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 12:11 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Prove Anything
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2007 1:45 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
Everything I've seen and read so far has been circumstantial evidence. Lost stones, somebody who knew somebody’s uncle who once heard two guys talking a bar…that kind of stuff. There was a pulley, there wasn’t a pulley. Show me some real evidence not this “Could it be that…?” junk that all the conspiracy theories spout.

I’d love for some treasure to be found as much as the next guy, but I don’t think there is anything there. I’d love for the stories about the planks and items that were found in the pit to be true, but there is no evidence of that other than verbal.

That being said, I’d love to be Proved wrong. If anyone has any actual physical proof of any of the Oak Island stories, I say present that proof here in this thread.

Eyechart out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: circumstantial evidence
PostPosted: 03 Apr 2007 2:23 pm 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 24 Jan 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Near Oak Island
eyechart,

Quote:
Everything I've seen and read so far has been circumstantial evidence.


Welcome to this forum.

Well, it all depends on what you are willing to accept as "evidence." Some of the findings of Oak Island have been preserved while other items have been lost. For example, the piece of parchment found at 154 feet in 1897 is still available to see, but the inscribed stone found in 1803 is missing.

There is documentation (Letters/diaries) from first person eye witnesses to prove that the inscribed stone existed and corroborating notes from other historical figures who were professionals of their time (like Judge DesBrisay) who agree with other important historical OI facts.

The thing to remember about the OI story is that there is indeed real names of real people and we have many photographs of these people. Some are buried here and their genealogy is intact. There is no question that Donald Daniel McInnis existed and lived on Oak Island, it is a matter of historical record.

History is an odd study. You will find inconsistencies, embellishment and skewed facts in any historical record and as Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "what is history but a lie agreed upon."

You want proof? Then I suggest you read at least one well researched book about Oak Island and I do not hesitate to recommend The Secret Treasure of Oak Island by author D’Arcy O’Connor. Of course, the last chapter on Oak Island has yet to be written, but his book will give you up to date, exhaustively written account of a story that is not only real, but verifiable.

After that, if you want to debate Oak Island, ask questions or offer ideas, don’t hesitate to go to www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk , join the forum, and talk to researchers, authors, experts and many others who know this story inside and out.

I’ll advise you in advance, it is a very friendly site, very welcoming, but we do not tolerate name calling, insults and otherwise bad behaviour like you see here from luminaries such as JB1717 and Keith (aka crusader, oakster, etc. etc.)

Is there a treasure under Oak Island? I don't know, but I a willing to accept that there is a good reason to believe someone dug far beneath OI's scarred surface long before this area was populated with Europeans. Why would someone go through all this trouble is the question asked by man since 1795. Fortunes have been lost, minds have gone astray and six men have died to try and answer this question and as we speak, new men are lined up with fists full of dollars to try again.

_________________
http://chesterbound.com/Oak%20Island/ex ... Island.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: tank
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2007 1:02 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Tank you have not proven eye chart wrong, this is crusader you kook


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2007 1:10 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Laimest OI book here: www.theoakislandnocode.com there is no code' it a bad get away


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 10:49 am 
Offline
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Three Islands West of Birch Island
At Eye-chart's request, the evidence of Keith being Crusader, as well as Web-ster (and a host of other names on other forums), has been moved to here. I'll pay for any mileage costs that you may incur in your travel there.

TemplarScribe

_________________
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-- W. B. Yeats


Last edited by TemplarScribe on 05 Apr 2007 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Eyechart
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 11:35 am 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 24 Jan 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Near Oak Island
TemplarScribe,

And here I though we may have been able to get on with a legitimate position as posed by the poster eyechart, but Keith has stolen the day, once again. I wanted to get a good dialogue going with this new poster, but I fear he/she may also be an agent provocateur.

There is no doubt that "Crusader" is in fact Keith as there is not another person on the WWW (other than JB) who will stoop this low to get a shot at me. Problem is, neither one of them has the intestinal fortitude to approach me man to man to make their insults to my face. Like the terrorists that have cast a pall over the world, they hide behind the skirts and aprons of, in this case, the internet to launch their juvenile, caustic and often very personal attacks.

As for Keith, there is not a legitimate Oak Island afficionado who takes his theory with anything more than a chuckle and a large grain of salt. He is not the first one to come forth with a ridiculous theory to challenge Oak Island, but he is definitely the worse, bar none.

It is possibly, maybe even likely that Keith and his ghost writer (s) are behind the "Birch Island Tube Fiasco" as it certainly has all the hallmarks of another Keith like fraud. But in the end, whatever brings people to discover Oak Island's rich history for the first time then so be it. When they realize they have been duped, then the onus will not be on people like you and I to prove our position.

_________________
http://chesterbound.com/Oak%20Island/ex ... Island.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 12:59 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
Thanks for bringing the Flame War to my thread...No Credit

Still not one shred of verifyable factual evidence to back up the possibility that there is anything of value burried at Oak Island.

Someone's inked in interpretation of a stain on a rock: No credit...Looks like a space shim crashing to me.

Some parachute looking pattern of dots overlayed on an photo: No Credit I could overlay that pattern half a million places around the world and make it look like was relevent.

Please give me something I can believe in because this could be the most valuable archeological site in the world...if there is some proof.

Eyechart out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: haha
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 3:37 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Eye Chart

Real evidence will have to be discovered. I think Oak Island is lossing it's credibilty for anyone to be taken serious. Drama and research dont mix?
there to many crazy people running around.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Flame war
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 3:42 pm 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 24 Jan 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 181
Location: Near Oak Island
eyechart,

Well, I'm not sure who you are directing this "flame war" comment to, but I did try to give you an honest and informed answer.

To reiterate, there is no absolute proof that there is a treasure buried under Oak Island although Dan Blankenship would take exception to my comment, but in reality, there isn't.

There are verifiable accounts and hard evidence of brass having been brought up from deep underground, pollen, bits of chain, the aforementioned piece of parchment, Spanish shoes, Spanish style scissors, some coins have been found (2), pieces of an anchor, rolled up tobacco leaf, lots of wood some carbon dated, a key, an inscribed stone, coconut fibre, and much more.


Forget the "parachute looking pattern of dots overlayed on an photo" and certainly the wild rambling of "inked in interpretation of a stain on a rock" because they have very little credibility, in fact, none. There is not a serious Oak Island researcher who is willing to accept either theory has any validity.

