Walter Gassler/Peter's Canyon

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
Post Reply
LDMFAN
Greenhorn
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 11:44 am

Walter Gassler/Peter's Canyon

Post by LDMFAN »

Has anyone read the notes written by Walter Gassler? I purchased a copy of them several years ago from the SMHS. I hiked into Peter's Canyon from the North (started at Tortilla Flat) and saw the large boulders as big as a house and the area Gassler notes as "hundreds of potholes". Just a ways past the pot holes is a large cave (actually 1 large and 1 small) on the west side of the canyon. This is where I stopped on that trip (years ago). I was wondering if anyone has linked these caves with the clues to LDM? Has anyone gone beyond the caves in Peters Canyon? What do the forum members think about the gold ore that was supposedly found in Gassler's backpack when his body was found? Helen Corbin had two signed affidavits in her first book signed by Tom Kollenborn and State Attorney General Bob Corbin. Think there's any credence to Walter Gassler's notes?
Peter
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 7:47 am

Post by Peter »

LDMFAN,

I have gone through the Gassler Manuscript several times. Walter's central theory revolved around Waltz not having a mine at all, but rather coming upon a cache and some skeletons in and near a rock house on Peters Mesa. Gassler theorized that Waltz made up the story about the mine in order to throw future searchers off the track.

Of course, for a fellow who thought Waltz had only found a cache, Walter spent a lot of time digging in various locations between Black Mtn and Peters Dome.

I have no comment about the ore in the knapsack. I am not certain there was ore there.

Is there any credence in Gasslers Manuscript? Who can say? The manuscript is a disorganized, disjointed jumble of anecdotes and theories, much of it written while Walter was advanced in years. One needs to go through it several times just to figure out what most of it means. To be honest, I thought that Crazy Jakes tomes were a better read....course, writing styles mean little and being right means much in this business.

P
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Peter,

"Of course, for a fellow who thought Waltz had only found a cache, Walter spent a lot of time digging in various locations between Black Mtn and Peters Dome."

Do you feel this is not consistent with his comments in his cover letter?

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo
S.C.
Part Timer
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 10:45 am

Gassler

Post by S.C. »

Peter is correct in his assessment that Gassler's manuscript is "difficult" to understand. It was written over time and has various sections written at different times and places - and with different mind sets.

I believe Joe's "cover-letter" reference is to the hand-written cover letter Mr. Gassler wrote as a preface to the main body of his manuscript - a manuscript written over many years as Peter indicated. This "preface" was incorporated as "Section II" of the version of Gassler's manuscript put out by the SMHS. Gassler does indicate different things in different places.

Whether or not Mr. Gassler contradicts himself is hard to say. I think at one time Mr. Gassler believed Waltz simply found a cache. In some respects, probably a good assessment. Thus, he wrote that thought in his manuscript. No doubt, years laters, perhaps he believed there was a "mine" in the area. The cache had to come from somewhere. Maybe it was a Peralta mine. Maybe not. But, in any case, if Gassler believed Waltz found a cache - Gassler probably believed a source was also around.

So, it is hard to say what specifically Mr. Gassler searched for. Or what his actual motives were. He was all over the place - as were others who searched that general area - and nothing has turned up.

Mr. Gassler does show the distinct influence as to what has come here to be called "Barkleyism." That is true. I myself am partially a "Barkleyite." For all the years that Tex Barkley was in the area, he had to have had a wealth of knowledge. Some would say "biased" knowledge - but still - he had a wealth of knowledge.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

SC,

The copy of Gasslers Manuscrip that I have is no problem to read. As it was sent to me by a friend, I will assume it is accurate, but possibly reformated. Jake's manuscript was not as well done in my opinion.

While Gassler may or may not have had any idea where the LDM or "cache" was (like Jake) He knew the man, who knew the man, kinda.

The early Dutch Hunters were constantly pressed for "their" story. While many provided that story, it is doubtful that anyone told the "whole" truth and that would include Ely and Bark. Not many prospectors, despite often living a solitary life, did not love to tell a story.

