The Afternoon Sun
The Afternoon Sun
Does anyone happen to know when the clue about the afternoon sun shining on Waltz's mine first appeared? Some books include this clue, some don't. I'm hoping someone knows where it came from without me having to read all those books and pamphlets again!
Reply
wiz,
I have been pondering your question. Since no one has stepped up with an immediate reply, I think I will take a look at this tonight and find out. So, I'll post something soon. You have my mind pondering this.... If for no other reason than to answer it for myself.
I know you probably can or would look it up yourself. And probably have already done so. But, I think it is an interesting issue and worthy of some discussion here.
Also... another interesting question is about the rock face (or stone face) clue. When did that first appear? It could be a variation of (or a misunderstanding of) the "rock that looks like a man." Who knows... Then, there's the rock that looks like a horses head... etc. etc. It is mind numbing sometimes to try and sort through these.
SC
I have been pondering your question. Since no one has stepped up with an immediate reply, I think I will take a look at this tonight and find out. So, I'll post something soon. You have my mind pondering this.... If for no other reason than to answer it for myself.
I know you probably can or would look it up yourself. And probably have already done so. But, I think it is an interesting issue and worthy of some discussion here.
Also... another interesting question is about the rock face (or stone face) clue. When did that first appear? It could be a variation of (or a misunderstanding of) the "rock that looks like a man." Who knows... Then, there's the rock that looks like a horses head... etc. etc. It is mind numbing sometimes to try and sort through these.
SC
Clues
Speaking of clues...
Though it would be hard to trace these down - as many of these clue existed outside written literature - i.e., oral tardition that only at later dates made the printed (or hand written) page - I think it would be interesting to put togther a compilation of the histories of all the various clues. Who started them. Where they came from. Etc.
I have always been especially interested in the following common clues:
Shadow of Weavers Needle
The rock face (or Horses Head...)
The sun shining into the mine
The Three Red Hills
The window rock
These have all struct my fancy because they have appeared so often. For all we know they are all bogus... created after the fact by over zealous searchers.
Though it would be hard to trace these down - as many of these clue existed outside written literature - i.e., oral tardition that only at later dates made the printed (or hand written) page - I think it would be interesting to put togther a compilation of the histories of all the various clues. Who started them. Where they came from. Etc.
I have always been especially interested in the following common clues:
Shadow of Weavers Needle
The rock face (or Horses Head...)
The sun shining into the mine
The Three Red Hills
The window rock
These have all struct my fancy because they have appeared so often. For all we know they are all bogus... created after the fact by over zealous searchers.
SC
I have literally over a hundred clues catalogued and showing their source of origin (as far as I know). Its interesting to see which Dutch Hunters relied on which info to get them into specific areas of the mountains. If you PM me with an address I will try to dig them out and send them to you.
P
I have literally over a hundred clues catalogued and showing their source of origin (as far as I know). Its interesting to see which Dutch Hunters relied on which info to get them into specific areas of the mountains. If you PM me with an address I will try to dig them out and send them to you.
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Interesting Thread
Peter, S.C. and Wiz,
For an number of reasons, I believe the "horse head with the laid back ear" is an Apache story. I don't have a clue who first told the story of the setting sun shining into the entrance of the the mine. As it did not come from Bark or Ely, I don't spend a lot of time on it.
Another oft' repeated story, is how the Peraltas made a final trip to the Superstitions because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Again, neither Bark or Ely make any mention of that "accepted fact". While Bark says:
"...to a mine that had been in possession of their family for several generations, a grant of sole right to Miguel Peralta (who was his grandfather) and his heirs, to a mine in certain territory....". Notice that Bark says "mine" (singular). How did the "mine" grow to "mines"? Could the maps (perhaps purposly for confusion) showing many mines, have spawned the stories? The word "grant" in this description is of importance when you are trying to tie their last trip to the treaty. Who was the first author to tell the "treaty" story? It does not fit with the "historical" facts.
If you look at the history of Mexico, around 1750, as it pertains to mining and ownership of mines, the fact that the mine was a "grant" might be of some importance. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, would have no real effect on Peralta's claim of ownership or "grant" rights.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
For an number of reasons, I believe the "horse head with the laid back ear" is an Apache story. I don't have a clue who first told the story of the setting sun shining into the entrance of the the mine. As it did not come from Bark or Ely, I don't spend a lot of time on it.
