Dent's run hit main stream news.

Also, if you subscribe to the rationale of "There are no coincidences" (ie.: everything has a "meaning"), then ... I'm sure you will find something in this :

[www.mnmuseumofthems.org]

Ok, is that a random uncanny coincidence that it resembles to face of John F. Kennedy ? Or is it simply an uncanny random coincidence, with a more plausible explanation ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, if you subscribe to the rationale of "There
> are no coincidences" (ie.: everything has a "mean
> ing"), then ... I'm sure you will find something i
> n this :
>
> [www.mnmuseumofthems.org]
> ml
>
> Ok, is that a random uncanny coincidence that it r
> esembles to face of John F. Kennedy ? Or is it sim
> ply an uncanny random coincidence, with a more pla
> usible explanation ?

It's this. The human mind desperately tries to find patterns in everything. If you were to show that to someone who never saw JFK, they would see the profile of a man. The brain seeks out patterns and tries to make sense of it. That is why clouds look like certain things.

ok coincidences and gov't waste I understand. What I will do is put words in your mouth like you do to others(not being hostile here) .

So you are saying they brought in all those armored cars after the dig was done because the gov't likes wasting money and someone who saw those armored cars assumed they were to haul something, but they weren't. They just like showing these armored cars off

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So you are saying they brought in all those armore
> d cars after the dig was done because the gov't li
> kes wasting money and someone who saw those armore
> d cars assumed they were to haul something, but th
> ey weren't. They just like showing these armored c
> ars off


Were there actually armored cars there? Where are the pictures? Where are the video? Who saw them?

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So you are saying they brought in all those armo
> re
> > d cars after the dig was done because the gov't
> li
> > kes wasting money and someone who saw those armo
> re
> > d cars assumed they were to haul something, but
> th
> > ey weren't. They just like showing these armored
> c
> > ars off
>
>
> Were there actually armored cars there? Where are
> the pictures? Where are the video? Who saw them?

Check the article I posted.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So you are saying they brought in all those armore
> d cars after the dig was done because the gov't li
> kes wasting money and someone who saw those armore
> d cars assumed they were to haul something, but th
> ey weren't. They just like showing these armored c
> ars off


Beyonder, no matter WHAT other explanation I can offer, for this supposed series of scenes, will simply be met with "prove it". Or "that doesn't explain why there were 4, instead of only 3". The p*ssing match will go on forever. The same sorts of p*ssing matches evolve over Lost Dutchman (uncanny conspiratorial clues), Yamashita (uncanny conspiratorial clues, supposed eyewitnesses, etc...) Oak Island (smoking gun uncanny tales, conspiratorial clues, strange fibers found 30 ft. down, etc....).

And no matter HOW hard I would try, to either show the data has been misconstrued , erroneously reported, or has more plausible explanations : None of that will work. Just like all the other treasure legends, it can only mean "treasure". Just like funny shapes in the clouds (as you admit), a person can find TONS of "connect-the-dots" strings, for things they see, strange glances from passing individuals, cars that passed in the night. Men doing work seemingly in secret, etc.... And each time, it's a slam dunk "treasure". There can't be any other explanation, right ?

Mind you, all of this simply assumes that all this "armored car" stuff (and black helicopters, and navy seals, etc...) even happened to begin with. And It's putting the burden of proof on me to prove that even if such events did happen, that it WASN'T treasure . Why is the burden of proof on me or the skeptics to DIS-prove it ? Why isn't the burden of proof on the claimants to prove it DID happen ?

Ok , where's the gold bars ? Oh wait, they were secreted away in a giant conspiracy, right ?

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Check the article I posted.


Sooooo, one person heard "something" and someone else claimed to see SUVs ? Thats the smoking gun here? Sorry, but too many holes in the story, too many holes in the back-story. Don't forget, FK already claimed that park works stole the treasure years ago. Now its just someone else to blame.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Were there actually armored cars there? Where are
> the pictures? Where are the video? Who saw them?

Silverfiend, you're not catching the drift of this:

a) it's not up to someone to prove armored cars were there. It's up to you to prove they WEREN'T there. The burden of proof is on you, not them. And

b) This is all barking up the wrong tree anyhow. Because it seems to insinuate, that EVEN IF SOMEONE PROVED ARMORED CARS WERE THERE, that .... That somehow proves "treasure" ?

Kind of reminds me of the debates over Oak Island: Pages and pages of debate over the buoyancy of coconut fibers. Which devolved into coconuts native to Africa vs India. Debates over ocean currents that could have carried the fibers. Blah Blah blah blah. And the funny thing is, that .... let's say the claimants WIN that debate (to prove that the fibers were introduced by mankind, and not naturally). Then.... presto ... the claimants can therefore claim that Oak Island treasure exists ?

It's as if the "rabbit trail" is on purpose: Try to get the skeptic off on a rabbit trail of some incidental detail. Then .... when the skeptic fails to prove a point there, then ... presto, claim victory over the whole treasure notion ? Hence I refuse to enter into a debate of "was there suspicious activity or not", and "were there strange vehicles, and men 'loading things' " or not. It's a purposeful red herring that I will not fall for.

The thing I will "fall for", is when someone shows the gold. Period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 06:56PM by Tom_in_CA.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sooooo, one person heard "something" and someone e
> lse claimed to see SUVs ? Thats the smoking gun h
> ere? Sorry, but too many holes in the story, too
> many holes in the back-story.


Bingo. I remember watching a documentary on supposed UFO sightings (area 51, Roswell, etc...). And a candid type camera caught people being lulled into all sorts of speculations. Eg.: the reporter comes up to the man-on-the-street (dreamy eyed superstitious sort of person) saying : "We're from the media, and we're covering the story on the UFO's. Have you too seen anything strange around here?". You see how that question "leads" ?

SO TOO can I equally imagine going up to the little burg near Dents Run (where this is probably already coffee-shop talk by now), and interviewing starry-eyed treasure-lore type people. And saying "We're from the media. What do you think of the suspicious activity seen at the site of the 7 tons of gold ?" And then getting all sorts of affirming answers, to the VERY INFERENCE that you just STEERED them into !

It's like if you have a group of a circle of friends. But one of them is "on the outs". It's psychologically possible "lead" your friend to be against your 3rd friend. With leading questions like "Don't you think so & so is a little strange ? You'll never guess what he did yesterday...." blah blah. To which your friend then says "Gee, now that you mention it, he *has* been acting a little strange lately".

If anyone starts a good treasure legend, it's not hard to get people to start saying ALL SORTS OF THINGS that appear uncanny, suspicious, etc.... Just like it's been proven that locations that have the most amount of UFO sightings are (drumroll) places where the most amount of superstitious new-agey type UFO nuts are. So .... I can't imagine that there would be any bias about how someone interprets otherwise mundane things. Right ?