What should the Laginas do next?

[gjb]

What’s your theory?

Is there really any point in my explaining given that people here have declared that they know for an absolute fact that there’s no evidence of a planned deposit and that there never was?

The forum has ceased to be a place to discuss aspects of the Oak Island mystery. I’m fully aware that there’s no debating with skeptics. I know what the reaction and response will be, that is, much more of the same, so there’s really no incentive for me to continue discussing my research here.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[BennyV]

Is there really any point in my explaining given that people here have declared that they know for an absolute fact that there’s no evidence of a planned deposit and that there never was?

The forum has ceased to be a place to discuss aspects of the Oak Island mystery. I’m fully aware that there’s no debating with skeptics. I know what the reaction and response will be, that is, much more of the same, so there’s really no incentive for me to continue discussing my research here.

Private message me. I agree. Very negative on here.

 

[bigscoop]

You’re completely missing the point. I didn’t start off believing that there was a treasure. Other people were claiming that there was a treasure, but I felt that their thinking and arguments were weak.

This was in the mid-1970s, and the book I was reading (the first I’d ever read on the subject) was Rupert Furneaux’s work of 1972 in which he suggests that maybe the treasure wasn’t in the Money Pit. That set me thinking - might there be evidence to support this? Furneaux had presented a few novel ideas that appealed to me, but I felt that he hadn’t followed them up adequately. So, I chose to do so.

You seem not to understand. Have you never had to undertake an academic dissertation or thesis? Have you ever done any academic research? This was effectively an academic exercise. I identified a research question and set about addressing it.

I didn’t need to believe that there was a treasure in order to wonder if there might be evidence of such. Why on earth can’t you see that? This was a search for knowledge as much as it was a search for answers, and I was fully prepared for the undertaking to be unproductive. It wasn’t a matter of believing, it was a matter of wanting to know.

As to intent, my research suggests that a specific spot on the island was set apart for some reason, perhaps being the location of a deposit. Naturally, I don’t know whether or not there was a deposit, but it appears that this was intended even if it didn’t take place.

That’s to say, maybe there was ultimately no need to make the planned deposit. They didn’t sail away with the treasure, it would simply not have been shipped to the island.

The significant point is that a spot was identified.

"This was in the mid-1970s, and the book I was reading (the first I’d ever read on the subject) was Rupert Furneaux’s work of 1972 in which he suggests that maybe the treasure wasn’t in the Money Pit."

What treasure?
How did it come to be known as, "the money pit?"

There never was any "known" or "identifiable" source of treasure, all of that just being wild speculation. There never existed "any" type of record of a hidden treasure, this just pulled out of thin air like those bedtime stories I use to quickly manufacture in my head when my children were little. "It's all just made up."

 

[bigscoop]

You’re completely missing the point. I didn’t start off believing that there was a treasure. Other people were claiming that there was a treasure, but I felt that their thinking and arguments were weak.

This was in the mid-1970s, and the book I was reading (the first I’d ever read on the subject) was Rupert Furneaux’s work of 1972 in which he suggests that maybe the treasure wasn’t in the Money Pit. That set me thinking - might there be evidence to support this? Furneaux had presented a few novel ideas that appealed to me, but I felt that he hadn’t followed them up adequately. So, I chose to do so.

You seem not to understand. Have you never had to undertake an academic dissertation or thesis? Have you ever done any academic research? This was effectively an academic exercise. I identified a research question and set about addressing it.

I didn’t need to believe that there was a treasure in order to wonder if there might be evidence of such. Why on earth can’t you see that? This was a search for knowledge as much as it was a search for answers, and I was fully prepared for the undertaking to be unproductive. It wasn’t a matter of believing, it was a matter of wanting to know.

As to intent, my research suggests that a specific spot on the island was set apart for some reason, perhaps being the location of a deposit. Naturally, I don’t know whether or not there was a deposit, but it appears that this was intended even if it didn’t take place.

That’s to say, maybe there was ultimately no need to make the planned deposit. They didn’t sail away with the treasure, it would simply not have been shipped to the island.

The significant point is that a spot was identified.

A) I just bought a piece of land. Now I'm going to go on the hunt for any clue that a hidden treasure might exist there.

B) I have documented evidence that a hidden treasure existed on a piece of land, so I bought that land and now I'm going to search for it.

Oak Island is operating on “A” above, the badly flawed “wishful thinking” method, not “B”.

The point being presented to you is that there never existed any evidence that a treasure was, "in any way", associated with the island beforehand. None, zero, zip.

