Your Thoughts on Oak Island

[RJ55]

Trolls live under bridges is what I've always been told.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Robot]

"Robotic Reading"

are the bold quotations supposed to mean something?

This is “Off” the “Topic” of "Oak Island".

“But” this is a form of “Robotic Reading” that I am “Experimenting” with.

A form of “Short Hand” for “Reading”.

I am of the “Old School” were proper “Grammar” was taught, but using “Text Language” is too foreign for me to “Accept”.

“Robotic Reading” is like when you go to “Mexico” and you have a “Toll Road” which gets you to your “Point of Destination Fast” without the distraction of “Scenery” or you can take the “Old Road” which meanders its way through “Towns” and “History” and take in all the “View”.

With my “Research”, I am constantly skimming through hundreds of pages looking for “Associated Words” pertaining to my “Theory”.

I wish at these “Times” that “Robotic Reading and Writing” had been “Invented”.

“But”

To all those who find this “Annoying” and wish it would “Please Stop”!

I got the message in “1 Second”.

“Please Stop”

 

[Dave Rishar]

I'm not sure that it was planted or not, if they wanted to plant something wouldn't they plant something more important. Then again, if they planted something huge then they would have solved the mystery and the show would be over and the producers would be done making money. If they wanted to plant a small "clue" they would probably pick something small but "important", they may not plant a gold coin because that would be more traceable, for 5 dollars you can buy one random "Genuine Spanish Pirate's Treasure Coin." Still, I'm not very sure either way, even finding one single gold coin in the swamp does not prove the treasure either way. For them to find the treasure specified they would have to find a huge cache of treasure, not one single coin. My guess is that there may have been somebody there before 1795, maybe just a ship stopped at the island for some reason unrelated to treasure before 1795. It's a chunk of land in sitting in the ocean, there's a chance that someone stopped there, how else would all these other islands get discovered before satellites.

I see what you're saying, but this is the perfect item for the job. It generates interest without proving anything, and if you buy one in lousy condition (and you'd want one in lousy condition), it would only cost you a few bucks on Ebay. Something more significant would cost more and would invite more scrutiny. You won't see too many experts fighting each other to examine a common Spanish coin found on the east coast of Canada because it's not the first one that's been found, and there's a reasonable theory behind how it got there - reasonable theories, really.

Honestly, if I wanted to troll treasure hunters in that area, I'd use something just like this. And again, I'm not saying that it was planted by the camera crew. There are ways that it could have gotten there without them planting it, just as there are ways that it could have gotten there due to someone else planting it. I'm merely giving plausible reasons for its existance besides GIANT TREASURE HORDE because we've been searching for the latter for centuries with little result.

 

[Dave Rishar]

are the bold quotations supposed to mean something?

They typically indicate quoted or spoken language, a term used in an ironic manner, or an emphasis. Using quotation marks to emphasize something is grammatically incorrect. Robot is big on grammar, so I'll leave you to your own conclusions as to what those quotation marks are for.

 

[Old Silver]

I see what you're saying, but this is the perfect item for the job. It generates interest without proving anything, and if you buy one in lousy condition (and you'd want one in lousy condition), it would only cost you a few bucks on Ebay. Something more significant would cost more and would invite more scrutiny. You won't see too many experts fighting each other to examine a common Spanish coin found on the east coast of Canada because it's not the first one that's been found, and there's a reasonable theory behind how it got there - reasonable theories, really.

Honestly, if I wanted to troll treasure hunters in that area, I'd use something just like this. And again, I'm not saying that it was planted by the camera crew. There are ways that it could have gotten there without them planting it, just as there are ways that it could have gotten there due to someone else planting it. I'm merely giving plausible reasons for its existance besides GIANT TREASURE HORDE because we've been searching for the latter for centuries with little result.

The other side has had the same amount of time to come up with the proof of YOUR reasoning. Where is that proof? After more than 200 years, neither side has any proof.

