Civil War Payroll gold may have been found in Elk County PA

[wingmaster]

If that was true , there would be no treasure hunting shows on TV, if they did shows that only found treasure how many do you think we would see. Ya History Channel fakes things but that's what people want to see. That's OK if they tell us first, but to let us think the finds are real sucks. A TV crew does not want to film a find after its dug up . They want to be on site before its dug up to prove its real. So this is why we have many TV shows that end with no treasure but the hunters did think it was there. There is a lot more to treasure hunting and doing the TV thing than anyone knows until its you on site with a film crew , then it sinks in.[/QUOTE The people that sit on the couch might want to see shows that are made up but some of us who actually get out trying to find stuff dont, that's the point I'm saying. You have a target audience for stuff like that and it probably isn't the people who actually get out on their own looking to find treasure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[etex]

That Roman sword was real and anybody that says it is not is just jealous

 

[ECS]

Ok. But I'll be the devil's advocate here:
We (Mel Fisher) accepted the "stories" about the downing of a ship, as true historical fact.
Ok, but WHY CAN'T the "stories" of the Dent's run account equally be "historical fact" to pursue ?

What made Mel's "story" *true*, and the Dent's story *un-true* ? Because to the Dent's Run faithful: They consider the "story" to be on equal merit of historicity. And if you try to dispute them as to the roots (age) of the story, then it just devolves into a side debate. And then the problem becomes: Sure as $hit, they find some allusion to a name, date, and event, that precedes some 1973 origin. So in their mind's eyes, that makes it "history". Not "legend"...

Quite elementary- "Mel's stories" were backed up with Spanish archive documents, hard evidence confirming the loss of the ATOCHA-
Legends lack the hard collaborating evidence and needless to say, alluding to names, dates, and events without actual documentation is force fitting random unrelated facts to support one's personal belief in a treasure based on passed down tall tales and lore.
...it always becomes maybe, could be...

 

[b3y0nd3r]

This thread is such a waste of energy and time. Why invest in it? If there is a treasure, then show the proof. Where are the documents from that era stating there was a shipment? Where are the eyewitness accounts? News paper articles? Where is the real foot work here? How about photographs? I just see a lot of speculation and while I think a small amount is healthy, this is overkill.

 

[dash4cash]

This thread is such a waste of energy and time. Why invest in it? If there is a treasure, then show the proof. Where are the documents from that era stating there was a shipment? Where are the eyewitness accounts? News paper articles? Where is the real foot work here? How about photographs? I just see a lot of speculation and while I think a small amount is healthy, this is overkill.

Overkill to you and quite entertaining toooo me lol, its the part of me that wants to believe, and also the part that says (no way).

 

[FinderKeeper]

Oh my ... say it isn't so : So you are finally admitting you HAVEN'T found (past tense) a treasure ??

Then I would kindly suggest you go back and change scores of media interviews, posts, and claims. Because this is NOT what you've been claiming.

You got it wrong again TOM, I was talking about the TV shows we see now. I was not talking about us. GET REAL

 

[b3y0nd3r]

Overkill to you and quite entertaining toooo me lol, its the part of me that wants to believe, and also the part that says (no way).

I'm not saying I don't believe, nor am I saying I do. Provide the evidence first, then I can make a decision.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... I support Dennis, and until it becomes clear that they, the court, the feds acted on nothing, I remain open to possibilities, and remain hopeful,.....

Acted on nothing ? Oh no, rest assured: They acted on something. And here's what they acted on: 2 clowns who made a multi-year stink, claiming they'd "found" (past tense) a treasure.

If you gave me 10 yrs, I too could create a media circus on any speck of public land that you point to. Does the media and LEO circus mean anything is necessarily there ? No.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

But the Skeptic is not forced to watch the Game of whac-a-mole or disprove a thing, he can just go wash a load of clothes or spend time with the dog and let the treasure hunters do their thing .....

you're correct. And in that case : There can be forums where only an affirming point of view is allowed. Any dissenting or alternative view is deleted and banned. I can think of one forum-sub-section here on T'net, where that is the rule. And then .... sure : the Claimant can go on board, dazzling those-persons-who sit on the fence, and never have to fear a critical peer review. Because then no critiques on their claims are ever put forth.

But on the contrary: When someone comes on to a page, making a fabulous claim, and the page is not restricted to affirming-views-only, then : They need to expect that they're going to get alternative views.

Sure: The skeptic wasn't "forced". Nor was the claimant "forced". So I don't get it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... let the treasure hunters do their thing... .

And to be clear: No one is saying that Dennis can't "do his thing". But he just needs to be aware, that when he goes and "does his thing" (claiming a treasure is found or exists), then so too will skeptics "do their thing" and say "where is the proof ?"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

If that was true , there would be no treasure hunting shows on TV, if they did shows that only found treasure how many do you think we would see. Ya History Channel fakes things but that's what people want to see. That's OK if they tell us first, but to let us think the finds are real sucks. A TV crew does not want to film a find after its dug up . They want to be on site before its dug up to prove its real. So this is why we have many TV shows that end with no treasure but the hunters did think it was there. There is a lot more to treasure hunting and doing the TV thing than anyone knows until its you on site with a film crew , then it sinks in.[/QUOTE The people that sit on the couch might want to see shows that are made up but some of us who actually get out trying to find stuff dont, that's the point I'm saying. You have a target audience for stuff like that and it probably isn't the people who actually get out on their own looking to find treasure.