Like I suggested earlier, get a good OI book and read the facts. I have already given you a good book to consider that is very well researched.

My intuition tells me there is something fishy going on, but I'm going to take this at face value, or prima facia.

_________________
http://chesterbound.com/Oak%20Island/ex ... Island.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 3:50 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
tanky templarscribe

Are nut's I do not know who they are ramling on about, this native guy keith must have you guy's them chasing there tail.

Stay on topic tweedle dee and tweedle dumb or get lost' and take your imaginary crazy issues eles where. I know for sure you guy's are off your rockers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 6:39 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
crusader wrote:
tanky templarscribe

Are nut's I do not know who they are ramling on about, this native guy keith must have you guy's them chasing there tail.

Stay on topic tweedle dee and tweedle dumb or get lost' and take your imaginary crazy issues eles where. I know for sure you guy's are off your rockers.



Nice trolling...

So I agree with everyone here that this story of a submerged tube is fake.


Eyechart out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 6:56 pm 
Offline
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Three Islands West of Birch Island
eyechart wrote:
Thanks for bringing the Flame War to my thread...No Credit

You're absolutely right, EC. My mistake. I've moved the "Keith is the Walrus" post to here.

Now, back to your original post. Eyecharts have been particularly challenging for me of late, but I'll give yours a go. (:^D)

Quote:
Still not one shred of verifyable factual evidence to back up the possibility that there is anything of value burried at Oak Island.

While many would state that there is evidence of a treasure, I will only go so far as agreeing that there is undeniable evidence that someone went to a great deal of effort to excavate beneath Oak Island. Whether that was because of a treasure or not is still, IMHO, unproven. But if i had to bet the mortgage, I'd bet that there was something of tremendous value still to be discovered beneath Oak Island's mangled surface.

What physical relics of that effort that have been recovered are tantalizingly few in number. Here are just a few of the actual, physical items that have been recovered (feel free to correct me, Tank if I misquote -- I'm going pretty much by memory here):

-- A pair of hand-wrought, New World scissors that, according to an investigation by the Smithsonian, would have been the type made by Spanish explorers in the 1600-1700 time frame. These may have been found beneath a rock in Smith's Cove on the north side of the island, but that's been disputed by some.

-- From Borehole 10X, a hundred yards from the Money Pit, many bits of concrete and metal, brass, and even some pieces of iron that because of its low carbon content, had to come from a period prior to 1750. Pictures of these (and the Spanish scissors, and some of the items following) are the personal property of Bill Milstead, and can be viewed and downloaded for a nominal $5.00 fee, so I'll choose not to repost them here. But you can see about donating to his site here.

-- Non-native coconut husk fiber, used to line a series of drains that connect the Money Pit below the 90 foot level where the Inscribed Stone was found. These drains, by the way, originate at Smith's Cove behind a "false beach" made of a set of five connected finger-like drains protected from silting up with layers of eelgrass and collected beach stones. These five smaller drains feed into the main channel, which slopes down over a five hundred foot length before reaching the Pit. this is one fascinating bit of engineering, and evidence in and of itself that someone went to extraordinary lengths to protect whatever was buried there.

-- Recovered from the Money Pit area, along with bits of iron, brass and concrete (some pictured here) was a set of fine 17th century china (Bill's site has a picture). This most likely would have only come from a Spanish treasure ship that would have picked up the china in the Panama region, for transport back to Europe. A strong indicator of Spanish involvement, or at least, of something involving a Spanish treasure ship that reached Oak Island intact.

-- Sections of wooden timbers used possibly as a wharf, in the water of Smith's Cove area NE of the eastern tip of the island. What's really interesting is that they appear to have Roman numerals carved into them, perhaps to help in their construction (after having been built on shore, or elsewhere?).

-- There are two more-or-less fabled items that have been recovered. One is a snippet of parchment, brought up by a hand augur from the mid-1800s, that appears to contain written letters. Pictured at Bill's site.

-- The second is a section of what could be gold links from a watch-chain, or (as one researcher suggested) a part of an epaulet from a uniform or costume. This led one researcher to suggest it came from a set of gold chainmail, worn by an Egyptian priest, who was buried by his Coptic Christian followers (this remains my all-time favorite for least likely but most creative theory behind the Money Pit). Pictures of the chain were available at previous explore Oak Island day events in '05 and '06. Some of the actual items, like recovered metal and concrete, were also available for view.

Quote:
Someone's inked in interpretation of a stain on a rock: No credit...Looks like a space shim crashing to me.

Agreed. That's one of Keith's interpretations that no one else believes is valid.

Still, there was a flat stone with drilled holes positioned flush with the earth that was discovered on a straight line due north of the Money Pit, as well as a series of very large boulders with drilled holes positioned in a suspicious alignment. You can read more about the survey of those features here.

Quote:
Some parachute looking pattern of dots overlayed on an photo: No Credit I could overlay that pattern half a million places around the world and make it look like was relevent.

Agreed. Keep in mind, those images are from Keith's imagination, and they actually show Birch Island, over a mile and a half distance by water from Oak Island. A complete red herring, IMHO.

But the original triangle of stones also were positioned in a straight line (this time, due south) from the Money Pit. Their layout and a possible connection with the drilled boulders is described here and here.

Quote:
Please give me something I can believe in because this could be the most valuable archeological site in the world...if there is some proof.

When it comes to "proof" of anything, EC, the evidence is always in the eye of the beholder (pardon my pun). For instance, ask someone if they're 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. When they answer "Yes," point out to them that the sun **doesn't** rise, but that it only **appears** that way due to the rotation of the earth. They'll snap at you that you're playing semantics, but the truth is, what each of us see as "factual" or the truth, is relative to our own ability to discern the reality around us.

There are many pieces of evidence that someone went to great lengths to dig a pit at Oak Island prior to the year 1750, perhaps much, much earlier. The evidence of false beaches, offshore wooden wharves (with what appear to be numbers indicating their placement), the use of non-native material like coconut fiber (discovered in the drains and the Money Pit, along with ship's putty in the Pit itself), the Spanish scissors and china, as well as the numerous bits of pre-modern concrete and iron, all point to a lot of activity, some of it from the 1600s, when gold and pirates were all the rage.

