics... Can be heard over and over again, with lists after lists of why no one should continue their Search...Fulfilling the Brilliant Design... Of these Freemason Depositors!

In the cases of all the example you give, of "skeptics who slowed things down", they are all examples drawn from things that ... in hindsight, turned out to be true !

That would be like saying a NFL quarterback should always throw to right field. And if a skeptic objects and says : "Left field is sometimes the better choice", the believer, as you've done here, needs merely to show re-run video clips of how right field WAS the better choice. But don't you see ? That's not taking into account all the times that left field was the better choice.

But let's grant , for sake of argument, that everything you're saying on this quote is true. Ie.: Skeptics slow the progress of worthwhile and true things. Even if we grant that: Does that make O.I. "of necessity" true ? Of course not. Thus just because sometimes skeptics, historically, have been shown to be wrong on something, DOESN'T *of necessity*, lend credence to every single thing that could be mused going forward. Understand ?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Albert Einstein complained that the Atomic Bomb could have been completed and used against Hitler, if not for negative people.

I had never heard that before. Source?

Newsweek, likewise, did a cover on him [Albert Einstein], with the headline “The Man Who Started It All.” This was a perception fostered by the U.S. government. It had released an official history of the atom bomb project that assigned great weight to a letter Einstein had written to President Franklin Roosevelt warning of the destructive potential of an atomic chain reaction.


All of this troubled Einstein. “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb,” he told Newsweek, “I never would have lifted a finger.” He pointed out, correctly, that he had never actually worked on the bomb project. And he claimed to a Japanese publication, “My participation in the production of the atom bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt.”

Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb | DiscoverMagazine.com