It seems to me that the other silly treasure shows, are not claiming past tense "found". They admit to being sheer speculation. Ie.: "What if?". But Dennis, on the other hand, has gone on record many times as having "found" (past tense) something. And now it's merely the details of retrieving it. Thus I see a difference between this, and Oak Island (as much as Oak Island is a joke too). On Oak Island, no is claiming to have found something.

See the difference ?

 

[Honest Samuel]

Dennis, show up your gold and we will believe.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Quite elementary- "Mel's stories" were backed up with Spanish archive documents, hard evidence confirming the loss of the ATOCHA-
Legends lack the hard collaborating evidence and needless to say, alluding to names, dates, and events without actual documentation is force fitting random unrelated facts to support one's personal belief in a treasure based on passed down tall tales and lore.
...it always becomes maybe, could be...

I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that the very things (ie.: historical written accounts of names, dates, and events) that Mel relied on, so too will the ghost-story-camp-fire-legend people equally purport to find in archives, documents, etc.....

So then it will boil down to a debate on the merits, or demerits, of the worthiness of the data, what it points to (treasure or no-treasure), etc....

And while I agree with you on the difference between the Atocha & Dents Run's evidence, just saying: Be prepared, that the faithful will be able to explain away any chink in the armor of the story. Eg.: conspiracies, past presidents destroyed evidence, eye-witnesses were executed, blah, blah, blah. And if you try to say "where's the proof of that?", they'll turn it around and say "prove it didn't happen"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... If there is a treasure, then show the proof. ....

They can't. The big bad government, and wheels of legal bureaucracy, has told them to remain mum.

.... Where are the documents from that era stating there was a shipment? ....

The "documents" will be something cryptic (names, dates, events) that I'm sure they can come up with. And as for the treasure part of the story ingredient ? I'm sure they can come up with a reason why it's not on the records. Like: So that enemy soldiers couldn't/wouldn't know, and thus risk theft.

Or they'll point you to the legend itself, as the requisite "documents". Anytime you ask for proof, all they need to do is point you back to the legend itself, and presto: There's your "proof". And then it just becomes a game of wack-a-mole to debate how far back the legend's origins goes. And to them, the mere mention of a name in history ("joe blow" or "president Lincoln") is the proof they're seeking.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... quite entertaining toooo me lol, its the part of me that wants to believe,....

Yup. That's why the silly legends never go away. It's the nature of ALL of us. We want to believe *sseeooo* hard. Lest we be "left out". So we cling on to any shred of hope. And subconsciously dismiss critical thinking that provides more plausible explanations. The old "what if ?" takes hold. So we put aside critical thinking. No one wants to be laughed at, while the other person heads to the bank.

That's why Oak Island won't go away, no matter how much evidence (dry holes) stacks against it.

Rather than skepticism LIMITING or DIMINISHING a TH'r's finds & tallies, it actually INCREASES a persons finds & tallies. Because he will spend his time pursuing stories and sites that have potential. Not those which are, quite obviously, silly camp-fire stories gone awry.

 

[Tedyoh]

It seems to me that the other silly treasure shows, are not claiming past tense "found". They admit to being sheer speculation. Ie.: "What if?". But Dennis, on the other hand, has gone on record many times as having "found" (past tense) something. And now it's merely the details of retrieving it. Thus I see a difference between this, and Oak Island (as much as Oak Island is a joke too). On Oak Island, no is claiming to have found something.

See the difference ?

But Gary, The Metal Detecting Expert, found a button, broken spoons, a fishing weight in the shape of a cross and railroad spikes.....

 

[pepperj]

Sitting around a large table one time a fellow hunter stated this:

"I was going through ravine/creek/river valley cut ( doesn't really matter ) and I saw a Wells Fargo safe sticking out of the bank "unopened"."

Well everybody bellied up a little closer and asked "What did you do ?"

He stated: "That he just left it there, as he wants to get all the ducks in order bla, bla, bla". (legal ownership, lawyers, taxes, Gov't, LEO....)

I myself and many others started to take up our feet off the floor as the BS was getting deep.

Note: This guy showed his true colours a few years later when caught claiming he had dug up Roman finds that were planted by his own hand.

So it only takes time folks and these hucksters are called to show the hand or fold it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You got it wrong again TOM, I was talking about the TV shows we see now. I was not talking about us. GET REAL

Well yes. Of course. I stand corrected. The other ones are there for the thrill of the hunt. While they, obviously have not "found" (past tense) a treasure. While you, on the other hand, are the exception. In your case, you HAVE "found" (past tense) a treasure.

Ok, I stand corrected.

 

[b3y0nd3r]

They can't. The big bad government, and wheels of legal bureaucracy, has told them to remain mum.



The "documents" will be something cryptic (names, dates, events) that I'm sure they can come up with. And as for the treasure part of the story ingredient ? I'm sure they can come up with a reason why it's not on the records. Like: So that enemy soldiers couldn't/wouldn't know, and thus risk theft.

Or they'll point you to the legend itself, as the requisite "documents". Anytime you ask for proof, all they need to do is point you back to the legend itself, and presto: There's your "proof". And then it just becomes a game of wack-a-mole to debate how far back the legend's origins goes. And to them, the mere mention of a name in history ("joe blow" or "president Lincoln") is the proof they're seeking.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. If they have nothing official they can display, then they can show the documentation with what they did to find it. If they can't legally divulge any info, then where is the document stating that?

 

[ECS]

... If there is a treasure, then show the proof. Where are the documents from that era stating there was a shipment?
Where are the eyewitness accounts?
News paper articles? Where is the real foot work here?
How about photographs? ...

This is the documentation and evidence that separates an actual lost treasure like the ATOCHA from legends, lore, and tall tale speculative treasures that never ever produced anything but lost time and money.