the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #181
you have'nt seen anything yet ... and you wont
tayopa, legend or reality ...?
- Thread starter the blindbowman
- Start date
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #182
Bill96 said:
its funny how many of the realities of logic have been discoverd by those willing to guess and without any real facts to suport the thoeries ..
most were willing to devolpe the thoeries in mind before they became fact , they never really ask anyone else what they thaught because few would under stand their theories any way ...lol
do you know the most dangerous thing known is a faults fact .. only when people beleive something is a fact do they risk more then they know or under stand ,,,
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
---------------------------5th---------------------
Don Jose de La Mancha
Don Jose de La Mancha
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,854
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Greetings friends,
Some very interesting statements have been made. For instance,
Blindbowman wrote:
And...
That is quite a combination of statements IMHO, which implies that some part of the information we have been discussing is false/misleading, or perhaps all of it is of this nature? What I see between the lines is that Blindbowman is hinting that he has more, perhaps much more (for instance where did he come up with measurements to arrive at an amount of ore removed) and perhaps some of this un-released information would be of the type necessary to "seal" a case? After all, as he said, this is only a web site and who knows who is actually here typing in words right?
At one point I became convinced that the whole thing was a gag, a game etc but if it is, it is a heck of a gag! The question was asked, why do you think Blindbowman actually has found something - well regardless of whether it is Montezuma's tomb or something else, who would travel across the country several times (and is planning to do so again) for the sake of a gag? As Cubfan said, I am convinced that Blindbowman believes he has found something - though identifying it is quite a challenge.
MRE's are good and fairly inexpensive, but somewhat heavy. They are only a little less heavy (relatively speaking) than packing cans of food - which is a limiting factor if you are going to be camped for a long time. That was why I mentioned those expensive but lightweight and fairly tasty dehydrated foods they sell in camping stores. Think about how much weight you can pack on your back, comfortably. I know the old military standard (and remember it well) was eighty pounds, but IMHO that is a wee bit high and tiring. The amount each person can carry is different for everyone, but one way to find out how much food you can pack is to fill your pack with everything ELSE but the food, and weigh it. You might be surprised at the amount. Then consider how many days you plan to be out (and allow for an extra meal at least, in case of company or if you should unexpectedly have to stay a bit longer) and divide the weight by that number of days. For the sake of example here is what I am talking about:
Weight person X can carry comfortably...45 pounds
Weight of loaded pack MINUS food...21 pounds (sleeping bag or roll, pad, tent, cookset, spare clothing, bug dope, 1st aid kit etc)
this leaves 24 pounds for food so lets say the trip is planned to be just fourteen days so...
24 pounds divided by 14 days equals 27.4 OUNCES per day.
Now decide whether you are going to eat three, two or X number of meals and you can see how this little factor (food) can get complicated and does need some planning! This weight limit problem and the high cost of the freeze-dried (dehydrated) foods leaves only a few possible types of food that are light weight, nutritious and will keep without refrigeration - like pasta, beans, rice, nuts, dried fruits, jerky, etc. Then if you are packing drinking water, it gets interesting! (Of course if you are using a pack animal, even a 400-pound burro can carry over 100 pounds.....
)
Ed your Machaka recipe is different from what I found via Google - only in one ingredient though, garlic. Do you use garlic in yours? (I love garlic so if you do include garlic, it won't bother me!)
Oroblanco
Some very interesting statements have been made. For instance,
Blindbowman wrote:
And...
That is quite a combination of statements IMHO, which implies that some part of the information we have been discussing is false/misleading, or perhaps all of it is of this nature? What I see between the lines is that Blindbowman is hinting that he has more, perhaps much more (for instance where did he come up with measurements to arrive at an amount of ore removed) and perhaps some of this un-released information would be of the type necessary to "seal" a case? After all, as he said, this is only a web site and who knows who is actually here typing in words right?
At one point I became convinced that the whole thing was a gag, a game etc but if it is, it is a heck of a gag! The question was asked, why do you think Blindbowman actually has found something - well regardless of whether it is Montezuma's tomb or something else, who would travel across the country several times (and is planning to do so again) for the sake of a gag? As Cubfan said, I am convinced that Blindbowman believes he has found something - though identifying it is quite a challenge.