Is it proof? Not for a jury that requires an answer "beyond all reasonable doubt." Still, I'd spend a few million dollars there and dig until the funds ran out, for my chance at the answer, just as many continue to do so up to and including today.

TemplarScribe

_________________
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-- W. B. Yeats


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 7:50 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
There is no evidence found to indicate there is any treasure on Oak island.
There is no books that discloses any proof of treasure' but only speculations of treasure.
Any book that would be worth reading is a book that would solve this treasure mystery, any book without proof of treasure' would be not worth reading.

This keith guy is going to be the next elvis, Lol"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 9:26 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
TemplarScribe wrote:
eyechart wrote:
Thanks for bringing the Flame War to my thread...No Credit

You're absolutely right, EC. My mistake. I've moved the "Keith is the Walrus" post to here.

Now, back to your original post. Eyecharts have been particularly challenging for me of late, but I'll give yours a go. (:^D)

Quote:
Still not one shred of verifyable factual evidence to back up the possibility that there is anything of value burried at Oak Island.

While many would state that there is evidence of a treasure, I will only go so far as agreeing that there is undeniable evidence that someone went to a great deal of effort to excavate beneath Oak Island. Whether that was because of a treasure or not is still, IMHO, unproven. But if i had to bet the mortgage, I'd bet that there was something of tremendous value still to be discovered beneath Oak Island's mangled surface.


There isn't even proof of that...There is no original excivations, There is even some doubt to where the initial hole is. Geologists provide evidence that the area is riddled with limestone caves and that the original "pit" may have even been a natural sink hole. And before someone says what about the planks, I say prove that there were ever planks actually discovered.

Quote:
What physical relics of that effort that have been recovered are tantalizingly few in number. Here are just a few of the actual, physical items that have been recovered (feel free to correct me, Tank if I misquote -- I'm going pretty much by memory here):

-- A pair of hand-wrought, New World scissors that, according to an investigation by the Smithsonian, would have been the type made by Spanish explorers in the 1600-1700 time frame. These may have been found beneath a rock in Smith's Cove on the north side of the island, but that's been disputed by some.


May have been...No Credit

Quote:
-- From Borehole 10X, a hundred yards from the Money Pit, many bits of concrete and metal, brass, and even some pieces of iron that because of its low carbon content, had to come from a period prior to 1750. Pictures of these (and the Spanish scissors, and some of the items following) are the personal property of Bill Milstead, and can be viewed and downloaded for a nominal $5.00 fee, so I'll choose not to repost them here. But you can see about donating to his site here..


Sounds like things from previous treasure hunting expiditions. He claims these items came from this location...and is making money with that story...No Credit

Quote:
-- Non-native coconut husk fiber, used to line a series of drains that connect the Money Pit below the 90 foot level where the Inscribed Stone was found. These drains, by the way, originate at Smith's Cove behind a "false beach" made of a set of five connected finger-like drains protected from silting up with layers of eelgrass and collected beach stones. These five smaller drains feed into the main channel, which slopes down over a five hundred foot length before reaching the Pit. this is one fascinating bit of engineering, and evidence in and of itself that someone went to extraordinary lengths to protect whatever was buried there.


Now we may be on to something...This coconut fiber is currently available for dionostic verification? It has been sent off to acredited universities for their analysis and they have posted the results of their findings?

This "false beach", being man-made is available for archeological study and validation, as are the evidently man-made finger-like drains?

Quote:
-- Recovered from the Money Pit area, along with bits of iron, brass and concrete (some pictured here) was a set of fine 17th century china (Bill's site has a picture). This most likely would have only come from a Spanish treasure ship that would have picked up the china in the Panama region, for transport back to Europe. A strong indicator of Spanish involvement, or at least, of something involving a Spanish treasure ship that reached Oak Island intact.


Really? There is a whole set of fine 17th (museum verified?) china that was pulled from the pit? To bad that there is not any evidence, say archeological survey, that it was even even the pit.... No Credit

Also, the Spanish at the time were not traiding with China through Panama, so the only way that 17th Century Fine China could have gotten to Panama would be if it first came from europe, and that would have been a better arguement in the firstplace, but would not have supported the "Spanish" connection.

Quote:
-- Sections of wooden timbers used possibly as a wharf, in the water of Smith's Cove area NE of the eastern tip of the island. What's really interesting is that they appear to have Roman numerals carved into them, perhaps to help in their construction (after having been built on shore, or elsewhere?).


"used possibably"..."appear to have"..."perhapse''...No Credit

Want Credit? Submit these timbers, if they exist, to a recognized lab/museum for analysis.

Quote:
-- There are two more-or-less fabled items that have been recovered. One is a snippet of parchment, brought up by a hand augur from the mid-1800s, that appears to contain written letters. Pictured at Bill's site.


Proof that id came from the pit...Submit for analysis...or No Credit

Quote:
-- The second is a section of what could be gold links from a watch-chain, or (as one researcher suggested) a part of an epaulet from a uniform or costume. This led one researcher to suggest it came from a set of gold chainmail, worn by an Egyptian priest, who was buried by his Coptic Christian followers (this remains my all-time favorite for least likely but most creative theory behind the Money Pit). Pictures of the chain were available at previous explore Oak Island day events in '05 and '06. Some of the actual items, like recovered metal and concrete, were also available for view.


"What could be"...No Credit

Want credit...Submit for analysis...Any nationally recognized museum can do detailed on gold. Alloy content, forging conditions. Easy to analyize...My bet, The guy digging there planted them in a hope to get additional finincial backing to continue digging.

Quote:
Someone's inked in interpretation of a stain on a rock: No credit...Looks like a space shim crashing to me.

Agreed. That's one of Keith's interpretations that no one else believes is valid.

Quote:
-- Still, there was a flat stone with drilled holes positioned flush with the earth that was discovered on a straight line due north of the Money Pit, as well as a series of very large boulders with drilled holes positioned in a suspicious alignment. You can read more about the survey of those features here.


Get those holes analyzed to prove that they predate the earliest habitation of Oak Island. This can be done by weathering analysis as well as bore hole analysis to identify whether they are man-made and what type of tools were used to make them.

