but you kept digging and most likely would dig enough ( LEFT, RIGHT, ETC ) around to see if it was .......
Two things:
1) This entire logs (and fibers) thing, is merely pointing to the legend, to prove the legend. I mean: If the "legend" is bullet proof true,
then sure, I agree that there are peculiarities in those finds. But since when are those starting facts true, in the first place ? If your "proof of those fact" is to merely
point to the legend, then ........ that seems circular.
There is no shortage of misinterpretations in human recollection/interpretations. Especially when it comes to treasure fever where every squiggle or rock or log is now somehow now a treasure symbol. The same for Bigfoot hunt documentaries, where every broken twig is a "Bigfoot passed by this spot" sort of evidence, eh ? I can totally envision that whatever "logs" the little boys saw, immediately became (in the legend evolution) a sort of organized planks, blah blah. I have seen this type of thing evolve in a single night, single year, etc.... Where ..... later on .... it's just first-person singular "fact". Yet when you look closely, it was merely conjecture that are now first-person-singular, blah blah.
2) I can show you peculiarities in the landscape, within a mile of my house ,that I too could defy you to "show me an explanation". Eg.: "strange depressions in the ground", and "odd alignment of sticks", and "fibers", and "a gold link", etc..... And I can announce "treasure !" And no matter how many "more plausible explanations" you can offer to the oddities near my house, I can continue to find some reason why your particular explanation isn't sea-worthy. That's the wack-a-mole game.