Another oft' repeated story, is how the Peraltas made a final trip to the Superstitions because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Again, neither Bark or Ely make any mention of that "accepted fact". While Bark says:
"...to a mine that had been in possession of their family for several generations, a grant of sole right to Miguel Peralta (who was his grandfather) and his heirs, to a mine in certain territory....". Notice that Bark says "mine" (singular). How did the "mine" grow to "mines"? Could the maps (perhaps purposly for confusion) showing many mines, have spawned the stories? The word "grant" in this description is of importance when you are trying to tie their last trip to the treaty. Who was the first author to tell the "treaty" story? It does not fit with the "historical" facts.
If you look at the history of Mexico, around 1750, as it pertains to mining and ownership of mines, the fact that the mine was a "grant" might be of some importance. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, would have no real effect on Peralta's claim of ownership or "grant" rights.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
I believe the first reference to a "grant" was PC Bicknell. At that time Bicknell's interpretation of Waltz and the "mine" was from the oral tradition prevalent in the public consciousness and from what he probably learned from Julia Thomas. At that time, the Peralta "grant" of Reavis (which was bogus) was still under consideration as legit. It was not until June of 1895 (after Bicknell's articles) that the validty of his claims were under question. However, the basis of Reavis' claim had a kernel of truth in a real grant that was associated with real Peraltas (The Peraltas that had the Valencia Mine and that had the general store in Phoenix).
So, it was at that time - though incorrectly - a "grant" was probably associated with the LDM story in print.
That is about all I can offer right now on that.
Regarding the sun shining into the mine, Joe is correct, neither Bark or Ely relate such a clue (at least not in print). Nor did Bicknell. So, that particular clue must have come along afterwards. It would not surprise me if it appeared for the first time in Storm's works. However, Storm must have received it somewhere. So, it was probably a long accepted oral tradition - or he could have got it from one of the Petrasches. Either way, it still is interesting as to why it surfaced. We'll probably never know for sure where it came from.
So, it was at that time - though incorrectly - a "grant" was probably associated with the LDM story in print.
That is about all I can offer right now on that.
Regarding the sun shining into the mine, Joe is correct, neither Bark or Ely relate such a clue (at least not in print). Nor did Bicknell. So, that particular clue must have come along afterwards. It would not surprise me if it appeared for the first time in Storm's works. However, Storm must have received it somewhere. So, it was probably a long accepted oral tradition - or he could have got it from one of the Petrasches. Either way, it still is interesting as to why it surfaced. We'll probably never know for sure where it came from.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Which Came First?
S.C.,
I am not sure the Reavis fiasco was connected in any way with Bark's notes. Bark's quote is "mine" specific.
While the historical record of Jim Bark and Julia Thomas seems fairly solid, the Julia Thomas/P.C. Bicknell connection is a little more circumstantial, as far as I know. You would know better than I. It seems to me, that the "grant" story had to have come directly from Waltz, through Julia.
If the story came from Waltz, and he was being truthful with Julia, which seems likely, I see no way to connect the Peralta's Valencia Mine with the LDM. The events which followed his death, do not lead one to the Valencia Mine location or area.
Interesting web there.
Respectfully,
Joe
I am not sure the Reavis fiasco was connected in any way with Bark's notes. Bark's quote is "mine" specific.
While the historical record of Jim Bark and Julia Thomas seems fairly solid, the Julia Thomas/P.C. Bicknell connection is a little more circumstantial, as far as I know. You would know better than I. It seems to me, that the "grant" story had to have come directly from Waltz, through Julia.
If the story came from Waltz, and he was being truthful with Julia, which seems likely, I see no way to connect the Peralta's Valencia Mine with the LDM. The events which followed his death, do not lead one to the Valencia Mine location or area.
Interesting web there.
Respectfully,
Joe
Reply
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
It was simply that the first time that a reference to a grant was associated with the LDM was in the Bicknell story about the LDM. In that article supposedly Waltz got the mine from the Peraltas and there is a mention of a grant.
It can be debateable where Bicknell got his info. Julia Thomas has been cited by some to have been a source. But, it is also speculated that Bicknell combined Thomas' info with other information from the time - such as an oral tradition that may or may not even have to do with Jacob Waltz. For example, it has been postualted that Bicknell could have thought a story such as the Lost German Mine story was one and the same with Jacob Waltz's story and thus combined the two. But we do not know that for sure.
