Thanks for the input guys.
Wiz, I like the tana leaves suggestion, hehe.
Don, yep, that's true. But right now it's at 50/50 whether or not there even IS another wound. So, if we could examine it for ourselves, and we could ascertain a second hole, then it would certainly help put the argument to rest, and Mr. Ruth and his legacy could finally be buried in peace.
Anyone else seen (or rather, not seen, heh) the skull from another angle?
n
Ruth Killing
Well, going back to the published literature like we always do, let's not lose track of the fact that every single account of the skull references the report by Dr. Hrdlcka that concludes it was a gunshot wound. The hole we see in the pictures might have been the entry wound. Maybe the whole other side of the skull is gone. But given the good doctor's report, I think we can assume fairly safely that there was some sort of hole on the other side.
ruth killing
I am trying to see where I saw it, but I do remember a photo that shows the skull head on and there are apparently from that angle 2 holes of somewhat equal size. I also remember seeing statements from the report from Dr Hrdlicka, and it gave the size of the holes. Though it seemed they were of equal size, which would be contradictory to a gunshot wound. Though if I remember correctly I questioned the trajectory when I saw it.
A mountain lion would normally drag various pieces around to eat, but would also cover the carcass for future meals. The fact that the body was largely whole with just the missing head alone is suspect. Coyotes also would drag off pieces, so there should of been a rather wide spread of bones. Anyone who has come across the pickings of a mule or cow would agree that it doesnt seem like the norm that the head alone after that much time should be the only piece drug away. Also small mammals would drag even smaller pieces and bones off for their nutrition.
We should also remember there is now documentation that the map was found on Ruths person. Though typically it was lost again so no one could verify it.
A mountain lion would normally drag various pieces around to eat, but would also cover the carcass for future meals. The fact that the body was largely whole with just the missing head alone is suspect. Coyotes also would drag off pieces, so there should of been a rather wide spread of bones. Anyone who has come across the pickings of a mule or cow would agree that it doesnt seem like the norm that the head alone after that much time should be the only piece drug away. Also small mammals would drag even smaller pieces and bones off for their nutrition.
We should also remember there is now documentation that the map was found on Ruths person. Though typically it was lost again so no one could verify it.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Ruth Killing
It's amazing how the story surrounding Ruth has changed over the years.
Subtle changes, but important to the truth of what happened. New evidence has turned up, many years after the event. When you consider the activity and interest at that time, it might make you question the bulk of this new information. I often return to Sim's book just to refresh my memory. I know all the faults attributed to his work, but he was the closest author in time to the Dutchman, who actually searched for the mine. All other expertise and opinion is clouded by the passage of time and the fabrications of Dutch Hunters. If you tell a lie often enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth, because it will be believed by those who repeat it. False conviction. Many here, including myself, have repeated this new evidence and believe it to be fact. The fabrications may eventually be the only truth known. Of course, I could be mistaken.
Subtle changes, but important to the truth of what happened. New evidence has turned up, many years after the event. When you consider the activity and interest at that time, it might make you question the bulk of this new information. I often return to Sim's book just to refresh my memory. I know all the faults attributed to his work, but he was the closest author in time to the Dutchman, who actually searched for the mine. All other expertise and opinion is clouded by the passage of time and the fabrications of Dutch Hunters. If you tell a lie often enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth, because it will be believed by those who repeat it. False conviction. Many here, including myself, have repeated this new evidence and believe it to be fact. The fabrications may eventually be the only truth known. Of course, I could be mistaken.
Early Sources
Good point, Joe. It is always good to put credence into sources who were close - in time - to the actual events. Another good source is of course Bark's "notes." They essentially collaborate what Ely had to say about Ruth.
However.... (here I go again...) do not put to much into the references to Ruth's "instructions" - apparently both Ely and Bark did. They were simply passages from PC Bicknell's 1895 "San Francisco Chronicle" article abouyt the LDM. That does not mean they were not important. It is just that they were not "secret" instructions unique to Ruth.
However.... (here I go again...) do not put to much into the references to Ruth's "instructions" - apparently both Ely and Bark did. They were simply passages from PC Bicknell's 1895 "San Francisco Chronicle" article abouyt the LDM. That does not mean they were not important. It is just that they were not "secret" instructions unique to Ruth.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Ruth Killing
S.C.,
This will be the second or third time I have tried to reply to your last post.
My memory is not as good as it used to be, so the reply changes each time.
Since I have never seen the Bicknell article, it is difficult for me to comment on something I know absolutely nothing about. Having said that, I will now proceed to pontificate on something I know nothing about. Being Italian, it comes naturally to me. The first question that comes to mind is, where did Bicknell get his story? Did he quote a source, or just make up the entire thing sitting at his desk in San Francisco? Their is to much flesh in those quotes, to be pure fiction from a man so far removed from the Supes. The next point that raises its ugly little head is, did Ruth get his notes from a San Francisco newspaper, he somehow read in Washington, D.C.? Was that story really picked up nationwide? Why would the man who has the original Peralta Maps put any credence in an article written by a man without historic credentials? Next, why is this information coming so late to the Dutch Hunters who have been digging for close to 150 years? That Bark and Sims never came upon this piece in Arizona and Ruth did in Washington, D.C., is hard to believe. If we can't trust the writings of these two men, who can we trust?
This will be the second or third time I have tried to reply to your last post.
My memory is not as good as it used to be, so the reply changes each time.
Since I have never seen the Bicknell article, it is difficult for me to comment on something I know absolutely nothing about. Having said that, I will now proceed to pontificate on something I know nothing about. Being Italian, it comes naturally to me. The first question that comes to mind is, where did Bicknell get his story? Did he quote a source, or just make up the entire thing sitting at his desk in San Francisco? Their is to much flesh in those quotes, to be pure fiction from a man so far removed from the Supes. The next point that raises its ugly little head is, did Ruth get his notes from a San Francisco newspaper, he somehow read in Washington, D.C.? Was that story really picked up nationwide? Why would the man who has the original Peralta Maps put any credence in an article written by a man without historic credentials? Next, why is this information coming so late to the Dutch Hunters who have been digging for close to 150 years? That Bark and Sims never came upon this piece in Arizona and Ruth did in Washington, D.C., is hard to believe. If we can't trust the writings of these two men, who can we trust?
Here we go again... Hopefully this one will stay...
There are a couple of places where one can get the text of the 1895
Bicknell article. This was written shortly after Waltz's death.
Bicknell was a quasi-free-lance journalist who lived in the Phoenix
area. Many of his stories were published in Arizona papers that he had
relationships with and others were printed in publications like the San
Francisco Chronicle.
One place to get the text of the Bicknell story is the article Greg
Davis wrote - "The Ruth/Gonzales Map Instructions, San Francisco
Chronicle Mystery" appearing on pages 34-41 of the Superstition Mountain
Journal Vol. 6, for 1987 and is available from Superstition Mountain
Historical Society - Apache Junction, AZ.
The text of Bicknell's article also appears in a compilation document
called "Early Newspaper Articles of the Superstition Mountains and the
Lost Dutchman Gold Mine," compiled by Gregory E. Davis - and edited and
prepared by Joyce Johnson that is also available from the Superstition
Mountain Historical Society.
These two SMHS documents are sold through the Superstition Mountain/Lost Dutchman Museum Bookstore at Goldfield.
The Bicknell story is very significant for many reasons. The most
important is that it shows that at a very early date - just a few years
after Waltz died - the LDM story as we know it today was more or less
already developed. This indicates that those who felt the story evolved
over decades - with incremental story elements being added to it over
time - were in error. Right or wrong, the story was common knowledge
with all its standard elements no later than a couple of years after
Waltz's death.
The "clues" or "instructions" Bicknell wrote of, and that Adolph Ruth -
and others - was so fascinated in, could have come from two sources. It
is accepted that Julia Thomas was the source of much of Bicknell's
information used in his articles on the Lost Dutchman. They could very
well have come from her - as handed to her from Waltz during the last
months of his life as she cared for him. However, they could also have
come from an oral (and possibly written) tradition of another similar
lost mine tale called the Lost German Mine. It is very possible that
Bicknell - or even Julia Thomas - assumed with Waltz's revelations and
death that his story and the tradition of the Lost German Mine were one
and the same.
Now... where did Ruth get a copy of this story? Real good question
considering it is an issue close to my heart and one I am currently
involved in. Again, I refer you to the Greg Davis article cited above.
The gist of it is that in 1895 Adolph Ruth lived in Kansas City.
Through various means we can determine today that Adolph Ruth saw the
story in a Kansas City paper as a re-print. (Many articles then were
like we have now as "wire-stories" - stories offered to other newspapers
as "filler" material...) An actual negative "photocopy" of the article
that Ruth had exists. However, it does not indicate the exact date of
publication or the exact newspaper it was from. This was obtained
through the Ruth family. And its existence was no secret....
On July 15th, 1931 the Prescott Evening Courier ran a story by Ralph O.
Brown called "Hunted Mine's History Given." Brown had interviewed Erwin
Ruth and Erwin divulged where his father got some of his information.
He cites the article in question. However, he incorrectly states he
thought it was from 1892. It wasn't... But Greg figured that out...
It was actually 1895. Anyway, not only that, the Courier article also
quotes verbatim from the Bicknell article that Erwin showed to Brown -
including the "secret clues" that were later found on Ruth's body.
Apparently not too many people paid attention to this article...
We know the Bicknell story in question originated in the San Francisco
Chronicle. We know Adolph Ruth lived in Kansas City in 1895. We know
he saw the re-print article in a Kansas City paper. Not only that but
Erwin knew the article had its origin in the San Francisco Chronicle
because the article refers to the author as a "correspondent to the San
Francisco Chronicle"... Well... he was... sort of... He was
free-lance... However, what we do not know specifically is which
newspaper in Kansas City the article was in. Nor do we know the
specific date. Greg Davis searched through many issues of the daily
Kansas City Star with no luck. The Star was the major newspaper in KC
at the time. Thus, the most likely bet. Since the article was not
found in the dailies, it could have been the weekly KC Star. But issues
of the weekly KC Star for that time frame are hard to find. I myself am
working on that now. I am keeping my fingers crossed. I thought it was
narrowed down to those two papers at one time (the daily or weekly KC
Stars)... That was until I happened to check issues of the Kansas City
Times. The Times was the morning paper and the Star was the evening
paper of the same publisher. Guess what? The font type-set, print
layout, and story presentation format were exactly as they appear in the
KC Star - and in the negative copy of the article that the Ruths had.
So, the article might even be in an issue of the Times as well. I have
search many issues - but still no luck as of yet. There are many issues
to go through, so it will take time. NOT ONLY THAT, but I checked yet
another newspaper - the KC Journal. It too has the same font type-set
and layout format as the KC Star and Times. It seems many newspapers at
the time shared the same methods of printing - thus, the same fonts and
styles of presentation. It makes tracing the article even more
difficult.
Besides that, there was also the KC Sun and about a half dozen other
newspapers that ran in Kansas City at the time. There are many, many
records and it takes time to go through them. But, I have faith the
story will eventually turn up. However, it is a moot issue. That would
simply close the loop and establish the newspaper Adolph Ruth saw the
story in - and its date of publication. We already know that he DID see
it.
Why did Ruth - and others - put stock into those instructions despite
the source - a newspaper? Well, it is hard to say. But, they could
very well have been from Waltz and might just be valid. Then again,
they might be worthless. Whatever the case, they are vague and only
point to a general area. But, that is something. At least they don't
indicate the Four Peaks area....
Now why did Ruth put stock into those "clues" when supposedly he had
maps and instructions? Well... I believe he only had ONE map from the
Gonzales family. This is confirmed by newspaper articles from the time
when Ruth disappeared from interviews with Erwin. Erwin mentioned one
map. Secondly, Erwin relates the history of the Gonzales incident and
the maps in two manuscripts he wrote in 1931. One was written BEFORE
his father disappeared. In them Erwin mentions ONE map related to
Arizona. There we NO instructions to the Arizona mine mentioned. Just
the map. Any instruction he might have received would only have dealt
with the Gonzales California mine.
Another twist to the story is "why was this information" (the
instruction or clues from Bicknell's article) "not available to other
Dutch Hunters." Well, partly the date of publication... Ruth saw the
story as a re-print in Kansas City in 1895 - NOT in the 1920s or 1930s.
But, the most curious issue is that NO newspaper (NONE) in the central
Arizona area chose to run the Bicknell "filler" story - a story that
must have obviously been available to news papers at the time. That is
a question to ponder. For whatever reason, the fact is because no paper
did, no one in the central Arizona area ever saw the article.
Do I discount Ruth? Not totally, because indirectly he brought
Bicknell's information to light. (That combined with Greg Davis'
extensive efforts to track down this mystery has answered many
questions...) Indeed, Ruth's death was a tragic one. He did have
information that was interesting... But can we be certain how valid the
Gonzales map or the Bicknell clues are? It is hard to say.
Bicknell article. This was written shortly after Waltz's death.
Bicknell was a quasi-free-lance journalist who lived in the Phoenix
area. Many of his stories were published in Arizona papers that he had
relationships with and others were printed in publications like the San
Francisco Chronicle.
One place to get the text of the Bicknell story is the article Greg
Davis wrote - "The Ruth/Gonzales Map Instructions, San Francisco
Chronicle Mystery" appearing on pages 34-41 of the Superstition Mountain
Journal Vol. 6, for 1987 and is available from Superstition Mountain
Historical Society - Apache Junction, AZ.
The text of Bicknell's article also appears in a compilation document
called "Early Newspaper Articles of the Superstition Mountains and the
Lost Dutchman Gold Mine," compiled by Gregory E. Davis - and edited and
prepared by Joyce Johnson that is also available from the Superstition
Mountain Historical Society.
These two SMHS documents are sold through the Superstition Mountain/Lost Dutchman Museum Bookstore at Goldfield.
The Bicknell story is very significant for many reasons. The most
important is that it shows that at a very early date - just a few years
after Waltz died - the LDM story as we know it today was more or less
already developed. This indicates that those who felt the story evolved
over decades - with incremental story elements being added to it over
time - were in error. Right or wrong, the story was common knowledge
with all its standard elements no later than a couple of years after
Waltz's death.
The "clues" or "instructions" Bicknell wrote of, and that Adolph Ruth -
and others - was so fascinated in, could have come from two sources. It
is accepted that Julia Thomas was the source of much of Bicknell's
information used in his articles on the Lost Dutchman. They could very
well have come from her - as handed to her from Waltz during the last
months of his life as she cared for him. However, they could also have
come from an oral (and possibly written) tradition of another similar
lost mine tale called the Lost German Mine. It is very possible that
Bicknell - or even Julia Thomas - assumed with Waltz's revelations and
death that his story and the tradition of the Lost German Mine were one
and the same.
Now... where did Ruth get a copy of this story? Real good question
considering it is an issue close to my heart and one I am currently
involved in. Again, I refer you to the Greg Davis article cited above.
The gist of it is that in 1895 Adolph Ruth lived in Kansas City.
Through various means we can determine today that Adolph Ruth saw the
story in a Kansas City paper as a re-print. (Many articles then were
like we have now as "wire-stories" - stories offered to other newspapers
as "filler" material...) An actual negative "photocopy" of the article
that Ruth had exists. However, it does not indicate the exact date of
publication or the exact newspaper it was from. This was obtained
through the Ruth family. And its existence was no secret....
On July 15th, 1931 the Prescott Evening Courier ran a story by Ralph O.
Brown called "Hunted Mine's History Given." Brown had interviewed Erwin
Ruth and Erwin divulged where his father got some of his information.
He cites the article in question. However, he incorrectly states he
thought it was from 1892. It wasn't... But Greg figured that out...
It was actually 1895. Anyway, not only that, the Courier article also
quotes verbatim from the Bicknell article that Erwin showed to Brown -
including the "secret clues" that were later found on Ruth's body.
Apparently not too many people paid attention to this article...
We know the Bicknell story in question originated in the San Francisco
Chronicle. We know Adolph Ruth lived in Kansas City in 1895. We know
he saw the re-print article in a Kansas City paper. Not only that but
Erwin knew the article had its origin in the San Francisco Chronicle
because the article refers to the author as a "correspondent to the San
Francisco Chronicle"... Well... he was... sort of... He was
free-lance... However, what we do not know specifically is which
newspaper in Kansas City the article was in. Nor do we know the
specific date. Greg Davis searched through many issues of the daily
Kansas City Star with no luck. The Star was the major newspaper in KC
at the time. Thus, the most likely bet. Since the article was not
found in the dailies, it could have been the weekly KC Star. But issues
of the weekly KC Star for that time frame are hard to find. I myself am
working on that now. I am keeping my fingers crossed. I thought it was
narrowed down to those two papers at one time (the daily or weekly KC
Stars)... That was until I happened to check issues of the Kansas City
Times. The Times was the morning paper and the Star was the evening
paper of the same publisher. Guess what? The font type-set, print
layout, and story presentation format were exactly as they appear in the
KC Star - and in the negative copy of the article that the Ruths had.
So, the article might even be in an issue of the Times as well. I have
search many issues - but still no luck as of yet. There are many issues
to go through, so it will take time. NOT ONLY THAT, but I checked yet
another newspaper - the KC Journal. It too has the same font type-set
and layout format as the KC Star and Times. It seems many newspapers at
the time shared the same methods of printing - thus, the same fonts and
styles of presentation. It makes tracing the article even more
difficult.
Besides that, there was also the KC Sun and about a half dozen other
newspapers that ran in Kansas City at the time. There are many, many
records and it takes time to go through them. But, I have faith the
story will eventually turn up. However, it is a moot issue. That would
simply close the loop and establish the newspaper Adolph Ruth saw the
story in - and its date of publication. We already know that he DID see
it.
Why did Ruth - and others - put stock into those instructions despite
the source - a newspaper? Well, it is hard to say. But, they could
very well have been from Waltz and might just be valid. Then again,
they might be worthless. Whatever the case, they are vague and only
point to a general area. But, that is something. At least they don't
indicate the Four Peaks area....
Now why did Ruth put stock into those "clues" when supposedly he had
maps and instructions? Well... I believe he only had ONE map from the
Gonzales family. This is confirmed by newspaper articles from the time
when Ruth disappeared from interviews with Erwin. Erwin mentioned one
map. Secondly, Erwin relates the history of the Gonzales incident and
the maps in two manuscripts he wrote in 1931. One was written BEFORE
his father disappeared. In them Erwin mentions ONE map related to
Arizona. There we NO instructions to the Arizona mine mentioned. Just
the map. Any instruction he might have received would only have dealt
with the Gonzales California mine.
Another twist to the story is "why was this information" (the
instruction or clues from Bicknell's article) "not available to other
Dutch Hunters." Well, partly the date of publication... Ruth saw the
story as a re-print in Kansas City in 1895 - NOT in the 1920s or 1930s.
But, the most curious issue is that NO newspaper (NONE) in the central
Arizona area chose to run the Bicknell "filler" story - a story that
must have obviously been available to news papers at the time. That is
a question to ponder. For whatever reason, the fact is because no paper
did, no one in the central Arizona area ever saw the article.
Do I discount Ruth? Not totally, because indirectly he brought
Bicknell's information to light. (That combined with Greg Davis'
extensive efforts to track down this mystery has answered many
questions...) Indeed, Ruth's death was a tragic one. He did have
information that was interesting... But can we be certain how valid the
Gonzales map or the Bicknell clues are? It is hard to say.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Ruth Killing
S.C.,
It took some doing, but I finally found your last posting. Since the Ruth/Peralta map leads to a specific place in the Superstitions, one which has resembled an ant hill of activity over the years, I have never placed any confidence in its authenticity. Ruth himself could not have found anything, even assuming he could get there, using that map. The changes
made to that map by modern day researchers is an ongoing work. The one that really jumped out at me was, E. TO W. TO N. TO S.
If we discount Ruth as having found anything, his search and death are no more important in finding the LDM, then Dale Howards or Chuck Lewings.
For reasons of my own, I am quite sure Ruth did find the clues he was looking for. That does not mean he found the LDM. As for the quotations, only time will tell if they came from an honest source.
It took some doing, but I finally found your last posting. Since the Ruth/Peralta map leads to a specific place in the Superstitions, one which has resembled an ant hill of activity over the years, I have never placed any confidence in its authenticity. Ruth himself could not have found anything, even assuming he could get there, using that map. The changes
made to that map by modern day researchers is an ongoing work. The one that really jumped out at me was, E. TO W. TO N. TO S.
If we discount Ruth as having found anything, his search and death are no more important in finding the LDM, then Dale Howards or Chuck Lewings.
For reasons of my own, I am quite sure Ruth did find the clues he was looking for. That does not mean he found the LDM. As for the quotations, only time will tell if they came from an honest source.
John Ramses' Book "Quest For Peralta Gold"
From what I've read in the past on Adolph Ruth, the articles/stories included a map. This map was commonly called the "Ruth Map".
I read John Ramses' book "Quest For Peralta Gold"and I myself was pretty confinced that he had found the mines as they related to Ruth's map. He has photographs and compares the landmarks on the map with the actual landmarks. This book places the mine/s in the Red Mountain (McDowell Mtn.) area. I don't know about anyone else, but I think he located the mines on that particular map.
But...as with all the other stories and claims, he did not walk away with any hard proof of a gold mine. LDM or otherwise. I think it was just some Mexican mines. Sounds familiar.
I read John Ramses' book "Quest For Peralta Gold"and I myself was pretty confinced that he had found the mines as they related to Ruth's map. He has photographs and compares the landmarks on the map with the actual landmarks. This book places the mine/s in the Red Mountain (McDowell Mtn.) area. I don't know about anyone else, but I think he located the mines on that particular map.
But...as with all the other stories and claims, he did not walk away with any hard proof of a gold mine. LDM or otherwise. I think it was just some Mexican mines. Sounds familiar.
Reply
Ramses might wellhave found some old mMexican workings over by red Mountain. And, I have to say, he has a very unique interpretation of the map in question.
However, no gold was produced. Current circumstance prevent further investigation. And, whether what he found was or was not the LDM is not known.
My personnal feeling is - and always has been - that the LDM is in the Superstition Mountains proper - western side of the range.
Correspondingly, though Ramses has an interesting interpretation of the map, it is anyone's guess as to if it is correct. My own opinion is that it is not.
But, I cannot deny it appears he found something.
However, no gold was produced. Current circumstance prevent further investigation. And, whether what he found was or was not the LDM is not known.
My personnal feeling is - and always has been - that the LDM is in the Superstition Mountains proper - western side of the range.
Correspondingly, though Ramses has an interesting interpretation of the map, it is anyone's guess as to if it is correct. My own opinion is that it is not.
But, I cannot deny it appears he found something.
Gassler/Ruth
In Walter's letter to Bob located in the back of the Manuscript (sold at SMHS) Walter states:
"Mr. Maggil called Mr. Ruth after he got that letter but was advised Mr. Erwin Ruth had passed away in the meantime and all his papers were willed to the Smithsonian and to be opened 25 years hence."
Earlier he had referenced the '90's as the time frame for release of the papers.
Does anyone have any insight into Walter's comments concerning additional Ruth papers?
"Mr. Maggil called Mr. Ruth after he got that letter but was advised Mr. Erwin Ruth had passed away in the meantime and all his papers were willed to the Smithsonian and to be opened 25 years hence."
Earlier he had referenced the '90's as the time frame for release of the papers.
Does anyone have any insight into Walter's comments concerning additional Ruth papers?
Knun,
I did a search of the Smithsonian's online archives and made a couple of calls to the Smithsonian a few years back on this very subject. I came away with zilch. That doesnt mean there arent any papers.... might just mean I am a crummy researcher.
The fellow who might be able to give you the answer is Greg Davis of the SMHS. I know he has a keen interest in all things "Ruthian".
P
I did a search of the Smithsonian's online archives and made a couple of calls to the Smithsonian a few years back on this very subject. I came away with zilch. That doesnt mean there arent any papers.... might just mean I am a crummy researcher.
The fellow who might be able to give you the answer is Greg Davis of the SMHS. I know he has a keen interest in all things "Ruthian".
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Very Interesting
Peter,
You didn't mention this, so I will assume you may have missed it.
If you do a search in the Smithsonian Archives for Adolph Ruth, he does not come up at all. What will come up in that search is the files on Dr. Ales Hrdlicka. Perhaps that is the direction for a search.
Joe
You didn't mention this, so I will assume you may have missed it.
If you do a search in the Smithsonian Archives for Adolph Ruth, he does not come up at all. What will come up in that search is the files on Dr. Ales Hrdlicka. Perhaps that is the direction for a search.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Ruth
Knun,
I don't know if there is anything to Gassler's statement. It seems strange that if you enter Adolph Ruth you will get Dr. Hrdlicka as one of the results. Looking into the files of Dr. Hrdlicka you will find no mention of Adolph Ruth. You will also not find any of his four children or two wives.
It could be that the Smithsonian did not accept Erwin's papers as something they wanted in their archives. If that is so, there is the chance the papers were sent back to the family.
There is something buried in their records that makes Dr. Hrdlicka's name come up in a search for Adolph Ruth. It would appear that I am also too "crummy" of a researcher to pry it out of the archives.
It is there somewhere. Anyone else care to give it a try?
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
I don't know if there is anything to Gassler's statement. It seems strange that if you enter Adolph Ruth you will get Dr. Hrdlicka as one of the results. Looking into the files of Dr. Hrdlicka you will find no mention of Adolph Ruth. You will also not find any of his four children or two wives.
It could be that the Smithsonian did not accept Erwin's papers as something they wanted in their archives. If that is so, there is the chance the papers were sent back to the family.
There is something buried in their records that makes Dr. Hrdlicka's name come up in a search for Adolph Ruth. It would appear that I am also too "crummy" of a researcher to pry it out of the archives.
It is there somewhere. Anyone else care to give it a try?
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Ruth Papers
I too have searched the Smithsonian for Ruth's papers and came away with nothing. Because of that, I specifically asked Mr. Davis about the nature of this reference. He indicated Ruth NEVER DID give any papers to the Smithsonian. So, there are none there to find.
The root of that notion was a newspaper article that came out about the time Magill found his played-out prospect hole in the late 60s on Bluff Springs Mountain - and Erwin was still alive then. There was some reference that it was his "intent" to do that with his stuff. But apparently, he never did.
So, Erwin never did get around to donating any papers. However, Gene Reynolds was in contact with the Ruth family shortly after Erwin's death. He spoke with Erwin's sister and inquired about maps, papers, books, etc. and came away basically feeling like they were lost. Erwin lived with his siter and when he passed away his stuff was not valued too much by the rest of the family. His stuff sat out on a back porch until they were thrown away. At least that is what his sister thought.
The root of that notion was a newspaper article that came out about the time Magill found his played-out prospect hole in the late 60s on Bluff Springs Mountain - and Erwin was still alive then. There was some reference that it was his "intent" to do that with his stuff. But apparently, he never did.
So, Erwin never did get around to donating any papers. However, Gene Reynolds was in contact with the Ruth family shortly after Erwin's death. He spoke with Erwin's sister and inquired about maps, papers, books, etc. and came away basically feeling like they were lost. Erwin lived with his siter and when he passed away his stuff was not valued too much by the rest of the family. His stuff sat out on a back porch until they were thrown away. At least that is what his sister thought.
?
When you think of an older man attempting to find a mine in an unfamiliar mountainous area, in the desert, in early summer, you would think he had a darn good reason to be there. He must know something. He must have information so compelling, so definative that he knew exactly where it was. And that is how the story goes.
But this same individual walked unprepared into the Mohave (I think it was the Mohave) desert looking for eldorado and ended up crippled. Seems more like a person burning with the fever than a rational man. Someone, once fixated on an idea, regardless of the soundness of the idea, will simply not let go.
One thing I find interesting with the Ruth's is they went after the Calif. treasure first, then never went back. What happened with that map? It must have captivated them both more than the "Peralta" map Erwin received. I do remember reading that Erwin didn't want to even look for the Calif. treasure. In fact, Erwin never looked for anything. That makes me wonder about the origin of his "map gift" if he didn't even bother to use them himself.
But this same individual walked unprepared into the Mohave (I think it was the Mohave) desert looking for eldorado and ended up crippled. Seems more like a person burning with the fever than a rational man. Someone, once fixated on an idea, regardless of the soundness of the idea, will simply not let go.
One thing I find interesting with the Ruth's is they went after the Calif. treasure first, then never went back. What happened with that map? It must have captivated them both more than the "Peralta" map Erwin received. I do remember reading that Erwin didn't want to even look for the Calif. treasure. In fact, Erwin never looked for anything. That makes me wonder about the origin of his "map gift" if he didn't even bother to use them himself.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Details
Knun,
Good points, however, Erwin Ruth was interested in the Gonzales mines in the Borrego Desert. After his fathers disaster on their first trip, they returned to the area and searched it until the late 1920s.
As to why he did not pursue the solutions to the maps after his fathers death, that seems a given. First he was responsable for getting his father interested in the maps which ended up making him a cripple. Those same maps were the reason for his fathers death. Without Erwin showing Adolph those map and helping him begin his search, neither of those things would have placed their burden of guilt on his shoulders. That might put a dampner on even the most ardent Dutchhunter.
I doubt we have much of the truth in the Adolph Ruth story as it relates to the LDM. What we have read may not even come close to describing what he had, what he did, or what he said.
It's interesting that the Ruth family lived in a vacuum during the time of Adolph's death and the search for his body. Erwin wanted to leave his papers to the Smithsonian and the family believed the were of no value? The sister he lived with missed the press that surrounded her fathers death and his search for the LDM? She knew nothing about the press that surrounded the Glen Magill story and her brother's patricipation? Tight lipped family.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Good points, however, Erwin Ruth was interested in the Gonzales mines in the Borrego Desert. After his fathers disaster on their first trip, they returned to the area and searched it until the late 1920s.
As to why he did not pursue the solutions to the maps after his fathers death, that seems a given. First he was responsable for getting his father interested in the maps which ended up making him a cripple. Those same maps were the reason for his fathers death. Without Erwin showing Adolph those map and helping him begin his search, neither of those things would have placed their burden of guilt on his shoulders. That might put a dampner on even the most ardent Dutchhunter.
I doubt we have much of the truth in the Adolph Ruth story as it relates to the LDM. What we have read may not even come close to describing what he had, what he did, or what he said.
