Season 4

[Honest Samuel]

watch what you say and how you say it

That is what my mommy tells me all the time.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Honest Samuel]

Write about stupid, this show is more stupid every week. I am bore.

 

[NostraDanis]

ILikeTreasureStories, I appreciate and commend your efforts here.

I have considered trying to make a comprehensive statement like you did in post #1011; however I have simply been too lazy. Unfortunately, you are probably wasting your time. This forum has become an echo chamber for a small group of folks that are going to bombard anything but absolute denial of ancient activity on OI. Whether you reference well-established concepts or speculative ideas, you will receive an avalanche of responses telling you how gullible and foolish you are. And, apparently, these folks keep the T-Net site up and loaded at all times. I assume that the irony of how they spend so much time on this site is lost on them.

As you mentioned, I sincerely doubt that any of us has ever set foot on OI and has any direct experience with the land or the people involved (past and present). Therefore, none of us truly knows what secrets the island may or may not hold. I consider that to be a conditional given to discussions, but all too often that is not the case here.

Happy hunting.

 

[jeff of pa]

Got it. I have to indirectly call people stupid like you do. PC. Got it.

on 2 week Vacation

Next ?

 

[Raparee]

Some more reading for you ILike. Taken from The Oak Island Legend

Flood tunnels have been found. You choose not to believe the accounts, or have not read them.

In the 1960s, Robert Dunfield rode the bucket of an excavator to the bottom of the Pit to examine it for evidence of the tunnels: he found none, and his dye tests indicated all but 15 gallons/minute of the water was coming from below the 140' level (natural infiltration from the underlying limestone bedrock).

The 90' stone was etched by a college professor of Halifax(?). You choose not to believe him, or have not read the accounts.

Many have presumed the "old Irish School Master" was James DeMille or James Leitchi of Dalhousie University, but Kempton makes no specific reference to either man and it is unknown at this time whether primary documents exist to prove such a link.

What is clear from all this however, is that the inscription used in nearly every book and article published about Oak Island since Ed Snow's 1949 compendium of treasure tales is wrong. Every author has uncritically used these symbols and their alleged "translation," with no supporting evidence whatsoever. As a result, generations of readers have been deceived into thinking the inscription was authentic.

Let us be clear: there are no known descriptions of the "original" Money Pit stone -- if indeed such a stone ever existed in the first place. The cipher shown above is an egregious fraud that has been perpetuated by poor researchers for over half a century. Only the unnamed teacher knows why he (or she) created these symbols.

Perhaps the teacher simply gave Kempton what he wanted -- another yarn to add to his collection of Acadian tales. Perhaps this teacher actually had access to other information, long since lost, regarding the inscription. However, no inscription was ever printed in any known work prior to the appearance of Kempton's symbols. None appears in the 1896 "prospectus" published by one of the treasure excavation "syndicates." Earlier books that mention the Money Pit, as well as the 1936 Popular Science article and other sources, are similarly silent.

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.

Possibly. Various people say they've held the parchment (if parchment it is) in their hands, but there's no way to confirm that (a) it's the original piece, and (b) that it wasn't planted in the Pit to provide a false lead.
Because something was made using materials and techniques common in the 16th century, doesn't mean the thing was made in the 16th century.

 

[alec]

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.


Possibly. Various people say they've held the parchment (if parchment it is) in their hands, but there's no way to confirm that (a) it's the original piece, and (b) that it wasn't planted in the Pit to provide a false lead.
Because something was made using materials and techniques common in the 16th century, doesn't mean the thing was made in the 16th century.

The fact that the History Channel is involved makes things dubious to begin with because they have a less than stellar track record when it comes to treasure hunting shows. With that said, there's no way to prove anything is real unless we are there personally to see things come out of the ground and run the tests ourselves. That won't ever happen so does that mean you completely dismiss everything ever written or recorded about Oak Island? Half of history is written on the same type of "evidence" so I guess we just need to say everything is wrong, nothing actually happened because you weren't there to see it and feel it for yourself. Your theory of "it could be faked" or "there is no proof" is being applied as a blanket theory to cover anything and everything about the island. This seems like you are not open to any proof, no matter how good or real it may be. A closed mind doesn't solve problems, mysteries or anything else.

 

[marticus]

No man made chambers exist.....only natural grotto's carved out by water....

Yea thats what i think so too. And what i was getting at. I beleive they are nothing more then underground aquafiers

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

You could also add to that the people that don't think buried treasure exists at all or that all treasure hunters are stupid dreamers that will never find anything. Try telling that to someone like Mel Fisher.

Oh no, that's completely different. Mel Fisher looked for a SPECIFIC known cargo ship that was well documented.

Oak Island has no associated "treasure" that is thought to have been placed there. It's all wild speculation.

