may i ask if it was you who discredited the roxas story? despite the us court judgement?
Renantagum, The problem I have with answering this question, is several-fold:
1) you ask if it was ME (Tom-in-CA) who discredited this story. Why would you say that ? Why wouldn't you wonder if Tom-in-CA had sources he drew from ?
Just as you draw PRO-treasure story view, from outside sources. Right ? So too do I have sources from which I've made this conclusion.
I mean, turn the tables, and .... if I said it in that tone to you. Ie.: "Why do you believe the story? Just because renantagum credits it ?" You would say: "No. It's because I have xyz texts, books, links, etc..." Right ?
So why not give me the equal benefit of the doubt, that ... I too have text and link, that I could show you, that support my notions ?
So the mere fact you phrase it that way, makes me think you'd be biased about ANY source that crosses your notions/beliefs. Whether from me, or anyone else. Rather than looking at the merits and possibilities of the debate points
on their own merits. This is what's known as 'genetic fallacy' : Instead of looking at the weight of the argument on its own merits, you say : "Well, so & so said that, and he's a mean person, so it doesn't count". Rather than looking at the evidence itself.
Whether the person saying it is democrat, republic, straight, gay, mean, nice, etc... Makes no difference: 2+2=4 NO MATTER WHO SAYS IT.
If I have misunderstood your tone in that, please forgive me.
2) "Despite the court judgement" : This tells me you've taken one of the points of the story, and ... in your mind ... makes it all rock solid credible. WHICH IS FINE. I understand that. But you can see where this is all going to go :
The only way I can describe it is to give this analogy : If I attempt to show you the holes in the Roxas story (ie.: more plausible explanations), and ... . let's say we start with the "court judgement", here's an analogy of what would happen next :
When the TV show about Oak Island came on, it started a flurry of discussions on T'net. Right ? You have the believers and the non-believer's right ? Well me, with my fascination into "treasure psychology", studied all the pro con thread debates. And here's an example of what would happen: (I'm just using generalities, so don't get "lost in the example of dates and such)
a) Un-believer says: "The fiber, said to have been in the hole at XX # of feet down, wasn't introduced to north american continent till 1850.
b) Thus unbeliever concludes it was impossible for this hole to have been dug in the 1700's.
c) But the treasure believer, faced with this impediment to their beliefs, surmises that coconut fibers *could* have drifted across the ocean currents. And thus been gathered on the shores of north America . Thus allowing this fiber to have introduced to north america in time for the story to have occurred.
d) The skeptics say: "But the fibers would have become water logged, and sunk before ever reaching north America". (That devolves into a 10 page thread on the science of wind, porpoises, sea turtles, buoyancy of fibers, etc... )
e) To which the believers say : Well .... not if they're of the rare Australian coconut variety. Which as 50% more buoyancy than the African variety (which devolves into a 10 page thread on currents, etc...)
And do you see the PING PONG MATCH that ensues ? And the whole time, I'm sitting there thinking: What the heck difference does it make about if or how fiber could or couldn't get there ?? As if .... the ESTABLISHMENT of the matter would necessarily make the treasure true ? In other words, to the believer's mind's eyes, if they win the science debate on the coconut fibers, then THERE MUST BE A TREASURE THERE. But to me, I'm thinking: Wait, if there's no treasure, there, then what the heck does debate on coconut fiber buoyancy prove ? SO TOO DO I FEAR OUR ROXAS DISCUSSION COULD DEVOLVE TO
I fear you will do just as the Oak Island debate did: Devolve into ping pong. Where, in essence, what it will boil down to is: If you can find ANY way in which a point *could* possibly be true,
then it is ... OF NECESSITY true. In other words, it puts the burden of proof on me to prove it ISN'T there , lest it is, of necessity, there.
To give you an analogy: I can make the claim that unicorns exist. You can say: "That's silly. Unicorns are mythical. I've never seen one, there's no photos of one. There's no skeletal fossil evidence, etc.... I can say the reason you don't see those things, is that the unicorns are invisible. And that government officials do a hush conspiracy job to hide the fossil evidence. Do you see how YOU CAN'T DISPROVE ANY THAT ? Since, of course, you can't prove that invisible things exist, or to disprove the coverup (it's secret after all).
But wait: Does the mere fact you can't disprove what I just said, PROVE UNICORNS EXIST ? No. Of course not.
So on the contrary, the burden of proof to prove unicorns exist, would fall on the believer to prove. Not on the non-believer to dis-prove. Same for the Yamashita legend. The fact that there is a 1 in 100 chance that something *could* happen, doesn't mean it therefore, of necessity "100% truly happened". In fact, it means there's a 99% chance it DIDN'T happen.
I am perfectly willing to show you the weaknesses, flaws of the Roxas story. And the more plausible explanations. Complete with links. BUT YOU MUST PROMISE ME THAT :
a) you will not devolve into a ping-pong match. I can not, like the Oak Island silly threads, devolve into a debate that never ends. You are welcome to disagree. Because you've found some remote possible way (conspiracies to hide evidence, etc....). That's fine. But , promise me we'll drop it after I show you my thoughts on the Roxas matter.
b) you will be open-minded.
Do we agree ?
i never went to this site am not that crazy to climb up there,,, BASAY driver at 100 feet found a light bxxber complete eye witness said 1945 3 crew shoot on beach ,,,i could go on and on ...RN30 I HOPE U GET THE BIG PICTURE i find stuff plus 60 years ,,,,but not the same day ....and to the tourist experts yes this is all fake news like in nyc treasure can still out there yes rn30 ....good luck