 

[bigscoop]

True Story:

Back in the 90's a few associates of mine contacted me, and after many months of searching, they had finally located a large tract of land in New Mexico that was thick with tales of lost and hidden treasure, and they so they wanted to buy that land and they wanted me to participate.

“What treasure are you going to be looking for?”
“Well, we don't know, but there has to be one there somewhere!”
“Why? How do you know that?”

And from this point they started reciting a dozen or more tales of hidden and/or lost treasure that were ripe in the region, and even a few other lesser tales that weren't.

This IS Oak Island, same thing, they hold a piece of land with a mysterious hole in the ground and so in some unknown way it must be related to a hidden or lost treasure. But take away that hole and you just have another common island. But because of that hole in the ground people start researching for any possible lead “from anywhere in the world” that still remains a mystery and that they might be able to, in some way, relate that tale to that hole in the ground on their otherwise common island.

It's just another island with a somewhat unique hole in the ground in a region of the country that isn't even ripe with tales of lost and hidden treasure.

 

[gjb]

A) I just bought a piece of land. Now I'm going to go on the hunt for any clue that a hidden treasure might exist there.

B) I have documented evidence that a hidden treasure existed on a piece of land, so I bought that land and now I'm going to search for it.

Oak Island is operating on “A” above, the badly flawed “wishful thinking” method, not “B”.

The point being presented to you is that there never existed any evidence that a treasure was, "in any way", associated with the island beforehand. None, zero, zip.

So, how did you, or somebody else, get hold of the documented evidence in case "B"? Presumably this had to be by chance, since you're declaring that people couldn't possibly have searched the archives and the personal files of earlier researchers in order to look for it.

It could have been that somebody told them of the possibility of there being a treasure and they decided to research the subject thoroughly on the off-chance that this might be correct. However, you're excluding this possibility because it doesn't fit in what you've decided must have happened and your belief that you can't possibly be wrong.

I fully agree that the Laginas are operating on "A" above but, if there is indeed documented evidence of a deposit, they could, and should be operating on "B". However, that would mean that they'd have to get hold of the evidence first.

It seems they agree with you that it's not necessary to make decisions only after having reviewed the suggested evidence and, above all, it's not necessary to test on the ground whether that evidence could be correct.

They're like you. They're only interested in reinforcing their preconceived views on the subject.

 

[Armchair detective]

I hate to be repetitive, but can anyone please tell me the answer to a riddle?

If someone was underground there before the 3 dug their hole, and someone (else?) filled the hole back in, WHY DO THAT?

Did little Tommie fall down a well and someone wanted to be sure it never happened again?

It is a baffling question, and until someone answers it, treasure will be a possible answer.

 

[gjb]

I hate to be repetitive, but can anyone please tell me the answer to a riddle?

If someone was underground there before the 3 dug their hole, and someone (else?) filled the hole back in, WHY DO THAT?

Did little Tommie fall down a well and someone wanted to be sure it never happened again?

It is a baffling question, and until someone answers it, treasure will be a possible answer.

The naysayers here will retort, "what hole? The reports of the discovery are all lies." However, even conceding that the reports are true, the fact that someone refills a hole is not a sure indicator of the presence of treasure.

Now, if we assume that the reports of the platforms are true then might this not indicate that whoever did it wished to distribute the load and prevent collapse, thereby suggesting that they (or somebody else) intended to return. So, maybe the work wasn't even finished.

Another thing is that this was not a place of concealment. The location was reportedly advertised to all and sundry inviting anybody and everybody to 'dig here'. The later reports of flood tunnels are actually reports of tunnels filled with water. This is not to say that there was necessarily water in them when the originator left the island.

If there was a water catchment at Smith's Cove this could have been designed to carry water somewhere else, but it seeped into a tunnel or tunnels that were intended to remain dry. So, it's quite a leap to suggest that this was a sign of a vast treasure in the Money Pit that needed to be protected by the tides.

I feel that the Money Pit is an unlikely place to deposit a treasure and, if there is or was a treasure, you'd have to hope it was somewhere else given the mess that's been made of it.

 

[BennyV]

True Story:

Back in the 90's a few associates of mine contacted me, and after many months of searching, they had finally located a large tract of land in New Mexico that was thick with tales of lost and hidden treasure, and they so they wanted to buy that land and they wanted me to participate.

“What treasure are you going to be looking for?”
“Well, we don't know, but there has to be one there somewhere!”
“Why? How do you know that?”

