Jeffro wrote:
Someone woulda found it by now
I respectfully disagree with this statement amigo, that his assuming that a perfect and complete search has been made, which is not the case. There are examples of lost places much larger than a small "rat-hole" type of mine, such as entire cities, which went un-discovered for centuries, even with farmers literally plowing up the site annually.
Jeffro also wrote:
Interesting that this highly visible vein has never been spotted by all the people stomping all over the area for a hundred years
Who claims that the LDM ore vein is highly visible? Did I miss that? (It happens!
) Jacob Waltz said that the mine was tough to find, even when you know where it is - hardly what I would describe as "highly visible". Then too a large percentage of the folks who have gone stomping around those beautiful hills would not know an ore vein if they sat on it,
so many of them are relying upon "clues" to locate the mine, without expending any energy to learn anything about geology or prospecting that might help them to know at least what they are looking at. I put the term "
clues" in quotes because I am fairly convinced that those "clues" are not worth the ink it takes to write them down, in fact I would say that they are far more likely to be
MIS-leading. With the LDM, only the ore is ever going to prove it once and for all.
Ed T wrote:
I told you I was playing outside of Durango...So I guess it would be in the state of Durango, unless it runs into Chihuahua, or Sinaloa...
I am really not quite sure Oro...Though it is pretty close to a small pueblo named Ide...
Okay amigo you don't have to get any more specific than that. I was thinking of the Minas Prietas lost mines, but can't find my own books on it and a Google found zilch - anyone have the info on Minas Prietas handy? I am curious if that did not have a group of 13 mines, including copper? I seem to recall something about the Brits claiming to have found it and working it around the turn of the century, or what they believed was a part of it.
Blindbowman wrote:
Oro..." if i told ya , i would have to kill ya ! ...LOL "
Then I would be better off NOT knowing it seems!
One of those incidents where ignorance is healthy? (If ignorance were really "bliss" as the saying goes, I ought to be ecstatic!
)
Blindbowman also wrote:
i can only tell you that i beleive the true mine may be as much as 20 times the size the dutchman thaught it was
If you think about it, that would not make sense - if the Dutchman was there digging and working, it seems more likely that he would have found extensive workings if that were the case - doesn't it?
Blindbowman also wrote:
so you must be right, there is nothing speacal about this deposite ...LOL other then the fact my calculate was to lemited to calculate the number of onces in that amont and it could very well exceed the 147.6 million onces in fort knots , then you would be right ,there is nothing speaical about this mine
Who said there was
nothing special about the mine? Blindbowman mi amigo you seem to deal with a lot of absolutes, when perhaps the case is not absolute? Let me explain - for instance, when you have a set of clues that seems to fit with what you have found, you feel comfortable going ahead and saying that what you found IS the site associated with those clues, when I would sooner say that I believe it COULD be the site, which leaves a little room "just in case" some more evidence should turn up to prove that idea wrong. I don't recall saying that "there is nothing special about this mine" in any post. I think I said that it is
POSSIBLE that it
might not be anything remarkable, don't you see a difference in that statement? Cubfan mentioned your habit of a rather cavalier use of the term "fact" which seems to me to be an example of this tendency towards absolutes, when it could be more appropriate to use cautious, conservative words. I can give you a direct example too - for some years ago Mrs Oro and I went on a determined search for a less-famous lost mine in California, known popularly as the "lost Arch". There are several versions of the story to this lost mine, one of which involves a man-made arch connecting a two-room cabin, the other involving a natural arch that is close to the mine. Well we did find a very old gold mine, along with the remains of a two-room cabin, with NO trace of a man-made arch, but DID have a natural stone arch quite close to the mine. The gold was pretty good and we turned a fair profit, but sure didn't get rich - so if I had the habit of saying things in absolutes, like it appears you do, I would go ahead and claim that we have found the Lost Arch mine - however I cannot prove this to be the Lost Arch beyond all doubt, even though I am fairly convinced it is - I say that we found what we BELIEVE could be the Lost Arch mine. Do you get what I am driving at? Just a noticeable difference in the way we say things here.
Got to get back to work, just wanted to see how the discussion was progressing, will be back later...
Oroblanco
![:-\](https://www.treasurenet.com/smilies/undecided.gif "Undecided :-\")
)