Quote:
Some parachute looking pattern of dots overlayed on an photo: No Credit I could overlay that pattern half a million places around the world and make it look like was relevent.

Agreed. Keep in mind, those images are from Keith's imagination, and they actually show Birch Island, over a mile and a half distance by water from Oak Island. A complete red herring, IMHO.

Quote:
But the original triangle of stones also were positioned in a straight line (this time, due south) from the Money Pit. Their layout and a possible connection with the drilled boulders is described here and here..


Someone claims that this triangel of stones were found positioned like this...No Credit

Quote:
Please give me something I can believe in because this could be the most valuable archeological site in the world...if there is some proof.

Quote:
When it comes to "proof" of anything, EC, the evidence is always in the eye of the beholder (pardon my pun). For instance, ask someone if they're 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. When they answer "Yes," point out to them that the sun **doesn't** rise, but that it only **appears** that way due to the rotation of the earth. They'll snap at you that you're playing semantics, but the truth is, what each of us see as "factual" or the truth, is relative to our own ability to discern the reality around us.

There are many pieces of evidence that someone went to great lengths to dig a pit at Oak Island prior to the year 1750, perhaps much, much earlier. The evidence of false beaches, offshore wooden wharves (with what appear to be numbers indicating their placement), the use of non-native material like coconut fiber (discovered in the drains and the Money Pit, along with ship's putty in the Pit itself), the Spanish scissors and china, as well as the numerous bits of pre-modern concrete and iron, all point to a lot of activity, some of it from the 1600s, when gold and pirates were all the rage.

Is it proof? Not for a jury that requires an answer "beyond all reasonable doubt." Still, I'd spend a few million dollars there and dig until the funds ran out, for my chance at the answer, just as many continue to do so up to and including today.

TemplarScribe


I'll have to get back with you on this last part...

Eyechart out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Real Deal
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 10:20 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
I dont think there is nobody with evidence of treasure or they would'nt be babeling around here, they would be busy eleswhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Apr 2007 10:44 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 1:02 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
S A entrance.
Image
As with so many things in the Saunière puzzle book, we know of the stone from Gérard de Sède who published about it in 1967 in his book ‘Le Trésor Maudit de Rennes-le-Château’. In his book however, the drawing of the stone was stylized and the letters S and AE were more clearly combined to make one the word ‘SAE’. In the eyes of many a researcher the Coumesourde stone is a tad less suspicious than most of the other puzzles in the Rennes-le-Château enigma since at least it wasn’t in ‘Les Dossiers Secrets’. However, its discovery and reliability aren’t exactly undisputed. There is for example the fact that some of its text is identical to the inscription on the horizontal Tombstone of Marie de Negri d’Ables. That stone WAS in the dossiers (engraved stones of the Languedoc by Eugène Stublein, registered in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in June 1966).

The Dalle de Coumesourde is believed to be an important clue in the enigma. It features in many of the standard works on Rennes-le-Château. A plausible and conclusive explanation of its true relevance has never been given. Countless men and women spent countless hours counting the letters, measuring the angles and mapping its triangle on countless maps, parchments and paintings.

The Translation

The text of the stone has been somewhat neglected in our opinion, other than in relation to the geometry. That is odd, since the words seem a pretty good place to start looking for a message.

To be able to make the translation and interpretation it is important to know that Romans used to abbreviate words in their inscriptions. ‘CAE’ f.e. was short for Caesar. You can understand why they did this if you’ve ever handled a hammer and chisel yourself to write a message in your granite kitchen workspace.


Example of abbreviations in Roman Inscriptions:

IMP(ERATORI) CAES(ARI) M(ARCO) AVREL(IO)
COM(MODO) ANTO(NINO)
PIO AVG(VSTO) GERM(ANICO)
SARMATIC(O) CO(N)S(VLI) IIII
COH(ORS) I BREVC(ORVM)
SPICIO CERIALE
LEG(ATO) AVG(VSTI) PR(O) PR(AETORE)


Following this common method of abbreviation we developed two possible translations for the stone’s text that are very much alike:

Translation 1:

SAE SIS PS PRAECUM

For SAE and SIS there aren’t many options. Being an ex-altar boy I remember the ‘In Saecula Saeculorum Amen’ or ‘Is Now, And Ever Shall Be (World Without End) Amen’. SAECULUM means as FOREVER. SIS in that sense would stand for SISTERE, which means as much as TO LAST or ENDURE. (a.o, the word persistent was derived from it). SAECULUM SISTERE: something that survived and will survive the ages.

P.S. can mean anything and lots of speculation has been done about its meaning and significance. In terms of abbreviation however, P.S. is a much used shortening for PIIS: The Holy One.

PRAECUM or in the three-letter logic: PRAE and CUM. An option here is PRAETOR CUMPRIMIS or PRAETOR CUMULATUS: FIRST OF THE LEADERS or CROWNED LEADER.

Conclusions of Translation 1: the Dalle de Coumesourde has something to say about or can lead us to a place where there is something that survived the ages and has to do with the first, most important or crowned leader; perhaps even a Holy one.
http://www.rlcresearch.com/mainframe.articles.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: And The Winner Is...
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 4:52 am 
Offline
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Three Islands West of Birch Island
crusader wrote:
This keith guy is going to be the next elvis.

Really, Keith? You actually think you'll be the next Elvis?

Does that mean you'll be a hundred and fifty pounds overweight, spending a million dollars a year on drugs, and saddled with a horrible addiction to peanut butter and banana sandwiches?

Does it mean your last public appearance will be slumped over a hotel toilet?

Or does it mean you'll disappear some night and no one will ever really know what happened to you?

Can I cast my vote? Is there a poll somewhere? Please, Keith, post a link! (:^D)

TS

_________________
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-- W. B. Yeats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 6:47 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Looks like templarscribe

Has nothing original to talk about. he is still ramblng on, he sounds confused?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 6:57 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
Image

Welcome to Arcadia’s inaugural Guest Article. The legendary Coumesourde Stone, now lost, is believed to have concealed a secret of great importance to the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, but what? Corjan de Raaf & Jean-Pierre d’Aniort take us on a journey of discovery, and arrive at some surprising conclusions. Read more...
http://www.andrewgough.com/written.html
Friday 22nd December 2006


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 7:53 am 
Offline
Adept
User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Three Islands West of Birch Island
Well, EyeChart, I'm glad to see you can respond without questioning my sanity. (:^D) With you, I'll be happy to debate the salient points.

