Re: 2007 EXPEDITION: YAMASH-I-T-A ( Japanese) TREASURE
Gboy,
As I said earlier, there is nothing unusual if a stone is cut into two, regardless of its size. Of course, if you will cut anything into two, it will be two separate pieces. There is nothing unusual in that. Again, we can't call a person crazy if he cuts a boulder into two just because we don't understand his purpose. If you will notice my 3rd and 4th questions, I'm hinting its relevance about treasures.
3. Is it related to treasure?
4. How it is related?
.
You see, we have no argument if it is a marker; my point is, let us be more analytical, and not to jump into conclusions without examining everything.
Say for example, for the sake of argument, let us say I'm total alien about treasure markers whatsoever, and someone will tell me that stone is a treasure marker, do you think I would believe that person just because he says so? If I will be more analytical, lots of questions need to be answered before I will consider his conclusion, such as:
1. How did you know?
2. Just because it is cut into half, it is considered a treasure marker? How about if it is cut into three, will it still be remain a marker?
3. What if that stone was cut because of nature?
4. Sharp edges are not proof that a machine is used to cut this stone. An expert stone cutter can do the same.
5. Have you magnified both the cut surface to determine if a cutting passed in between? Any cutting tools passed into any type of object will give its "signature" to the grain surface.
Now let us assume it is manmade cut based on the results of our analysis; more questions will arise out of it...
1. Who cut it?
2. What are the purposes in cutting it?
3. What does it signifies?
4. How do we interpret the intentions of the person who cut it?
See, all of these need to be identified...and answered...we can not based our conclusion on false premises.
Now, let us assume it done by nature, if it is so, all our assumptions will go to the drain, since our conclusions were based on false analysis,
bu
Gboy,
As I said earlier, there is nothing unusual if a stone is cut into two, regardless of its size. Of course, if you will cut anything into two, it will be two separate pieces. There is nothing unusual in that. Again, we can't call a person crazy if he cuts a boulder into two just because we don't understand his purpose. If you will notice my 3rd and 4th questions, I'm hinting its relevance about treasures.
3. Is it related to treasure?
4. How it is related?
.
You see, we have no argument if it is a marker; my point is, let us be more analytical, and not to jump into conclusions without examining everything.
Say for example, for the sake of argument, let us say I'm total alien about treasure markers whatsoever, and someone will tell me that stone is a treasure marker, do you think I would believe that person just because he says so? If I will be more analytical, lots of questions need to be answered before I will consider his conclusion, such as:
1. How did you know?
2. Just because it is cut into half, it is considered a treasure marker? How about if it is cut into three, will it still be remain a marker?
3. What if that stone was cut because of nature?
4. Sharp edges are not proof that a machine is used to cut this stone. An expert stone cutter can do the same.
5. Have you magnified both the cut surface to determine if a cutting passed in between? Any cutting tools passed into any type of object will give its "signature" to the grain surface.
Now let us assume it is manmade cut based on the results of our analysis; more questions will arise out of it...
1. Who cut it?
2. What are the purposes in cutting it?
3. What does it signifies?
4. How do we interpret the intentions of the person who cut it?
See, all of these need to be identified...and answered...we can not based our conclusion on false premises.
Now, let us assume it done by nature, if it is so, all our assumptions will go to the drain, since our conclusions were based on false analysis,
bu