Rawhide
Silver Member
- Nov 17, 2010
- 3,590
- 2,185
- Detector(s) used
- Nox 800, Etrac, F75, AT Pro. Last two for sale.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I actually seen a ORO here local and it was pretty unique to say the least.
Maps
- Thread starter pkdmslf
- Start date
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
In layman's terms I believe that means you have Jack. I've been privy to some pretty exciting Jesus on a potato chip discoveries, too, but was not convinced of the theory that Jesus was the original founder of the Lay's corporation. Confirmation Bias can be a beech, it's clouded the vision of many a treasure hunter and conspiracy seeker alike.
I don't believe anyone contested the age of your medallion, just the marks upon it that were clearly of a more recent vintage. Therefore, as a representation of an ancient artifact, I would naturally be forced to call twiddly dinks. No offense intended, no suspect declared. Again, Confirmation Bias can be a troublesome little twitch of the ego. I'm sure the individuals responsible for all the false treasure marks and faked petros covering AZ, NM, UT, were aware of that shortcoming in their fellow man. Though not confined to those areas alone, the sheer number of them concentrated there bears noting and always suspect. Your opinion of my "expertise" matters not, but your mention of it speaks volumes as to your own.
Good luck in your journey, may it bear fruit and good fortune.
Don't know Jack or Richard, or anything about these Jesus chips you say you're privy to.
But when I offer a theory I am usually able to show at least some photo evidence of what I partly base my reasoning on....and any "confirmation bias" I might have usually requires several pieces of evidence that fit a particular scenario to my own satisfaction. It's what keeps me interested and looking forward to the next day out there. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, or with asking questions, but the object in question is neither a "medallion" nor "ancient" in my own opinion. That is entirely your own assumption. The hole suggests it may have been attached to something larger, and the curvature indicates that something also had a curved surface.....not what one would expect for a medallion...and the oxidization (patina) is unbroken across the entire outer surface, including where the markings are evident, so I find your "more recent vintage" observation to be somewhat akin to those "Jesus on a potato chip" discoveries you are attempting to compare this to.
"twiddly dinks" indeed !
Last edited:
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
How so ?
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Yes, really John.
Might as well put up a sign saying "dig here" or "this way".
Would you ?
John_Arizona
Hero Member
I don't post certain photos, but I wouldn't put up any signs... if you find something... it's just a matter of luck... I have mining claims all over Arizona, but I'll be darned if I'm going to make a map how to get there... I think back whenever and whomever mined put signs up to help the next party working with them, to find them... but since they are all toast now... the signs still exist and the gov watches those closely on and off national land
Last edited:
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
"Signs" of some kind, yes.
But "ORO" scratched on a rock or carved in a saguaro would draw claim jumpers to a mine, or any passerby who happened to notice it and get curious.
Just way too obvious in my opinion.
But "ORO" scratched on a rock or carved in a saguaro would draw claim jumpers to a mine, or any passerby who happened to notice it and get curious.
Just way too obvious in my opinion.
John_Arizona
Hero Member
I agree
Rawhide
Silver Member
- Nov 17, 2010
- 3,590
- 2,185
- Detector(s) used
- Nox 800, Etrac, F75, AT Pro. Last two for sale.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I am of a belief I dont believe anything I hear, and only half of what I see. After spending time with locals and those who know about local legends. I have found some truth even in a lie. Now I dont call folks liars, and I add this so as to not offend anyone. I encourage all to search as we only see what we are supposed to see. I share as I have friends on here who would take offense, and being a gentleman is making folks comfortable around you.
ORO is a very common word that is used around here. You will see in places, art, maps and such. So while taking a walk one day with a old friend discussing terraforming I was surprised to see the word "ORO" in 300 foot letters just plain as day on a west facing mountain. Now one could spend all day connecting the dots and drawing what ever they want to see in a mountain side. But I was not looking for this word.
I do enjoy the published maps I can find of the area and old maps is always a great treat to me as I can not get enough. Now from a geological history view you can say there was gold found here. Not in any great amount, but there is legends that say otherwise. There is the rub, has it all been found?
