I'd like to commend you, EyeChart, on keeping this discussion so level-headed and sane. As opposed to... (:^D)
As to the questions addressed in the redirect...My grandfather helped design the Saturn Rockets...
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've had lunch and spoken with Neal Armstrong several times at both Air Force and Navy League functions along with other astronaughts.
I was lucky enough to interview Buzz. Amazing insights, those men have.
There is much more evidence that the moon landing took place backed up by science all around the world...
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.
...or that Elvis and Aliens shot someone in Dallas from the grassy knoll.
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.
At some point, each of us must release whatever doubts we have, and bow to the experts...
...Selfproclaimed experts on something like aliens or oak island have no credability without scientific evidence to back them up.
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.
Someone does some accredited archeological excivation on Oak island, I'll believe their reports. Treasure hunters chasing myths...not so much.
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.
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.
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 don't doubt the scissors existance. But there is no proof of where they were found.
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.
I have a cannon ball I found on my grandparents farm in Kentucky.
Anywhere near Paducah, where my aunt and uncle lived?
Now (it) 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.
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.
Triton excavated the items and still retains ownership of them, and for reasons of their own, have not been very generous with their evidence.
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.
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.
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..
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...I think this is the best lead Oak Island has.
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.
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....
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.
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.
Several times infact from June 2003-Nov 2003. I have pictures if you don't believe me.
I believe you -- but where's the clay?!
Recovered from the Money Pit area...was a set of fine 17th century china...I believe it was found nearby.
Oh, near by...like in the local antique shop.
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.
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.
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.
I'll keep this on a back burner. Remind me in May if I haven't produced.
What proof would ever satisfy you...
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.
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 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...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?
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.
...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.
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.
I'll look into that.
But the original triangle of stones also were positioned in a straight line (this time, due south) from the Money Pit....
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).
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.
The lack of credentialed explanation behind the two centuries worth of work on Oak Island is exactly what keeps so many researchers so interested.
...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.
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.
And what is up with crusader? Is he a shill for this Will guy? or just a troll looking for flame wars?
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.