New site?...with different clue versions?

[Al D]

The 10 has nothing to do with the date

babymick1

No? It just happens to be right next to it

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[wrmickel1]

No? It just happens to be right next to it

You Read the three symbols together 10,circle in circle,and the triangle

babymick1

 

[Al D]

You Read the three symbols together 10,circle in circle,and the triangle

babymick1

So the circle and triangle mean Date?
if Occam’s Razor is to be applied, this is getting ridiculously complicated

 

[wrmickel1]

They probably didn’t even know anything about the war, Kearny moved quickly through the territory along the Gila
any miner in the mountains would not have known exactly what was happening, they did not have flash news back then

by your own words they had 2 years

babymick1

 

[Al D]

by your own words they had 2 years

babymick1

In 1847, the Mexicans did not know they were going to loose the war

 

[wrmickel1]

So the circle and triangle mean Date?
if Occam’s Razor is to be applied, this is getting ridiculously complicated

They have nothing to do with the date

babymick1 Complicated code yes or we would not be here on TN

 

[Al D]

They have nothing to do with the date

babymick1 Complicated code yes or we would not be here on TN

I had this debate with Phil Reinhardt back in 2004 or so, it was a waste of time then also

 

[Al D]

The Symbols read as a group, not each alone, There based on a sentence as if telling someone something.
The numbers are based on a very specific action you need to take. As 4 is to direction or 7 is to rest, There’s a important reason you must stop.

Babymick1

This is funny, 1847 is a date, except here....you say it means something else.

 

[wrmickel1]

In 1847, the Mexicans did not know they were going to loose the war

Well by pulling out of the area it would lead one to believe they New more then a guy on TN 200 years later.

babymick1

 

[Al D]

Well by pulling out of the area it would lead one to believe they New more then a guy on TN 200 years later.

babymick1

Maybe you should read up on your history

 

[wrmickel1]

This is funny, 1847 is a date, except here....you say it means something else.

Its just a date 1847. 1962 year I was born

babymick1

 

[wrmickel1]

Maybe you should read up on your history

Don’t need to, It’s not a history lesson either


babymick1. Beside if your a straight A student then you think to much

 

[somehiker]

Can’t be a date, does the 10 stand for October?
the war started on 25 April 1846 and ended on 2 February 1848

Here was my own theory about the 1947 as a date a few years ago.
Ran into a stone wall, quite abruptly I might add, which made me rethink that number myself.
Saved a couple of screenshots though.......

Anyone who thinks my theory plausible should follow up and see what else might be out there on the WWW.
There's always new information being posted online.
I'm done with it.

 

[Oroblanco]

In 1847, the Mexicans did not know they were going to loose the war

The uncertainty was real. Plus the Mexican force in Arizona, a small force of cavalry stationed at Tucson, immediately retreated south on the approach of the Americans, without a fight. Remember Santa Ana capitulated in 1847, Arizona was entirely under US control in that year.

Josiah Gregg, who was with the American army in northern Mexico, said that "the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned, and the people chiefly confined to the towns and cities."

The Mormon Battalion marched across Arizona. It would have been almost impossible for a party of miners to NOT hear of the war and how it was faring badly for Mexico, by the 'panic' that spread ahead of the advancing American forces.

I would also point out that while 1847 is logical to see as a date, not every number on the stones then must be a date as well. Why would anyone bother to mark more than the year of the claim? Your argument reminds me of the Atlantis discussion skeptics. Alan explain why 1847 should not be viewed as a date please. Thanks in advance.



PS almost forgot, but president Polk had made his war aims clear even before the war was fully on, that all of Arizona north of the Gila river would be seized. So any Mexican with property or mining claims north of the Gila river should have felt nervous especially when the small Mexican garrison in Tucson simply fled without a fight.

 

[Al D]

The uncertainty was real. Plus the Mexican force in Arizona, a small force of cavalry stationed at Tucson, immediately retreated south on the approach of the Americans, without a fight. Remember Santa Ana capitulated in 1847, Arizona was entirely under US control in that year.

Josiah Gregg, who was with the American army in northern Mexico, said that "the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned, and the people chiefly confined to the towns and cities."

The Mormon Battalion marched across Arizona. It would have been almost impossible for a party of miners to NOT hear of the war and how it was faring badly for Mexico, by the 'panic' that spread ahead of the advancing American forces.

I would also point out that while 1847 is logical to see as a date, not every number on the stones then must be a date as well. Why would anyone bother to mark more than the year of the claim? Your argument reminds me of the Atlantis discussion skeptics. Alan explain why 1847 should not be viewed as a date please. Thanks in advance.

But....Kearny took Santa Fe in 1846 and the capitulation of Santa Ana came as a result of the battles in Mexico, not in Arizona or New Mexico territories.

 

[Oroblanco]

But....Kearny took Santa Fe in 1846 and the capitulation of Santa Ana came as a result of the battles in Mexico, not in Arizona or New Mexico territories.

Read up on the march of the Mormon Battalion. Any Mexican with property in Arizona north of the Gila should have been nervous. Panic spread ahead of the approaching Americans, many people simply fled south. 1847 was and is a key date in Arizona history.

 

[Oroblanco]

Here is a brief article from Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Battalion

 

[Al D]

I would also point out that while 1847 is logical to see as a date, not every number on the stones then must be a date as well. Why would anyone bother to mark more than the year of the claim? Your argument reminds me of the Atlantis discussion skeptics. Alan explain why 1847 should not be viewed as a date please. Thanks in advance.

a date by itself serves no purpose, it needs to be associated with something, so, why post a date which is easily read by anyone, and then make everything else cryptic?

 

[Al D]

Read up on the march of the Mormon Battalion. Any Mexican with property in Arizona north of the Gila should have been nervous. Panic spread ahead of the approaching Americans, many people simply fled south. 1847 was and is a key date in Arizona history.

OK, so what good would a dated claim be to a Mexican national?

 

[Oroblanco]

a date by itself serves no purpose, it needs to be associated with something, so, why post a date which is easily read by anyone, and then make everything else cryptic?

The obvious answer is to establish an historical date for a claim, whether for minerals or property. Now explain to me why that number 1847 should NOT be viewed as a date please. Thanks in advance.