Nonsense! You're completely ignoring the reported evidence of major engineering works on the island that need to be explained, though I expect you'll regurgitate the same old get-out of, "What engineering works? Everything that's been reported is lies." I take it that all those pieces of land in the world you're talking about have similar engineering works dating back to before 1795?
While we don't know which specific period the works relate to, in all probability there would have been no banks at the time. So, it's not unreasonable to include the possibility that Oak Island may have been a secure location for funds. That's not to say it was, just that, given the likely date and remote location, it's possible.
However, you're declaring that you know for a fact that this can't be so because you've found no evidence of such without even bothering to look to see if it might exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You're completely ignoring the fact that these works could well date back more than 300 years when it was common practice for people to bury their valuables. You're making the mistake of applying current-day thinking to the past.
You're declaring that you know all the answers, not me. I've simply investigated the claim by others that Oak Island may have been the site of a deposit of value for the above reasons. I didn't know what I would find, but I did find potential evidence of a deposit which I feel should be checked out.
Now you're telling everybody there's no need to check it out because you've decided it's wrong and everybody has to take your word for it. You seem not to know the nature of the potential evidence I've found yet you're declaring it has to be wrong without having a clue as to what it is.
As I've observed, that's sheer total prejudice made even worse by your declarations that your views on the matter, that is your opinions, can't possibly be wrong.
