Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 12 Dec 2017 4:29 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 11 May 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline
Adept

Joined: 06 Nov 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 79
Location: UK
Brian (jb1717) wrote:

Quote:
Geoff, I find your website alright. It gets a little overly mathy (a new word I just made)


What else would you expect - I recall that you referred to me as 'math boy' in an earlier discussion of Nolan's Cross! In fact, when I attempted to publish my work several years ago your observation was the major criticism - the more technical a book is the less likely it is to sell. It was suggested that I write an 'idiot's guide' without providing the supporting proof that what I was saying about the geometry is correct. I have to say that after writing and rewriting three books on buried treasure, Kidd, the Kidd maps and Oak Island I couldn't face yet another.

One point I've been trying to get across to Oak Island 'experts' for a long time, without success, is that we should not evaluate the thinking of the originator of the OI enterprise from the point of view of the 21st century. At any time between the 15th and 18th centuries an engineer capable of surveying the line between the Money Pit and Smith's Cove and excavating a tunnel between these points would have had an education steeped in geometry - and would certainly have needed geometry in order to navigate to the island. The individual responsible would have been well-versed in mining, surveying or military engineering, all of which demand geometry. Just look at the books on these subjects from Chaucer's A Treatise on the Astrolabe and Agricola's De Re Metallica to Love's Geodaesia. They all reflect, if not being founded upon, geometry.

You would no doubt say that these works are 'overly mathy' but the elite of those times would argue that a thorough understanding of geometry was as much an essential part of a child's education as were Latin and Greek. Furthermore, from the Medieval to the Enlightenment geometry was firmly associated with the esoteric. That is to say that at whatever period, and whatever nationality, the originator of the Oak Island enterprise, being an educated individual, would have had a thorough understanding of geometry with a strong leaning towards mystery - sacred geometry. I strongly suggest that he would not have found my work 'overly mathy'. My argument is that the work would probably be consistent with 18th century themes and may even have been appreciated by the educated elite of the time because it attempts to match the mood and the intellectual propensities of that period.

You and many others clearly don't like math, and geometry in particular, but the originator may well have been immersed in it. Furthermore, many Oak Island researchers dislike any focus on the esoteric but the originator of the enterprise is likely to have found such thinking extremely odd. One member of Jo's forum referred to my work as 'wacky geometry' but I venture to suggest that the originator would have found it far from wacky. However, this is the mood that affects Jo's forum and seems now to be affecting you, which I find surprising in anyone who, like me, is suggesting an esoteric background to the OI enterprise with geometrical overtones. You and I are doing much the same thing but you focus more on the esoteric and I focus more on the geometry.

I feel that too many Oak Island aficionados are failing to look at the Oak Island enterprise from a Renaissance or Enlightenment point of view, for example, as a 17th century operation to take a mid-point. I venture to suggest, for example, that any British or French military engineer of the mid-18th century would not only have been highly versed in classical geometry and its mysteries but is also likely to have been a Freemason.

Furthermore, this individual would not have been surprised at anyone digging a hole and burying valuables within, particularly loot. Francis Drake found reason to bury treasure in order to make good his escape and Samuel Pepys arranged for for his own personal treasure to be buried in the face of a potential attack on London. Pepys suffered agonies as a consequence of his treasure having been buried too close to prying eyes, the absence of a map to indicate precisely where it was located and the lack of a well-defined chamber in which to deposit it. Consequently, when the scare was over, he failed to recover it all.

I've spent some thirty years tracking down the story behind the so-called Kidd maps and there is much that people don't know, simply because the details have never been made puiblic. However, this does not prevent the pontification of 'experts'. I'm considered iditoic for even thinking that the instructions on these maps might be genuine, even if the maps themselves (the pieces of paper, or parchment) are not. I feel they may simply be copies of copies that have become associated with locations other than their origins - Oak Island. I believe there may originally have been seven sets of instructions (and seven maps) to be interpreted in a consistent manner that seem to relate to the ground markers on Oak Island - the Drilled Rocks, the Welling and Mallon Triangles, The Money Pit, the ancient roadway, Nolan's Cross if authentic etc. They seem to indicate points on a geometric design of esoteric potential (a rhombus seen in RLC research) and focus on one particular spot, which is not the Money Pit.

