Season "3" of Curse of Oak Island

[Not Peralta]

NP

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mike Mercury]

 

[gazzahk]

I just don't understand how someone 300 or more years ago, with nothing more than hand shovels and a crew, would not only spend the time on, but to dig a hole so intricate that's 140 feet deep or more, with "booby traps" that flood the hole, to bury a treasure. I would think that anyone in their right mind who wanted to bury something of value, would want relatively quick access to it when they returned to recover it..

There is a plausible logic to Nolans theory I think. If the British soldiers /military engineers were sent to quickly hide an enormous amount of treasure somewhere not to far away they would need to ensure that if anyone else come across the site they would not to be able to recover the loot.

So they build a impossible to crack natural vault. To recover the treasure it would require a large team of diggers/engineers that know exactly how to disable the booby traps and dig up the vault. The link I posted the other day from a book give a plausible theory on how the pit could of been dug and why the oak platforms were needed to dig such a deep hole

https://books.google.com.hk/books?i...forms for in the oak island money pit&f=false

The whole point was to make the treasure virtually impossible to recover if you did not have a large group of experienced people who new exactly what they were doing. It was meant to be the exact opposite of easy.

The only reason I could see that the treasure would still be there though would be if the soldiers boat was sunk/lost before they had a chance to tell there commanders where hey had buried the treasure.

I know this is a lot of speculation but I find it the most plausible of the theories put forward.

 

[Not Peralta]

Only 50bucks,there must not be any provenance, or facts,what if I throw in a few more stories. NP

 

[Dave Rishar]

Not at all, you wrote "belief not based on proof is fantasy" which in reality is the definition of faith. Fantasy is something produced by the imagination. The Ingstads had faith not proof, doesn't matter how long it took. The expected second coming of Jesus has been 2000 years, is the belief a faith or a fantasy, you decide?
Cheers, Loki

If you're going to argue with me based on semantics, you may want to reconsider your position. This is a weak approach, given the topic at hand. We can argue for days about what I wrote, but I suspect that you know exactly what I meant when I wrote it.

Let me rewrite it just so there are no future misunderstandings: a belief based on tangible evidence is not the same as a belief based on intangible and/or nonexistent evidence that can be verified. We have many stories and theories about Oak Island, but after several hundred years, the tangible evidence section is still lacking. I personally think that theorizing about the nature of something that hasn't been recovered after all of that time and effort to be a bit foolish, and that one's time would be better spent recovering tangible evidence to prove that something is there in the first place before theorizing about its origins, but my thought process is not everyone's.

My personal theory is that there is nothing there, and that there has never been anything there. It's based on the facts that I can verify, and not the copious amounts of internet horse apples that reside on numerous blogs and Facebook pages with sources that are badly cited or not cited at all. I enjoy a good story as much as the next person does, but I base my beliefs on things that are verifiable. The more one digs into this story, the more one turns up horse apples. The pirate treasure theories that originated in the 19th century came from people much closer to the original story, and most people today think that they're bullcrap. What precisely made today's more fashionable theories more believable?

Dig into that one a bit before you answer. The whole sordid affair tells its own story if one is willing to read it. Start at the beginning (of whatever version that you like, as they're all crap) and work on down the line from there. It was a scam from the start. I believe that it was a scam with good intentions at some points, but it was never real. You'd think that after the entire frigging island had been dug up (multiple times in some cases) we'd finally get it, but there's the TV show, and there we are.

 

[lokiblossom]

If you're going to argue with me based on semantics, you may want to reconsider your position. This is a weak approach, given the topic at hand. We can argue for days about what I wrote, but I suspect that you know exactly what I meant when I wrote it.

Let me rewrite it just so there are no future misunderstandings: a belief based on tangible evidence is not the same as a belief based on intangible and/or nonexistent evidence that can be verified. We have many stories and theories about Oak Island, but after several hundred years, the tangible evidence section is still lacking. I personally think that theorizing about the nature of something that hasn't been recovered after all of that time and effort to be a bit foolish, and that one's time would be better spent recovering tangible evidence to prove that something is there in the first place before theorizing about its origins, but my thought process is not everyone's.

My personal theory is that there is nothing there, and that there has never been anything there. It's based on the facts that I can verify, and not the copious amounts of internet horse apples that reside on numerous blogs and Facebook pages with sources that are badly cited or not cited at all. I enjoy a good story as much as the next person does, but I base my beliefs on things that are verifiable. The more one digs into this story, the more one turns up horse apples. The pirate treasure theories that originated in the 19th century came from people much closer to the original story, and most people today think that they're bullcrap. What precisely made today's more fashionable theories more believable?

Dig into that one a bit before you answer. The whole sordid affair tells its own story if one is willing to read it. Start at the beginning (of whatever version that you like, as they're all crap) and work on down the line from there. It was a scam from the start. I believe that it was a scam with good intentions at some points, but it was never real. You'd think that after the entire frigging island had been dug up (multiple times in some cases) we'd finally get it, but there's the TV show, and there we are.

