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
View attachment 1537986 thank you sir for you time, we got this markers 65ft below the surface, we have done a little of our homework, but we still need professional advice from those who had work and experienced this kind of stuff, i hope you understand my point sir
What "markers". I don't see any marker in that pix.
And ... sheesk .... 65 ft. deep ?? !! How long did it take you to dig that deep ? Do you think they had that long, in the heat of war, to go digging that deep to hide something ? And why would they need that deep in the first place ? Isn't an object equally hidden at 2 ft. or 20 ft. or 65 ft ? As long as the top is covered and fluffed up, then .... burying deeper does make it any more "hidden". Right ? So what's the sense ?
This notion that "the bigger and more valuable a treasure", then the "deeper it must of necessity be", is part and parcel to legend and cultural lore. There are treasures, all the time, that get found that aren't necessarily deep.
You can dream up ways where .... given enough slaves, and given crazy motives (predicting the advent of metal detectors 70 yrs. later ?) that someone would go to all that trouble. But that would be like if I dreamed up how it's entirely theoretically possible for me to ride a tricycle backwards to New York city. And perhaps you couldn't dispute me that it's *possible*.
But then you'd have to ask yourself: "Isn't it more *plausible* that Tom_in_CA would take his car, rather than a tricycle?". So too do you need to ask yourself "what's more plausible" when it comes to treasure legends and rocks you find. JMHO.
Am enjoying the pictures ! And fascinated by the mindset/psychology of all this.