Arcadia Discussion Zone

I'd like to commend you, EyeChart, on keeping this discussion so level-headed and sane. As opposed to... (:^D)



And my dad helped design the tail and control surfaces for the B-52. Did you know that for decades, the landing gear on the Stratofortress were classified? Ah, the things we do for a paycheck.



I was lucky enough to interview Buzz. Amazing insights, those men have.



I don't want you to think for one second that I believe NASA shot the whole thing on a sound stage, I'm just playing devil's advocate. But consider:

Isn't it odd that the geologic makeup of moon rocks are so similar to Earth material? And that all the original evidentiary investigations of the moon rocks were all done by NASA-approved scientists? And that only classified-level or higher personnel were allowed contact with the astronauts upon return? And that -- coincidence of coincidences -- all the original Apollo moon-walk footage was somehow destroyed due to sloppy bookkeeping by NASA archivists?

I'm only saying, if I wanted to be suspicious about it, there would be lots of evidence to be suspicious about.



Now, don't go there, EC, or you and I will have to discuss how the Watergate burglars were arrested in Dallas that very same day, or why Nixon was recorded on his own White House tapes threatening to blackmail other high-ranking Republicans with what he knew about "that Dallas thing," or why G. Gordon Libby lost a legal suit that proved he was in Dallas the night before the assassination, with a group of Cuban assassins and a car with a trunk full of high-powered rifles ("Plausible Denial" by Mark Lane, an excellent read). And I don't think we have room for that in this forum.



I disagree. If two hundred upstanding Americans go on record as having witnessed the black triangle that overflew Arizona the night of the "Phoenix Lights" (which were flares dropped by the Air Force in an effort to muddy the waters over the earlier authentic sighting), and these witnesses even include the former Republican governor, then I'm willing to believe them, even if no physicist was there to perform algorithmic calculations and magnetic anomaly tests.

You'll note also that even among "accredited" scientists, other just-as-accredited scientists have no credibility when they go against the mainstream. Notice all the furor regarding the translation of the Copper Scroll, or the Gospel of Judas, or even global warming. Even with oodles of letters after someone's name, we only choose to believe someone if their evidence fits with our own world view.



Then I respectfully suggest your initial question is unanswerable. What you want is to be privy to private information held by shareholders. So would we all. But we don't have that privilege, just as Zahi Hawass won't release what is really going on with the behind the stone doors within the Great Pyramid.

Comparing Keith or "Will's" tube story with the written and cross-checked accounts of Oak Island excavators is like comparing apples to oranges. Sure, the evidence would have been much neater had they used esteemed archeologists, but they didn't. Still, their record is as valuable as Lewis and Clarke's record of their trip, or Anne Frank's first-hand account of the horrors of Nazis in World War II, or any number of firsthand accounts.




Thus, I think your original question should be, "Show me the inside story," not "Show me physical proof." There exists physical proof. It's up to us to determine their veracity.




I'll have to ask Tank to point me to the source for those scissors. As I recall, they were found beneath some of the stones around Smith Cove. That would at least suggest that they predated the wharf construction or the false beach construction, if their provenance is correct.



Anywhere near Paducah, where my aunt and uncle lived?



Actually it can't even be confirmed to have been "fired and landed" in your GP's farm, either. It could have been dropped by a passing supply train, or brought home as a souvenir. The belief in the honesty and accuracy of the discoverer counts for quite a lot, but we must go beyond that.

You accept the pronouncement of the local museums, just as I accept the recorded history of multiple eyewitnesses of the OI excavations. Neither are scientists, and both may be wrong.



I wish I could, EC, but I can't.

I can prove reasonably certainly that even well-respected archeologists lie, as with the "inscription" found in the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid that purport to prove that a pharaoh named Kufu built it. It's only when we dig into the backstory, and discover that the archeologist who found that inscription -- the only writing in the entire pyramid, BTW -- had in his possession a book on hieroglyphics that includes an error in syntax that, lo and behold, is the same as in the inscription, and that said archeologist had ONE DAY LEFT on his dig before he'd have been brought back to England in disgrace, that we learn the rest of the story, as Mr. Harvey would say.



