There has never been a historical basis with actual facts that a treasure ever existed on oak island ... etc.
If you’re going to comment on an episode in history then you might at least find out how history is actually studied.
Historical research is a much debated topic that presents various problems, and the Oak Island saga and, particularly,
The Curse of Oak Island are cases demonstrating how not to do it. Unfortunately, so too is your reaction and your response to the subject. You’re making some highly pertinent points, but you’re ruining it all by your presentation and approach.
One problem is that you declare to be fact things that are not known to be true on the basis that you choose to believe them. This is what ‘believers’ do and you’re rightly criticising them for doing so. Nevertheless, you’re fully prepared to do it yourself. You’re converting your assumptions or guesses into statements of fact. If you just stopped doing this you wouldn’t get the reaction that you do.
You’re complaining that there’s no evidence to support this or that, but you’re guilty of this yourself. You’re declaring things to be fact with no evidence at all to support your assertions which are actually assumptions.
“There has never been a historical basis with actual facts that a treasure ever existed on oak island.”
That’s an assumption not a fact. However, it’s true to say that nobody has yet reported the discovery of primary source material supporting there having been a treasure on Oak Island. You’re declaring that “there has never been”, but you can’t possibly know that. It doesn’t follow that because none has been recorded that none ever existed, or exists. It may have existed, but hasn’t been found or was lost or destroyed. Nobody knows, and you shouldn’t be declaring that you do.
Furthermore, you’re being far too subjective in your assessments. You’re far too influenced by what you’ve decided is fact without any supporting evidence which is what you’re accusing other people of doing.
“Then a multitude of diggers come along over the years and dig in different places, each claiming to have found something mysterious (oak platforms every ten feet, a cryptic stone, flood tunnels, etc.) yet none could ever prove their claims.”
Now, how on earth could they ever prove their claims? It seems not to have occurred to you that archaeology is destructive, and it’s even more so when not conducted by archaeologists. In the early days, they weren’t keeping records, they weren’t even keeping what they found. They were reusing the material they recovered. There are actually reports stating that this happened, but, of course, you've decided not to believe anything that was written concerning the early events even if it might be correct.
“... and when pressed on the matter when duped investors demanded progress either came up with a new story (chapel’s vault, fake cryptic stone, etc) to keep milking investors eventually leaving the island when funds from investors stopped flowing.”
This is just you’re opinion. I imagine that you don’t have primary source material (letters, diaries or such) to back up your declarations that they felt that way with actual evidence. You complain that people don’t produce ‘evidence’ yet you don’t produce it yourself.
“Then every crypto historian in the world developed their own fictional theories about what was buried on the island yet no two stories match.”
You’re right in the first part, but overstating the second which is only true of the theories. The real test of a historical source is whether it conflicts with something that’s known for a fact - that is, generally accepted to be correct from contemporary documentation. The Oak Island sources do differ in detail but agree on the basics, just as one might expect of different people recording what they did or saw.
“With no historical basis, zero facts, or evidence, there is only the story of boys who stayed out too late drinking and made up a story of a hole and block and tackle to cover their behinds.”
I understand that you’re being humorous, but you’re making up stories yourself and suggesting they’re true. Stick to what’s actually been reported.
You’re choosing to believe that there are zero facts because you’ve decided to exclude all the primary sources concerning the Pit’s discovery, simply because you don’t want to consider that there could be even an element of truth in what’s been written. Just because you choose to exclude all the early accounts doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s right to do so.
“It’s amazing the extent to which people will argue that the oak island story(s) is true.”
I have to agree with that, but I don’t think you’ll find many on this forum who would argue that it has to be true, rather that it's not known either way. You seem to be the one arguing that you do know - that it’s not true - when it's unlikely that anyone could ever prove that particular assertion.
“... and those who ask for actual facts as to the legitimacy of the story(s) are somehow flawed because they do not believe and blindly follow the story(s).”
If you’d studied history at all seriously you’d appreciate the problem associated with the term ‘facts’. There are different types of ‘facts’ in history. Some are dates and some are conclusions drawn by historians from their studies of primary sources.
Evidence actually comes from the sources - which you're completely rejecting! You’re actually declaring that there are no facts because you exclude all the early accounts of activities. However, most researchers don’t, “blindly follow the story”, they proceed cautiously recognising that there could be flaws in the reports.
What’s actually happening is that some are curious as to what might have taken place on Oak Island and would like to know what that was, and investigation is one way to maybe find out.
They’re not the ones declaring that they know the answers without supporting evidence - you are. And they're prepared to investigate to see if there might be evidence - whereas you're not.
Paradoxically, you're not only declaring that there's no evidence but also trying to discourage people from looking for it.