My feeling is that geometry is fundamental to understanding the ground markers found on Oak Island and that they are present simply because the locators (the cryptic instructions on the maps) require the specification of precise points on an overall geometry, or survey, of the island. However, because people have decided that treasure maps are a joke, that math is complicated, geometry is too wacky, and that there is no way the Money Pit could be a blind, a geometrical solution to the mystery is ruled out - and anyone who believes the Money Pit is not the focus of the mystery inevitably ends up posting on this forum rather than Jo's.

So, we must bow to the Big Dig and to the Big Hole. After all, it's the Money Pit that draws people to Oak Island and keeps the mystery alive, not dumb fringe notions that the treasure may be somewhere else. However, given the mess that's been made of the Money Pit and its surroundings it may fervently be hoped that whatever might be buried on Oak Island does, in fact, lie elsewhere - perhaps protected by a flood tunnel - but without a highly conspicuous and altogether dangerous sign proclaiming 'Dig Here!' And if there truly be a treasure concealed at some inconspicuous point on the island it might be hoped that the depositor left specific instructions, and associated ground markers, to indicate precisely where it is. Unfortunately, nobody in the past has valued what ground markers there are, to the extent of removing and destroying them, simply because they were so remote from the Money Pit - and ground markers were certainly not needed to find that most obvious of spots on the island.

So, no disguise, no concealment, an invitation to dig, in fact, a perfectly fine and sensible way to bury a vast treasure, as I'm sure people from the 15th to 18th centuries would agree. Not! Surely, this must rate as the dumbest of concealments, but its proponents argue that it is even dumber to think of employing geometry, ground markers and maps to conceal and re-locate a buried treasure. I trust that the reader will find a way to forgive me for being so outrageously stupid even to think it possible.


Last edited by gb on 11 May 2009 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 May 2009 9:23 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Well yeah, geometry is involved in the OI mystery. The OI Cross testifies to that. Your particular geometry just doesn't strike me as a plausible basis. If it were pentagonal or hexagonal, maybe. But the stuff you showed doesn't have any esoteric history that I know of. Why would they choose to use that? There's just nothing that says to me "eureka, it makes perfect sense now". It says more like "naw, I'm not buying it". Just me. That's my impression when I view the website. Can't give a list of exactly why. I just didn't get anything out of it, myself. Besides, I solved the OI Cross myself with extreme precision (less than an inch in all dimensions), so I can't really get behind your less accurate version.

You also have to bear in mind that some of the markers on the island may not be related to the mystery but something done later by the people who surveyed it when a logging company was getting ready to set up business there. See Enforen's stuff for information about that. I suspect that's who made the old road also. Doubtful the treasure hiders would put something as obvious as a road there and then leave it for people to find.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 May 2009 10:35 pm 
Offline
Adept

Joined: 06 Nov 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 79
Location: UK
Any geometrical reconstruction that incorporates Nolan's Cross is likely to have some esoteric bearing. Unfortunately, we've been starved of information concerning the Cross, assuming it's genuine and original, of course. What archaeology there may have been on Oak Island has often been destroyed in the haste to find treasure. Without any reliable dates upon which to base an assessment it would seem premature to suggest there could be a real 'Eureka!' moment, because we simply don't know the 'when' of the OI enterprise. If it's 16th century then it's unlikely to be Rosicrucian, and if it's the 18th century it's more likely to be Masonic. In any event, both these 'belief systems', or modes of thinking and representation, borrow from Medieval sacred geometry, with Renaissance add-ons, so they could all be said to have a common core.

