I don't recall specifically what I had asked in my last post, and I don't save them so can't go back and repost it.
While I applaud you for providing clear photographs of areas to support your claims, I have to admit that in general I really don't see most of the specific "things" in them that you do - even when you point them out with arrows. In general most of those things appear natural to me and could just as easily be anomalies that when viewed up close are nothing more than nature at work (shadows, cracks, etc...). I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessments, just that it isn't enough to convince me, and probably never would be unless I were in your shoes or at the site area myself.
I think my main question is what if anything you found in the mine you believe is the Sombrero Mine? Are there any tools or artifacts which can be dated to a certain period of history? Was/is there a mineral vein which the mine was following, and if so, what does it look like? Those are the sorts of questions which you may be unwilling to answer on a public forum and why I offered to give you my e-mail address (
paulshimek@comcast.net). By offering you that, I'm not implying that I accept your claim as you've laid it out - just that I have an open mind and am willing to at least see what you have to provide as evidence that you may not be willing to share on an open forum - that's all.
Personally, I have to agree with Jim that your assessment of the regulations is not correct. In my interpretation of the rules, prospect samples can be taken - provided they are not significantly large. Collecting a small handful of mineral sample from a vein in an old mine (again in my opinion) is not a violation of the regulations.
As far as going into the mine is concerned, there are ways around putting yourself at risk if it's a vertical shaft - even something as simply as a video camera with light (or attached flashlight) lowered in by rope can be used to at least get an idea of what is or is not down there.
