And many, many more myths, incorrect facts, and downright fabrications. (And cat pictures, but that's not relevant to this conversation.)
However, to quote two or more different sources would be good enough for a debate.
You're assuming that the skeptics here have not done any research. Counter theory: some (most?) of the skeptics here are skeptics precisely because of their research. They began pulling at the loose threads on the story (take your pick on which version of the story) and turned up problems in the process. They made deep dives on accepted facts and found that they weren't facts at all. They found inconsistencies in dates, names, and locations. They went looking for the forensic evidence involved in the "classic" version of the story and discovered that while these cipher stones and timbers and such were proof that something was there, nobody actually knows where any of those things are, nobody alive has seen them, and no photographs exist of them. When you turn up enough of those facts that are not actually facts, I think that one can be forgiven for beginning to doubt the whole thing.
So why aren't you using those to debate the believers?
Where is the hard data that a treasure is buried that far down? Or that a treasure is there at all?
In the absence of firm data, I rely on logic. Does burying something of worth that deep make sense? As I've said here in the past, one commonality between a treasure buried 100 feet deep and one buried 10 feet deep is that nobody is going to find it unless they know where to dig. One difference between a treasure buried 100 feet deep and one buried 10 feet deep is that the latter is a whole hell of a lot easier - and perhaps more importantly, a lot quicker.
No need to debate me. As I keep saying, I am on neither side here. Just trying to guide these discussions in real debates and not a speculationfess.
A fair point, but I'm a biased party.
