Oregon Coastal Treasure From 1694?

[Tom_in_CA 368]

1 hour ago, GB_Amateur said:

 ...we have a better chance of sorting out evidence from belief.....

It's kinda like crime investigation.  .....

GB-amateur, with all-due-respect, look closely at what you're saying.   In-lieu of  The current discussion of : Ghost-story camp-fire legends, vs something of merit.

 

Your fall-back here essentially hinges on "sorting fact from fiction" .  If I have correctly recapped with your quote from above.  Right ?

 

But this fails to take into account that NONE of the treasure stories EVER started with :  "Once upon a time....".  They are ALL built around actual names, dates , and events.    Why do you think Oak Island, Yamashita, Lost Dutchman, and Pearl ship are so fun to muse and dream about ?  Because they are built , let's say, on 95% "actual real names, dates, and events".  So you might say :  "All we need to do is sort fact from fiction".  Right ?  But this fails to realize that if the 5% of the story (the part about treasure) is nothing but embellished telephone game ghost story nonsense, then ... presto :  What does it matter that the other 95% is true ?   

 

There was a Manila galleon wreck site found along a remote stretch of Baja CA, back, I think, in the 1950s.   And , like yours, it had (gasp) wax globs and porcelain that had washed up on the beach.   Nothing of value was ever found there.  Yes some of the 2x per year @ 250 yrs did go unaccounted for and lost.   And even assuming some of those were on the west coast (versus the middle of the ocean), then:

 

A)  It's VERY difficult to ground yourself on shallow ground (ie.: the beach, like as in the Atocha story).  Since our Pacific coast beaches tend to drop off to insane depths, only a short distance off shore (think "Brother Jonathan", for example, which required a submarine to reach) .  So unlike the gulf-of-Mexico beaches, which invited shipwrecks to miscalculate, and wreck right on the beach, the CA shoreline is much different.

 

B)  The returning Manila galleons actually spotted land (the Pacific coast) MUCH FURTHER south than Oregon.  More like the channel Islands area of So. CA.  Yes it's true that a few sighted land as far north as San Francisco or Pt. Reyes, etc....    But by the time the route got established, they knew-enough to "cut off mileage" to start their curve southward, in such a way that they started following the coast MUCH further south along the CA coast.  Not Oregon latitude in the slightest.

 

C)  As said, they were not laden with any goodies that would be of interest to anyone other than archies.  Who might be giddy with joy over crockery shards and wax.   They had spent all their $ (gold and silver) in China/philippines , to buy their trade goods. 

 

 

 

[kac 2,890]

I'd be happy with a murky pic of an ocean bottom or some smudge on sonar showing a wreck. Still a nice story on the entertainment side, now that they put that out there they may have to do a show to prove/disprove it all. 🙂

[GB_Amateur 5,061]

53 minutes ago, Tom_in_CA said:

5% of the story (the part about treasure) is nothing but embellished telephone game ghost story nonsense

I'm not particularly interested in debating this particular 'treasure' or any other specific treasure, and here's one reason why.  I don't place 100% confidence in anything.  You seem 100% confident from this quote which I now repeat with my emphasis: "...(the part about treasure) is nothing but embellished telephone game ghost story nonesense...".  Maybe your definition of 'nothing' is different than mine (or Webster's).  Apparently we 'play' by different rules which by its nature renders any debate/game/discussion an unfair exercise.

Even in this instance (the article Mitchel linked) you focus in on the prologue hype of gold/treasure chest.  I made a point that the article (at least the part I found interesting -- about 80% of it) is about research.  You never said you read the entire article, but I took it from what you did say that you didn't get past the prologue.  I did read the entire article, including the prologue, and criticized that part as sensationalism.  So we're talking past each other -- typical of these kinds of disagreements.  Is there evidence for 'treasure' of the kind that makes people rich -- significant precious metals and gemstones?  I didn't see it.  In fact the research which I continue to emphasize & commend includes an apparent discovery of the ship's manifest.  (Anyone interested can read the highlights of that in the article.)

I'm not here to convince you or anyone else that a particular treasure story (when we're talking about actual treasure stories) is true or not, and I don't think I've ever done that, at least in the years I've been posting to this site.  But I will defend myself (and any others if they want to ride along) that reading/watching these stories isn't a worthless (dogmatic word, like 'nothing' in some cases of the word's use) activity nor is it purely (dogmatism again) an appeasement of a fiction/fantasy human need.

I sometimes (although not always) read posts here with details of the use and techniques about the Minelab GPZ 7000.  I'm as likely to own one of those as I am to search for (let alone find) one of the ultra-famous treasures you mention.  But I learn some things about detecting which may at some point help me with another detector or treasure search.  (OMG, there's that word -- 'treasure'.)  Almost always when I watch these kinds of shows (and there are many non-treasure shows which fall under a similar umbrella) I learn something about good (and more often, bad) investigative techniques, pitfalls in reasoning, and human psychology.  After watching/reading one of these am I 100% convinced either way as to the existence/veracity of the primary subject?  (I think I answered that in the first paragraph.)  Sometimes I delve deeper and sometimes I'm just satisfied with the lessons I've learned.

[Tom_in_CA 368]

ok