And from this point they started reciting a dozen or more tales of hidden and/or lost treasure that were ripe in the region, and even a few other lesser tales that weren't.

This IS Oak Island, same thing, they hold a piece of land with a mysterious hole in the ground and so in some unknown way it must be related to a hidden or lost treasure. But take away that hole and you just have another common island. But because of that hole in the ground people start researching for any possible lead “from anywhere in the world” that still remains a mystery and that they might be able to, in some way, relate that tale to that hole in the ground on their otherwise common island.

It's just another island with a somewhat unique hole in the ground in a region of the country that isn't even ripe with tales of lost and hidden treasure.

GoDeep is that you?

 

[Armchair detective]

Dear diary:
As Uncle Ronnie said ,"Trust, but Verify".
We had first reports coming out of the area indicating the possibility of treasure - human activity below the surface which was concealed.
Efforts to verify a treasure to date have failed, but there always seems to be another bit of human activity underground to look at.
The best lead we have so far seems to be a depression dug up by some kids - there is some secret there. In the hole there are remnants of prior activity no matter how deep we go.
Well, tomorrow's another day. I guess we'll keep at it until we find it or run out of search money.

 

[bigscoop]

So, how did you, or somebody else, get hold of the documented evidence in case "B"? Presumably this had to be by chance, since you're declaring that people couldn't possibly have searched the archives and the personal files of earlier researchers in order to look for it.

It could have been that somebody told them of the possibility of there being a treasure and they decided to research the subject thoroughly on the off-chance that this might be correct. However, you're excluding this possibility because it doesn't fit in what you've decided must have happened and your belief that you can't possibly be wrong.

I fully agree that the Laginas are operating on "A" above but, if there is indeed documented evidence of a deposit, they could, and should be operating on "B". However, that would mean that they'd have to get hold of the evidence first.

It seems they agree with you that it's not necessary to make decisions only after having reviewed the suggested evidence and, above all, it's not necessary to test on the ground whether that evidence could be correct.

They're like you. They're only interested in reinforcing their preconceived views on the subject.

"I fully agree that the Laginas are operating on "A" above but, if there is indeed documented evidence of a deposit,...."

You have been asked multiple times, "what treasure?" And there's the entire problem, no answer because there isn't, and never was, any.

 

[gjb]

"I fully agree that the Laginas are operating on "A" above but, if there is indeed documented evidence of a deposit,...."

You have been asked multiple times, "what treasure?" And there's the entire problem, no answer because there isn't, and never was, any.

It should be obvious to you, but surprisingly isn't, that until a treasure is recovered, if there is one, it's unknown exactly what it might be. As nobody knows what it is, rather than what it might be, nobody can say what form it might take.

It should also be obvious to you, but again clearly isn't, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That nobody has yet found a treasure doesn't necessarily mean that there's none there.

The fact is that nobody knows whether there's a treasure on Oak Island and nobody, including you, can effectively prove that there isn't. We don't know either way.

What I'm saying is that there appears to be evidence of a planned deposit, but I can't say what was actually planned or whether anything was eventually deposited. Whether there's support for what I've discovered depends on the Laginas' willingness to check it out on the ground not what you think might be the case.

You're declaring that you know for a fact that such a test must prove negative because you've decided that you know all the answers without even bothering to look. That's prejudging.

You've declared that there isn't and never was a deposit (a 'treasure') and, as I've explained above, you may be right because while I believe there may well be evidence of a planned deposit I don't know if that deposit ever took place.

Furthermore, as you've declared there cannot possibly be evidence of a deposit then there's no point in my trying to convince you because you're declaring that what I've found must be nonsense without even knowing what it is.

Thus, everyone here knows exactly what your response will be, because you've telegraphed it.

 

[bigscoop]

It should be obvious to you, but surprisingly isn't, that until a treasure is recovered, if there is one, it's unknown exactly what it might be. As nobody knows what it is, rather than what it might be, nobody can say what form it might take.

It should also be obvious to you, but again clearly isn't, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That nobody has yet found a treasure doesn't necessarily mean that there's none there.

The fact is that nobody knows whether there's a treasure on Oak Island and nobody, including you, can effectively prove that there isn't. We don't know either way.

What I'm saying is that there appears to be evidence of a planned deposit, but I can't say what was actually planned or whether anything was eventually deposited. Whether there's support for what I've discovered depends on the Laginas' willingness to check it out on the ground not what you think might be the case.