Nor do we know what Waltz even told Thomas or the Petrasches. Or foir sure what they could have told people like Bark, Ely, or Bicknell. I am dubious of second hand sources - even those mentioned - because all kinds of things are - or could be - garbled or wrong.
The other information about a grant has to do with the James Madison Reavis claim. Which - you are correct - has nothing to do with the LDM. My only point was that it perpetuated the notion of grants and Peralta involvment in AZ. Nothing more. My point was that with all that was going on - it was easy to come to an assumption in one's mind at the time that this "Peralta family" had been all over the place and had their hand into all kinds of things. Why not the LDM of this Jacob Waltz guy? I do not think there was association other than in other peoples' minds.
Lastly, I do not think the Peraltas' involved with the Valecia mine had anything to do with the LDM or the Superstitions or Jacob Waltz. However, the basis of Reavis' scam - at least as I rememeber - had to do with a real "grant" that these Valencia Peraltas were involved with. The grant was worthless. But it was Reavis who falsely used such an item as the basis of his highly exaggerated claim.
My point was that there was a kernel of truth behind Reavis claim. But it was meaningless in the context of his scam. I did not mean it had something to do with Waltz or the LDM.
It was simply that the first time that a reference to a grant was associated with the LDM was in the Bicknell story about the LDM. In that article supposedly Waltz got the mine from the Peraltas and there is a mention of a grant.
It can be debateable where Bicknell got his info. Julia Thomas has been cited by some to have been a source. But, it is also speculated that Bicknell combined Thomas' info with other information from the time - such as an oral tradition that may or may not even have to do with Jacob Waltz. For example, it has been postualted that Bicknell could have thought a story such as the Lost German Mine story was one and the same with Jacob Waltz's story and thus combined the two. But we do not know that for sure.
Nor do we know what Waltz even told Thomas or the Petrasches. Or foir sure what they could have told people like Bark, Ely, or Bicknell. I am dubious of second hand sources - even those mentioned - because all kinds of things are - or could be - garbled or wrong.
The other information about a grant has to do with the James Madison Reavis claim. Which - you are correct - has nothing to do with the LDM. My only point was that it perpetuated the notion of grants and Peralta involvment in AZ. Nothing more. My point was that with all that was going on - it was easy to come to an assumption in one's mind at the time that this "Peralta family" had been all over the place and had their hand into all kinds of things. Why not the LDM of this Jacob Waltz guy? I do not think there was association other than in other peoples' minds.
Lastly, I do not think the Peraltas' involved with the Valecia mine had anything to do with the LDM or the Superstitions or Jacob Waltz. However, the basis of Reavis' scam - at least as I rememeber - had to do with a real "grant" that these Valencia Peraltas were involved with. The grant was worthless. But it was Reavis who falsely used such an item as the basis of his highly exaggerated claim.
My point was that there was a kernel of truth behind Reavis claim. But it was meaningless in the context of his scam. I did not mean it had something to do with Waltz or the LDM.
Returning to the "Afternoon Sun" clue, we find on page 130 of "Lost Mines of the Great Soutwest" by John D. Mitchell, "The rays of the setting sun will shine into the tunnel mouth when the mine is open."
This was published in 1933, predating Storm be several years, and putting Mitchell's inquiries back in the same timeframe as some of Waltz's contemporaries.
Near as I can tell, this is the earliest so far. Anyone find anything older?
This was published in 1933, predating Storm be several years, and putting Mitchell's inquiries back in the same timeframe as some of Waltz's contemporaries.
Near as I can tell, this is the earliest so far. Anyone find anything older?
Repky
Wiz,
We think alike... I found that as well. I do not believe there is an earlier reference in print.
So... we go back to the question: where did Mitchell get the "clue?"
My gut feel is that it was one of the Petrasches. Hermann or Rhiney.
We think alike... I found that as well. I do not believe there is an earlier reference in print.
So... we go back to the question: where did Mitchell get the "clue?"
My gut feel is that it was one of the Petrasches. Hermann or Rhiney.
Re: Repky
S.C.S.C. wrote:Wiz,
We think alike... I found that as well. I do not believe there is an earlier reference in print.
So... we go back to the question: where did Mitchell get the "clue?"
