dedicated to b3y0nd3r : An example of a treasure legend evolution :

Tom_in_CA

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2007
13,804
10,336
Salinas, CA
🥇 Banner finds
2
Detector(s) used
Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
This post is dedicated to b3y0nd3r. Whom I respect very much for his critical look at what I'm saying. I hope I've given his stances an equally fair shake. Here is a true story, of exactly how I believe that legends like O.I. can get started. And how they can end up with exactly the same type cross-examining, that we find ourselves in today :

There is a city called "Gilroy" near me. About 12 or 13 yrs. ago, the city tore out all the oldtown sidewalks , to make way for new sidewalks. A buddy of mine who lives there was "all over it". Since, of course, he wanted to detect for coins @ this sidewalk demolition (the yesteryear wooden and dirt paths beneath the concrete). Every fews days, the workers would progress to another section of each block. This was to go on for a few months. Progressing their way down multiple blocks on one side of the street, and then back down the other side of the street. Till eventually the entire downtown would be done.

But he ran into a problem: It turns out that the workers would tear out a few-storefront's lengths in the morning before lunch. Then after lunch, they'd cement over that stretch. If my friend waited till 5pm, it would be too late :( So he was forced to go during their lunch hour, when the dirt was exposed.

But this presented problems. Since, of course, someone could tell him "scram" . For being inside the orange ribboned/coned area. So he had to play his cards very carefully. He would pass out common IH's, V's, etc... to the curious workers. After awhile, he became the common sight there, and was ignored as harmless. And at the conclusion of each day's lunch break, they would curiously come over to see what his latest finds were.

One day, my friend found a gold colored owl shaped amulet charm thing. About the size of a chess piece. When it came time for the curious workers to check on that day's finds, he showed them a few coins, junk items, etc... Then when he got to the owl charm thing, he mused "Might be gold". The workers were floored ! Then he pointed to some red jewels where the owl's eyes were and told them "Might be rubies". Their fascination grew even more ! And then my friend mused "from the 1800's" (since that was the date range of some of coins). Now they were just over the top !

That night, my friend went to sort his finds. When he got the owl thing under magnification, he determined that it was only gold plated. Not gold. And the red chips in the eyes were just glass chips. Not rubies. In other words, he'd just found 1920s costume jewelry junk. And promptly threw it in the trash.

The next day, he was back out there again . And he could see, out of the corner of his eye, a Mexican const. worker sitting on a tractor, eyeing him intently. My friend could see that it was a new worker, that hadn't been there on any of the previous days. After a few minutes, the worker got off his tractor & walked over . Eyeing my friend from a polite distance. And then after a few more minutes, the worker got brave and approached my friend. Asking him what he was finding. As it turns out, my friend hadn't found anything good that day so far.

At that, this worker told my friend that another md'r had been there the day before, that found gold coins! My friend was CRUSHED ! His immediate thought was "oh no, someone must have come here after I left, and found somethings that I missed ?!?! So he pumped the worker for information. Thinking maybe, if he had a description, that it might be another md'r in the area that he knows. As the worker went on with the story of all the 1800s coins, gold , etc..., a CURIOUS word slipped out of his mouth: "Owl".

My friend busted up laughing. Because he immediately realized that the worker was talking about HIM ! So he corrected the worker and said : "No ... that was me. and No, there was no gold coins. And no... the owl wasn't gold, it was junk. And no.... there wasn't fistfulls of coins, it was just 2 or 3", etc...

But the worker would not be dissuaded. He was CERTAIN someone had been there the day before, that found gold and fistfulls of coins ! So he figured it must therefore be someone else, and that my friend was mistaken. How did he know all this ? Simple: He had heard it that morning, around the water cooler, from the other workers who were there the day before. They had seen it with their own eyes ! They even had samples of the coins to show this new worker.

See how quickly that evolved ? IN A SINGLE NIGHT !! Now what happens if you add 200 yrs ?

Now think about it: That worker will tell his wife and kids and uncle Joe. Right ? And perhaps a little blurb in the paper about the guy with the detector (this happened to me before, when a newspaper person spotted me in a sidewalk tearout, and asked if he could take some pictures). Then 100 yrs. from now: Someone reading the story, and having a 'map passed down to him through the generations', and who found his "great great grandfather Jose's diary ", will be convinced that there's "gold under the sidewalks in Gilroy " And if he petitions the city of Gilroy for permission to "dig up the sidewalks" to "find the rest", the city will say "no". Which, of course, simply means that the city *knows about the treasure* and is in a conspiracy to "keep it for themselves". Right ? Or if the city tore out the sidewalks again for another routine sidewalk replacement, and said "no" to your detecting request, that means they "secreted away the treasure during the night", right ? (No doubt, odd lights and sounds from after-hours workers would further confirm this suspicion).