 

[bigscoop]

Spanish coins were widely circulated. They have even been found on the north shores of the great lakes.

 

[lisfisher]

Being a treasure hunter I do find the story very interesting. As far as anything actually being at the bottom of the money pit, who knows? Who am I to say. I do find the original shaft very intriguing though. Layers of old wood every so many feet, old coins found, and the ancient coin was especially interesting. What was it doing there? Seems probable that something did in fact happen there at some point. I'd like to think it's buried treasure indeed. Would love to go there with my little Lesche and start digging! { my super powerfull core sampler machine has 4 flat tires }

 

[lookindown]

Being a treasure hunter I do find the story very interesting. As far as anything actually being at the bottom of the money pit, who knows? Who am I to say. I do find the original shaft very intriguing though. Layers of old wood every so many feet, old coins found, and the ancient coin was especially interesting. What was it doing there? Seems probable that something did in fact happen there at some point. I'd like to think it's buried treasure indeed. Would love to go there with my little Lesche and start digging! { my super powerfull core sampler machine has 4 flat tires }

Yeah, the pit was dug for some reason...if not for treasure, for something...I don't think the pit with wood platforms is a lie or fabrication...everything else Im not to sure about.

 

[mtsheron]

Just watched last nights episode. Drilling is not cheap so I would hope that the shows producer would be able to start showing a weekly tally of what amount has been invested to date by the Lagina's. Curious minds want to know.

 

[Dave Rishar]

The other side has had the same amount of time to come up with the proof of YOUR reasoning. Where is that proof? After more than 200 years, neither side has any proof.

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You'll find it quite difficult by your way of thinking, as neither side has any proof.

Proving the existence of something takes quite a bit more work than proving the nonexistence of something. To prove that something exists, one has to...well...prove that it exists. A lack of proof that something exists is in itself proof that such a thing doesn't exist. This is why most of us agree that gravity exists and unicorns do not.

Surprises do turn up in cryptozoology, and they also turn up in treasure tales. I cannot state definitively that there's no treasure at Oak Island. What I do feel perfectly comfortable in saying is that given the current evidence (or lack thereof), there probably isn't any treasure there. Furthermore, I'd say that it's complete foolishness to speculate on the nature of the treasure there when no such treasure has been recovered. I'd even go on record as saying that most of the "evidence" (used in an ironic sense here) completely falls apart under even cursory scrutiny, yet so many take it as factual without checking any of it.

Is your belief in this based on faith or facts? Feel free to keep the answer to yourself, but please take care and be honest when answering it.

 

[Old Silver]

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You'll find it quite difficult by your way of thinking, as neither side has any proof.

Proving the existence of something takes quite a bit more work than proving the nonexistence of something. To prove that something exists, one has to...well...prove that it exists. A lack of proof that something exists is in itself proof that such a thing doesn't exist. This is why most of us agree that gravity exists and unicorns do not.

Surprises do turn up in cryptozoology, and they also turn up in treasure tales. I cannot state definitively that there's no treasure at Oak Island. What I do feel perfectly comfortable in saying is that given the current evidence (or lack thereof), there probably isn't any treasure there. Furthermore, I'd say that it's complete foolishness to speculate on the nature of the treasure there when no such treasure has been recovered. I'd even go on record as saying that most of the "evidence" (used in an ironic sense here) completely falls apart under even cursory scrutiny, yet so many take it as factual without checking any of it.

Is your belief in this based on faith or facts? Feel free to keep the answer to yourself, but please take care and be honest when answering it.

No one has come up with theories about unicorns. When they do, bring up the subject again.
You guys come up with your own theories, therefore, you are required to offer the same proof as anyone else.
I don't disagree with you about the unlikelihood of the supposed treasure, just on how some of you try to disprove it.
As far as taking things on faith. I don't want to say too much on that subject, but I have a different understanding about what faith is.