My gut feel is that it was one of the Petrasches. Hermann or Rhiney.
Just what I was thinking too. You know what they say about great minds...
This clue does take on more credibility when you consider the timeframe of it's appearance, it's likely source, and the fact that Mitchell was considerably more the "real deal" than most people who wrote (or write) on the subject. Yet, it's been lumped in with the "shadow of Weaver's Needle" clues. A case of there being a little truth behind every legend, maybe?
I figured the shadow clue always meant the back side of the needle in an easterly direction. I felt it was not supposed to be in the literal sense, it just got twisted that way over time. Same with the sun shining on the gold statement. It seems to get attributed to Waltz in his discussions with Rheiney and Julia. I figure it had to do with the lay of the mine being a funnel rather than in a directional sense. I always put those clues and the quartz wrapped in barbwire 4 pm on a given day type stuff as literary bastardizations of earlier staements. In fact the Barbwire wrapped rose quartz at 4 pm clue was huge in the seventies. Can't remember the day it was supposed to be on, but it was always a busy time if you were camping then in the mid late seventies. I remeber one night we camped up in Geronimos cave in the late seventies and it was like squaw peak with all the folks running around there.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
?
Zentull,
You said:
"It seems to get attributed to Waltz in his discussions with Rheiney and Julia."
Do you, or does anyone else know who first mentioned this little line?
I always have a hard time with quotes from Julia and Rheiney that Bark did not have in his notes. You might say he was on the story early.
Respectfully,
Joe
You said:
"It seems to get attributed to Waltz in his discussions with Rheiney and Julia."
Do you, or does anyone else know who first mentioned this little line?
I always have a hard time with quotes from Julia and Rheiney that Bark did not have in his notes. You might say he was on the story early.
Respectfully,
Joe
I have the same problem Joe. Frank Alkires quotes used by Glover are radically different then earlier ones concerning Waltzs death. Alkire says during other interviews that the whole powder incident happened at Julias house in her living room after Waltz was rescued. No one was allowed to see Waltz though. This may be why he asked to be moved to the back room of the store. With the others off during the day he was being bothered by uninvited guests at Julias house. At the store they could run interference and keep him company, then he had his privacy at night. Do you know if there are any of those pioneer reunion interviews available publically? I remember some were taped as well. Get me in the right direction and I would share. Promise. I knew a couple of turn of the century pioneers who were cowhands as young men and they always acted as though the Waltz stuff and clues were mostly here say that was inaccurate. I don't think any of them were in Phoenix until after 1900 though.
As far as where Waltz tells Thomas and Petrasch about the clues, most of it is suspect. Petrasch seemed to remember bits and pieces but nothing concrete. I checked to see where I had seen the qoutes and I can say I didn't find them in relation to Pipps,Holmes, the Bark notes or anything that either Petrasch said. Like I said before I figure it was an elaboration maybe on something Julia said that helped the story. Could have been anyone just looking to stretch out the story and it gets lumped in.
As far as where Waltz tells Thomas and Petrasch about the clues, most of it is suspect. Petrasch seemed to remember bits and pieces but nothing concrete. I checked to see where I had seen the qoutes and I can say I didn't find them in relation to Pipps,Holmes, the Bark notes or anything that either Petrasch said. Like I said before I figure it was an elaboration maybe on something Julia said that helped the story. Could have been anyone just looking to stretch out the story and it gets lumped in.
Zentull,
It is true that the Alkyrie info is different in Robert Joseph Allen's book than Thomas Glover's. But consider the source. Throughout his book Allen bends facts to fit the story HE was trying to tell. So, if that particular incident does not jibe with Tom Glover's version - that may be why. However, considering that Glover got his information from the records of Bertie Roberts - which was set to paper at a time prior to when Allen supposedly got his information from Alkyrie- I tend to put more credence in it. So, if I had to chose which was which - I'll go with Tom Glover's version.
It just makes sense though that having Waltz in the back room of the store would have made sense. And, I cannot recall now for sure, but it seems there are multiple accounts of Waltz being in the back room when he died - not her home.
The bottom line is, these days, nothing is for certain. Especially clues. Because most are indeed hearsay and secod, third and fourth hand.
