What should the Laginas do next?

[gjb]

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.

You obviously don't realise how totally dumb your comment is! It's typical that you should be declaring that we can know what the treasure is and how it came to be there without ever having seen what it is.

If we see the treasure we'd be able to say if its gold, silver, jewels, bullion or specie and we might then be able to determine where it came from, who might have put it there and for what reason.

Your belief that we can know all this without recovering the treasure is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[gjb]

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

Somebody else claiming to know all the answers. Correction: The "major engineering works" may possibly have been nothing but common ship servicing. You don't know this for a fact, so don't declare it to be.

 

[TruthbeTold]

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!

I'm halfway thru your book and will be posting a review shortly.

With the mention of pseudo fictional historians Diana Muir and Peter Amundson in it, most credibility is lost at the onset.

Most of it so far is nothing more of a rehash of what we have seen here and by the laginas.

Nothing in the book shows factual historical evidence of a treasure ever being placed on oak island.

 

[ARC]

Common sense would at the bare minimum tell even a novice that even if there was treasure buried on Oak Island ...
It was retrieved or found LONG ago.

The show is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

 

[gjb]

I'm halfway thru your book and will be posting a review shortly.

With the mention of pseudo fictional historians Diana Muir and Peter Amundson in it, most credibility is lost at the onset.

Most of it so far is nothing more of a rehash of what we have seen here and by the laginas.

Nothing in the book shows factual historical evidence of a treasure ever being placed on oak island.

Well, I wasn't expecting a truly objective review from you, anyway.

I don't recall mentioning Diana Muir, though I know what she's about, and I've never read her work, and I don't for one moment go along with what Petter Amundsen has come up with, so I'm puzzled as to where you're getting all this from!

As I expected, you're completely missing the point. The book doesn't claim to present factual historical evidence but a hypothesis that's capable of being tested. if you want to know if it's right or not then get onto the island and test it. It's that simple.

 

[gjb]

Common sense would at the bare minimum tell even a novice that even if there was treasure buried on Oak Island ...
It was retrieved or found LONG ago.

The show is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

It was very likely retrieved or found LONG ago. I'd go along with that.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Well, I wasn't expecting a truly objective review from you, anyway.

I don't recall mentioning Diana Muir, though I know what she's about, and I've never read her work, and I don't for one moment go along with what Petter Amundsen has come up with, so I'm puzzled as to where you're getting all this from!

As I expected, you're completely missing the point. The book doesn't claim to present factual historical evidence but a hypothesis that's capable of being tested. if you want to know if it's right or not then get onto the island and test it. It's that simple.

At the beginning of the book under acknowledgments you mention Amundsen. Later I’ll go back and find the reference to Muir.

At least you admit there is no factual basis for the writings in your book,

It is an accumulation of the same fiction seen here for a long time.

 

[Limitool]

gjb..."Your belief that we can know all this without recovering the treasure is absolutely ridiculous..."

Back on the merry-go-round.... !!!? Who are you trying to convince?

You know I bet you could figure out what all the squared up mud mounds I found deep in a cave behind my home are and why there there...? You probably even know why there in front and blocking tunnels behind them...? Maybe you know why after belly crawling in water for 45 minutes in very tight quarters and VERY HARD to reach with flashlights there is a squared up mud mound blocking a tunnel behind it....?

Maybe after you find the O.I. treasure and/or possible evidence of a null deposit (who cares) you can solve my unsolved mystery here on the ol' ridgetop....? I tried and failed.

 

[bigscoop]

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.

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

WHAT TREASURE, or actual evidence of such? Engineering? So now any such property with alleged questionable engineering on it is a certain sign of a hidden treasure, or the intentions of one to be buried there?........Why not just assume that every piece of property anywhere and everywhere was the intended hiding spot of a fabulous treasure......

 

[gjb]

At the beginning of the book under acknowledgments you mention Amundsen. Later I’ll go back and find the reference to Muir.

At least you admit there is no factual basis for the writings in your book,

It is an accumulation of the same fiction seen here for a long time.

Mentioning Amundsen is not equivalent to endorsing his work, and I'm not at all surprised you don't realise this.

There is a factual basis to the book which is that the ground markers on the island actually did exist and that the sources I consulted do exist. It's not fiction, it's hypothesis building and testing. It's the way people conduct inquiries, which you seem to know nothing about.

 

[gjb]

You people clearly have no understanding of the conduct of inquiry and no appreciation whatsoever of how to undertake historical research. You’re adamant that you can’t possibly be wrong about anything and you refuse outright to try to assess the past from the point of view of those who actually lived it.

You’re making a mockery of the forum, you’re not attempting to contribute to discussions, and if this is what we have to put up with then I see no point in participating any further.

 

[n2mini]

Sadly it has been that this/that for years now. Which is the reason I don't post much on here anymore. What I could never figure out is that if you don't believe any of it to be true. Apparently hate the show, think everyone who ever searched the island were in it for the money from investors then why pay so much attention to this forum?

 

[TruthbeTold]

You people clearly have no understanding of the conduct of inquiry and no appreciation whatsoever of how to undertake historical research. You’re adamant that you can’t possibly be wrong about anything and you refuse outright to try to assess the past from the point of view of those who actually lived it.

You’re making a mockery of the forum, you’re not attempting to contribute to discussions, and if this is what we have to put up with then I see no point in participating any further.

If your hypothesis and book cannot standup to questions, are they really sound?

Rather than get frustrated, put in effort to provide historical factual evidence to support your claims.

The book itself reads like a Amundsen/Muir document. Full of conjecture and “could it be’s” but no verifiable evidence.

The “ground markers” on the island have been found to be nothing but random or in the case of the Nolan stones and ones seen on the History Channel show, arranged by Nolan and the laginas.

The oak island legend has two sides, the fictional and factual.

 

[Limitool]

We asked YOU to contribute to the discussion since you say you have evidence and you have no more facts to present. If you have knowledge of "evidence" PLEASE SHARE...! Does your evidence minic what we watched during the last season...? If so.... It would be hard to twist any of it into evidence of a possible treasure or some possible deposit that didn't happen (who cares?). All I saw last season was evidence that human activity happened all over Oak Island... sooooooo! What does THAT have to do with any belief of a treasure being on that little island vs anybodies yard today? I don't know what paper you wrote, evidence you've uncovered, or something you think you know..... But you talk and talk and talk but in the end.... you say nothing except in support of the myth and/or belief.... and to what end or why...?

 

[Armchair detective]

Meanwhile......

Still think the best bet to find any treasure is where it has always been - in the Money Pit.
'Course being in the middle of a sinkhole presents extra challenges, not to mention a sinkhole has no bottom.
Unless a chest or such landed on a ledge it could be gone from mortal ken.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Meanwhile......

Still think the best bet to find any treasure is where it has always been - in the Money Pit.
'Course being in the middle of a sinkhole presents extra challenges, not to mention a sinkhole has no bottom.
Unless a chest or such landed on a ledge it could be gone from mortal ken.

Therein lies the problem. There was never a money pit, just people digging holes claiming they were digging up a money pit..