I've not been prepared to commit because I've too little information to identify a century let alone an organisation. I believe there could well be an esoteric side to the enterprise but this may just have been a whim of the originator - not the fundamental 'why' of the operation. I could bury my cat in my garden and place an all-seeing eye over the grave but this would not make the operation Masonic, merely a reflection of my particular leanings. Similarly, a Rosicrucian military engineer could bury a treasure for his government, his employer or himself and use a Cabalistic motif that had nothing to do with the treasure or the reason for its burial.

I just feel there's a very real problem about knowing all the answers before knowing all the facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 12:24 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 309
Location: England
Ettinger wrote:

Quote:
But the stuff you showed doesn't have any esoteric history that I know of. Why would they choose to use that?


And what esoteric history does the 'Grail Star' have?

Why would they choose to use that?

_________________
"We've got lumps of it round the back"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 1:28 am 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
The esoteric history of being a formation of islands right on the East coast of Nova Scotia, which you would have to pass on the way to the islands owned by the Portuguese family mentioned by Enforen. I don't recall the names at the moment, but it's in this Oak Island forum section posted by him.

It is also a geometry which was clearly designed into a print contained in the 1618 Rosicrucian publication Mirror of the Wisdom of the Rosicrucians, and the Poussin paintings. Of course, you'd have to be highly intelligent to recognize that fact. Do you recognize it, Lodge?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 7:14 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
Could you two rattle your sabers a bit quieter please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 11:41 am 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Lodge isn't even interested in Oak Island. He only came here to stir up trouble because he's jealous of my solving the painting he wishes he could have solved.

In regard to Geoff's site http://www.btinternet.com/~keypress/Oak ... /OI300.htm , I don't think the Kidd map relates to Oak Island. It looks too different, has coral reefs marked (no coral in Nova Scotia) different lat-long coordinates and is labeled China Sea. It's a very long stretch to try to make that Oak Island. The unit of measure used on the island is also clearly feet, not links. The Cross proves that and so does the lower vault depth of 153 feet, being based on the Vesica Pisces ratio of 153:265.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 11:11 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 309
Location: England
Ettinger:

Quote:
Lodge isn't even interested in Oak Island. He only came here to stir up trouble because he's jealous of my solving the painting he wishes he could have solved.


No but I am interested in the possibility of geometry in a certain painting. Geoff's worked on it, you've worked on it and so have I. You accused Geoff's geometry of not having 'esoteric history', but neither has yours (not that that alone should imply either is impossible). Saying you've found the same geometry in a 1618 print and the Poussin paintings is not demonstrating that the Grail star has history.

So to repeat, what is the evidence in history for the Grail Star? Who else has found it?

If you say that the fact you've discovered it means it has history, then Geoff can say the same about his geometric solution!

_________________
"We've got lumps of it round the back"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 May 2009 11:49 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
The Grail Star is the most secret geometry in the history of secret societies. Nobody found it before I did, cuz I'm the Chosen One and they weren't. That's how the CO is identified, by the Grail Star being revealed unto him. Haywood is like a bug compared to me. I am the Most Excellent and Exalted Worshipful Master of all Grail related secret societies, numnuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 12:14 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 309
Location: England
Quote:
I am the Most Excellent and Exalted Worshipful Master of all Grail related secret societies, numnuts.


Only as high as numnuts - well that explains it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 3:44 am 
Offline
Adept

Joined: 06 Nov 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 79
Location: UK
Brian

Perhaps one of the best things I can say about Jo Atherton's Oak Island forum is that it had the good sense to see that your sole intention in joining forums is to undermine them, to prevent free and open discussion, to be abusive, disruptive and to drive people away.

In reality, this Oak Island forum ought to be closed because you've clearly no intention of making it work, and if it can't work it's redundant. I'd suggest to you that you might cease posting here but, of course, you couldn't achieve your objective of subverting the forum without participating in it.

