gazzahk
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1,720
- Reaction score
- 2,584
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
You ask a lot my friend.. You want me to say what it takes to convince me.. That is difficult.Ok gazzahk. But first let's define "adequately counter".
Because I don't want to bump into a situation where .... if I haven't conclusively shut every-single door .... that ... therefore the claim (a found treasure in this case) is still, of necessity "true". In other words, I can already admit that without video evidence, polygraphs, proof of forged interviews, blah blah , that you won't still simply involve me in the type of crazy "possible" scenarios.
Example of how common sense logic doesn't seem to prevail here as "proofs" : If someone tries to give proof of difficulty of pits this deep, someone else points to the pyramids as proof of engineering marvels. Never mind that they took 70 yrs. and entire city populations to build the pyramids ! If you consider counter claims like that, to be satisfactory to 'diss my efforts to explain your links.. I need to know ahead of time.
Hence, define "adequately counter" in such a way that we're on the same page.
Ok here goes
I believe there must be a source of the legend. I do not find it very credible that so much effort was spent digging a hole found by three boys unless there was some treasure at some time (ie shown by sudden unexplained increase in unexplained wealth). Therefore what the descendants said would provide an adequate explanation of why later people thought there was treasure there.
Therefore all I really need to be shown is that the claimed increase in wealth did not happen (or has a more plausible reason) and/ or the cross is not as old as the original find of the pit and/or a plausible reason that people actually believed treasure ever existed in the pit - as these are the three most convincing things that lead to my view.