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

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And if Roger Bannister wasn't skeptical of the claim that a human could never beat the four-minute mile he never would have achieved it.

Alexander Flemming was skeptical of those who claimed fungus was a contaminant.

Several Italians in Tuscany were skeptical of the majority of their countrymen who claimed tomatoes were poisonous.

Christopher Columbus was skeptical of the claims that the world was flat.


Just a matter of perspective.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Charlie, you might have "set the record straight" on that one claimed account of "skeptics slowing down progress". Ie.: it might not apply to the Einstein assertion. However, Robot has give you several more historical true incidents, where : Skeptics DID INDEED slow down progress, on something that ... in hindsight , did indeed get shown to be true.

Durned those skeptics anyhow ! Mermaids , UFO's, flying ponies, etc... all could someday be proved true, if ONLY skeptics wouldn't keep getting in the way of progress

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Silence. We have convinced him that the Skeptics (capitalized) are under the control of the Masons - just the misinformation The Illuminati wish to be spread around.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

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 ?

All that i am saying is, anything that can be classified as proof, evidence, or anything of that sort(what ever definition you choose) which is presented for debate, needs to be scrutinized by the people that oppose it or just ignored as a point of order which you won't partake in.

Example: I don't believe the Templars were responsible for the engineering and burying of something on OI. IF someone mentions that theory, I am choosing to ignore it rather than debate it.

I am concerned with the legend and engineering of the island, NOT treasure. Prove the legend, prove the engineering and the possibility of something being buried increases exponentially(I did not say treasure).

Also, if evidence is presented to counter-act evidenced presented on the pro side, then that evidence needs to be scrutinized by the "believers" It's a two way street.

 

[sasquash]

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.

No comments ...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... evidence, or anything of that sort(what ever definition you choose) which is presented for debate, needs to be scrutinized by the people that oppose it...

And I thought that for any possible explanation the believer's propose, that so-too has the skeptics ALSO given possible explanations for the points of the legend, as well. I don't think that the skeptics have slacked in the task of attempts to squash the "pro" side points. Oh sure, you might not believe the merit of their points. But don't think for a moment that the skeptics haven't tried.

And here's what happens when they try: Wack-a-mole game. Where: When any reasons for the salacious details, other than treasure, is proposed, the believers will come back with some remote contingency explanation of how some extreme feat of engineering or nature *could* be possible (given enough slaves, and alignment of stars). Thus: 20 pages of wack-a-mole.

So please don't think for a moment that the believer's points "haven't been scrutinized". You may not buy into their explanations. That's fine. You can label it "conjecture". That's fine. So too is the believer's points "conjecture" as well.

 

[travis.gore.79]

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 ?

Wow you will literally argue about anything!

 

[travis.gore.79]

Tom in Ca

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

We Are In Your...Debt!

View attachment 1678621

To bad it is not worth reading now.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Wow you will literally argue about anything!

If you meant that as coming from the isle of the believers, then : Ironically coming from the side that says we "have not produced evidence". So when we go to produce evidence, then presto: We will " literally argue about anything" eh ?

 

[Robot]

Sorry About That...Trying To Define...A Skeptic!

To bad it is not worth reading now.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Such animosity towards skeptics.

I don't care WHAT you believe. I just don't reach the same conclusion that you may from the available evidence or lack of evidence.

As new evidence is presented I will freely and publicly change my conclusion - as necessary.

Will you do the same?

How many dead-ends constitute a complete dead end?

 

[n2mini]

So what do ya'll skeptics say about the original 3 already found what little treasure there was in the pit as some of their desendents have said..Sure I can't prove it happened and ya'll can't prove it didn't, yet there are family members claiming it did..

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'd go with the possibility a small amount of treasure was found near the surface. I said earlier (somewhere around here) that enough to be a year's regular salary for each would set them up pretty well. And they were smart enough to keep quiet about it for the next 60 years or so (that's when the first story that the young men had been digging came out).

The following 26 attempts to find treasure would have obliterated any evidence of what may have been there.

 

[Robot]

There Are Always Ways...Of Getting Around...A Dead End!

How many dead-ends constitute a complete dead end?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

If you spent as much time digging up soil as you did memes we'd have some treasure to look at. ;-)

 

[Robot]

Just Biding My Time...Charlie...Biding My Time!

If you spent as much time digging up soil as you did memes we'd have some treasure to look at. ;-)

 

[etex]

It's time for another Bobby Dazzzzzler tonight.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.

So let's move on and discuss who/how this was built.

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

View attachment 1680111

This is what you should have put.
Axl is patience!


He could have dug the MP in like a day or two and had the 5 finger drains setup overnight!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Do to the fact that no one here provided any evidence to the contrary, we must consider the original story as eyewitness testimony and to be true.

So let's move on and discuss who/how this was built.

Which "eyewitness" account was that? Had someone actually provided sworn testimony of something while under oath?

"Testimony" has a very specific definition - not the same as "I once heard someone say that they had a great uncle who claimed to have known someone who . . . "