I notice you won't debate, you don't think rationally, you can't be sociable and you despise research conducted from primary sources. You obviously live a charmed life because if I behaved as you do I'm sure I'd be thrown off the forum.

I reckon Andy ought to declare that your behaviour is the level that this forum aspires to so we all know to what depths we must descend in order to match his expectations. We'll also then know that the forum will only ever attract hard-asses who are prepared to stick around to trade insults with you and that you'll continue to ensure that every thread not only gets nowhere but also has its share of mud-slinging, argument and abuse. It would also be reassuring to have confirmation from Andy that the Moderator will permit any and all posters to be as thoroughly objectionable and destructive as you are.

That's just so we know where we stand and so I know how low and depraved I have to become in order to make the grade here - because we don't like pussy-cats, do we? We should be out on the streets kicking ass, burning books, stringing up anyone who disagrees with us, anyone we don't like, because we're right, because they're weak and they deserve all the shit we're gonna give them. We'll shout 'em down just so they can't be heard, we'll tell 'em what they're gonna believe if they know what's good for them, and if we can't get out onto the streets to kick ass we'll do it here, on the forum because, hell, it's so much safer that way, and because we're top dogs, we're Rotweilers, we're Pitbulls and we eat pussy-cats.

This content has been removed by the Moderator, who judged it to have broken the House Rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 7:30 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
Dear people other than jb1717,

If you keep throwing Brian his deflated ball back, then obviously he will keep on playing the game.

Take some advice and post some intelligent discussions of your own..if you don't like Brian's theory then just ignore him.

If you've noticed we have a Moderator now...and personally I believe that jb & the rest of us are more careful about how we word our postings......

So be good people and start a new thread .... post something other than tit-for-tat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 12:09 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Wow, now I see what the word "overreact" must mean. Geoff Bath appears to have just a bit of a persecution complex going on there. That was what he interpreted from me politely stating that I didn't find his theory convincing. I'd hate to think what he would interpret "I don't like your tie" as meaning.

Geoff Bath has seen right through my scheme. By not agreeing that his website presents what I consider to be a plausible explanation for the Oak Island Cross, I am deviously undermining this entire forum because, of course, no Oak Island forum can exist without acknowledging Geoff Bath as the solver of the Oak Island mystery. If only Bath were able to somehow derail my little scheme to subvert all Oak Island forums, like maybe presenting a theory that I couldn't easily dismiss. I guess that means all Oak Island forums are doomed.

BTW, the term "numnuts" is a term of endearment, not an insult. It means that a person is so intelligent that he has a "num"ber of brain cells approaching the number of "nuts" on Jo Atherton's forum. In other words, plenty. I also don't think Lodge needs Bath's help in replying to my posts to him. He's a doctor you know. He can write his own prescriptions too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 2:29 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 75
Members are reminded not to engage in personal attacks.

Many thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 3:32 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 309
Location: England
Sheila wrote:

Quote:
Could you two rattle your sabers a bit quieter please.


Quote:
Take some advice and post some intelligent discussions of your own


Quote:
if you don't like Brian's theory then just ignore him


Quote:
So be good people and start a new thread


Quote:
post something other than tit-for-tat.


This for politely asking one question (that btw has not been answered) - that is not sabre-rattling!

Nowhere have I personally insulted anyone - unless questioning Brian's research constitutes breaking the House Rules. And I will not 'start' a new thread because you order it! The question I asked (and the point I was trying to make) was on topic!

I did not engage in tit-for-tat, I asked a question and got insulted a couple of times (which btw with Brian is par for the course - at times he's goes too far - though I have to admit that the 'numnuts' jibe was funny).

It's not that I don't like Brian's theory, I just think its wrong. He thinks my theory is wrong - I have no trouble with that. And there's me thinking the purpose of this forum was to debate theories of mutual interest. Just because I think his theory wrong does not mean I have to ignore it! I have a right to challenge it - don't I? . . . Just like I have a right to defend someone else's work - even if it conflicts with my own! Which was also what I was doing!

