I'm totally game to admit that these things have been found. Just waiting to see the evidence. And the answer to the more plausible explanations (to said photos and stories) that I am offering you guys to the various evidences and photos you give.
Ok. Sure. I'll admit I haven't "dis-proved" anything. And I think you will admit that you haven't "proved" anything either. Right ?
And I have no doubt that people have "experienced" what you're saying. Depending on how you define "experience". Because to some people, seeing a certain rock, or finding a vial with a note in it, is .... to them .... proof positive "experience". Don't take this wrong, but there are people who claim to have experienced seeing Elvis alive, or being abducted by aliens, etc.... Please, don't take that as mockery. I'm only saying that "experience" is not the measure of reality. Only evidence is the proof of reality. People can "experience" all sorts of things which, under scrutiny, have more plausible explanations.
Sure. Nor have you proven anything. Sure, so too do you have words and presumption, opinion, thoughts, experiences. Why isn't this finger pointing both ways ?
He also said gold nuggets inside, eh? I had never heard of the mining markers having "nuggets" inside, so I decided to leave that out of the discussion . But let's cut to the chase: If, in fact, this simply, as I say, nothing but a later era (ie.: modern western) mining claim marker, then why wouldn't it be reasonable to assume there's "maps" in there ? AFTER ALL, that's the purpose, when you've gone to mark-out-the-corners of your claim is to (doh....) MAP it after all. Right ? Let him take the vial and the text on the rolled up little pieces of paper to a mining history authority. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts it's exactly what I'm saying it is.
This is an odd thing to say. Seeing as how you too are going to great lengths to uphold a contrasting/differing view as well. Then, logically, couldn't I say the same thing of your notions of being right? Perhaps you are right ! Perhaps I am right ! But the finger of "thinking one is right" points both ways. Does it not ? The issue then is: Who's got the evidence ? And who's got the more plausible explanations ? Name-calling (eg. "close-minded", etc...) is not "evidence"
If you go back to my post, you'll see that I acknowledge some people "stay mum". Sure. But ... then if no one can produce a single type treasure being found/produced by a particular type unconventional TH'ing method/origin (Jesuit/spanish + death trap + cryptogram), doesn't it ... uh ... raise a little bit of eyebrows ?
We can find an example of every single other type treasure in the news, or past banners, etc... But not this type. Is it all just coincidence ?
I have addressed this already. I'll address it again: You and I both know (because I'm assuming your an md'ing enthusiast, that mankind will loose and/or hide (and hence be found later) a representative example of whatever he owns or carries. Right ? So for example: If you're in France, you'll expect French coins. Right ? If your country carries/uses/owns silver coins, then you'll expect silver coins. Right ? Then why, oh why, oh why .... if the Spanish here (in CA for example) had all this gold some people allege, then why is there NEVER a representative sample in the archaeological or md'ing record ?
That's fine if you personally are not the type that shows off his trophies to his buddies. If you go fishing and land the lake's record trout, you'll just keep that to yourself? If you finally perform a triple back flip snow-ski'ing, you'll hope none of your friends caught it on video ? If you find a gold bar, you won't tell your detecting buddies ? Because to do any of these things would be to violate the Biblical commands against pride ?