Ditlihi
Banned
- Aug 20, 2016
- 1,227
- 4,793
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Congratulations! You're half way there.
Admitting you have the problem is the biggest step.
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Does that mean you are confident in your analysis of that piece of copper as being "ancient", and a "medallion" ?
And I suppose that quoting half a sentence while ignoring the rest is not part of the problem you exhibit yourself ?
"But when I offer a theory I am usually able to show at least some photo evidence of what I partly base my reasoning on....and any "confirmation bias" I might have usually requires several pieces of evidence that fit a particular scenario to my own satisfaction.", with the second part of my sentence sorta referencing what can be read here. {https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm}
A well known and often used quote goes something like this...."You can lead a horse to water....".
In part, the inference being...even if it really IS water, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Congrats are due alright, but for another reason entirely....."twiddly dinks"
And I suppose that quoting half a sentence while ignoring the rest is not part of the problem you exhibit yourself ?
"But when I offer a theory I am usually able to show at least some photo evidence of what I partly base my reasoning on....and any "confirmation bias" I might have usually requires several pieces of evidence that fit a particular scenario to my own satisfaction.", with the second part of my sentence sorta referencing what can be read here. {https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm}
A well known and often used quote goes something like this...."You can lead a horse to water....".
In part, the inference being...even if it really IS water, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Congrats are due alright, but for another reason entirely....."twiddly dinks"
Ditlihi
Banned
- Aug 20, 2016
- 1,227
- 4,793
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Does that mean you are confident in your analysis of that piece of copper as being "ancient", and a "medallion" ?
And I suppose that quoting half a sentence while ignoring the rest is not part of the problem you exhibit yourself ?
"But when I offer a theory I am usually able to show at least some photo evidence of what I partly base my reasoning on....and any "confirmation bias" I might have usually requires several pieces of evidence that fit a particular scenario to my own satisfaction.", with the second part of my sentence sorta referencing what can be read here. {https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm}
A well known and often used quote goes something like this...."You can lead a horse to water....".
In part, the inference being...even if it really IS water, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Congrats are due alright, but for another reason entirely....."twiddly dinks"
Does the first part of your statement referenced change the context of the portion I quoted? No, but it does help to emphasise my point, so thank you for bringing it to the forefront.
The "evidence" you are basing your theory upon is entirely subjective. As was your descriptions of it. By your own admission, it requires subjective reasoning to actually "see" what you have "confirmed" to yourself. An objective observer is not hampered by preconceived notions, and does not rely on subjective reasoning to reinforce a theory.
And they always test the "water".... especially when it smells like Koolaid.
somehiker
Silver Member
- May 1, 2007
- 4,365
- 6,426
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
You're welcome.
Doesn't change the context of the second part, so long as you overlook the quotation marks and other obvious cues within the entire sentence. Just as you've chosen to ignore the first question.
So far as I know, photographs, though open to individual interpretation which is often subjectively influenced by the observer's own biases, are considered to be objective in nature, rather than subjective as you seem to be implying.
But go ahead and have another sip....there's lots left in the trough.
Doesn't change the context of the second part, so long as you overlook the quotation marks and other obvious cues within the entire sentence. Just as you've chosen to ignore the first question.
So far as I know, photographs, though open to individual interpretation which is often subjectively influenced by the observer's own biases, are considered to be objective in nature, rather than subjective as you seem to be implying.
But go ahead and have another sip....there's lots left in the trough.
Last edited:
Ditlihi
Banned
- Aug 20, 2016
- 1,227
- 4,793
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Doesn't change the context of the second part, so long as you overlook the quotation marks and other obvious cues within the entire sentence. Just as you've chosen to ignore the first question.
So far as I know, photographs, though open to individual interpretation which is often subjectively influenced by the observer's own biases, are considered to be objective in nature, rather than subjective as you seem to be implying.
But go ahead and have another sip....there's lots left in the trough.
Indeed. And I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually. Cheers
Top Member Reactions
-
2392 -
1139 -
1098 -
896 -
826 -
803 -
766 -
738 -
617 -
505 -
493 -
474 -
468 -
426 -
399 -
393 -
O
369
-
365 -
363 -
362