Not semantics, there is no argument on the meaning of "faith". No where does a dictionary say "belief not based on proof is fantasy". I do agree with you that some beliefs are based on fantasy, even on Oak Island.
As for nothing ever there, I believe you are incorrect. The identification and dating of the coconut fibers alone, once in the 1960s, once in 1993 and once in 2013, all with an age of at or over 700 years in my opinion prove a Knights Templar presence (albeit temporary)on that small island. The point that one poster is trying to make, c-14 dating of deep seawater marine life cannot be accurate doesn't apply for several reasons, for one, we are talking about a land based plant sitting on a beach, and another is that the lab he cites is the one that did the 1993 test "Beta Analytic". If it can be shown how coconut fibers dated to prior to the 14th century ended up on a Nova Scotia beach go for it. The drilled stones, also in my opinion show an early European presence. The Norse sailors were known to have drilled stones to quickly anchor their craft both large and small and we have both large and small drilled stones. Some have claimed these stones were survey markers, very doubtful that anybody would create a survey marker out of these stones, some of which could be easily carried. And btw, I have anchored a small boat to the beach by tying on a small rock. I can also show an interaction between Norse and Templars in Scotland, as a matter of fact many Templars were Norse. Today a map to Vinland from Scotland could be drawn on a bar napkin. And yes, it was a dangerous trip, but the alternative was even more dangerous, the leader of the group, Gerard de Villers was at the time the most wanted man in France.
No, I don't believe they dug a 100 foot deep hole to hide a treasure, which of course would fill with seawater.
It is a documented fact that 18 Templar ships left France in 1307, and I have followed some of them to Scotland where they did not stay.
It is of course possible that all 3 examples of the coconut fiber were misidentified and wrongly dated, but again in my opinion, I don't think so.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Robot]

Best Laid Plans of...Freemasons!



Like many on this thread, who require evidence or proof.

My theory "The (Untold) Story of The Oak Island Money Pit" will require the Lagina brothers to uncover a piece of supporting evidence.

Although, I believe the Freemasons were near perfect with their crime...There never was the perfect crime!

Maybe, the ship wreck they claimed to have discovered will bring up an anchor or canon with the inscribed "HMS Sterling Castle" or one of the other ships recorded lost in the Caribbean transporting all the treasures from Morro Castle Cuba to England.

 

[etex]

Or they could bring up the SS Minnow, a mighty ship.

 

[Not Peralta]

Amigo's,You know its Noah's Ark, there's no doubt,or is there? NP

 

[Dave Rishar]

Not semantics, there is no argument on the meaning of "faith". No where does a dictionary say "belief not based on proof is fantasy".

And then I went and clarified exactly what I meant, yet here we are, still discussing semantics.

As for nothing ever there, I believe you are incorrect. The identification and dating of the coconut fibers alone, once in the 1960s, once in 1993 and once in 2013, all with an age of at or over 700 years in my opinion prove a Knights Templar presence (albeit temporary)on that small island.

What is the provenance of those three samples? Do three samples prove that anyone was there, let alone a certain group?

The point that one poster is trying to make, c-14 dating of deep seawater marine life cannot be accurate doesn't apply for several reasons, for one, we are talking about a land based plant sitting on a beach, and another is that the lab he cites is the one that did the 1993 test "Beta Analytic".

Sitting on a beach, or dug up from a beach? In either case, would a thing on or under a beach for centuries be exposed to seawater at some point?

If it can be shown how coconut fibers dated to prior to the 14th century ended up on a Nova Scotia beach go for it.

Possibly the same way that coins, bottles, ambergris, dead whales, and all sorts of other things of various shapes, sizes, and densities end up on beaches bordering an ocean.

The drilled stones, also in my opinion show an early European presence. The Norse sailors were known to have drilled stones to quickly anchor their craft both large and small and we have both large and small drilled stones.

Which drilled stones are we talking about here?

I won't argue against an early European presence, as the Norse had established an outpost only a few hundred miles from there by 1000 AD. It takes no great leap of faith to think that a crew of them might have made what would have been a fairly easy, mostly-sheltered southwest cruise for a few days. I will point out that just because it's plausible, doesn't mean that it necessarily happened. Attempting to tie Templars into this requires considerably more imagination, with no additional evidence to support it.

Some have claimed these stones were survey markers, very doubtful that anybody would create a survey marker out of these stones, some of which could be easily carried. And btw, I have anchored a small boat to the beach by tying on a small rock.

I used to use a coffee can full of pebbles as an anchor, but that was for a three man boat, not a knarr. Would an easily carried stone suffice for the job?

I can also show an interaction between Norse and Templars in Scotland, as a matter of fact many Templars were Norse.

What sort of interaction are we discussing? And by "many," do you mean, "a large number of," "a majority," or just "some"?

It is a documented fact that 18 Templar ships left France in 1307, and I have followed some of them to Scotland where they did not stay.

Documented where, and is it truly a fact?

 

[Not Peralta]

And then I went and clarified exactly what I meant, yet here we are, still discussing semantics.



What is the provenance of those three samples? Do three samples prove that anyone was there, let alone a certain group?