 

[alec]

Oh no, that's completely different. Mel Fisher looked for a SPECIFIC known cargo ship that was well documented.

Oak Island has no associated "treasure" that is thought to have been placed there. It's all wild speculation.

It's not completely different. I think Oak Island has several treasures thought to have been placed there, it all depends on what stories you choose to believe, which it appears a few people on here don't believe any of the stories. It's all about the beliefs of the treasure hunter. Yes, Mel had more solid information that a ship went down in a storm but it was his belief that he could find it that kept him going so many years until he actually found it. I see Oak Island as the same thing. There is a belief by many that there is treasure on the island. Based on the known markers and carvings that have been found on the island and drawn or photographed before they were destroyed by others, it is my opinion there is something there. That's not "wild speculation". It's looking at the known clues and deciding these could be or are treasure related. It gets back to what you believe and how much you believe in it and yourself.

Lots of treasure sites left behind by the Spanish and outlaws are found by people who see something that no one else recognizes as treasure related. That doesn't make it "wild speculation". As treasure hunters we have to look at the terrain and other things differently than the average public.

 

[Quisp]

The distances along the stem of the Cross of 294ft,429ft and 147ft are those proposed by Petter Amundsen, differing from the survey made by Fred Nolan of 293ft,429ft and 145ft respectively." xxoo

Off by 2 feet in one direction and 1 foot in the other. Two feet is enough to miss a stone entirely. It appears to be a lot more than the 1 degree of precision claimed.

Will quisp demand an unrealistic amount of evidence in order to prove to him, even if the Oak Island community is in 99% agreement of the findings? Tune in Tuesday night, as undeniable proof gets denied, and doubters make even more unrealistic demands." xxoo

Again, it's not me demanding "an unrealistic amount of evidence" it's the whole claim of treasure, crosses, 90' stones, etc that requires it. And, you wouldn't be part of Oak Island community if you didn't believe, right?

I want to believe, I'm just not seeing real evidence. Everything seems to be hearsay. Show me a picture of the box drains. Jeeze, the drawings I see on the show make them seem like they are these big rectangular cement/stone storm sewers. Did someone remove all of them? I keep seeing depictions of the 90 foot stone with the story that someone reproduced the 40 symbols in the correct order from memory years later. It's not proof of anything, just a good story.

What part of the story has changed?" xxoo

Not much, you are right as it's still the same basic story.

 

[NostraDanis]

Arguing with someone who is banned for stating the obvious.

 

[sasquash]

For your entertainment only (at your own risk):



and this is a good one

 

[gazzahk]

In the 1960s, Robert Dunfield rode the bucket of an excavator to the bottom of the Pit to examine it for evidence of the tunnels: he found none, and his dye tests indicated all but 15 gallons/minute of the water was coming from below the 140' level (natural infiltration from the underlying limestone bedrock).

Not that I am trying to get into this peeing match... But this is an interesting point. As I raised in the other thread about Dunfeild... (I also do not believe the flood tunnels) but for the sake of discussion.... It may be Dunfeilds efforts to plug the flood tunnels was successful when he bulldozed the beach.. But by this time others had already drilled through to the water that come from the cavities under ground. This would mean the water from there was now mixed in with the other water. So as soon as Dunfeild broke into an old shaft ie chappels shaft then the pit would flood from that lower ground water. Therefore this is not evidence that the flood tunnels do not exist. (personally I tend to support J.Steeles theory of soil liquidifcation for the origin of the water at 100ft that flooded the original pit - this water was also probably from the below bedrock source so that would also explain his findings). I also do not really understand how the dye test would actually show anything of much significance as it is only at most show where water is escaping to not coming from. There is no way the dye could of come back through the beach because Dunfeild had buried the beach under tonnes of dirt.

Possibly. Various people say they've held the parchment (if parchment it is) in their hands, but there's no way to confirm that (a) it's the original piece, and (b) that it wasn't planted in the Pit to provide a false lead.
Because something was made using materials and techniques common in the 16th century, doesn't mean the thing was made in the 16th century.

This piece of parchment is still owned by Dan isn't it? I think that chappels vault was probably a previous treasure shaft dug by truo company (or some on else) so I do not doubt the parchment exists/ed but do not think it shows anything really. It could of come from anywhere and got stuck in the drill head.

With the cross.. J.Steele take on this (which I found interesting and plausible) it was built by the slaves that were on the island making the naval stores. The group that was in control were the Jesuits. She offers some interesting (evidence) to support this view.

The problem really is that even if we except

a) That 'boys' finding the treasure just mean males
b) That there was a water source at 100ft that was not from the lower ground water (may be soil liquidification answer)
c) That some things were pulled from the previous drillings (may of been in the ground from other sources/ from entering previous searchers diggings/ remnants from other things on OI stuck in dirt and pulled up by drill head)
d) That a stone with etchings did exist (the treasure seekers may of planted it / the etchings we have now may not be accurate)
e) That Nolans cross is man made (could of been made by others that had nothing to do with the pit)

None of the above is evidence of treasure being on OI.