MRE's are good and fairly inexpensive, but somewhat heavy. They are only a little less heavy (relatively speaking) than packing cans of food - which is a limiting factor if you are going to be camped for a long time. That was why I mentioned those expensive but lightweight and fairly tasty dehydrated foods they sell in camping stores. Think about how much weight you can pack on your back, comfortably. I know the old military standard (and remember it well) was eighty pounds, but IMHO that is a wee bit high and tiring. The amount each person can carry is different for everyone, but one way to find out how much food you can pack is to fill your pack with everything ELSE but the food, and weigh it. You might be surprised at the amount. Then consider how many days you plan to be out (and allow for an extra meal at least, in case of company or if you should unexpectedly have to stay a bit longer) and divide the weight by that number of days. For the sake of example here is what I am talking about:
Weight person X can carry comfortably...45 pounds
Weight of loaded pack MINUS food...21 pounds (sleeping bag or roll, pad, tent, cookset, spare clothing, bug dope, 1st aid kit etc)
this leaves 24 pounds for food so lets say the trip is planned to be just fourteen days so...
24 pounds divided by 14 days equals 27.4 OUNCES per day.
Now decide whether you are going to eat three, two or X number of meals and you can see how this little factor (food) can get complicated and does need some planning! This weight limit problem and the high cost of the freeze-dried (dehydrated) foods leaves only a few possible types of food that are light weight, nutritious and will keep without refrigeration - like pasta, beans, rice, nuts, dried fruits, jerky, etc. Then if you are packing drinking water, it gets interesting! (Of course if you are using a pack animal, even a 400-pound burro can carry over 100 pounds.....
)Ed your Machaka recipe is different from what I found via Google - only in one ingredient though, garlic. Do you use garlic in yours? (I love garlic so if you do include garlic, it won't bother me!)
Oroblanco
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #185
your smarter then just the words you type, ...Oro..
here is a equation for you (V=MxW)
the volume is equale to the mass vs weight
so what dose a 1ft by 1 ft or (1x1 cubic ) weigh when it is almost pure gold and silver , vs a normal cubic of stone of the avg type found there ...?
if we under stand the weight correctly , we come to the concluetion the amont under the dutchmans bed is about the most a preson at avg could carrie . 55 to 60 pounds dead weight , so i used this as my standerd , 1 cubic volume is equale to 50-60 pounds pre avg mass weight ...
the candle box could not have been 2 full cubics . it could not have been much more then 1 cubic for a preson of the waltz vs age and health , so lets go with a standerd of 60 lbs pre cubic and 30 lbs pre 1/2 cubic . that would be 90ibs for a cubic and a 1/2 .. to much weigh for waltz . so we see a true equation of the gold ore under waltz's bed he could not have used much more then a few handfulls before the amont was found ..
we are now talking relate quality of per unit volume and related ore density ...
are you with me so far ...?
here is a equation for you (V=MxW)
the volume is equale to the mass vs weight
so what dose a 1ft by 1 ft or (1x1 cubic ) weigh when it is almost pure gold and silver , vs a normal cubic of stone of the avg type found there ...?
if we under stand the weight correctly , we come to the concluetion the amont under the dutchmans bed is about the most a preson at avg could carrie . 55 to 60 pounds dead weight , so i used this as my standerd , 1 cubic volume is equale to 50-60 pounds pre avg mass weight ...
the candle box could not have been 2 full cubics . it could not have been much more then 1 cubic for a preson of the waltz vs age and health , so lets go with a standerd of 60 lbs pre cubic and 30 lbs pre 1/2 cubic . that would be 90ibs for a cubic and a 1/2 .. to much weigh for waltz . so we see a true equation of the gold ore under waltz's bed he could not have used much more then a few handfulls before the amont was found ..
we are now talking relate quality of per unit volume and related ore density ...
are you with me so far ...?
