- Jun 4, 2010
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Tale that may be fact or fiction, a questionable story and questionable answers we need to look at. We need to check every details of it.
As for the refining thing, when exactly was refining became known in the US? What year? and who started it first?
Base on google..
In nature, gold nuggets are not pure gold. They are a combination of minerals, known as ore. The metal can be removed from the ore in a process known as smelting, in which the minerals are separated by melting point. Smelt gold is more pure than the original ore product, but can still contain impurities such as sliver, copper and platinum. A second refinement can be done by dissolving the smelt gold in a combination of acids; a method known as aqua regia refinement. The result is gold that is 99.95 percent pure.
What if they just smelt it? Did they just went there and pick up gold nuggets? Or did the crush rocks and process it?
You are "years" behind in all of this thorough research that has already been conducted time and time again. Per example, the author's use of the word "authentic" is in NO WAY declaring the story to be true, which is exactly why he used the word "authentic" VS true. All the author is claiming is that his tale is an "authentic work", it is in NO WAY declaring the tale to be true. John Sherman, that author, penned many short stories in his lifetime, was also an editor who fully understood all of the legalities and angles. as for your "simple google search of gold refining".......you need to be "a lot" more specific in your research, including the period in question, the region in which the gold was allegedly mined, etc.,, etc. "It is not a questionable story." Just as your suggestion that the party wanted to remain anonymous when it was already headed by a man who the author describes as being "universally known". "Universally known" is a looooong way from being "anonymous." Like so many before you, you're just trying to spin reality out of fiction, which is why no actual supporting evidences exist in your theory. When you continue to change the narrative you are actually concluding that those portions of the tale are, in fact, untrue. And thus far you've already concluded a great portion of the tale is untrue. What does this tell you about the nature of the tale?