I would love them to pull treasure out of the pit. But there has been nothing found by treasure searchers that supports treasure ever was buried there.

(with the possible exception of the descendets claim but lets not go into that here)

Therefore an argument over the exact measurements of Nolans cross seems pretty pointless.....

 

[marticus]

Also depends on what treasure is to someone. As different people will view treasure differently

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[marticus]

I'm packing up to head out of town for the next few days, so I'll only address one of your misconceptions right now.



Daniel McGinnis (1758-1827). In 1788 McGinnis moved to Oak Island and bought Lot 28. Thereafter he bought Lot 23 in 1790, Lot 27 in 1791, and Lot 1 in 1794. McGinnis was listed as a “farmer” in both the 1791 and 1794 poll tax listings for Lunenburg County’s “heads of households.”

John Smith (1775-1857). Listed on the 1794 Lunenburg County poll tax list as a farmer on Oak Island, therefore a “head of household.”

Anthony Vaughan (1750-1835). Bought Lot 14 in 1781, after which he bought Lots 15 and 16 in 1785.

According to the story, the "Money Pit" was located in 1795, making McGinnis 37 years old, Smith 20 years old, and Vaughan 45 years old. All this information is in public record.

The facts are out there if you choose to read the accounts.

Thats true.
The whole story of 3 boys. Findind a depression with a block and tackle in the tree is a fabrication from tv

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[gazzahk]

Thats true.
The whole story of 3 boys. Findind a depression with a block and tackle in the tree is a fabrication from tv

The story is the 'boys' found a tree with evidence of the use of a block and tackle. Not finding the block and tackle (as told by the descendants and other sources). To claim this is made up by the TV is simply ridiculous seeing people have been looking for the treasure pre electronic media. Really this is probably one of the most silly claims I have seen made on this forum..

 

[sasquash]

after looking the last video from hutton i can say that the artifacts are not related to any treasure. They are related to activity on the island or faked for the show

I will look the brother's q & a tomorrow ...

 

[Customx_12]

Got it. I have to indirectly call people stupid like you do. PC. Got it.

I think a vacation was warranted for you but I hope you're still lurking to read the thread.

It's easy for people to be convinced of something and feel insulted or attacked when others try to disprove what you believe. That's why politics get so heated. But when it comes to treasure hunting, skeptics and naysayers are an essential component to finding the truth. They may have a different perspective or evidence contrary to yours to help clear your own thoughts and ideas about the truth of a treasure.

But the best part about skeptics and naysayers is that they are not competitors in finding your treasure. Don't try to convince them with your evidence and don't take what they say personally. Analyze what they say and if you have evidence to the contrary, smile politely and wish them well. Don't try to convince them of the treasure lest they change their minds and find it before you do!

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Yep. Like a peer review for a scientific hypothesis. When you get one that can't be picked apart you get to call it a proper theory.

But for Oak Island we're still at the myths and legends stage.

I don't care about any gold because I won't be asked to share it - and won't bother asking. But historical knowledge we can all share without the finders having to give any of theirs away. So much better!

 

[Stretch Da Truth]

Wow! This thread has gotten really heated and a lot of bashing is going on. Whats up with that? A lil joking about the show is ok as it can be ridiculous at times but if someone can present some ideas and put the time in to pull up docs, evidence, theories, tie ideas/items/data together give them a lil credit and don't bash them on the head because you don't believe.

As a kid the story fascinated me, like many others... that's why we are here! I personally don't believe anything is on the island but not sure if anything WAS on the island. I do a lil joking here and there but do enjoy the banter with members who have interesting ideas, theories and items to discuss. Notice I said discuss not bash or diss.

Proving stuff from 200 years ago for the OI mystery cant be done easily because of all the searchers who have destroyed so much of the old evidence & clues. Those of you who DEMAND proof can never be satisfied. We should demand you prove it DIDN'T exist. Good luck!

Maybe someone should start a BASH OI thread and that would be the place everyone can go if you just want to be totally negative and bash the show, the island and everything about it. I enjoy watching and talking about it. Sure some things can be a bit ridiculous but it is a TV show. Ratings & money, that's what matters to them.

One other thing... how many other old treasure mysteries can you WATCH ON TV? Everything else, you have to go and do a ton of research or read this and that, get maps, do research, talk to people, etc, etc... Here you can sit on your butt, drinking beer after beer, pounding down bags of chips and just yell at the TV!

Sorry... end rant. Continue bashing. I cant wait for the 2 hour final on Tuesday!!