 

[mikeraydj]

I just wish I had all of the money that has been sunk into that project. When it is all over it may turn out that the money spent will turn out to be much more than was ever there.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

That's why they call it "The Money Pit" and not "The Money Mine".

mon·ey pit

noun, informal

• an ongoing drain on financial resources, such as a house in frequent need of costly repairs or improvement.

 

[mtsheron]

The thrill of the hunt I guess!

 

[lookindown]

Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. You'll find it quite difficult by your way of thinking, as neither side has any proof.

Proving the existence of something takes quite a bit more work than proving the nonexistence of something. To prove that something exists, one has to...well...prove that it exists. A lack of proof that something exists is in itself proof that such a thing doesn't exist. This is why most of us agree that gravity exists and unicorns do not.

Surprises do turn up in cryptozoology, and they also turn up in treasure tales. I cannot state definitively that there's no treasure at Oak Island. What I do feel perfectly comfortable in saying is that given the current evidence (or lack thereof), there probably isn't any treasure there. Furthermore, I'd say that it's complete foolishness to speculate on the nature of the treasure there when no such treasure has been recovered. I'd even go on record as saying that most of the "evidence" (used in an ironic sense here) completely falls apart under even cursory scrutiny, yet so many take it as factual without checking any of it.

Is your belief in this based on faith or facts? Feel free to keep the answer to yourself, but please take care and be honest when answering it.

Are your beliefs based on fact or fiction?...you have no proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for...if you have proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for please tell us...having no proof that something existed is no different than having no proof that it didn't...Im having fun with this...no one can be right or wrong its just opinion...there is no proof either way.

 

[Robot]

On this Forum "One" can be either a "Treasure Hunter" or a "Treasure Grunter"

Are your beliefs based on fact or fiction?...you have no proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for...if you have proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for please tell us...having no proof that something existed is no different than having no proof that it didn't...Im having fun with this...no one can be right or wrong its just opinion...there is no proof either way.

Paraphrasing - Henry Ford:

“Whether you think you can (find the solution to the Oak Island Mystery), or you think you can't—(either way) you're right.”

It is in ones own hands and mind and what you make of it!

 

[lookindown]

Paraphrasing - Henry Ford:

“Whether you think you can (find the solution to the Oak Island Mystery), or you think you can't—(either way) you're right.”

It is in ones own hands and mind and what you make of it!

Cant argue with that.

 

[mikeraydj]

I realize that to be a treasure hunter you must have faith. That something is there even though you have no proof of it's existence. The thing that keeps me swinging my detector. Some days my faith is rewarded.

 

[Robot]

Why Is “Mercury” on “Oak Island”?

Why Is “Mercury” on “Oak Island”

It was : "Reported”:

“In 1934, before he began excavating, Hedden met a young man who had been working on the island for a month with a churn drill. Baker, as he was known, had made several deep holes near the Money Pit and told Hedden he had had no luck. But he had run across one peculiar thing. Once when the drill was pulled up he noticed specks of a silvery substance mixed with the clay on the point. It was free mercury. (Mercury is almost never found in its metallic form in nature.)” Pen Leary, June 1953

"Mercury is used to purify gold from ore in a process called amalgamation. Miners and their families often inhale toxic mercury vapors through this process, and mercury can pollute homes and communities.[5] It can also contaminate the land and water where gold processing occurs."

In October 1779 the Royal Navy captured and sacked the Fortress San Fernando of Omoa, Honduras which became the Spanish’s Storage Facility for Silver shipments to Spain after Morro Castle, Cuba, was captured in 1762.

"The treasure found in the fort and on board two treasure ships was worth some two million dollars. Two hundred and fifty quintals of mercury were also found in the fort."

If Mercury was found at Fort San Fernando of Omoa would it not stand to reason that Mercury would also be at Morro Castle, Cuba?

Sir Francis Bacon (whose code name is “Mercury”) had previously done experiments embalming people and documents in “Mercury and Tar”.