Jeffro
Silver Member
Oh My!
the blindbowman said:
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,854
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Greetings Ed,
Ed T wrote:
That is the "fly in the buttermilk" with some areas that are officially classed as "wilderness" like the Superstitions - you know they don't allow any kind of motorized vehicles anywhere within the wilderness boundaries. So yes in many cases you can 'portage' your food, equipment etc but some places we are forced to rely on 19th century methods. Then too - a mule can run on grass - my 4x4 eats gas...$$$ another limiting factor these days, unfortunately for us poor folks! One other thing I have found over the years - the very best gold diggings I was lucky enough to find, were always a LONG ways from where you could get to with a 4WD, with a single exception. I got the impression that if you could drive in close to it, then the odds are - a lot of guys have hit it before you, so the pickings can be slim. I could be completely mistaken about this, but that has been my experience in many places.
Blindbowman wrote:
I am following you so far - though I think a cubic foot of rock weighs more. It is fairly easy to work out - since the principal host rock of gold/silver is most commonly quartz, which has a specific gravity of 2.65, that means it weighs 2.65 x the weight of an equal volume of water. One cubic foot of water weighs 62.23 pounds, so 2.65 x 62.23 = 164.9 pounds for one cubic foot of quartz (I am cheating here,using a calculator which is mucho faster!) Now if say one-half of the quartz was, say for the sake of example a poor 500 fine gold (being one-half silver) then we would have a little more math to do - the specific gravity of silver is 10.5 while pure gold is 19.3, so a cubic foot of this type of ore ought to weigh 546.05 pounds!
For the sake of your example we can stick with the 60 pounds/cu ft however, and just work it out afterwards if we need to get exact.
Thank you for the kind words amigo, but there are many times I sure don't FEEL too danged smart!
Oroblanco
Ed T wrote:
That is the "fly in the buttermilk" with some areas that are officially classed as "wilderness" like the Superstitions - you know they don't allow any kind of motorized vehicles anywhere within the wilderness boundaries. So yes in many cases you can 'portage' your food, equipment etc but some places we are forced to rely on 19th century methods. Then too - a mule can run on grass - my 4x4 eats gas...$$$ another limiting factor these days, unfortunately for us poor folks! One other thing I have found over the years - the very best gold diggings I was lucky enough to find, were always a LONG ways from where you could get to with a 4WD, with a single exception. I got the impression that if you could drive in close to it, then the odds are - a lot of guys have hit it before you, so the pickings can be slim. I could be completely mistaken about this, but that has been my experience in many places.
Blindbowman wrote:
I am following you so far - though I think a cubic foot of rock weighs more. It is fairly easy to work out - since the principal host rock of gold/silver is most commonly quartz, which has a specific gravity of 2.65, that means it weighs 2.65 x the weight of an equal volume of water. One cubic foot of water weighs 62.23 pounds, so 2.65 x 62.23 = 164.9 pounds for one cubic foot of quartz (I am cheating here,using a calculator which is mucho faster!) Now if say one-half of the quartz was, say for the sake of example a poor 500 fine gold (being one-half silver) then we would have a little more math to do - the specific gravity of silver is 10.5 while pure gold is 19.3, so a cubic foot of this type of ore ought to weigh 546.05 pounds!
For the sake of your example we can stick with the 60 pounds/cu ft however, and just work it out afterwards if we need to get exact.
Thank you for the kind words amigo, but there are many times I sure don't FEEL too danged smart!
Oroblanco
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #188
Ed T said:
1 ton of ore at 2200 lbs or 36.6 cubicor is equale to2 tons at 73.3 cubic . now do you under stand what i am saying
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #189
his statement was 3 years they pulled out tons of gold ...2 tons is 73.3 cubic at the 60lbs pre unit cubic of the otre that waltz had under the bed ...subtrack the 73.3 cubics from the over all 224 cubic posable in a 14 ft shaft , this tells us the tayopa yeilded 150.7 cubis and this is in fact the tayopa mine and the sombrero by mass vs volume
this says tayopa yeilded a littleover 4 tons or 150.7 cubics
if this was not the tayopa and the sombrero the math would not reflect the deepth of the LDM ...the monts did not matter its the ratio that sets the standerds
the fact is . i only need cut one cubic from the mine and i can prove with outa dout this is the tayopa and it became the sombrero and the lost dutchman mine (all in one )
we could most likely add the little amont the dutchman took over the top of the mass ...see my piont if the yeilded 73.3 cubics in 3 years , this is hard rock mineing
we can only guess the true voume of cubic that the tayopa yeilded . but in this equation it is equale to 150.7 cubics , this means at the rate given by the sombrero mine ,the tayopa was worked no more then 6-6 1/2 years at that rate and could have been less if they had more men ... now set the rate to time line we have build . 5-6 1/2 years , 1601 1/2 -1608 so we look at indain raids and less men and add a varation for the over all . this says the mine could have been worked for as much as 15 years . before the 1608 date .1593-1608,, there is the tru tayopa time line IMHO
so we have two posable equations ,, 1601 1/2 -1608 and no 1571 date or the 1571 posablity,
ether way the over mass and yeild rates define the shaft and size of the cubic and weight of the yeilds , thus defineing the mine it self ...