You're declaring that you know for a fact that such a test must prove negative because you've decided that you know all the answers without even bothering to look. That's prejudging.

You've declared that there isn't and never was a deposit (a 'treasure') and, as I've explained above, you may be right because while I believe there may well be evidence of a planned deposit I don't know if that deposit ever took place.

Furthermore, as you've declared there cannot possibly be evidence of a deposit then there's no point in my trying to convince you because you're declaring that what I've found must be nonsense without even knowing what it is.

Thus, everyone here knows exactly what your response will be, because you've telegraphed it.

"It should be obvious to you, but surprisingly isn't, that until a treasure is recovered, if there is one, it's unknown exactly what it might be. As nobody knows what it is, rather than what it might be, nobody can say what form it might take."

Read the above to yourself, again and again, because you're doing "exactly" what you're accusing the Laginas of doing and "exactly" what myself and others have outlined that you're doing.

So again, "what is your premise/actual evidence that a treasure, in any way, was ever relevant to OI?" Applying your logic we could blindly pick any piece of land anywhere in the world and expect, or suspect, that some magnificent treasure either abounds, or was intended to abound, there.......

 

[gjb]

So again, "what is your premise/actual evidence that a treasure, in any way, was ever relevant to OI?" Applying your logic we could blindly pick any piece of land anywhere in the world and expect, or suspect, that some magnificent treasure either abounds, or was intended to abound, there.......

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.

 

[Limitool]

gjb states: "It should also be obvious to you, but again clearly isn't, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That nobody has yet found a treasure doesn't necessarily mean that there's none there."

Bigscoop, I & others have asked over and over: WHAT TREASURE? That question is never addressed. Now you say there's evidence of a possible deposit that possibly didn't happen....? Maybe the deposit never happened you say or you don't know....? RIGHT ON.... perfect!

My statement above will make about as much sense to you as the one above in red does to us. And your statement above in red that.... an "un-founded treasure doesn't necessarily mean that there's none there" just defies common sense after 200+ years of this legend.

And most folks are tired of the "200 ft deep buried treasure and those damn flood tunnels" stories also. So in your viewpoint you and others are looking for WHAT.... based upon WHAT....?

 

[Limitool]

gjb: "Nonsense! You're completely ignoring the reported evidence of major engineering works on the island that need to be explained..."

Why...?

gjb: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

WHAT....? is this the old saying of "if you fail try and try again".... Why... to what end after 200+ years.

gib: "The fact is that nobody knows whether there's a treasure on Oak Island and nobody, including you, can effectively prove that there isn't. We don't know either way."

Then what are you looking for...? That statement could apply to my front yard. If somebody asked me to PROVE there's no treasure in my front yard.... I'd go back inside, grab a beer and just shake my head.

gib: "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."

So you can damn us for not buying into YOUR BELIEF after 200+ years of looking you "believe". But you won't share your "potential evidence of a deposit"..... Deposit of WHAT.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RobNC]

So you can damn us for not buying into YOUR BELIEF after 200+ years of looking you "believe". But you won't share your "potential evidence of a deposit"..... Deposit of WHAT.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is simple. A deposit of pure Grade A BS is what the Laginas have cultivated. It's a pure vein of solid gold BS. It's nothing more than another fake show on TV to suck people in that have a vivid imagination. I used to watch that show but after countless "War Room" sit downs and other stalling tactics it was real clear to me it's just another altered reality TV show.
The show should be renamed "When Rich Guys Get Bored: Digging Up an Island for Nothing".

 

[Limitool]

gib: "It should be obvious to you, but surprisingly isn't, that until a treasure is recovered, if there is one, it's unknown exactly what it might be. As nobody knows what it is, rather than what it might be, nobody can say what form it might take."

You cannot be serious with this comment below:

gib: ... "that until a treasure is recovered, if there is one, it's unknown exactly what it might be."

Ok.... we're dealing with some artificial semi-intelligence..... folks.... That comment is just so damn stupid.

 

[gjb]

But you won't share your "potential evidence of a deposit".....

Get your facts right. I've actually shared it with the world, as I've written a book about it. If you don't keep up with Oak Island literature that's not my problem.

In any event, you and others have decided and declared that there is no evidence and there never was, so there's no point in your knowing because you've already declared that it can't possibly be so.

Be honest, in truth you don't give a damn about knowing what it is!

 

[TruthbeTold]

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.

The "major engineering works" were nothing but common ship servicing. These "works" were found all over the world wherever ships made port.