Quote:
No Credit...No Credit...No Credit...


Geeze, EC, you sound like one of my history professors! Or my banker.

eyechart wrote:
There isn't even proof of that...There is no original excivations, There is even some doubt to where the initial hole is.


Only to within a few feet or so. One of the Hedden shafts did locate a corner of the original shaft, so they have a pretty good idea. But as with everything else involved with the Money Pit, much of the original excavating was done without experts to record where things were found, and where people dug. It's a shame, but we must accept it and move on.

Quote:
Geologists provide evidence that the area is riddled with limestone caves and that the original "pit" may have even been a natural sink hole.


Ah, the old sinkhole theory. Yes, it has its adherents. There is the theory posted by Joe Nickell -- you're not him, are you, EyeChart? -- that whatever was found within the Money Pit was deposited there by sinkhole activity, including any oak timbers that might be mistaken for planks.

The problem is, the majority of the above-sea-level area on the Island (and much of that below ground, for that matter) is not limestone. It's hard-packed, glacially-deposited clay. It's naturally watertight, which is why the original treasure hunters dug down to 90 feet and more (60 feet below sea level, BTW), before any water began seeping in. It was also incredibly hard to dig through. That's evident by the 1804 excavators' reports that the original shaft could be easily determined by the difficulty in digging beyond the much softer in-fill. Some reports even state that previous digging signs and pickmarks were still visible at that late date (1804).

Take a wander through Harris and MacPhie's "Oak Island and its Lost Treasure." Harris and MacPhie are accepted experts in Nova Scotia geology, as well as experienced in mining and engineering projects in Canada's Maritime provinces. They should get you on the right track as far as the geology of the Island.

Quote:
And before someone says what about the planks, I say prove that there were ever planks actually discovered.


Well, gee, now EC, if you're looking for actual proof, what proof do you or I have that man walked on the moon? Have you ever interviewed an astronaut? (I have, but that's beside the point.) Have you ever read a scientific report on the moon rocks, done by a group that didn't have a vested interest in NASA's account being proved true? Can you say with 100% certainty that such-and-such a moon rock actually came from where Mr. Aldrin or Mr. Armstrong says they gathered it?

At some point, each of us must release whatever doubts we have, and bow to the experts. Or at least, to the generally accepted story supported by the generally accepted experts, as balanced by our own research and our hard-earned gut instinct.

Until something is brought up from Oak Island that can be found to satisfy all the skeptics, then the only proof that exists is what we researchers can accept is honest and reasonably accurate. That may not be much. But when you discount everything out of hand because "it could have been planted" or "it hasn't been tested by scientists," that devalues nearly everything that has occurred on the Island for two hundred years.

Quote:
A pair of hand-wrought, New World scissors that, according to an investigation by the Smithsonian, would have been the type made by Spanish explorers in the 1600-1700 time frame...

May have been...No Credit


And then, EC, you instantly dismiss one of the few items that has been checked by a leading authority, in this case, the Smithsonian. You can't have it both ways. If other items are checked and found to be authentic, will you dismiss them, too, because their provenance is blurred in time?

Quote:
From Borehole 10X, a hundred yards from the Money Pit, many bits of concrete and metal, brass, and even some pieces of iron that because of its low carbon content, had to come from a period prior to 1750...

Sounds like things from previous treasure hunting expeditions. He claims these items came from this location...and is making money with that story...No Credit


No, you're not listening. Bill Milstead is making money off the pictures, but he didn't find the items. They've been found before, but it was Bill's connection with the previous excavation group, Triton Alliance, that allowed him to photograph them. Triton excavated the items and still retains ownership of them, and for reasons of their own, have not been very generous with their evidence. But Tank, among others, I believe, has seen some of these artifacts, such as those on display at Explore Oak Island Days. And the iron HAS been tested for its carbon content. That's how they can tell it predates the 1750s.

Quote:
Non-native coconut husk fiber, used to line a series of drains that connect the Money Pit below the 90 foot level where the Inscribed Stone was found..

Now we may be on to something...This coconut fiber is currently available for dionostic verification? It has been sent off to acredited universities for their analysis and they have posted the results of their findings?


Good question. I don't have an answer to that. But what if they did test the coconut fiber? What if they agreed that the fiber does come from coconuts, and it's three hundred years old, plus or minus, and its parent plants are all native to the Caribbean? So what? Will you then claim that it's merely an artifact of the Gulf Stream depositing it a thousand miles north, the way other non-native items have been found as far away as Scotland?

It's easy to deny, deny, deny, EC. Anyone can close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears. It's much tougher to take a judicious approach and try and find the connections between the hundreds of individual items, without being taken in by the latest sham and scam theories.

Quote:
This "false beach", being man-made is available for archeological study and validation, as are the evidently man-made finger-like drains?


Sure it is, if you own the TTL for the Island.

I think of the Island as being in the same boat as the Giza Plateau. Can anyone go there and check it out scientifically? Hardly. Zahi Hawass (Head of Antiquities for the Egyptian government) has a stranglehold on the entire archeological scene for the country. Only his accepted scientists are allowed to do research, and only the research results he approves are allowed to see the light of day. If you doubt me, just check out some of the dozen archeological forums across the web.

So we have to work with what we have. We have to use more than scientific data to determine a reasonably accurate answer to what's there. Is that the perfect way to operate in an archeologically sensitive location? Not at all. But that's the reality in many locations throughout the world, from China's own Great Pyramids (closed to all but Communist-approved scientists), to Iraqi ziggurats (rocked by aerial bombs and carbombs alike), to the lost occupied areas beneath the coasts of India (closed to all but the Hindu-approved dolphins).

Quote:
Recovered from the Money Pit area...was a set of fine 17th century china...

Really? There is a whole set of fine 17th (museum verified?) china that was pulled from the pit? To bad that there is not any evidence, say archeological survey, that it was even even the pit.... No Credit


It wasn't found in the Pit. I believe it was found nearby. And refer back to my previous observation, that if there is no demonstrable provenance for an artifact, then to you, it has absolutely no value.