Sitting on a beach, or dug up from a beach? In either case, would a thing on or under a beach for centuries be exposed to seawater at some point?



Possibly the same way that coins, bottles, ambergris, dead whales, and all sorts of other things of various shapes, sizes, and densities end up on beaches bordering an ocean.



Which drilled stones are we talking about here?

I won't argue against an early European presence, as the Norse had established an outpost only a few hundred miles from there by 1000 AD. It takes no great leap of faith to think that a crew of them might have made what would have been a fairly easy, mostly-sheltered southwest cruise for a few days. I will point out that just because it's plausible, doesn't mean that it necessarily happened. Attempting to tie Templars into this requires considerably more imagination, with no additional evidence to support it.



I used to use a coffee can full of pebbles as an anchor, but that was for a three man boat, not a knarr. Would an easily carried stone suffice for the job?



What sort of interaction are we discussing? And by "many," do you mean, "a large number of," "a majority," or just "some"?



Documented where, and is it truly a fact?

Got pictures,NO.NP

 

[lokiblossom]

And then I went and clarified exactly what I meant, yet here we are, still discussing semantics.



What is the provenance of those three samples? Do three samples prove that anyone was there, let alone a certain group?



Sitting on a beach, or dug up from a beach? In either case, would a thing on or under a beach for centuries be exposed to seawater at some point?



Possibly the same way that coins, bottles, ambergris, dead whales, and all sorts of other things of various shapes, sizes, and densities end up on beaches bordering an ocean.



Which drilled stones are we talking about here?

I won't argue against an early European presence, as the Norse had established an outpost only a few hundred miles from there by 1000 AD. It takes no great leap of faith to think that a crew of them might have made what would have been a fairly easy, mostly-sheltered southwest cruise for a few days. I will point out that just because it's plausible, doesn't mean that it necessarily happened. Attempting to tie Templars into this requires considerably more imagination, with no additional evidence to support it.



I used to use a coffee can full of pebbles as an anchor, but that was for a three man boat, not a knarr. Would an easily carried stone suffice for the job?



What sort of interaction are we discussing? And by "many," do you mean, "a large number of," "a majority," or just "some"?
Documented where, and is it truly a fact?

The meaning of the words and thoughts are clearly spelled out, I am not arguing semantics, I am using a dictionary.

The three samples prove coconut fiber was there dated from the 13th to 14th century. The only group that could have had a source for coconut fiber in that time period was the Knights Templar.

Exposed to seawater does not effect the c-14 dating by very much, only by being in deep water for extended periods would the dating be effected enough to make a difference.

I have posted on this forum several times, and I can and have provided the links, that coconuts did not exist anywhere in the Atlantic Basin during that time period. In fact they could not have washed up onto the beach unless someone brought them there in the 13th and or 14th centurys.

The Vikings may have sailed the coast of Nova Scotia in the 11th century, but nothing ties them to the 13th or 14th century in Nova Scotia. And it requires no imagination on my part to believe that experienced Templar sailors could have made the trip.

There are drilled stones of all sizes, which is what I said. No I don't think a coffee can full of pebbles could have anchored a knarr, that would seem to be ridiculous, and if you had read my post correctly you would have noticed that is not what I said.

I don't know how many of the Templars were Norse, but I do know that some were. There were Templar commanderies in Norway for instance. And I also know there was interaction between the Norse and Templars in Scotland at a time when the Norse still had settlements on Greenland, Balantrodoch and Roslin existed for two hundred years only three miles apart. The Viking sea route from Scotland to Vinland never involved an open water segment that would have been over 250 miles.

Yes it is a fact, and well documented by inquisition records.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Mike Mercury]

Or they could bring up the SS Minnow, a mighty ship.

Hey; when the seas get rough... those tiny ships can get tossed.

 

[Jason in Enid]

Hey; when the seas get rough... those tiny ships can get tossed.

If they didn't have a fearless crew they surely would be lost.

 

[Roadhse2]

If the Templars had access to this fiber, then others would have too...

So why could it not be some other traders, fisherman, pirates, that used Oak Island for some purpose.....

 

[Roadhse2]

If the Templars had access to this fiber, then others would have too...

So why could it not be some other traders, fisherman, pirates, that used Oak Island for some purpose.....

 

[Icewing]

One thing is for sure, Oak Island is finally making someone a fortune, but if they drill very many more holes in it the whole island is likely to sink.

 

[lokiblossom]

If the Templars had access to this fiber, then others would have too...

So why could it not be some other traders, fisherman, pirates, that used Oak Island for some purpose.....

So where would these traders, fisherman, pirates, that used Oak Island have had access to them?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Roadhse2]

The same places the Templars did....they were not the only ones plying the oceans or trading. There were thousands of traders moving goods of all kinds from far off lands to ready markets elsewhere...Templars were a very small part of that, if at all...

 

[lokiblossom]

The same places the Templars did....they were not the only ones plying the oceans or trading. There were thousands of traders moving goods of all kinds from far off lands to ready markets elsewhere...Templars were a very small part of that, if at all...

In the 14th century?

Cheers, Loki