For your information I have posted many topics for discussion over the last couple of years. At no time was it stipulated that I had to ask for your permission!

_________________
"We've got lumps of it round the back"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 4:05 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
Adrian, please use your brain..my comment wasn't directed at you...it was posted specifically to stop the green ink coming out...okay.?......so stop being so grumpy.

It's more than my life's worth to tell jb1717 that his theory is rubbish...he'd never speak to me again if he found out...isn't that right jb!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 309
Location: England
Quote:
Adrian, please use your brain..my comment wasn't directed at you...it was posted specifically to stop the green ink coming out...okay.?......so stop being so grumpy.


It was not one comment, and doesn't the statement 'dear people other than jb1717' include me?

And I'm not being grumpy, I'm just standing up for the right to speak one's mind.

Isn't your fear of the green ink a reflection of the society we live in - fear of something encourages silence or a modification of behaviour to not 'rock the boat'?

_________________
"We've got lumps of it round the back"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
No...not at all...it's just very annoying when a thread gets locked due to name calling.... it's nice to see the Oak Island section back up & running even if only on 3 cylinders.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline
Adept

Joined: 06 Nov 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 79
Location: UK
Quote:
Wow, now I see what the word "overreact" must mean. Geoff Bath appears to have just a bit of a persecution complex going on there. That was what he interpreted from me politely stating that I didn't find his theory convincing. I'd hate to think what he would interpret "I don't like your tie" as meaning.



I was objecting to your response to Adrian's entry into the discussion, not to my post - as you well know, so kindly don't feign innocence. Unfortunately, the Moderator removed that part of my post that made the point I wanted to make in what I'd hoped was a humourous fashion by hamming the way that you tend to act and by saying what you tend to say. I was expecting to be expelled from the forum for doing precisely what I've seen you doing so many times over the years that I'm growing weary of it. I assume that this is why you do what you do. You thrive on reactions such as Adrian's because you've got a reduced mentality that gets pleasure out of winding people up. Frankly, it isn't clever.

I was reacting to the nature of virtually every single post you've made in all the foums in which I've seen you operating. I can only assume that you intend to wreck this thread just as I've seen you attempt to wreck all threads that fail to acknowledge that you are the only poster here with any valid views to express and that once you've uttered a word we must not only all bow down and worship it but must also suffer your telling us how wonderful and clever you are ad nauseam.

Quote:
So be good people and start a new thread


What's the point of starting a new thread when Brian will respond in his usual fashion to wreck it with the specific intent of getting off by upsetting somebody. Surely, upsetting people is not an objective of this forum and anyone who, like Brian, sets out to do so by tactics tantamount to bullying doesn't belong in an environment that seeks to promote reasoned debate.You're all closing your eyes to the one thing that inhibits discussion on this forum. I have a passion for RLC and OI but I'm positively reticent to post here simply because I know what's going to happen, and I'm not alone in this.

What pleasure can there be in participating in something you normally enjoy when everyone present just stands round and permits someone to wreck it. Brian's behaviour would not be welcomed in a debating society and it shouldn't be welcomed here. After all, we all know that Brian doesn't have to behave as he does, he chooses to do so because he gets a perverse pleasure out of acting anti-socially and is seeking to extend the boundaries of tolerance. That's the mentality of a six-year old but, unlike a six-year old, Brian isn't going to stop simply by ignoring or diverting him and the class will continue to be disrupted and, subsequently, make no progress whatsoever. Bullying becomes the order of the day, misery follows and people then vote with their feet.

I would love to get this thread working and debating but what's the point, Brian will continue to disrupt it and everyone will just stand round and permit this to happen time and time again. If you're not prepared to promote debate by removing obstacles to free and open discussion then why have a forum? Brian does not have to act as he does and would not do so were the threat of expulsion hovering over his head. Brian needs this group far more than this group needs behaviour like Brian's, and Brian certainly has a great deal to contribute.

