Did you just claim to know what I think? Pretty unlikely, given that the the phrase you quote: " it was an opinion" doesn't occur in this thread until your use in post #44 quoted here. You can't just make up quotes and argue from them. Well ... not successfully anyway
I don't have a clue what you mean, please go back and start that part over based in reality, K? Please point out where this occurred. How can I defend if you can't articulate what you are trying to relay? Your logic is fallacious. And your claim :'you have a language laid out before you.' is insane, either that or completely meaningless if you want to semantically argue that any symbology no matter how obscure equates to and is defined as 'you have a language laid out before you.'. Actually, no. Nothing you have proffered logically follows. You have yet to show anything. Nice- a backhanded way to claim I 'skew history'. Skew history? Me? how? When? Intentionally or other wise! I defy you to back that up. Of course they are, since when was this about 'communication' instead of what you claimed: 'you have a language laid out before you.' ? ditto x 4 So then, what did you mean with your claim 'There is gold in the Superstition if that is what you are after. ' ??
I'll guess no one is afraid.
I want to get this straight because I am still struggling to understand you. This is obvious in your frustration. You seem to keep returning to the logic involved in my argument or, lack there of. That my ideas are flawed or the argument fallacious. And you may turn out to be correct.
But, before you or anyone reading this can dismiss the belief that we are looking at treasure symbols, you would have to learn the system, the language (it is a language) to some degree of competency. Have you done the research? Did you eliminate the possibility based on some critical evaluation? I did not coin the phrase "the language of treasure symbols". It's been floating around for a long time. Funny how a key work on the subject was published just around the time the stones were made public. Have you read the three important titles on treasure symbols? Were you able to find all three? Based on your ignorance of the subject I am guessing that you have not. Am I wrong?
So, returning to your need for logic. We have a set of stones with a questionable discovery story. They are covered with symbols and word structures that correlate almost entirely to the language of treasure symbol. That is a fact. Now, if I understand you correctly, and I am not sure that I do, you insist that the symbols are arbitrary, with no significance, and that perhaps the stones were made by an individual killing time, with no message or communication to be found in their arrangement. If this is really your belief, and at this point I simply can't tell, it is terribly misguided and uninformed.
As I tried to explain in the beginning, my understanding of the stones is based on my research, in books and on the ground. The stones IMO are a map that lead to some unknown thing or things. I am guessing that it is archeological in nature. The directions are written in the language of treasure symbols. They were made sometime before their discovery in 49(?) but not before 1925ish. They were made using an aerial photograph and an overlay. I believe that they we made by a Don named Odd Halseth.
Now before you respond with a list of generalized one liners, why not go back and look at my many posts where I offer examples and explanations. Then read a book or two on treasure symbols if you can find them.
When you have done these things, come back and tell us why and where my approach is flawed. Forget the reasoning since we already disagree on that. I challenge you to dissect my theory, show exactly where and why it's flawed and to give clear examples. You may reuse any quote or image that I have posted.
You most likely will not accept the challenge because it means a commitment of time and energy. It would also mean putting aside your prejudices and allowing for the possibility that you could be wrong. That's a tall order for someone with your mindset.
I want you to read this and tell me what it means to you, logically, without sarcasm. I have quite a bit of faith in this mans knowledge of the SWA.
A few years back, I had the privilege of showing my overlay to an archeologist overseeing the SWA. He dismissed the stones as a hoax but almost as a second thought, he pointed out that at least one of the symbols correlated to an important archeological site. An extremely old cave dwelling, prehistoric. He looked at me and said, "nice try". Meaning, I had knowledge of the site and used it to build my overlay. I did not know about the sites existence before he shared it. I think that he was sorry for saying anything by the time that I left.
So, I thanked him and left without his support for a film permit. I have never been to the site. It is on the Priest stone in my theory. This one treasure symbol, confirmed by someone in authority. The site is prehistoric and extremely fragile and I have not been there. It's also a dangerous climb.
Believing for a moment that I had no prior knowledge of this obscure site, is this coincidence? Is it logical to assume that it could be something more?
So, can you prove that there is mineralization sufficient to support economically recoverable quantities of gold in the SWA, or would you like to pick some other definition of 'gold' ? (Not trying to box you in on 'gold', just say what you meant if I didn't guess right.)