this says tayopa yeilded a littleover 4 tons or 150.7 cubics
if this was not the tayopa and the sombrero the math would not reflect the deepth of the LDM ...the monts did not matter its the ratio that sets the standerds
the fact is . i only need cut one cubic from the mine and i can prove with outa dout this is the tayopa and it became the sombrero and the lost dutchman mine (all in one )
we could most likely add the little amont the dutchman took over the top of the mass ...see my piont if the yeilded 73.3 cubics in 3 years , this is hard rock mineing
we can only guess the true voume of cubic that the tayopa yeilded . but in this equation it is equale to 150.7 cubics , this means at the rate given by the sombrero mine ,the tayopa was worked no more then 6-6 1/2 years at that rate and could have been less if they had more men ... now set the rate to time line we have build . 5-6 1/2 years , 1601 1/2 -1608 so we look at indain raids and less men and add a varation for the over all . this says the mine could have been worked for as much as 15 years . before the 1608 date .1593-1608,, there is the tru tayopa time line IMHO
so we have two posable equations ,, 1601 1/2 -1608 and no 1571 date or the 1571 posablity,
ether way the over mass and yeild rates define the shaft and size of the cubic and weight of the yeilds , thus defineing the mine it self ...
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,854
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Just a little "tip" for any beginners who are reading our discussion - but if you should happen to find a ledge of quartz rock, and a piece of it SEEMS to be "heavy" - more so than you would expect, this is a good indicator for gold and silver ores (as well as copper and lead etc) even if you cannot see even a speck of visible gold - the weight is a dead-giveaway. Pure quartz with zero gold content is not that heavy, not noticeably more so than common 'country rock' - so get a couple of pounds of it, mark that site on your maps and key it to your sample, and get that sample fire-assayed. You never know what will turn up!
Blindbowman wrote:
One major problem with this method of identifying a mine - it does not take into account the amount of simple country rock (the worthless rock) that had to be removed in order to get at the "good stuff" - remember Waltz's ore vein was described as only eighteen inches thick (actually that is fairly thick as gold veins go) so he would have to remove a certain amount of crap-rock just to be able to get in and work. This is true in virtually all mines, excepting possibly a very few incredibly rich metals mines and some coal mines, in which the miners were able to remove nearly pure coal and not too much rock in the process. Then too, if it were Tayopa, then the mine workings should have been quite large by the time the hypothetical Peralta or Waltz later discovered it, yet we have no such description. Instead, from what I found, Waltz's mine was most likely what we would call a "rat hole" mine, barely large enough to crawl into (for a man). Only in alternate versions (versions which include known false points) do we get a description of a huge mine with a big funnel-type entrance etc. Then consider the ore itself - for what was Tayopa famous for, first? Silver! The ore of Waltz has VERY little silver, and MUCH gold. That alone is quite a difference.
Oroblanco
Blindbowman wrote:
One major problem with this method of identifying a mine - it does not take into account the amount of simple country rock (the worthless rock) that had to be removed in order to get at the "good stuff" - remember Waltz's ore vein was described as only eighteen inches thick (actually that is fairly thick as gold veins go) so he would have to remove a certain amount of crap-rock just to be able to get in and work. This is true in virtually all mines, excepting possibly a very few incredibly rich metals mines and some coal mines, in which the miners were able to remove nearly pure coal and not too much rock in the process. Then too, if it were Tayopa, then the mine workings should have been quite large by the time the hypothetical Peralta or Waltz later discovered it, yet we have no such description. Instead, from what I found, Waltz's mine was most likely what we would call a "rat hole" mine, barely large enough to crawl into (for a man). Only in alternate versions (versions which include known false points) do we get a description of a huge mine with a big funnel-type entrance etc. Then consider the ore itself - for what was Tayopa famous for, first? Silver! The ore of Waltz has VERY little silver, and MUCH gold. That alone is quite a difference.