Well then, you've proved that you're not Joe Nickell, as I had asked earlier. Mr. Nickel accepts only that the fiber could have been washed up by the Gulf Stream, not explaining of course how the husk material got deposited in such exact patterns, and below ground at that, and without the rest of the coconut.



Well, now you're just trying to make me jealous. (:^D) How was the view? Did you get to see the clay flood deposit layer? I'd have brought some home for my bookcase.



I believe you -- but where's the clay?! (:^D)



Mrs. Restall, the widow who lost her husband, and a son, and two other friends in one tragic accident at the Money Pit, has no reason to lie, and is as verifiable an authority on its discovery as any archeologist I could name.



I'll keep this on a back burner. Remind me in May if I haven't produced.



I sincerely hope that the current owners are considering doing just that: having a well-credentialed team of invesitgators, including archeologists, historians, biologists and geologists on board, with a group of off-site support labs for authentication. Heck, even if they find nothing, the film and TV rights oughta cover that portion of the bill.



The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I can't say they haven't done tests on this item, only that if they have, it's not been made public for their personal reasons.



I'll look into that.



Yes, but you didn't align four- and ten-ton boulders just for your amusement. Sure, that could have been some person's idea of a prank, just like digging a hundred-foot-deep shaft and backfilling it in with beach rocks, oak logs and ship's putty. But it's highly unlikely. Occam's Razor comes down on the side of a connection between them, supported by the surveyor's reports.



Same here. Except, I'm not sure any scientist of two hundred years ago would be acceptable in this day and age. We're starting fresh, with a clean slate, as far as anything new that is brought up. Everything brought up so far, or rumored to have been brought up, is just gravy to most researchers.



Regarding Crusader/Web-ster/Oak-ster and the many other aliases Keith Ranville goes by: he seems to take it personally when people point out how full of... holes his mile-and-a-half-long, native-built, below-Mahone-Bay tunnel-to-Birch-Island theory is. His usual response is misspelled foul language. Then he gets all defensive on other forums, claiming those trying to correct him are "stolking" him (his spelling, BTW). But he seems to think it's perfectly fine to do nothing but post flame-war ammunition on other forums, pretending to be someone else. Of course, if I were he, I wouldn't want to use my usual handle, either.

As far as being a shill for "Will"? That's entirely possible, some would say, even probable.

TemplarScribe

To much to cut and quote...Black triangle... Sounds like an F-117.

Aliens not buying...Kenedy...I hope there is a conspiercy there.

Open Archelogy not secret random treasure hunting would be the only way to put a definitive answer to Oak Island. So, will we ever know, since the treasure hunters have destroyed all if there was actualy even any evidence, probably not

Egypt, I don't believe any of the conspiercy stuff about the pyramids. Zahi Hawass will make an announce ment when his investigation is done and have the proof to back it up. (unless the aliens he finds eat his brain take over his body and set up a fake archeological record)

Absolutely true about the cannonball. Now if it had been found inbeded in a tree that had had core sample aging done on it, they there would be more evidence that it was actually fired. But hell it could have just been someone practicing, thus with out other evidence of a battle, there is nothing but a cannonball found in the dirt.

I would also expect that if there was ever a serious work crew building something as extensive as the money pit on Oak Islant, there would be a lot more evidence of their presence.

Ur was awesome. The river that once surrounded it has moved about 10 klicks away over the past 4000years. the tombs show evidence of salt leaching through the soil. Several of the bunkers on the nearby base are covered with dirt from the sift piles at Ur. These heaps are full of potteryshards, that one could hypothetically bring back...Pottery shards from ancient Ur...now that would be something that would be nice to have.

Eyechart out

Hi there,