His wish was to be embalmed in this manner.

Could “Borehole X” (which I believe is a “Burial Vault” containing “Sir Francis Bacon” entombed in “Mercury”) contain high quantities of "Mercury"?

 

[Dave Rishar]

No one has come up with theories about unicorns. When they do, bring up the subject again.
You guys come up with your own theories, therefore, you are required to offer the same proof as anyone else.
I don't disagree with you about the unlikelihood of the supposed treasure, just on how some of you try to disprove it.
As far as taking things on faith. I don't want to say too much on that subject, but I have a different understanding about what faith is.

They haven't? Then Bigfoot, or the Mongolian Death Worm, or any number of things. It should be noted that there are still likely people that believe in unicorns though, so don't say that no one has. I'm sure that a Google search will turn up at least one of them.

Us guys came up with our theories because of the lack of proof. I don't believe in dragons because there's little evidence to support their existance. People are free to generate all sorts of stories and theories about how dragons may exist and how they act but at the end of the day, we don't have much that's solid. However, I cannot definitively disprove their existance. One might turn up tomorrow, and then a lot of us would look like fools. Based on what we know currently, and what we are likely to learn in the future, I don't think that dragons exist. Remember that one cannot absolutely disprove anything. What if gravity goes away tomorrow? What if the sky turns red tomorrow? The burden of proof is on the person claiming the existance of something. Gravity is here today, the sky is red (well, gray) today, both have been here for as long as recorded history can document them, and we have still have not seen a dragon. To go further with this, the idea that people are discussing how dragons live and where they came from when we haven't actually seen one yet is premature at best, no? I actually think that it's a bit foolish. We should be coming up with theories to explain the evidence, and not the other way around.

Faith need not be framed in terms of religious convictions. It's also defined as "complete trust or confidence in something or someone." The absence of evidence needed to prove such a belief is merely implied, but it should not be understated. I believe that the sky is blue (err, gray) because I can look at it and see it. Were I to believe in dragons, it would be due to faith, not logic. That's why I asked the question.

Are your beliefs based on fact or fiction?...you have no proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for...if you have proof that there was never a pit dug or what it was dug for please tell us...having no proof that something existed is no different than having no proof that it didn't...Im having fun with this...no one can be right or wrong its just opinion...there is no proof either way.

Fact. No one can prove that a pit was there. Geologists can explain why something resembling a pit would be there. The rest of it is basically becomes garbage under scrutiny, meaning that it's no proof at all.

You're absolutely correct - I have no proof that a pit was never dug. Do you have proof that this pit was dug?

Read the part about dragons above regarding not having proof of existance vs. not having proof of nonexistance. No proof either way suggests nonexistance, although it does not prove it. No proof either way certainly does not suggest existance. Our proof against dragons is simply that we have no credible witnesses and there's no fossil evidence, but that's hardly conclusive proof that they don't exist...right?

Dragons may not be the best example of this though. I'm not aware of anyone that could have benefited from dragons, monetarily or otherwise. This was the case with Oak Island, particularly when significant "finds" were made. When we examine the stories commonly told and track them down to their origins, problems appear.

At the end of the day, my point is merely that the stories have so many things wrong with them that it's laughable. Give me a solid story and I'll change my tune. You'll find that I'm surprisingly open-minded when there's sufficient evidence, but sufficient evidence is what's lacking here. I'll also repeat what I've said numerous times: I really hope that there's something there, as I suspect that the history of eastern Canada is far more interesting than what we currently believe it to be. I'm only skeptical of stories until they start making sense; this one doesn't, but others do.

Paraphrasing - Henry Ford:

“Whether you think you can (find the solution to the Oak Island Mystery), or you think you can't—(either way) you're right.”

It is in ones own hands and mind and what you make of it!

Many people were absolutely convinced that there was treasure on Oak Island, that they knew where it was, and that they could get it. We know how their efforts ended. Were they right?