And this md'r friend of mine: Moved away to Sacramento the following year. And was known to have accumulated "mysterious wealth" soon there after. No doubt he moved away from Gilroy NOT to follow a job offer elsewhere (that's just the ruse coverup). It was probably to flee would be robbers , who knew of his stash of gold. Right ? And that md'r, according to T'net archives, "hung around with a certain Tom_in_CA", who also flaunted gold coins on the T'net banner archives. And there was evidence that these 2 guys knew and hung around each other.

So as you can see, 100 yrs. from now, the adherents would be pointing to the testimony of those workers. And you can study the contract notes and see that those were the only authorized persons allowed to be there (hence "they should know"). And you would indeed see that ... yes ... the sidewalks WERE torn up that year. And you would see that ... yes those md'rs names and dates and events was accurate. And then, heck, I can even spin some history of that area that goes back to a Spanish trail, through what is now modern Gilroy, that dates to the early 1770s. And we *all know* how those spanish/jesuit explorers were filthy rich, laden with gold. Right ?
 

There's thousands of gold bars laying in the streets of Gilroy Ca. I'm packing my bags and heading out. :occasion14:
 

There's thousands of gold bars laying in the streets of Gilroy Ca. I'm packing my bags and heading out. :occasion14:

Haha. He did pull a few nice semi-key date S mint seateds and barbers , during the couple of months the project lasted.

At one point, he could see where a drip grate had been. That had long-since been covered with concrete. Revealed when they removed the concrete. Tell-tale by the different colored soil. He stopped md'ing, and got down on his hands and knees and dug it all out with his lesche. When he reached the bottom (like a christy box ) he found several barbers, a token or two, etc.... Fun fun .
 

bump.

No one to dispute that a true story such as this, couldn't replicate itself as a psychological explanation of what has occurred at O.I.? And other legends ?

If the story's worker's insistence of gold and handfuls of coins "had more plausible explanations" (even on the day IMMEDIATELY AFTER the said-events no less !), then why can't a treasure legend, like O.I., have possibly been the same type evolution, as plausible explanation ?

I mean, *heaven forbid* that kids ever get dreamy eyed with notions of digging pirate treasure, that .... gasp.... maybe didn't exist ? Didn't we all, as kids, jump to conclusions, fears, hopes, etc...,? That later, as adults, we look back on as just adolescent silly-ness ?
 

sure, the story could replicate itself. but that fact has nothing to do with OI. proves nothing either way. both, neither, or one story could be true, but that has no effect on the other.

meh
 

.... but that fact has nothing to do with OI.....


Other than to show more plausible explanations. Thus yes: It can have EVERYTHING "to do with O.I.".

Why is O.I. somehow exempt from this easily explained phenomenon ? After all, you agree it "could replicate itself" .

And we're talking "most plausible", not "proved". Shouldn't we be going by the most likely explanations, not the least likely explanations ? (ie.: more plausible vs less plausible)
 

Stay for the garlic festival !!! It's awesome...

Hard to beat the garlic flavored Ice cream after all (yup, seriously, they have garlic ice cream ! ha)
 

Tom, great story. I tend to look at all treasure stories with a cocked eye.
The story can be a total fabrication,
be based on an actual event and then replicated as you demonstrated above,
or have different pieces to the puzzle which can be verified individually as fact based, but no real connection, just supposition.
My somewhat limited reading of OI material leads me to believe you are right.
The real story is most likely related to OI being involved in shipping and transfer of goods at a considerable profit.
(Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would have found it by now).

Dirt
 

Shouldn't we be going by the most likely explanations, not the least likely explanations ? (ie.: more plausible vs less plausible)

Your opinion!! And, btw, I notice that the person you dedicated this thread too has not yet responded. Perhaps rather than dedicating a thread to one person pointing out the error you see in their thinking you could start a thread simply explaining that perceived error.

Cheers, Loki
 

Last edited:
Your opinion!! ...

Well ...gee... yes. And isn't that the whole point of forums ? Likewise , you too, when you post something, it's "your opinion", as well, eh ?

But to be specific to the point you quoted of mine: Am I to infer that you are of the opinion that: People should throw more weight to the least plausible explanation ? :dontknow:
 

Well ...gee... yes. And isn't that the whole point of forums ? Likewise , you too, when you post something, it's "your opinion", as well, eh ?

But to be specific to the point you quoted of mine: Am I to infer that you are of the opinion that: People should throw more weight to the least plausible explanation ? :dontknow:

My opinion is that I don't know which is or isn't more plausible. But again in my opinion, I don't know that you know any more than I do, therefore I have to assume it is only your opinion also, which is what I indicated. I also think that many here will agree with me and others will not, their own opinions so to say.
You are certainly correct in the point of forums, and we have had many disagreements (arguments) on this particular forum.
The one thing I disagree with is beginning a thread dedicated to arguing a point by specifically singling out one person. Maybe b3y0nd3r doesn't care, but I would, and like I wrote, he/ she has not seemed to respond to you yet. Whatever, this is the last I'll say about it!

