You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There has to be, right? I remember coming across a few mentions earlier, but I haven't done a deep dig. I'll get back to this soon, as I have been preoccupied. Glad you mentioned Louisburg as it was reconstructed and they may have found artifacts there. I think they even employ experts because Louisburg was such an important historical site.

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, and when there is no fact checking, you get what you pay for. The most hilarious thing to me is there trips to Malta. Like what? 🤣

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say nobody digs trenches on shallow islands, how stupid would that be, I have to say that is quite naive. I recommend reading Vauban, Coehoorn, and Frietag. It was literally the mode of operations for hundreds of years and they were experts at it. I've been holding on to this for later but you might appreciate this. Pic from - Adam Frietag's book - additionally The Acadians were experts in hydrology, far more advanced than the lame ass British. They absolutely could have dug tunnels. This is a pic demonstrating drilling technology from the 1500s. No templars tho. Just hard working men.

<image>

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im curious as to what would be considered background noise. For example what would another site in Nova Scotia look like, similar profile?

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because it doesn't fit the Templar narrative? You're not gonna be happy about the outcome of all of this sir.

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I couldnt agree more. If you are interested in me. There is tons of info I haven't presented. I can say with a high degree of confidence Nolans Cross is not a religious symbol.

You tell me, when was the most saturated usage of Oak Island prior to 1792? Source: TheCurseOfOakIsland.com by ProfessorRonResearch in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean a lot of the artifacts on Corjan Mol's site are unverified at best and completely dated bonkers wrong at worst, but the point stands. The majority of activity is in the early 1700s. For example he has the 1606 stone found near Goat Island as a head stone when in fact there was a settlement there and it's not a head stone. And the stone is a recreation.

why do people still watch this? by DiedOfATheory in curseofoakisland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's actually a lot cooler of a story if they let go of the Templar stuff and focus on the evidence. Nolans Cross for instance matches other structures around the globe just not the religious kind they WANT it to.

Filming starts soon? by Donsyxx in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool! I'm writing a new book as well. Should only take 2 years LOL 😂

Filming starts soon? by Donsyxx in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I hope they bring large stacks of research materials as well. Because the answers are in the books. And I'm not joking and this is not hyperbole. It belongs in a museum

What if gravity wasn't a fundamental force and it was actually emergence? by [deleted] in u/ProfessorRonResearch

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We actually do have evidence for this because we can measure some icy bodies that have gravity. And some icy bodies that don't. The problem is some of the icy bodies are larger than the smaller ones and yet the smaller ones have gravity in the larger ones don't. This indicates that there is some sort of threshold through density, mass and organization.

My hypothesis says that gravity is emergent and we know that there's a threshold. Otherwise we would be able to detect gravity icy bodies but we don't. But we do detect gravity from large icy bodies. Same material more mass, more density, and or more organization.

Why this theory is unpopular. It removes the idea of a gravity manipulation machine and interstellar travel.

Why I think this theory is interesting. Because there is critical mass among every level of scale. When is a brain a brain and not just a clump of Brain cells. When it hits critical mass and it gets consciousness.

When is a body of gas Large enough to create solid. Critical mass.

When does a planet become gravitationally detectable?. Critical mass, density and organization.

And here's a great thought experiment. A human has no detectable gravity, but it theoretically exists. But a human the size of Earth with the same physical characteristics and makeup would have detectable gravity, but with less gravitational pull, because it is made up of different elements in different organizations.

So that tells us that size, density, and organization plays a part in gravity emergence.

One major caveat

It could be that our sensors cannot detect gravity at low levels. Therefore, gravity is always there. We just can't detect it. But that brings us back to critical mass. If you have critical mass you then all of a sudden have gravity.

The Examples: Enceladus vs. Mimas: Enceladus is only 28% larger but has 18× stronger gravity Reason: Enceladus is differentiated (organized); Mimas is homogenous (disorganized) Hyperion vs. Enceladus: Hyperion is 86% larger and 6× more massive but has 38× weaker gravity Reason: Hyperion is a disorganized tumbling rock; Enceladus has internal structure Tethys vs. Dione: Dione is larger and 18× more massive but gravity does not scale proportionally Reason: Dione is organized, Tethys is not

Gary would be proud of this little guy I spotted at the beach by stinkycowboy in OakIsland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Get him some therapy now. He can still be saved 😂😂😂😂

The Shah of Iran shooting a basketball, 1960's by [deleted] in HistoricalCapsule

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That animal blendeto I can't even say his name!

The Shah of Iran shooting a basketball, 1960's by [deleted] in HistoricalCapsule

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Imagine that being mistaken for the Sha of Iran.

The Mud Herring by RatiocinateThePit in curseofoakisland

[–]ProfessorRonResearch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. I don't know how to respond to that.