[QUOTE=Raparee;5296225]Unfortunately a lot of the accepted facts of the OI 'mystery' aren't really based on anything. 90' stone? Let's see it, so we can verify the engravings on it. I mean, it was supposed to have been part of somebody's fireplace, was supposed to have been used at a book binder, and yet no one thought to get a rubbing of it? The entire story of the code on the stone is very sketchy to someone reading it with an open mind.
Flood drains? None have been found in the more than 200 years of excavating, and yet their existence is taken as gospel. Parchment? Links of gold chain? Let's see them.
Even the origin story is false, despite 99% of the OI community agreeing with it. "Three boys row over to OI in response to seeing some lights". Fact: the three were grown men, and they already owned land on the island.
If we can't believe the origin of the legend of the 'treasure', how credible is the rest of it?[/QUOTE]
Flood tunnels have been found. You choose not to believe the accounts, or have not read them. The 90' stone was etched by a college professor of Halifax(?). You choose not to believe him, or have not read the accounts. The three boys were boys when they discovered it and started digging. Thy were grown men by the time they had the funds to buy the properties, and recruit help. You choose not to believe or have not read the accounts. The parchment has been fully documented and analyzed as materials used in the 16th century. You choose not to believe or have not read the accounts. There are many, many, rumored findings on Oak Island that I never talk about because there is no documentation. I'm not here to present you with my findings. Everything I know is readily available on the internet or libraries. Go find it yourself. I'm not, however, just going to let you get away with these definitive statements that any horses ass can say. You don't believe, I get it. Just say that. Don't indirectly call me an idiot for choosing to believe the accounts. What about the wood carbon dated to the 17th century? Just some Dunfield diggings right? Dunfield documented his diggings and are readily available. All four shafts the Laginas dropped reached areas Dunfield never reached. That was the point, for anyone paying attention. You choose not to believe even the modern accounts, so how can I take you seriously?
Listen, archaeology was literally non-existent until the late 19th century. The clues that you find important now, meant nothing to the treasure hunters of old. In the early days of Egyptian archaeology, mummies were sold off in private auctions to private citizens to be unwrapped at social parties, because many ancient "trinkets" were in the wrappings. So much history lost, and scattered in that one example of early archaeology. I think Chappel, in particular, did a tremendous job of preserving data about Oak Island that he wasn't obliged to do. The notion that everyone before our modern time of computers was a buffoon, irritates me to no end. There is an indirect notion here that no one before generation snowflake was capable of telling the truth. Including Dan Blankenship! The poor guy has mountains of evidence of human activity under Oak Island from depths of 10'-240' and everyone indirectly calls him a liar. Yes, it would've been ideal if the money-pit was treated as a modern archaeological site. Hind-site 20/20 much?
?