It is true that the Alkyrie info is different in Robert Joseph Allen's book than Thomas Glover's. But consider the source. Throughout his book Allen bends facts to fit the story HE was trying to tell. So, if that particular incident does not jibe with Tom Glover's version - that may be why. However, considering that Glover got his information from the records of Bertie Roberts - which was set to paper at a time prior to when Allen supposedly got his information from Alkyrie- I tend to put more credence in it. So, if I had to chose which was which - I'll go with Tom Glover's version.
It just makes sense though that having Waltz in the back room of the store would have made sense. And, I cannot recall now for sure, but it seems there are multiple accounts of Waltz being in the back room when he died - not her home.
The bottom line is, these days, nothing is for certain. Especially clues. Because most are indeed hearsay and secod, third and fourth hand.
The only reference I found for the sun shining bit was in Killer Mountains and it was unattributed. Magill seemed to follow Ely and Storms books exclusively. I found itas one of several clues in a couple of pamphlet things I got when I was a kid. One was from the miners camp restaurant and the other I got at a U totem in Apache Junction back in the early seventies. Can't locate my Ely book though. Propably in the attic, which is why I figure it was something that Thomas said. Never read Storms books. It doesn't come up much though in the current books anymore, if at all, I notice.
I note your point concerning the Bertie Roberts notes. Its just they all seem like variations of the same storyas if everyone keeps trying to condense the story on one hand and other times elaborate on it another. I never understood why Julia seemed so concerned when Waltz was dying the second occasion, but was very different the day before. Theres no report on anyone actually seeing Waltz in the back or what he might of said. Seems there would be 100 manuscripts on his dying words other than Holmes's if anyone actually got to see him at that time. Maybe its just growing up and knowing actual people who were desperate enough to buy dutchman maps that causes me to question everything.
It seems that the few that knew or were definitely there have a lot less to say about those things. I am talking about Petrasch,Thomas and Bark. Even Dick Holmes kind of ignores what would really make Thomas look bad( and there are plenty of remarks made to question her character) and he lived not far away from the store. But then again, according to the Holmes manuscript Waltz got sick while at the Mine not during the flood.Which is different then Holmes saving Waltz from the flood as reported by Brownie and others also.
I note your point concerning the Bertie Roberts notes. Its just they all seem like variations of the same storyas if everyone keeps trying to condense the story on one hand and other times elaborate on it another. I never understood why Julia seemed so concerned when Waltz was dying the second occasion, but was very different the day before. Theres no report on anyone actually seeing Waltz in the back or what he might of said. Seems there would be 100 manuscripts on his dying words other than Holmes's if anyone actually got to see him at that time. Maybe its just growing up and knowing actual people who were desperate enough to buy dutchman maps that causes me to question everything.
It seems that the few that knew or were definitely there have a lot less to say about those things. I am talking about Petrasch,Thomas and Bark. Even Dick Holmes kind of ignores what would really make Thomas look bad( and there are plenty of remarks made to question her character) and he lived not far away from the store. But then again, according to the Holmes manuscript Waltz got sick while at the Mine not during the flood.Which is different then Holmes saving Waltz from the flood as reported by Brownie and others also.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
When Bertie Spoke....
S.C. and Zentull,
From what I have heard, when Bertie Roberts spoke only a fool would not listen carefully, and even that fool would probably pay attention. I guess that would be why I pay close attention to what Dr. Glover has to say. Good sources!
I will stick with Jim Bark first and than Sims Ely. Was there another who had the "Hell, I Was There" sources for their writings? The rest of us "experts" have our expertise tainted by time and a thousand yarns.
Makes for great stories, but a "lost" expression when pressed for details on our "facts".
If Waltz had a mine in the Superstitions, it should have been found by now. That assumes that everyone didn't start sniffing up (or down) the wrong trail, almost from the start. How did that happen? Was it Waltz, Thomas, Petrasch, or Holmes who set those who followed on a false trail? Did they do it on purpose, or did someone make a fatal error?
I believe someone made the fatal error and the rest followed.
Pure speculation, so I could, of course, be wrong.
Respectfully,
Joe
From what I have heard, when Bertie Roberts spoke only a fool would not listen carefully, and even that fool would probably pay attention. I guess that would be why I pay close attention to what Dr. Glover has to say. Good sources!
I will stick with Jim Bark first and than Sims Ely. Was there another who had the "Hell, I Was There" sources for their writings? The rest of us "experts" have our expertise tainted by time and a thousand yarns.
