Uuuhhh, burden of proof rests on whom ?
I am from AMERICA. In AMERICA, the burden to of proof rests with the prosecution.
Just in case you need a refresher: "The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case..."
From Cambridge: "the act of officially accusing someone"
Evidence presented ? The "evidence presented is to perpetually point back to the legend itself. As proof of its own self. See the vicious circle ?
Regardless of where it points, it's still evidence presented to be debunked, which no one has successfully done.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I can construct the same general story, with volumes of uncanny shapes, objects, historical facts, etc.... if I walk a mere few mile radius from my house, in Monterey, CA. I can find "unexplained" strange shapes, objects, squiggles on rocks, fibers, logs, depressions, gold links , etc.... And I can suggest explanations of "Treasure" to explain them.
AND how many millions of dollars have you made from it? Must not be convincing.
"Something of value", eh ? Glad to see a concession for the "reason for all the interest" here. Thank you
You can twist my statements how you like. I can't vouch for anyone but myself. I am here for answers. Not treasure.
Actually, I can very-much-see how the "easy" road is to be a believer. Not a skeptic. Ie.: the easy "tempting " road is to believe unquestionably. Because: Treasure legends are more subconsciously easy to put skepticism aside on. Why ? Because of the human nature of "not wanting to be left out". Ie.: the "what if ?" psychology claws at our subconscious.
b3y0nd3r, if I did that, it would be called an "Ad hominem". If so, I do not mean to do that. I mean to dispute the 'pro-con' facts of why anyone thinks there's possibly a treasure there. To whatever extent that "locker room talk" goes on, I think you can see it goes both ways. But in-so-far as "Ad hominem", I notice you never replied to this :
The last bit of MY statement you were replying to was meant as a comment toward skeptics in general. Not specifically you. I didnt even see the below link before.
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/oak-island/599967-dedicated-b3y0nd3r-example-treasure-legend-evolution.html
And as you can see, it's very cordial (no nit-picking your "character", no Ad hominem). Thus: I would like you to respond to that, and let us know why a simple explanation like this (expanded over 100+ yrs) couldn't be the explanation for the entire hoopla that has evolved over O.I.
That would certainly show the "1%" of the story to be true. And no: To surmise that "maybe it was found by someone 100 yrs. ago, that simply kept mum, and retired to a life of fortune", does not prove the 1%. It's a nice speculation , but ....... alas ....... it would only be speculation. Not proof.
Hhhmm, well ..... the way I look at it, the "prosecution", in this case, is the person making the claim of "treasure". Not the other way around. Therefore, in the case of O.I., that would make the believers to bear the burden of proof. Not the other way around . Eh ?
Well as a matter of fact, they have. Many here , including myself, have given what they consider more plausible explanations. And sure, you do not consider those "successful" . That's fine. But don't think for a moment that skeptic's haven't put forth material. And also don't forget that I can grant EVERY SINGLE ONE of the details (fibers, gold links, little boys, etc...). Hence you'd be right: None of those "details" has been "debunked". Yet don't forget : They can all be true, yet: Zero treasure.
Because as I've said: Every single treasure legend is probably 99% true, eh ? Real names, dates, events, etc... Right ? None of them ever start with "once upon a time", eh ? But if the remaining 1% of the story isn't true (the "treasure" part), then what good does it do to debate or someone to debunk the 99% ? No good at all, eh ?
And ....... gee ...... last I checked ......... No treasure.
?
