deducer
Bronze Member
deducer,
Since we are talking about attacks, I believe whichever Moderator stepped in and stopped the last attacker, did the right thing.
While I had my doubts about some identities of new posters, and their reasons for being here, I do believe that Mr. Gassler is who he says he is.
My reason for writing that it was the first Gassler, who was an impostor and showed Tom the ore, had more to do with about a 1-hour conversation this week with Tom, where we did talk about the incident, than any information written in any book. I believe Tom is the best/only source for this information and yes, I do believe good sources are important.
I feel the best way to avoid "constantly pestering posters for "sources." is to simply say they will not be named. I have done that on several occasions over the years. Those who make up their "history" and "facts" will always feel "pestered". Those who feel the need to defend those kinds of people will only end up making themselves less believable.
The best historical sources, IMHO, are those people who have actually lived the history, like Tom Kollenborn and Bob Corbin. If you have something better, by all means bring it to the discussion.
Good luck,
Joe Ribaudo
The subject we all deal with and have an interest in, as far as buried or hidden treasure, by its very nature, involves a great deal of deception and misleading information, if not outright fiction.
After all, the idea of burying treasure is to keep it out of the hands of as many people as possible, not making history or conforming to someone’s ethnocentric view of history.
Consequently, applying rigorous academic standards to the world of treasure-hunting, is forcing a square peg into a round hole. People do not bury treasure in order to subject their actions to historical scrutiny, nor do they care that the truth is told about them or what they did. So to continually pester posters for “sources,” or to argue about who’s right or wrong, or about adhering to the one truth of what happened, contributes nothing except loss of further information that isn't posted because posters become discouraged or less inclined to post any information out of fear of being criticized, shot down, or doubted.
I would find it, furthermore, supremely ironic if someone who placed so much emphasis on “citing sources” were found to have never gone to college.
In the final analysis, the final determinant of what constitutes expertise in this field is by and large a matter of how you filter the wheat from the chaff. You could possess a great deal of information, but in no way does that automatically make you an expert on the LDM if you don’t have the ability to see the forest for the trees. The willingness to be flexible, open-minded, and to continually adjust one’s theories based on new information are valuable traits to have, IMO, in addition to developing the ability, or a methodology, to determine truth from fiction.
The way I see it, the best way for someone to get to the bottom of a truth is for this person to not just do homework and walk the walk, but assume responsibility for figuring out how to decide what’s true and what’s not, rather than forcing others to adhere to ethical standards; that never has and never will work. Those who tell lies will continue to tell lies, no matter how much you try to shame them. You would, however, succeed in discouraging other people from posting further information that might be valuable, either in its own right, or to other posters than yourself.