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
yea but whether you've seen 50 or 1000 unsuccessful operations it doesn't give you the capability of conclusively saying yes or no the target is real based on the information ive given you. you keep talking about landmarks, how do you know there aren't any landmarks around here? your mind is rushing to negative without any real evidence.....
Some observations on the above quote :
a) if history had shown 50 or 1000 failures, then ... seems to me ... that at a certain point you'd have to take into account if you are really chasing something that's simply not there. Examples : 1) If you turn over 1000 rocks looking for a unicorn, at what point do you begin realize "maybe there's not unicorns here ?" 2) If you try to stuff a watermelon into a plastic sandwich baggie, and fail 1000 times, at what point do you admit that "maybe watermelons don't fit into plastic sandwich baggies ?" In other words: At some point, you've got to realize what your odds are, based on past history .
b) I have already addressed your "5 types detecting technology" in post #20. Any comment on that ?
c) Yes, the skeptic's mind "rushes to the negative". But here's where I think your logic has it backwards: You say "... without any real evidence" [for them to be negative/skeptical] . Right ? But why is the burden of proof on them to prove it ISN'T there ? Isn't the burden of proof on the claimant to prove it IS there ?
Haven't you heard the old saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". And actually, I do think the skeptic's have given adequate proof. There are, as you yourself admit overwhelming failures and utter lack of any finds. At *SOME* point doesn't that become indicative ? There are scholarly doubts as to the notion of "treasures being stashed in the Philippines" to begin with. Haven't you read those links and quotes ?
Yes I'm sure you can find some extreme way that some crazy motive or ability might have been feasible. So too could I create and invent a far-fetched notion why I might decide, and physically accomplish riding a tricycle backwards to New York. But is it logical ? No. Are there more plausible explanations why I might decide to take my car instead ? Yes. Does the mere fact of physically possible make it necessarily true ? No.
Last edited: