Page 1 of 4

February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:12 pm
by pootle
Hi.
Is it Me or is this one REALLY simple?
I hope it is or I'm missing something in the clue. Its too far for Me to go, but I hope whoever gets this one gets some piccies when they do.

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:03 pm
by evilkeen
Well, as they say, it's only easy if you know the answer...

And I don't know the answer, but I guess if it's too far for you then it will be too far for me as well.

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:16 pm
by pootle
Well as they say 'how far is too far?' Ha Ha

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:00 am
by Lodgecrest
Well well well, I have to say I don't know where this one is! :roll:

But I'm off skiing the morning :D so see you all in a weeks time..good luck hunting

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:53 pm
by Driver
You know when they say "when somethings to good to be true it probably is". I think I know where you mean and it would be a little on the easy side wouldn't it.

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:32 pm
by pootle
Thats exactly what I mean........A simple Fella like Me should not be able to work out clues THAT easily!

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:47 pm
by Toxophilite
Driver wrote:You know when they say "when somethings to good to be true it probably is". I think I know where you mean and it would be a little on the easy side wouldn't it.

I didn't originally think that the place being alluded to was correct as I couldn't see anything on Google Earth, but I just found an article that describes a pair of such structures and there is a close-up photo showing where one of them has been renovated with modern stonework. It does seem to match the style of the object in the photo and may be the one on the opposite side of the lane that was possibly badly eroded by the weather. They are marked on OS maps but the Google Earth shot is taken in Summer so the trees are blocking the view. Unfortunately I cant find a photo of the complete object, just the detail photo which is encouraging but not conclusive.

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:52 pm
by Driver
One thing I do know is, the person who took the piccie is the proud owner of an Iphone...

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:20 pm
by pootle
Is that some kind of clue????? I hope not as thats another thing I don't understand!

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:57 pm
by Driver
No it isn't a clue, just an observation.

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:53 am
by pootle
thank god for that, my poor battered brain could not have taken it!

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:35 am
by Trig
Hello peeps new kid on the block here. A friend put me on to this he said it might be interesting. I had a look at the clue, bit basic isn't it. How are you supposed to work ou where it is? I see Toxophilite reckons he/she knows where it is and how does Driver know the picture taker has an Iphone. Begining to think there are deeper minds at work here than mine. Any clues tips directions received with thanks..

Trig

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:43 am
by Lodgecrest
A good start point for a Newbie is to have a look at how some of the previous searches have been found. Some make great reading..Good Luck

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:51 am
by Trig
Thanks for that, I will.

Trig

Re: February 2010 search 2 of 2

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:09 pm
by Trig
Well I've had a look at a couple of finders stories and it seems to me that the clues are both literal and lateral.

Trig.