IMHO Many of them did have a pretty good idea where it was. They told no one what the area looked like or any of the landmarks connected with what they believed. If they did mention landmarks, I believe it was to lead other searchers away from where they really believed the mine was.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo
S.C.
Part Timer
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 10:45 am

Bark and Ely

Post by S.C. »

One thing I have to agree with:

Ely and Bark knew more than they admitted.
Peter
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 7:47 am

Post by Peter »

SC

When reading the Bark information closely, one realizes that while there is a wealth of information as to the general area he beleives the mine is in,
Bark gets mighty closed-mouth (as do most folks) when it comes to identifying close-in landmarks. So I have to agree with you...in order to protect future searchers, Bark certainly didnt let on all that he knew, or suspected.

P
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

What Did They Know?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

SC,

Thank you for your reply.

More important than the conclusion that "Ely and Bark knew more than they admitted" would be, did they purposely lead us astray? If so, can you in any way use that premise in the search?

Respectfully,

Joe
S.C.
Part Timer
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 10:45 am

Reply

Post by S.C. »

That is hard to say....

I think in a sense, a few things were twisted. Just a few... So as not to give too much away. But, I doubt they purposefully - or maliciously - intended to mislead people. They achieved their goal just by being vague. They didn't have to mislead anyone.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Malicious?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

S.C.,

I don't believe there was any malicious intent on anyones part.

While I may have said things that I knew to be true, but also believed to be misleading, they had no malicious intent. For instance, I have told the story of how my Uncle Chuck found the location of his claim on Black Top Mesa. While going hand over hand up the mountain from the Cactus Marker, they found a Spanish mule shoe. When the got to the spot where the Metal Detector "pegged" they also found a rock with a carving of a mule shoe on it. The mule shoe they had found matched the rock carving exactly in size and shape. While I believe all of that to be true, I believe my telling that story will mislead some people, because I believe there is no mine, cache or treasure to be found on Black Top Mesa.

There have been a number of statements of "fact" on this forum that are demonstrably false. I don't feel a pressing need to correct them and show where the proof is. No malicious intent is intended. Many would not believe the evidence if it was before their eyes.

[Peter]
"So I have to agree with you...in order to protect future searchers, Bark certainly didnt let on all that he knew, or suspected."

That's an interesting comment Peter. Who or what do you think Bark was protecting those "future searchers" from?

Respectfully,

Joe
Wiz
Expert
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 2:55 am

Re: Malicious?

Post by Wiz »

Joe Ribaudo wrote:S.C.,
That's an interesting comment Peter. Who or what do you think Bark was protecting those "future searchers" from?
Joe
Joe,
I don't think we'll be hearing from Peter for a little while, what with the power failure and all, so I'll hazard a reply to this. I think Peter was probably picturing Bark getting older, about to give up the search that was so dear to his heart. He wanted to tell his story to the world while at the same time preserving the important clues for his selected dutch-hunting heir, Spangler I suppose. So, Bark was protecting only certain future searchers from the rest of the dutch-hunting rabble (us). As it turns out, I guess it worked too well - I haven't heard that Spangler ever found the LDM, either!

At least, this makes sense to me.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Protection?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Wiz,

Nice to hear from you again. Thank you for your reply.

I was under the impression that Peter was an Arizona boy. It's a zoo back there for sure.

What you say makes some sense. Bark may have done a good job of being "closed-mouth". We had a pretty good storm go through the Supes yesterday and last night. Probably lots of water in there, but the heat has been oppressive.

Respectfully,

Joe
Peter
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 7:47 am

Post by Peter »

Wiz,

You're a smart cookie. Course... I expect nothing less from you.

Well, my power came back on at 1045 AM. My wife is yelling something about melted sherbert and the freezer. No harm done other than alot of folks being inconvenienced. Could have been alot worse. Events like this just reinforce my vision of the near future....big black birds heading west and south...

P
Post Reply