gjb
Sr. Member
- Apr 21, 2016
- 281
- 333
- Detector(s) used
- Garrett Ace 300i
Garrett EuroAce
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I fail to understand why claims of a hoax need enter so prominently into the discussion. There’s something unexplained about Oak Island, particularly the investment of huge effort at Smith’s Cove and, from early reports, the backfilling of the Money Pit with platforms to prevent collapse.
People planting small finds as a hoax of sorts to encourage investment is one thing, but a massive conspiracy to fabricate reports and evidence (huge quantities of fibre etc.) is much harder to swallow. Something needs explaining about the major early discoveries, and ‘hoax’ just fails to fit the bill.
I find it difficult to believe that any irrefutable evidence could be produced to prove that the engineering work at Smith’s Cove was all a hoax. When was the hoax perpetrated, and by whom? Facts, please, not theories.
As there are things unexplained here we appear to be presented with a mystery. When faced with a mystery one either chooses to ignore it or attempts to make inroads into it. So, by all means ignore it, but why demand that others acknowledge it all as a hoax, as if this be a demonstrable fact?
It’s my view that no amount of untestable speculation is likely to come up with a scrap of evidence to make inroads into solving the mystery. I happen to believe that the answer may well lie on the ground, and maybe one of the problems is that nobody wants to develop hypotheses concerning the ground features and then to test them.
There appears to be nothing structured about Marty’s and Rick’s efforts. They’re as disjointed as the programme that features them. They’re just covering old ground and putting new spin on old tales. It’s hardly surprising they feel obliged to ‘introduce’ unproductive story lines. They simply refuse to search for and look at new and potentially productive leads.
People hammer Petter Amundsen’s efforts, but at least he was trying to achieve something, and actually made a number of discoveries as a result of testing his hypothesis. His reasoning may have been suspect - so come up with the right one, one that can be tested!
If the answer does lie on the ground then it’s not surprising that nobody has found anything in 200 years of exploration - they’re simply not investigating the obvious. That doesn't make it all a hoax, and the claim certainly doesn't need to be stated a thousand times over.
People planting small finds as a hoax of sorts to encourage investment is one thing, but a massive conspiracy to fabricate reports and evidence (huge quantities of fibre etc.) is much harder to swallow. Something needs explaining about the major early discoveries, and ‘hoax’ just fails to fit the bill.
I find it difficult to believe that any irrefutable evidence could be produced to prove that the engineering work at Smith’s Cove was all a hoax. When was the hoax perpetrated, and by whom? Facts, please, not theories.
As there are things unexplained here we appear to be presented with a mystery. When faced with a mystery one either chooses to ignore it or attempts to make inroads into it. So, by all means ignore it, but why demand that others acknowledge it all as a hoax, as if this be a demonstrable fact?
It’s my view that no amount of untestable speculation is likely to come up with a scrap of evidence to make inroads into solving the mystery. I happen to believe that the answer may well lie on the ground, and maybe one of the problems is that nobody wants to develop hypotheses concerning the ground features and then to test them.
There appears to be nothing structured about Marty’s and Rick’s efforts. They’re as disjointed as the programme that features them. They’re just covering old ground and putting new spin on old tales. It’s hardly surprising they feel obliged to ‘introduce’ unproductive story lines. They simply refuse to search for and look at new and potentially productive leads.
People hammer Petter Amundsen’s efforts, but at least he was trying to achieve something, and actually made a number of discoveries as a result of testing his hypothesis. His reasoning may have been suspect - so come up with the right one, one that can be tested!
If the answer does lie on the ground then it’s not surprising that nobody has found anything in 200 years of exploration - they’re simply not investigating the obvious. That doesn't make it all a hoax, and the claim certainly doesn't need to be stated a thousand times over.
Carry on.