It doesn't particularly matter to me that Brian's intention is to drive people like Adrian and myself from this forum by his feigned anti-social behaviour, while everyone looks on, but perhaps it should matter to the forum. The forum needs participants more than it needs onlookers and it won't draw the more sensitive participant with a delinquent bully running amok.

I, too, would like very much to see an active Oak Island forum flourishing here, promoting the mystery, exploring new ideas, drawing new participants, but this is not going to happen simply because Brian is intent on making sure it doesn't, and the inactivity of others will ensure that he succeeds.

So, Brian can have his way and the rest of you can have the peace and quiet that you crave. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is finished - apart from Brian's mandatory last word, that is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 9:09 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Thanks for dropping by. Don't be a stranger. Oh there I go again with the attacks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 9:13 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Sheila wrote:
Adrian, please use your brain..my comment wasn't directed at you...it was posted specifically to stop the green ink coming out...okay.?......so stop being so grumpy.

It's more than my life's worth to tell jb1717 that his theory is rubbish...he'd never speak to me again if he found out...isn't that right jb!


You're entitled to your opinion. Why would I not speak to you again? What am I, 12 years old? Comprehending the Grail Star is not easy. I don't hold that against anyone. It's not you, it's me. I gave the world more than they could chew, and it gave them a tummy ache.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 9:24 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
Oi! don't spoil a possibly good thread by throwing a hissy fit.

How can people have a conversation on the subject if you hi-jack everything.

This thread is just in it's infancy and you're busy throwing your toys out of the pram.....Grow up and let the others talk for once.

You're cool jb, just go with the flow..shut up for a bit....you might learn something!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 10:25 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
Take a look at the first post in this thread, Sheila. Who was it addressed to? My memory fails me so please humor me.

Incidentally, since Atherton's forum was mentioned by gb, I thought I'd take a look at it and see what was going on. Enforen turned up there in April and guess what the thread was like. Nothing interesting brought up in the first few posts, then it quickly turned into a discussion about vodka (Ben would have liked it). Then after a bunch of silly vodka posts, somebody suggested getting back onto the subject of Oak Island. Atherton declined to redirect the thread to that subject, saying that people like to banter and far be it from her to make the forum a dictatorship (as long as I'm not there). Then a guy calling himself the very apt nick of Badinfluence proceeded to attack the person who had the temerity to complain about the vodka talk. Atherton stood idley by while the attack progressed for several posts until the poor fellow actually knuckled under and said he was sorry, as if he actually had a reason to be. Then there was a little talk about a foundation stone on the island. A picture was shown of a black rectangular stone with no markings or anything. Fascinating. I decided I had wasted enough of my life there and stopped reading.


Last edited by jb1717 on 14 May 2009 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11284
Location: France
okay sorry, I'll go away...it's just I was hoping for a sensible thread to read before all the name calling started.

As you were.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 13 May 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2006 3:58 am
Posts: 2935
The only name I called was numnuts. You tell me how that's a bad thing. It's a sign of great respect to doctors. Turn your head and cough. That's where it comes from.

As a small aside, while doing a search on the term Oak Island forum, when I looked for Atherton's forum, I happened upon a blog by a certain Keith Ranville. Some long time forum members here may recall how he turned up and wreaked havoc because nobody would believe his Birch Island treasure theory. Eventually he got banned and went away. Anyway, he has blog posts from as recent as this month and, sure enough, he's still obsessed with Birch Island. I almost feel sorry for the guy, if only he weren't so offensive. See for yourself how stuck in a rut he is, if you have a lot of spare time on your hands http://oakislandtreasurenewsarchives.blogspot.com/

I admit to still believing in my own theory after many years, but I don't actually raise the topic very often. I'm certainly not obsessed with it. It was fun while I was still working on it, but it's been completed for some time now. Not much else to do with something after it's completed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group