Oroblanco
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #191
how true ..... how true ... when diging amost pure silver they hit the gold vein running side ways . little to almost no waste rock ... and i could answer your question but i wont ...
"no tailing piles "
thats why waltz said " no miner would ever find it ! :"
the frist thing a miner would look for it tailings ,this mine was so rich there was nt little to no tailings piles at all ..".fact "
thats what makes this mine stand out from all the rest !
"no tailing piles "
thats why waltz said " no miner would ever find it ! :"
the frist thing a miner would look for it tailings ,this mine was so rich there was nt little to no tailings piles at all ..".fact "
thats what makes this mine stand out from all the rest !
cactusjumper
Gold Member
bb,
"so what dose a 1ft by 1 ft or (1x1 cubic ) weigh when it is almost pure gold and silver , vs a normal cubic of stone of the avg type found there ...?"
The key ingredient that is missing here, is the ratio of gold to silver. Without knowing that important "fact", I believe your calculations might be a touch skewed. Not being a mathematician or rock guy, I could of course be wrong.
It would be like your navigator laying out a course that was one degree off at the starting point. Not much of a problem if you are only travelling a short distance, but a big problem if your trip will take a month. The more gold or silver, the larger the probability for error.
What was the "average type" of stone at Tayopa? Does it match the "average type" of stone found in the Superstitions? What source did you use for that information?
Thanks,
Joe Ribaudo
"so what dose a 1ft by 1 ft or (1x1 cubic ) weigh when it is almost pure gold and silver , vs a normal cubic of stone of the avg type found there ...?"
The key ingredient that is missing here, is the ratio of gold to silver. Without knowing that important "fact", I believe your calculations might be a touch skewed. Not being a mathematician or rock guy, I could of course be wrong.
It would be like your navigator laying out a course that was one degree off at the starting point. Not much of a problem if you are only travelling a short distance, but a big problem if your trip will take a month. The more gold or silver, the larger the probability for error.
What was the "average type" of stone at Tayopa? Does it match the "average type" of stone found in the Superstitions? What source did you use for that information?
Thanks,
Joe Ribaudo
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #193
its not the over all weight its the mass vs cubic ft volume , we know the total volume of the 14ft shaft by cubic ft .. the weight of the ore dosent matter untill you try to move it or define a yeild by weigh .. see my piont .. the weigh of the cubic dose not change the cubic size
under stand if the ore weigh more it helps my theory ..
more weigh vs the same volume means more people & mules to move the same cubic mass ...
under stand if the ore weigh more it helps my theory ..
more weigh vs the same volume means more people & mules to move the same cubic mass ...
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Jan 21, 2005
- 7,841
- 9,854
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Blindbowman wrote:
You have given out one of the 'secrets' to finding a lost mine there amigo - look for those tell-tale tailings piles! Even old placer workings have piles of waste rock and sorted gravels etc that even the Apaches didn't bother to try to erase. Many treasure hunters, especially those with no experience in prospecting - don't bother to look for tailings piles because they are unaware of what they mean. You are saying this mine has (virtually) NO tailings pile(s)? Would that be, because the ore was THAT rich there was no waste rock to deal with, or could it be because the last owner spent time getting rid of the tailings so that highly-visible clue would not be so visible?
Cactusjumper wrote:
Those are excellent questions amigo - perhaps our mutual friend Real de Tayopa can describe the 'average' type of rock at Tayopa? It would be interesting to know if it matches the types of stone found in the Superstitions.