It's interesting that the Ruth family lived in a vacuum during the time of Adolph's death and the search for his body. Erwin wanted to leave his papers to the Smithsonian and the family believed the were of no value? The sister he lived with missed the press that surrounded her fathers death and his search for the LDM? She knew nothing about the press that surrounded the Glen Magill story and her brother's patricipation? Tight lipped family.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Dr. Ales Hrdlicka
Joe,
Dr. Ales Hrdlicka was an anthropologist and pathologist for the National Museum. Dr. Hrdlicka had telegraphed Odds Halseth, a Phoenix archaeologist, stating, "Skull unquestionably that of aged white man, recently shot possibly."
So that is the connection between Ruth and Hrdlicka which triggers the search in the online library index. The doctor must have some type of correspondance concerning his evaluation of Ruth's skull in his file.
Dr. Ales Hrdlicka was an anthropologist and pathologist for the National Museum. Dr. Hrdlicka had telegraphed Odds Halseth, a Phoenix archaeologist, stating, "Skull unquestionably that of aged white man, recently shot possibly."
So that is the connection between Ruth and Hrdlicka which triggers the search in the online library index. The doctor must have some type of correspondance concerning his evaluation of Ruth's skull in his file.
Knun,
Your remark that Ruth may not have been the most gifted of treasure seekers may well be closer to the mark than most folks think. Other forum members are more expert than I concerning the Ruth Maps, but one of the popular maps attributed to the LDM is more than likely a map of the Borega Desert region.
As to the who, what, where, and why of the poor mans death...we will never know for sure. We can speculate till the cows come home..but will never know for certain.
Good point on the Hrdlicka link.
P
Your remark that Ruth may not have been the most gifted of treasure seekers may well be closer to the mark than most folks think. Other forum members are more expert than I concerning the Ruth Maps, but one of the popular maps attributed to the LDM is more than likely a map of the Borega Desert region.
As to the who, what, where, and why of the poor mans death...we will never know for sure. We can speculate till the cows come home..but will never know for certain.
Good point on the Hrdlicka link.
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Dr. Hrdlicka
Knun,
Actually, Dr. Hrdlicka accepted his first paid position with the American Museum of Natural History in 1903. He was the Assistant Curator for the Division of Physical Anthropology. In 1910 he became Curator. He spent forty years with the Smithsonian Institute in that position. He did his unpaid field work in anthropometric (human measurements) studies of the Indians of the Southwest and northern Mexico.
The connection between Ruth and Hrdlicka is well known. Perhaps another source of information would be Science Services in Washington which is where Halseth actually sent the skull.
Take care.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Actually, Dr. Hrdlicka accepted his first paid position with the American Museum of Natural History in 1903. He was the Assistant Curator for the Division of Physical Anthropology. In 1910 he became Curator. He spent forty years with the Smithsonian Institute in that position. He did his unpaid field work in anthropometric (human measurements) studies of the Indians of the Southwest and northern Mexico.
The connection between Ruth and Hrdlicka is well known. Perhaps another source of information would be Science Services in Washington which is where Halseth actually sent the skull.
Take care.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Ruth
Erwin Ruth was indeed interested in treasure. I believe there is some truth behind his supposed story of the history of the maps. Before he and Adolph went looking for the California mine - the mine they thought they had maps and information to - Erwin made an exploratory trip there. Then later accompanied his father there on a trip that resulted in Adolph's leg injury. However, I doubt they would have gone there - crossing the entire US - for no reason. I believe they really had information they believed was valid.
After Adolph's death, Erwin was involved in the LDM off and on up into the 1950s generating deals with various individuals. So, to say he was not a treasure seeker is not entirely correct. He just did little field work, though. But he WAS definitely interested in the LDM. He made "deals" with Bark, the Elys, John Spangler, etc. for one reason or another to such ends. Finally I feel he gave up.
BTW... I too believe that one of the maps attributed to Ruth and the Superstitions had nothing to do - in actuality - with the LDM. But, that should come as no surprise to some.
After Adolph's death, Erwin was involved in the LDM off and on up into the 1950s generating deals with various individuals. So, to say he was not a treasure seeker is not entirely correct. He just did little field work, though. But he WAS definitely interested in the LDM. He made "deals" with Bark, the Elys, John Spangler, etc. for one reason or another to such ends. Finally I feel he gave up.
BTW... I too believe that one of the maps attributed to Ruth and the Superstitions had nothing to do - in actuality - with the LDM. But, that should come as no surprise to some.
Ruth Killing
Let me refer back to Nicoh's question. I just last year saw a picture of the other side of Ruth's skull' Apparently the photos were taken by Brownie Holmes and they just surfaced. The hole on the other side absolutely in my judgement proves that a bullet went through Ruth's head.