In layman's terms I believe that means you have Jack. I've been privy to some pretty exciting Jesus on a potato chip discoveries, too, but was not convinced of the theory that Jesus was the original founder of the Lay's corporation. Confirmation Bias can be a beech, it's clouded the vision of many a treasure hunter and conspiracy seeker alike.
I don't believe anyone contested the age of your medallion, just the marks upon it that were clearly of a more recent vintage. Therefore, as a representation of an ancient artifact, I would naturally be forced to call twiddly dinks. No offense intended, no suspect declared. Again, Confirmation Bias can be a troublesome little twitch of the ego. I'm sure the individuals responsible for all the false treasure marks and faked petros covering AZ, NM, UT, were aware of that shortcoming in their fellow man. Though not confined to those areas alone, the sheer number of them concentrated there bears noting and always suspect. Your opinion of my "expertise" matters not, but your mention of it speaks volumes as to your own.
Good luck in your journey, may it bear fruit and good fortune.
I am of a belief I dont believe anything I hear, and only half of what I see. After spending time with locals and those who know about local legends. I have found some truth even in a lie. Now I dont call folks liars, and I add this so as to not offend anyone. I encourage all to search as we only see what we are supposed to see. I share as I have friends on here who would take offense, and being a gentleman is making folks comfortable around you.
Does that mean you are confident in your analysis of that piece of copper as being "ancient", and a "medallion" ?
And I suppose that quoting half a sentence while ignoring the rest is not part of the problem you exhibit yourself ?
"But when I offer a theory I am usually able to show at least some photo evidence of what I partly base my reasoning on....and any "confirmation bias" I might have usually requires several pieces of evidence that fit a particular scenario to my own satisfaction.", with the second part of my sentence sorta referencing what can be read here. {https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm}
A well known and often used quote goes something like this...."You can lead a horse to water....".
In part, the inference being...even if it really IS water, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Congrats are due alright, but for another reason entirely....."twiddly dinks"
Doesn't change the context of the second part, so long as you overlook the quotation marks and other obvious cues within the entire sentence. Just as you've chosen to ignore the first question.
So far as I know, photographs, though open to individual interpretation which is often subjectively influenced by the observer's own biases, are considered to be objective in nature, rather than subjective as you seem to be implying.
But go ahead and have another sip....there's lots left in the trough.