Quote:
Also, the Spanish at the time were not traiding with China through Panama, so the only way that 17th Century Fine China could have gotten to Panama would be if it first came from europe, and that would have been a better arguement in the firstplace, but would not have supported the "Spanish" connection.


Not true. And as soon as I save up enough to purchase Volume Two of Morrison's "The European Discovery of America," which covers the southern voyages, I'll be able to prove you wrong. Gimme a couple weeks.

Quote:
Sections of wooden timbers used possibly as a wharf, in the water of Smith's Cove area NE of the eastern tip of the island...

"used possibably"..."appear to have"..."perhapse''...No Credit
Want Credit? Submit these timbers, if they exist, to a recognized lab/museum for analysis.


So, to restate your original post, what you're looking for is not concrete evidence of treasure, or even of a vast excavation. What you're looking for is scientific proof that you have access to, that comes to an agreed upon decision regarding time frame, type and reason of activity, and the persons responsible for them, all in publicly available format, and all done by leading, accredited institutions.

Sorry, Mr. Chart. That ain't gonna happen in the next decade. It may not happen in yours or my lifetimes. If these are your parameters for belief, then Oak Island is not for you. Where even the slimmest of possibilities exists for the recovery of significant treasure, then the owners will keep their cards close to their vest.

That isn't to say there haven't been scientific studies already done, by Triton Alliance as well as other possible investors. It just means there is no reason nor benefit for these owners to share their results with you and me, John Q. Public. To what purpose? They don't need our help getting the treasure out, not since Triton sold to a new group of investors. And I can bet the new owners saw a lot more than just pictures to convince them to pony up the dough to take over the work.

Quote:
There are two more-or-less fabled items that have been recovered. One is a snippet of parchment, brought up by a hand augur...

Proof that id came from the pit...Submit for analysis...or No Credit


What proof would ever satisfy you that such-and-such an item came from the Pit? Affidavits from the time period? There are none. There are only the words of the excavators of time period, cross-referenced with the added witnessing of workers and share holders. But I don't think that'll top your level of skepticism, will it?

Quote:
The second is a section of what could be gold links from a watch-chain, or (as one researcher suggested) a part of an epaulet from a uniform or costume.

"What could be"...No Credit
Want credit...Submit for analysis...Any nationally recognized museum can do detailed on gold...My bet, The guy digging there planted them in a hope to get additional finincial backing to continue digging.


In this one case, this is entirely possible, I will admit. I personally don't put as much credence in the gold links. There seems to be some residual doubt from the people of the time as far as its authenticity. Interestingly, that isn't the case with the parchment, the scissors, or the concrete, iron and brass bits, the putty, the coconut fiber, and on and on.

But I agree, if I were in possession of this gold item, I'd have had it checked out nine ways to Sunday for its provenance. Has it been done? Ask Tank, he may know.

Quote:
...there was a flat stone with drilled holes positioned flush with the earth that was discovered on a straight line due north of the Money Pit...

Get those holes analyzed to prove that they predate the earliest habitation of Oak Island. This can be done by weathering analysis as well as bore hole analysis to identify whether they are man-made and what type of tools were used to make them.


Hmmm... I've seen reports of bore-drilling examinations that can determine, for example, the number of revolutions or turns per inch drilled (such as in the sarcophagus within the Great Pyramid). But I've never heard of accurate dating of the "weathering" of drilled holes. There are so many variables, from local weather effects to type of stone, and that particular stone's placement, that dating it within a few hundred years would be, IMHO, quite impossible. Got any sources to enlighten me to this technique?

Quote:
But the original triangle of stones also were positioned in a straight line (this time, due south) from the Money Pit....

Someone claims that this triangel of stones were found positioned like this...No Credit


I dispute your "No Credit" finding here. As is borne out by the Johnson report (and others), the triangle stones and the drilled boulders were verified by an established and accredited survey team. You can claim the stones and boulders served other purposes than to mark the Pit or its contents, but to deny they were in their surveyed positions is to deny the very authenticating experts you put so much reliance on.

Quote:
Is it proof? Not for a jury that requires an answer "beyond all reasonable doubt." Still, I'd spend a few million dollars there and dig until the funds ran out, for my chance at the answer, just as many continue to do so up to and including today.

I'll have to get back with you on this last part.


I'll be around.

Look for me three feet behind Crusader, taping a sheet to his back that says, "I'm not Keith, dammit!"

EC, forgive my jibing you on your skepticism. As Tank will tell you, I keep a healthy degree of skepticism handy when dealing with all the world's mysteries. But the truth is, if there weren't problems in the excavation of an item, if there weren't doubts about a site's provenance, if there weren't gaps in an artifact's history, then there wouldn't be a mystery.

The lack of credentialed explanation behind the two centuries worth of work on Oak Island is exactly what keeps so many researchers so interested.

TS

_________________
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-- W. B. Yeats


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: crusader
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2007 9:22 am 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
I guess templarscribe has nothing, for eye chart to prove him wrong. I don’t see why that he just say he does not know because he does not know? He could at least say something original, Oh God I hope Templarscribes bogus book is not this disappointing. It doesn’t matter words out it's a flop.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2007 6:33 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: 28 Mar 2007 8:50 am
Posts: 249
Location: CANADA
I guess templarscribe private messaged me and begged me to leave, he still thinks I am Keith.
I guess I am affecting his bogus book promotion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2007 2:11 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
crusader wrote:
I guess templarscribe private messaged me and begged me to leave, he still thinks I am Keith.
I guess I am affecting his bogus book promotion.


Still Trolling ? :roll:

Eyechart out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
Initiate

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 22
TemplarScribe wrote:

Well, gee, now EC, if you're looking for actual proof, what proof do you or I have that man walked on the moon? Have you ever interviewed an astronaut? (I have, but that's beside the point.) Have you ever read a scientific report on the moon rocks, done by a group that didn't have a vested interest in NASA's account being proved true? Can you say with 100% certainty that such-and-such a moon rock actually came from where Mr. Aldrin or Mr. Armstrong says they gathered it?


Ahh, the redirect. as to the questions addressed in the redirect...My grandfather helped design the Saturn Rockets...I've had lunch and spoken with Neal Armstrong several times at both Air Force and Navy League functions along with other astronaughts. I will admit that having not actually walked on the moon myself... :roll: There is much more evidence that the moon landing took place backed up by science all around the world than there is evidence of antyhing at Oak Island...or that Elvis and Aliens shot someone in Dallas from the grassy knoll.

