here's a fundamental mistake the forum makes and is the source for so much argument. There's not much to do with science on Oak Island, it's a treasure hunt, don't make it out to be more then that or it will be just a source of disappointment for you...
Speculation based upon manipulated information to fit ones pet theory which occurs quite often on these threads is NOT science, gjb.
Science follows the evidence. Oak Island is a situation where there is absolutely zero evidence to follow. Nothing. Zilch. So, scientific-minded folks wait for evidence, and the evidence that is offered is... fabricated. ... After 200 years of this, some eye-rolling is probably justified.
There are frequent demands here for proof, but no recognition that if something effectively cannot be proven then there’s little point in declaring it to be a fact, and no point whatsoever in demanding that others accept it as such. No treasure having been found on Oak Island in 200 years is not proof that there’s no treasure. That’s just a guess, and has no greater weight than the supposition that there may be treasure there. Saying it a thousand times doesn’t make it any more true.
Furthermore, the search for knowledge requires doing something. Doing nothing cannot possibly be construed as a search for knowledge. Stating that there’s no treasure on Oak Island may be correct, but it’s a declaration that you know all the answers without bothering to check if you’re right or not. God help anyone on trial with you people as jurors! Thinking there may be no treasure on Oak Island is fine. Stating that you know this for sure - something nobody can sensibly know - is not thinking at all.
When I research for likely Victorian dump sites I’m doing science. When I locate a site that I think has potential then I hypothesise that there may be something there. That’s doing science. To check this out I get out and detect. That’s doing science. If I find Victorian artefacts then I’ve proven my hypothesis. That’s doing science.
As detectorists we employ science all the time. As treasure hunters we do science. We research, we hypothesize and we get out and check our hypotheses. We learn from doing this, and we move on from what we’ve learnt. We gain knowledge by getting out and doing something. That’s doing science.
We don’t sit on our arses and do nothing - except, it seems, on this extremely cosy forum. We may decide not to investigate something, but for the most part it would be unwise to declare that investigation is pointless. What seems pointless is trying to get anyone here to see this.
I don’t know that there’s treasure on Oak Island, or if there ever was, but I’m intrigued by the engineering works and their possible purpose, so I believe it’s worthwhile trying to advance our knowledge, and to do that we don’t do nothing. We do science. We research, we hypothesise, we test. That’s what Rick and Marty are doing.
Declaring that there’s no treasure on Oak Island doesn’t advance our knowledge one little bit, but building a cofferdam at Smith’s Cove - that is, doing something - might.
As there’s no point trying to debate anything here, I’ll leave you all to congratulate yourselves on having driven yet another ‘believer’ off the forum. I take it that’s your objective.