timbersnort, Very good. Let's examine your material piece by piece :
The average person would say if the FBI forensic unit and US Army were deployed to the area they must have other verified written accounts (Pinkerton records, Paymaster etc.) to have a effort authorized to this extent......
Really ? Let's test this: I bet that ... if you give me a year (these clowns had a decade) I could create THE VERY SAME MEDIA CIRCUS here in CA on a spot with no treasure. Yup, LEO's , security, cameras, media, and everything. All I have to do is start digging on some state park land. Get kicked off. Then files reams of appeals. Go to the media, go out there and dig some more despite the warning, and ..... presto, they'll add security.
I know first-hand of some spots that persons were snooping around with detectors. And if known, then ... surprise suprise, security is added ? Media is appraised ? NONE OF WHICH MEANS: "certain treasures". All it means is a few guys went making waves and got attention.
.... A) The legend has potential to exist as revealed by the actions and comments of credible persons commenting, interviewed, and involved .....
This fails to take into account that EVERY legend (even the silly ghost-story un-true ones) will have, ... yes .... "credible persons" involved. They ALL are built around actual names, dates, events, etc.... But that's not addressing the issue of "does a treasure exist ?".
....B) The business world uses reverse engineering everyday to substantiate a starting premise....
Ok. And the business world uses reverse engineering to
debunk stories too, eh ? To find more plausible explanations, and shoot holes in the weaknesses.
.....C) Potential exists for parts or most of the shipment to be in the area regardless of the soon to come Big findings related to this current FBI investigation......
Uh, this statement just assumed a treasure exists/existed. If that starting premise is true, then everything else in this statement logically follows. But since when is this ? Says who ? Isn't the existence of the treasure (your premise) what we're discussing ? You've merely assumed what you're trying to prove, as evidence of your proof of it. A logical fallacy.