So far in the recent 2019 and 2020 Oak Island shows what have they really found?

[Al D]

What does the oak tree ring dating have to do with it? I don't think I premised anybody bringing oak trees to Oak Island! Btw, Beta Analytics still does C-14 tests and has an excellent reputation.

Cheers, Loki

Did you even read and understand my post?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

Did you even read and understand my post?

I thought so, you believe oak trees were brought to Oak Island at the same time as the coconut fibre, right? So how could they be dated to some 350 years difference, right?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

I thought so, you believe oak trees were brought to Oak Island at the same time as the coconut fibre, right? So how could they be dated to some 350 years difference, right?

Cheers, Loki

Not even close, I never stated or implied that Oak trees were brought to Oak Island, if fact it does not matter where they came from.
the Laginas had oak logs dated via dendrochronology, those dates indicated mid 1600’s as well some of the iron objects which were dated by the numerous experts presented.
the only date earlier than those is the coir.
are you suggesting that Templars brought coir to Oak Island in the 1300’s and then did not come back until the 1600’s to use it?

 

[lokiblossom]

Not even close, I never stated or implied that Oak trees were brought to Oak Island, if fact it does not matter where they came from.
the Laginas had oak logs dated via dendrochronology, those dates indicated mid 1600’s as well some of the iron objects which were dated by the numerous experts presented.
the only date earlier than those is the coir.
are you suggesting that Templars brought coir to Oak Island in the 1300’s and then did not come back until the 1600’s to use it?

Why would they come back to use it

Why would they come back at all?

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

Why would they come back to use it

Cheers, Loki

The coir dates to around 1300
the logs date to around 1600
the logs are part of the Chapel Vault
which was deeper than the coir
so......how did the coir from 1300 come to be on top of the logs which are from 1600?

 

[lokiblossom]

The coir dates to around 1300
the logs date to around 1600
the logs are part of the Chapel Vault
which was deeper than the coir
so......how did the coir from 1300 come to be on top of the logs which are from 1600?

Hmm, a real dilemma. The existence of the logs is questionable from what I understand, and in my opinion have nothing to do with my premise's. Again, I have never premised the Templar's burying or hiding anything on Oak Island. The Chapel Vault or whatever its called, belongs to other's theory's.

Cheers, Loki

 

[petetherocker]

Appendix --Woods Hole Explores Oak Island
Quote from the site above:

....One potentially interesting finding that was made involved the legendary coconut fibres. The Woods Hole team were taken to a site on the Northeast coast of the island by people from Triton, who 'dug down a bit and produced a handful of fibres from under the sand (Aubrey, 2002).' When analyzed, they were indeed confirmed as material from some species of coconut, possibly of Mediterranean origin but too decayed for a positive identification (Aubrey, 2002)

 

[Al D]

Hmm, a real dilemma. The existence of the logs is questionable from what I understand, and in my opinion have nothing to do with my premise's. Again, I have never premised the Templar's burying or hiding anything on Oak Island. The Chapel Vault or whatever its called, belongs to other's theory's.

Cheers, Loki

Still.......it is there along with the coir

 

[ARC]

The coir dates to around 1300
the logs date to around 1600
the logs are part of the Chapel Vault
which was deeper than the coir
so......how did the coir from 1300 come to be on top of the logs which are from 1600?

Hence why I think the "dating" of these items is "flawed".

 

[lokiblossom]

Still.......it is there along with the coir

Was it?? Was the wood c-14 dated? There were several datings and id's of the coir done. The very existence of the logs has been constantly questioned.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

Was it?? Was the wood c-14 dated? There were several datings and id's of the coir done. The very existence of the logs has been constantly questioned.

Cheers, Loki

Dendrochronology is the calibration standard for archeological dating. It is absolute.
C14 dating is a derived process based upon assumed C14 uptake rates for various organisms.
if the wrong assumption is made, the results are inaccurate.
no the wood was not C14 dated
no one would use the C14 dating method when the tree ring method was applicable.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

What does the oak tree ring dating have to do with it? I don't think I premised anybody bringing oak trees to Oak Island! Btw, Beta Analytics still does C-14 tests and has an excellent reputation.

Cheers, Loki

Yes they do. And they would have given a report of what they found that would have been the results of the relative ratios of C-14 vs. C-13 vs C-12. After there it is speculative. Then they would have used a baseline (do we know if they used Northern Hemisphere, Marine Environment, Southern Hemisphere, etc.?) to give PROBABILITY of the sample based on where it was found. Something like: "There is a 68% chance the material was alive between the years 1400 and 1800 AD". And those baselines are also dependent on where it was "raised" when alive and respirating/metabolizing C-14. Where did Beta A. assume the material originated? We're pretty sure the coir didn't grow on Oak Island, so it has to be displaced from somewhere else. And since it, presumably, was below sea level in the "drains" for decades or centuries it has been contaminated with seawater that has a LOT of ions and is subjected to UV that disrupts ions.

