Tom_in_CA
Gold Member
- Mar 23, 2007
- 13,804
- 10,336
- 🥇 Banner finds
- 2
- Detector(s) used
- Explorer II, Compass 77b, Tesoro shadow X2
All of us md'rs love a good treasure story. The "lost mine" and "stage coach" loot stories sold tons of treasure magazines back in the 1960s & 70's afterall. And they all sound so iron clad true. I guess the human mind wants SO hard to believe (lest you be "left out"), that you subconsciously put aside skepticism. So you have all these treasure legends that are out there (Oak Island, etc...) . T'net has an entire subforum where multiple ones are broken out for individual discussion. And T'net members bring up new ones all the time from their specific locales.
But has anyone ever noticed all these recurring threads of similarity:
a) Seems that the bigger the cache is supposed to be, then the more deeper it must be. This is a dead giveaway when the person posting needs a detector that "detects 3 meters deep". And if it's a REALLY big cache, well then by golly it can be in solid rock, or shear rock cliffs (never mind asking yourself how the person who buried it ever got it up there), or with insurmountable boobie traps.
But didn't anyone ever stop to think, that if the person who was hiding it ever intended to come back for it, would he have hidden it in such a way that it takes heavy equipment to retrieve it ? And what difference does 3 ft. versus 30 ft. make to how well it's hidden ?? If the surface is covered up and indiscernable, then it makes no difference 3 vs 30 ft.. Either one is equally unseen from the surface to the next passerby.
b) And this always brings me a chuckle: The suppose clues, signs, treasure markings, codes, etc.... If someone's intention was to "hide" something (and they go to great lengths making it insanely deep, etc...) then why oh why oh why is that person inclined to turn around, and mark the spot with clues, signs, codes, maps, etc... ? What? So that the next person can merely go find the thing they just "hid" ? It defies logic .
But has anyone ever noticed all these recurring threads of similarity:
a) Seems that the bigger the cache is supposed to be, then the more deeper it must be. This is a dead giveaway when the person posting needs a detector that "detects 3 meters deep". And if it's a REALLY big cache, well then by golly it can be in solid rock, or shear rock cliffs (never mind asking yourself how the person who buried it ever got it up there), or with insurmountable boobie traps.
But didn't anyone ever stop to think, that if the person who was hiding it ever intended to come back for it, would he have hidden it in such a way that it takes heavy equipment to retrieve it ? And what difference does 3 ft. versus 30 ft. make to how well it's hidden ?? If the surface is covered up and indiscernable, then it makes no difference 3 vs 30 ft.. Either one is equally unseen from the surface to the next passerby.
b) And this always brings me a chuckle: The suppose clues, signs, treasure markings, codes, etc.... If someone's intention was to "hide" something (and they go to great lengths making it insanely deep, etc...) then why oh why oh why is that person inclined to turn around, and mark the spot with clues, signs, codes, maps, etc... ? What? So that the next person can merely go find the thing they just "hid" ? It defies logic .