Blindbowman wrote:
Oroblanco
You have given out one of the 'secrets' to finding a lost mine there amigo - look for those tell-tale tailings piles! Even old placer workings have piles of waste rock and sorted gravels etc that even the Apaches didn't bother to try to erase. Many treasure hunters, especially those with no experience in prospecting - don't bother to look for tailings piles because they are unaware of what they mean. You are saying this mine has (virtually) NO tailings pile(s)? Would that be, because the ore was THAT rich there was no waste rock to deal with, or could it be because the last owner spent time getting rid of the tailings so that highly-visible clue would not be so visible?
Cactusjumper wrote:
Those are excellent questions amigo - perhaps our mutual friend Real de Tayopa can describe the 'average' type of rock at Tayopa? It would be interesting to know if it matches the types of stone found in the Superstitions.
Blindbowman wrote:
You have not mentioned how you got those figures - did you go into the shaft and get measurements, or are making an educated guess-estimate? Thank you in advance
Oroblanco
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #195
let me try to explan .. he says we work the mine 3 years thats around 73.3 cubic . some one work the mine and removed 150.7 cubic before they did , so we know someone work the mine more then 6 years some time before they remove the 73.3 cubics ...
it could have taken 15 years to move that frist 150.7 cubics could have taken a little over 6 years maybe 9 years . but this tells us the mine was being worked when the tayopa was makeing bells in 1603 ....."bingo"
it could have taken 15 years to move that frist 150.7 cubics could have taken a little over 6 years maybe 9 years . but this tells us the mine was being worked when the tayopa was makeing bells in 1603 ....."bingo"
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #196
Oroblanco said:
your DVD left this morning should be there in a few days ,,Oro ..
i guess you will have to go on expedition 3 B to find out for your self ...
unless RDT has ore from the real tayopa mine that can be documents as ore from the tayopa it would not matter at this piont , and thats why i did not use data from other placesto prove the details of this mine .. the data of this mine can speak for it self ...
the pages of history speak soft and many times in broken wispers ,, its up to us to hear the words ..lost songs ...of los sorrows
6 by6 ft shaft around 14ft deep ...
cactusjumper
Gold Member
bb,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is it your contention that the shaft was not (approx.) six feet wide by around 75" deep?
Are you saying that Waltz claimed to have worked the mine for three years"?
Here is a picture of the "waste" from the "dump" that most likely came from the LDM:
I am not a rock guy, but I believe you folks are mixing waste and tailings. Two totally different things.
Joe Ribaudo
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is it your contention that the shaft was not (approx.) six feet wide by around 75" deep?
Are you saying that Waltz claimed to have worked the mine for three years"?
Here is a picture of the "waste" from the "dump" that most likely came from the LDM:
I am not a rock guy, but I believe you folks are mixing waste and tailings. Two totally different things.
Joe Ribaudo
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #198
cactusjumper said:bb,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but is it your contention that the shaft was not (approx.) six feet wide by around 75" deep?
Are you saying that Waltz claimed to have worked the mine for three years"?
Here is a picture of the "waste" from the "dump" that most likely came from the LDM:
I am not a rock guy, but I believe you folks are mixing waste and tailings. Two totally different things.
Joe Ribaudo
the dutchman never made a shaft , he stold it and only made the shaft size 6by 6 and 14ft deep , it was 4by4 by 12 ft deep ..
"Are you saying that Waltz claimed to have worked the mine for three years"? no the sombrero mine was worked for 3 years ..
i dont think the dutchman work the mine more then a few months over the whole time he knew of its location .
your right waste and tailings are two very diffrent things ...waste has ittle to no ore .. tails may have some ore that was mist , it may be small amonts of ore ...,,
i cant mix what is not there ...i found almost no tailings or waste at this mine !
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #199
Ssssssshhhhhh .....dont tell anyone i think they used the waste and tailings to build the fort ...
the blindbowman
Bronze Member
- Nov 21, 2006
- 1,379
- 30
- Thread starter
- #200
i am just crzy old bowman ,what do i know ?
Top Member Reactions
-
3461 -
2058 -
1968 -
1164 -
1109 -
926 -
831 -
810 -
807 -
789 -
747 -
529 -
480 -
475 -
445 -
423 -
E
416
-
416 -
416 -
392
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
They want half of the treasure because they are the reason for knowing the place.
- Latest: Treasure_Hunter
-
-