TemplarScribe wrote:
At some point, each of us must release whatever doubts we have, and bow to the experts. Or at least, to the generally accepted story supported by the generally accepted experts, as balanced by our own research and our hard-earned gut instinct.


No we don't. This is why none of us believe the underwater tube story. Selfproclaimed experts on something like aliens or oak island have no credability without scientific evidence to back them up. Someone does some acredited archelogical excivation on Oak island, I'll believe their reports. Treasure hunters chasing myths...not so much.


TemplarScribe wrote:
Until something is brought up from Oak Island that can be found to satisfy all the skeptics, then the only proof that exists is what we researchers can accept is honest and reasonably accurate. That may not be much. But when you discount everything out of hand because "it could have been planted" or "it hasn't been tested by scientists," that devalues nearly everything that has occurred on the Island for two hundred years.


Bingo

TemplarScribe wrote:
A pair of hand-wrought, New World scissors that, according to an investigation by the Smithsonian, would have been the type made by Spanish explorers in the 1600-1700 time frame...[/i]

May have been...No Credit


And then, EC, you instantly dismiss one of the few items that has been checked by a leading authority, in this case, the Smithsonian. You can't have it both ways. If other items are checked and found to be authentic, will you dismiss them, too, because their provenance is blurred in time?[/quote]

I don't doubt the scissors existance. But there is no proof of where they were found. I have a cannon ball I found on my grandparents farm in Kentucky. Now I can be confirmed as a civil war era cannonball, and infact has been by several local museums. However I could easly claim that I found it in my backyard in Oklahoma and it wouldn't change the fact that is is a civilwar era cannonball, but it wouldn't mean that there been fired and landed in my back yard.

Quote:
From Borehole 10X, a hundred yards from the Money Pit, many bits of concrete and metal, brass, and even some pieces of iron that because of its low carbon content, had to come from a period prior to 1750...

Sounds like things from previous treasure hunting expeditions. He claims these items came from this location...and is making money with that story...No Credit

TemplarScribe wrote:
No, you're not listening. Bill Milstead is making money off the pictures, but he didn't find the items. They've been found before, but it was Bill's connection with the previous excavation group, Triton Alliance, that allowed him to photograph them. Triton excavated the items and still retains ownership of them, and for reasons of their own, have not been very generous with their evidence. But Tank, among others, I believe, has seen some of these artifacts, such as those on display at Explore Oak Island Days. And the iron HAS been tested for its carbon content. That's how they can tell it predates the 1750s.


And why won't they allow them to be studied? What do they fear...I bet it is that there is no value to the items. they sound like junk or plantes "evidence". Please prove me wrong.

Quote:
Non-native coconut husk fiber, used to line a series of drains that connect the Money Pit below the 90 foot level where the Inscribed Stone was found..

Now we may be on to something...This coconut fiber is currently available for dionostic verification? It has been sent off to acredited universities for their analysis and they have posted the results of their findings?


TemplarScribe wrote:
Good question. I don't have an answer to that. But what if they did test the coconut fiber? What if they agreed that the fiber does come from coconuts, and it's three hundred years old, plus or minus, and its parent plants are all native to the Caribbean? So what? Will you then claim that it's merely an artifact of the Gulf Stream depositing it a thousand miles north, the way other non-native items have been found as far away as Scotland?


If..if it is analyzed, and proven to be stuffed in these "man made tunnels". then I say that is actual evidence for something strange happening. There are ways to determine whether or not things are washed somewhere naturally or whether they are imported. I think this is the best lead Oak Island has.

TemplarScribe wrote:
It's easy to deny, deny, deny, EC. Anyone can close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears. It's much tougher to take a judicious approach and try and find the connections between the hundreds of individual items, without being taken in by the latest sham and scam theories.


It is easier to accept what people say than ask the questions and make up your own mind.

Quote:
This "false beach", being man-made is available for archeological study and validation, as are the evidently man-made finger-like drains?


TemplarScribe wrote:
Sure it is, if you own the TTL for the Island.

I think of the Island as being in the same boat as the Giza Plateau. Can anyone go there and check it out scientifically? Hardly. Zahi Hawass (Head of Antiquities for the Egyptian government) has a stranglehold on the entire archeological scene for the country. Only his accepted scientists are allowed to do research, and only the research results he approves are allowed to see the light of day. If you doubt me, just check out some of the dozen archeological forums across the web.

So we have to work with what we have. We have to use more than scientific data to determine a reasonably accurate answer to what's there. Is that the perfect way to operate in an archeologically sensitive location? Not at all. But that's the reality in many locations throughout the world, from China's own Great Pyramids (closed to all but Communist-approved scientists), to Iraqi ziggurats (rocked by aerial bombs and carbombs alike), to the lost occupied areas beneath the coasts of India (closed to all but the Hindu-approved dolphins).


In eqypt, there is proof of actual treasures, and thus caution is taken. Treasures have been taken from the ground. They are real. Many are in museums. Oh, and I have stood ontop of the Iraqi ziggurate at Ur. Several times infact from June 2003-Nov 2003. I have pictures if you don't believe me.

Quote:
Recovered from the Money Pit area...was a set of fine 17th century china...

Really? There is a whole set of fine 17th (museum verified?) china that was pulled from the pit? To bad that there is not any evidence, say archeological survey, that it was even even the pit.... No Credit


TemplarScribe wrote:
It wasn't found in the Pit. I believe it was found nearby. And refer back to my previous observation, that if there is no demonstrable provenance for an artifact, then to you, it has absolutely no value.


Oh, near by...like in the local antique shop.

Quote:
Also, the Spanish at the time were not traiding with China through Panama, so the only way that 17th Century Fine China could have gotten to Panama would be if it first came from europe, and that would have been a better arguement in the firstplace, but would not have supported the "Spanish" connection.


TemplarScribe wrote:
Not true. And as soon as I save up enough to purchase Volume Two of Morrison's "The European Discovery of America," which covers the southern voyages, I'll be able to prove you wrong. Gimme a couple weeks.


Feel free. Having been stationed in Panama for three years, and doing extensive research on the gold fleets and pirate activities there, I will say that if a fine china set came from Panama, then it most likly came from europe and belonged to someone of importance who was living in Panama.