Cheers, loki
 

My opinion is that I don't know which is or isn't more plausible....

Ok. When you had said, in post # 10 that it was "just your opinion", I thought you were referring to the issue of whether to put stock in "more" or "less" plausible explanations. Ie.: that it's only my opinion that people should put more stock in more likely scenarios.

But now I see that the "opinion" you were referring to, is : The opinion that O.I. is more-likely-attributable to the explanation of "actual treasure". Rather than the treasure-fever-psychology that we both agree can happen.

Now I understand what you were saying about "opinion".
 

Other than to show more plausible explanations. Thus yes: It can have EVERYTHING "to do with O.I.".

Why is O.I. somehow exempt from this easily explained phenomenon ? After all, you agree it "could replicate itself" .

And we're talking "most plausible", not "proved". Shouldn't we be going by the most likely explanations, not the least likely explanations ? (ie.: more plausible vs less plausible)



look, your opinion is not fact. it is YOUR opinion. you cherry pick a story and falsely claim it shows that the OI story is false. it does not. they are mutually exclusive events. it merely shows how something could get distorted. and I agree with that.

"more plausible" is your opinion. period. sorry to break it to you.
 

.... it merely shows how something could get distorted. and I agree with that.....

Ok. I acknowledge the intellectual credibility on your part, to not deny this reality of human nature.

But you think it applies to other legends or potential legends. Not O.I. , right ? O.I. has solid evidence, which shows that the story wasn't subject nor distorted by this phenomenon. Therefore we can say: "Present company excepted" .

... cherry pick a story and falsely claim it shows that the OI story is false...

It's also possible that someone on the skeptic's side, could likewise see that in reverse: Someone cherry picks the story, and decides OI is true. Thus, yes, we're both "cherry picking a story". That finger points both ways.
 

no I think it applies to OI just as much. I am just of the mind that they have absolutely no affect on each other. OI could be total fabrication, where as your side walk of gold story came from a misunderstanding. or the other way is also possible.

there are folks (you?) that need to see proof of tunnels, stone markers, etc... until you see that proof, you consider it a fantasy. I am curious to find out what happened there. I am convinced that something went on there. I don't know what, but am open to any possibility.

humans are unpredictable creatures as well. they will eschew human nature in a heart beat. I have problems with the tv show, just as you do. I hesitate to call someone a liar or a fraud when I don't have all the information. I enjoy the "story" which is why I am here.
 

I see your point Tom and think it’s safe to assume there are plenty of folks willing to drink the Kool-Aid without some critical analysis.
I feel we need that type of analytic thinking because in the end it helps to find the truth and could quite possible lead to a real buried treasure. Whether on O.I. Or somewhere else.
 

And that "analytical thinking" might conclude in things some folks don't wanna hear :(

That goes both ways big guy :)

Now, first my apologies, I wasn't aware of this thread as I didn't look for it. That's on me.

Second... oh boy! What fun I could have playing the skeptic to Tom's story, which I read at least 3-4 times before. It's up to you, the reader, if you want me to debunk Tom's story(post below with "please debunk ;P) and prove him incorrect, that there was in fact, the possibility that another detector was there and that they found gold coins. Otherwise, I will just let it go ;)

Being that this in in the OI forum, I will show you what the difference is between your story and OI. You made a point of including your friend moved away. So let's talk about moving away, or lack of it.

McGinnis lived on the island. Smith bought several parcels on the island. Vaughn lived near and participated in the digs until his 60s. If they conned people, they didn't do a very good job of getting away from the island with the money. If they or just assumed there was treasure because of a sink hole, than many other believed them.

Their whole lives were wasted IF they didn't have any evidence of something, which, to use your own logic, doesn't make sense.
 

b3y0nd3r, thanx for reading and considering that attempt at an analogy / example of how treasure legends can evolve.

.... I will show you what the difference is between your story and OI....

Yes. No doubt there is "differences". There are differences in every single stories. That doesn't mean the "moral of the story" can't still hold merit as a plausible explanation.

Like if someone tried to use the story of the "boy who cried wolf" , someone else could object and say "It doesn't apply, if the person crying wolf, was a girl, and a not a boy". Or "name of the boy" or "the size of the wolf", or "how long they lived there", etc... has anything at all to do with the very applicable "boy -who-cried wolf " moral of the story. So too could my analogy apply, even if exact names, dates, individual factors, etc... are different. No two stories are every 100% identical (lest....... they'd be the exact same story, doh !) . But the point can still be relevant/applicable.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top