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

lokiblossom said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

As was those minimal samples of coconut coir you continue to mention as "evidence" of Oak Island Templar activity.
It should be noted that the WOOD's HOLE scientists were handed the coir samples that were alleged to have been removed from the sand by the Triton Group, without actual verification that the coir samples were removed from an Oak Island site beyond the word of the Triton Group, leaving those dating results suspect.
 

Last edited:
Charlie P. (NY) said:
...
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...
Click to expand...
The lack of the aforementioned "chain of custody" is a major problem, including the actual fact that these samples were presented by groups that have a vested interest in the dating results to support preconceived theories.
It is quite possible without that "chain of custody" provenance of in situ acquisition to the testing laboratories without second or third hand contamination, that the Oak Island site was "salted", or replaced with coir and wood from sources far from Oak Island.
 

lokiblossom said:
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...
Click to expand...
Loki, since you base your Templars on Oak Island premise and theory on these coconut coir samples, have you verified their chain of custody provenance BRFORE they were submitted for date testing?
As with the Wood's Hole sample, it was given to them by a Triton employee, a group with a vested interest a Oak Island treasure dig, and quite possible that sample came from another location, not Oak Island.
Chain of custody provenance that would confirm the legitimacy of the these coir samples:
1. Who discovered and recovered these samples and his credentials.
2. Exact location and in situ photos of the coir.
3. Soil samples with embedded coir for comparison dating analysis.
4. Singed verification that the samples presented for dating tests were indeed from this Oak Island site.
5. Who presented these samples to the labs date testing and their relationship to the museum or treasure hunting operations.

Even with this chain of custody provenance, these coir samples do not establish proof of a Templar visitation to Oak Island/ Nova Scotia to bury alleged imaginative treasure, Loki, beyond one's wishful speculation of scattered evidence stacked in support of purely unfounded unproven conclusions.
 

lokiblossom said:
... 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.
Click to expand...
How long was this coir sample on display in this museum collecting polluting contaminants since its in situ recovery?
...and the name of this museum, Loki?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Why Does "Curse" Never Mention George Greene's 1955 Efforts?

⬅️ Previous Thread

Show 11 = Sept 7th?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top