Why taking a fresh look at the mystery might be pertinent

[FreeBirdTim]

You talk about common sense. If you want answers to questions, common sense actually says do the research.

They've been doing research for decades, but no treasure has been found. The worst part is they don't find much of anything, period. I've found more in one typical hunt than they've found in 11 seasons of the show. Give it up, Laginas, you're wasting your time.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[gjb]

View attachment 2155209

Flogging a dead horse doesn’t mean getting it to agree with you, it means that it’s senseless in that the horse is unable to do any useful work.

However, this particular horse isn’t dead. You’ve simply decided, without full and proper investigation, that it is. If you look more closely you’ll find that it’s not. That’s the whole point of looking again at the evidence.

What’s more, you don’t need to beat this particular horse you just have to coax it and thereby draw out what’s been potentially missed.

 

[gjb]

They've been doing research for decades, but no treasure has been found. The worst part is they don't find much of anything, period. I've found more in one typical hunt than they've found in 11 seasons of the show. Give it up, Laginas, you're wasting your time.

I'd agree that they're wasting their time simply because they're not asking the right questions and are therefore not undertaking the appropriate research.

 

[releventchair]

Flogging a dead horse doesn’t mean getting it to agree with you, it means that it’s senseless in that the horse is unable to do any useful work.

However, this particular horse isn’t dead. You’ve simply decided, without full and proper investigation, that it is. If you look more closely you’ll find that it’s not. That’s the whole point of looking again at the evidence.

What’s more, you don’t need to beat this particular horse you just have to coax it and thereby draw out what’s been potentially missed.

Has the site been adequately surveyed for treasure? I believe it has. Accounts abound.
Enough that I wouldn't pay to hunt it for a valuable treasure.
Evidence (value of prior recoveries) shows it cost more than what has been spent on recovery attempts at such a lopsided ratio , that other sites are better odds of at least breaking even for the cost of a visit alone..
Not that any site guarantees anything until it does.

It will cost you or I to hunt it. And who gets what of a recovery?
So the appeal slackens even more.
you really want to watch an extension of what trends there? Why?
As a history it's pretty lame. Off shore offers more functional matters of interest and still offers multinational intrigue. Without having to make it up.

 

[gjb]

Has the site been adequately surveyed for treasure? I believe it has. Accounts abound.
Enough that I wouldn't pay to hunt it for a valuable treasure...

As a history it's pretty lame. Off shore offers more functional matters of interest and still offers multinational intrigue. Without having to make it up.

I happen to feel that the site hasn’t been adequately surveyed, with ‘survey’ being the operative word. I actually would pay for an opportunity to conduct a survey of the east of the island over an area some 600 feet (with the Money Pit at centre) by 500 feet (with the Money Pit at due west, that is, eastwards to Smith’s Cove).

Over the past 40 years, I’ve tried several times to get permission to do this, but have been repeatedly refused or ignored. I say this without rancour (after all, the owners are conducting a treasure hunt), though I’m surprised that they’d sooner not have the data than risk a claim on any treasure that might be found (which was Dan Blankenship’s reason for rejecting approaches from outside).

I’m particularly intrigued by the ground markers (notably, the triangles and the drilled rocks) within this area as I feel that insufficient attention has been paid to them. I wouldn’t be digging, simply collecting data as potential evidence while testing a hypothesis.

I consider it possible that something highly significant may have been missed by people jumping to the wrong conclusions and failing to assess the sources and the evidence objectively.

This is why I stress that, as the Laginas seem to be getting nowhere, it may well be worthwhile going back and looking through the history of the search truly critically - but this time without prejudice.

While the history that the Laginas are presenting is even worse than lame, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that everything reported about Oak Island has necessarily been made up or is unworthy of attention

 

[releventchair]

I happen to feel that the site hasn’t been adequately surveyed, with ‘survey’ being the operative word. I actually would pay for an opportunity to conduct a survey of the east of the island over an area some 600 feet (with the Money Pit at centre) by 500 feet (with the Money Pit at due west, that is, eastwards to Smith’s Cove).

Over the past 40 years, I’ve tried several times to get permission to do this, but have been repeatedly refused or ignored. I say this without rancour (after all, the owners are conducting a treasure hunt), though I’m surprised that they’d sooner not have the data than risk a claim on any treasure that might be found (which was Dan Blankenship’s reason for rejecting approaches from outside).

I’m particularly intrigued by the ground markers (notably, the triangles and the drilled rocks) within this area as I feel that insufficient attention has been paid to them. I wouldn’t be digging, simply collecting data as potential evidence while testing a hypothesis.

I consider it possible that something highly significant may have been missed by people jumping to the wrong conclusions and failing to assess the sources and the evidence objectively.

This is why I stress that, as the Laginas seem to be getting nowhere, it may well be worthwhile going back and looking through the history of the search truly critically - but this time without prejudice.

While the history that the Laginas are presenting is even worse than lame, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that everything reported about Oak Island has necessarily been made up or is unworthy of attention

i'll leave you to your thoughts.
Though risking a claim on any treasure that might be found (per Dan) would be simple enough by guests signing an agreement not to.
Why couldn't someone file a claim against what he found if he found a treasure then ? Heck , hand him a shovel then!