Quote:
Sections of wooden timbers used possibly as a wharf, in the water of Smith's Cove area NE of the eastern tip of the island...

"used possibably"..."appear to have"..."perhapse''...No Credit
Want Credit? Submit these timbers, if they exist, to a recognized lab/museum for analysis.


TemplarScribe wrote:
So, to restate your original post, what you're looking for is not concrete evidence of treasure, or even of a vast excavation. What you're looking for is scientific proof that you have access to, that comes to an agreed upon decision regarding time frame, type and reason of activity, and the persons responsible for them, all in publicly available format, and all done by leading, accredited institutions.

Sorry, Mr. Chart. That ain't gonna happen in the next decade. It may not happen in yours or my lifetimes. If these are your parameters for belief, then Oak Island is not for you. Where even the slimmest of possibilities exists for the recovery of significant treasure, then the owners will keep their cards close to their vest.

That isn't to say there haven't been scientific studies already done, by Triton Alliance as well as other possible investors. It just means there is no reason nor benefit for these owners to share their results with you and me, John Q. Public. To what purpose? They don't need our help getting the treasure out, not since Triton sold to a new group of investors. And I can bet the new owners saw a lot more than just pictures to convince them to pony up the dough to take over the work.


Like I said, I'd love for the Oak Island legends to be true. But to date there is no hard evidence of any of it that anyone is willing to subject to scientific scrutiney (which I;m sure I mispelled :wink: ). That's fine, just don't expect me to believy your stories with out it. I wouldn't expect you to believe I found the civil war era cannonball in my Oklahoma City back yard (which I did not). Why should I believe this story?

Quote:
There are two more-or-less fabled items that have been recovered. One is a snippet of parchment, brought up by a hand augur...

Proof that id came from the pit...Submit for analysis...or No Credit


TemplarScribe wrote:
What proof would ever satisfy you that such-and-such an item came from the Pit? Affidavits from the time period? There are none. There are only the words of the excavators of time period, cross-referenced with the added witnessing of workers and share holders. But I don't think that'll top your level of skepticism, will it?


An archeloigical dig conducted by a respected research organization...Of cource you and I know that this will never happen. Those who own the land fear the theft of their imagined treasure, or hope to make money off the legend for the purchase of their land.

Quote:
The second is a section of what could be gold links from a watch-chain, or (as one researcher suggested) a part of an epaulet from a uniform or costume.

"What could be"...No Credit
Want credit...Submit for analysis...Any nationally recognized museum can do detailed on gold...My bet, The guy digging there planted them in a hope to get additional finincial backing to continue digging.


TemplarScribe wrote:
In this one case, this is entirely possible, I will admit. I personally don't put as much credence in the gold links. There seems to be some residual doubt from the people of the time as far as its authenticity. Interestingly, that isn't the case with the parchment, the scissors, or the concrete, iron and brass bits, the putty, the coconut fiber, and on and on.

But I agree, if I were in possession of this gold item, I'd have had it checked out nine ways to Sunday for its provenance. Has it been done? Ask Tank, he may know.


I agree. So you must ask: Why would someone in possession of these items not do this, especially when if verified, they would open a huge gate way for investment in the treasure hunting. Ask yourself. If you had these tiems, why wouldn't you try to prove to the world that they are authentic and came from the pit?

Feel free to post the answers to your thoughts.

Quote:
...there was a flat stone with drilled holes positioned flush with the earth that was discovered on a straight line due north of the Money Pit...

Get those holes analyzed to prove that they predate the earliest habitation of Oak Island. This can be done by weathering analysis as well as bore hole analysis to identify whether they are man-made and what type of tools were used to make them.


TemplarScribe wrote:
Hmmm... I've seen reports of bore-drilling examinations that can determine, for example, the number of revolutions or turns per inch drilled (such as in the sarcophagus within the Great Pyramid). But I've never heard of accurate dating of the "weathering" of drilled holes. There are so many variables, from local weather effects to type of stone, and that particular stone's placement, that dating it within a few hundred years would be, IMHO, quite impossible. Got any sources to enlighten me to this technique?


There was analysis done that proved the docking stones the vikings teathered their ships to in Newfoundland. Those were holed bored into stones. That would be a good start.

Quote:
But the original triangle of stones also were positioned in a straight line (this time, due south) from the Money Pit....

Someone claims that this triangel of stones were found positioned like this...No Credit


TemplarScribe wrote:
I dispute your "No Credit" finding here. As is borne out by the Johnson report (and others), the triangle stones and the drilled boulders were verified by an established and accredited survey team. You can claim the stones and boulders served other purposes than to mark the Pit or its contents, but to deny they were in their surveyed positions is to deny the very authenticating experts you put so much reliance on.


I've yet to see the acreditation of the survey team. but just because they might have found something doesn't mean that it wasn't set up there as a hoax. I've stacked stones in remote creak beds all over the world (a little hobby of mine, kind of a I was here thing). That doesn't make those plies ancient religious sights to the next person who passes, although they may be a mystery to that person...scientific analysis could determine the truth, yet Oak Island treasure hunters seem to keep as far away from any one who could determine the truth as possible.

Quote:
Is it proof? Not for a jury that requires an answer "beyond all reasonable doubt." Still, I'd spend a few million dollars there and dig until the funds ran out, for my chance at the answer, just as many continue to do so up to and including today.

I'll have to get back with you on this last part.


TemplarScribe wrote:
I'll be around.

Look for me three feet behind Crusader, taping a sheet to his back that says, "I'm not Keith, dammit!"

EC, forgive my jibing you on your skepticism. As Tank will tell you, I keep a healthy degree of skepticism handy when dealing with all the world's mysteries. But the truth is, if there weren't problems in the excavation of an item, if there weren't doubts about a site's provenance, if there weren't gaps in an artifact's history, then there wouldn't be a mystery.

The lack of credentialed explanation behind the two centuries worth of work on Oak Island is exactly what keeps so many researchers so interested.

TS


...is exactly what keeps treasure hunters, conspiracy theorists and people who enjoy stories (I include myself here) interested. Scientigic researchers seem to be left out.

And what is up with crusader? Is he a shill for this Will guy? or just a troll looking for flame wars?

Eyechart Out


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

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