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes they do. And they would have given a report of what they found that would have been the results of C-14 vs. C-13 vs C-12. Then they would have used a baseline (do we know if they used Northern Hemisphere, Marine Environment, Southern Hemisphere, etc.?) to give PROBABILITY of the sample based on where it was found. Something like: "There is a 68% chance the material was alive between the years 1400 and 1800 AD". And those baselines are also dependent on where it was "raised" when alive and respirating/metabolizing C-14. Where did Beta A. assume the material originated? We're pretty sure the coir didn't grow on Oak Island, so it has to be displaced from somewhere else. And since it, presumably, was below sea level in the "drains" for decades or centuries it has been contaminated with seawater that has a LOT of ions and is subjected to UV that disrupts ions.

Hi Charlie,
I just pulled my records, which cover 56 pages of reports on wood and coconut fibres from Oak Island. One sample of coconut fibre from the museum was dated with 95% confirmation by Beta in 1993, to between 1168 and 1371. This is the one I have been referencing.

Wood, has been all over the place form 1025 to 1970, with a sample of Charcoal from 148bc.

There have been three other datings of the fibre, two by National Ocean Sciences, submitted by Woods Hole in 1996, and one other by Beta in 1990.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Al D]

Hi Charlie,
I just pulled my records, which cover 56 pages of reports on wood and coconut fibres from Oak Island. One sample of coconut fibre from the museum was dated with 95% confirmation by Beta in 1993, to between 1168 and 1371. This is the one I have been referencing.

Wood, has been all over the place form 1025 to 1970, with a sample of Charcoal from 148bc.

There have been three other datings of the fibre, two by National Ocean Sciences, submitted by Woods Hole in 1996, and one other by Beta in 1990.

Cheers, Loki

And yet, none of them cross calibrated by an absolute dating method

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

where did they assume it grew? Do they mention the "Calibration" method or database used? It varies a great deal by geographic location and environment of where the sample existed when alive.

 

[lokiblossom]

where did they assume it grew? Do they mention the "Calibration" method or database used? It varies a great deal by geographic location and environment of where the sample existed when alive.

From the letters I read I believe they took everything into account. National Ocean Sciences and Beta Analytic know what they are doing and the correspondence back and forth (56 pages of letters) was intense.

If anybody wants to question the results I will give them the exact dates and various company's address' and they can write to them.

But, myself, I'm going with the 1168-1371 dates.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

That's because that fits nicely into your existing bias.

I'd rather look at all the evidence objectively, questioning everything, rather than going in from the start to prove a hypothesis.


And those fibers weren't even taken directly from Oak Island. They were provided by Triton from samples at a museum display to Woods Hole who sent them along to Beta years later. If this was a legal case any lawyer would get them dismissed as evidence because there is no chain of custody. They could have been samples of what the Coir may have looked like when it was recognizable and not just goo.

 

[lokiblossom]

That's because that fits nicely into your existing bias.

I'd rather look at all the evidence objectively, questioning everything, rather than going in from the start to prove a hypothesis.


And those fibers weren't even taken directly from Oak Island. They were provided by Triton from samples at a museum display to Woods Hole who sent them along to Beta years later. If this was a legal case any lawyer would get them dismissed as evidence because there is no chain of custody. They could have been samples of what the Coir may have looked like when it was recognizable and not just goo.

The fibres were from the Oak Island Museum just off the Island. I was offered a small quantity about 10 years ago and wish I had taken them up on it. There were other datings and other identifications that have similar results and one done recently by the Lagina's with the same results. Maybe all that evidence wouldn't prove anything but?

Cheers, Loki

 

[SSR]

Hi Charlie,
I just pulled my records, which cover 56 pages of reports on wood and coconut fibres from Oak Island. One sample of coconut fibre from the museum was dated with 95% confirmation by Beta in 1993, to between 1168 and 1371. This is the one I have been referencing.

Wood, has been all over the place form 1025 to 1970, with a sample of Charcoal from 148bc.

There have been three other datings of the fibre, two by National Ocean Sciences, submitted by Woods Hole in 1996, and one other by Beta in 1990.

Cheers, Loki

The 95% confidence interval given is not what you think it is. It's the confidence in the methodology. It means the analysis contributes 5% error. The sample itself could contribute a lot of error. Dating degraded coconut fiber in a marine environment is prone to large error. It can be off by as much as a thousand years, and it always in the direction of finding things older than they are. You will never find anyone who dates a site with only an outlier result like that. Nothing else of known human attribution has ever confirmed this dating result, so it should be considered unconfirmed and an isolated result.

 

[ECS]

...and no confirmation that the Oak Island coconut coir was genuine bona fide Templar coconut coir.