Makes for great stories, but a "lost" expression when pressed for details on our "facts".
If Waltz had a mine in the Superstitions, it should have been found by now. That assumes that everyone didn't start sniffing up (or down) the wrong trail, almost from the start. How did that happen? Was it Waltz, Thomas, Petrasch, or Holmes who set those who followed on a false trail? Did they do it on purpose, or did someone make a fatal error?
I believe someone made the fatal error and the rest followed.
Pure speculation, so I could, of course, be wrong.
Respectfully,
Joe
Propably closer to it then you think. I dread the day when my son asks me to tell the story about the lost dutchman mine. Gee you think he's gonna need therapy when I tell him what I know. I liken it to translating a book through several languages and back to english. Aint gonna make sense in time. Waltz was the only person who was shown the mine(supposedly) everyone else stumbled into it while they were most likely lost.
In fact Joe the first time I brought up The Holmes Manuscript you said the board would ignore it. The Things people get funny about it. I did it again and same result. If you could bet the ponies like this you'd do okay.
In fact Joe the first time I brought up The Holmes Manuscript you said the board would ignore it. The Things people get funny about it. I did it again and same result. If you could bet the ponies like this you'd do okay.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Memories
Zentull,
You said:
"In fact Joe the first time I brought up The Holmes Manuscript you said the board would ignore it. The Things people get funny about it. I did it again and same result. If you could bet the ponies like this you'd do okay."
You know how I hate being misquoted.
I don't believe it was the subject of "The Holmes Manuscript" that I commented on. As I remember....(someone will correct me here), it was more the conclusions concerning Holmes that you reached and than voiced in the forum that I thought would not be received well. They pretty well matched mine as I remember it.
I think a lot of people have leaned on the "Holmes Manuscript" in their own searches, and feel obligated to defend the "facts" in the story. Wouldn't want to have to start a whole new search, now would we?
Respectfully,
Joe
You said:
"In fact Joe the first time I brought up The Holmes Manuscript you said the board would ignore it. The Things people get funny about it. I did it again and same result. If you could bet the ponies like this you'd do okay."
You know how I hate being misquoted.
I don't believe it was the subject of "The Holmes Manuscript" that I commented on. As I remember....(someone will correct me here), it was more the conclusions concerning Holmes that you reached and than voiced in the forum that I thought would not be received well. They pretty well matched mine as I remember it.
I think a lot of people have leaned on the "Holmes Manuscript" in their own searches, and feel obligated to defend the "facts" in the story. Wouldn't want to have to start a whole new search, now would we?
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe,
Interesting that you put so much faith in Bark when it comes to Thomas and Petrasch, but not much when it comes to Deering and the Soldiers.
As for the Holmes Manuscript...it is my opinion that folks who use it as a primary source to find the LDM will most likely come up empty. However, when some of its material is cross referenced with other sources...well lets just say that some things fall into place. ...For me at least.
P
Interesting that you put so much faith in Bark when it comes to Thomas and Petrasch, but not much when it comes to Deering and the Soldiers.
As for the Holmes Manuscript...it is my opinion that folks who use it as a primary source to find the LDM will most likely come up empty. However, when some of its material is cross referenced with other sources...well lets just say that some things fall into place. ...For me at least.
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Good Point!
Hello Peter,
You are, of course, correct. Like everyone else, I am guilty of picking and choosing the clues and stories I want to believe. With Deering and the Two Soldiers it is not where their stories lead you, but the "facts" of the tales.
Not having a dog in those two fights, other than an interest in the history of the LDM, I don't really care if they are true or not. Bark and Ely tell a lot of stories that came to them in a round-about manner. Because of Bark's connection to Jacob Waltz, Julia Thomas and Rhinehart, I tend to put more weight behind his, and by extension Ely's, stories that deal directly with what they told him, rather than some of the others.
A lot of my beliefs in Jim Bark and Sims Ely have more to do with the nature of the men, as opposed to the irrefutable??? "facts"
In their stories.
Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe
You are, of course, correct. Like everyone else, I am guilty of picking and choosing the clues and stories I want to believe. With Deering and the Two Soldiers it is not where their stories lead you, but the "facts" of the tales.
Not having a dog in those two fights, other than an interest in the history of the LDM, I don't really care if they are true or not. Bark and Ely tell a lot of stories that came to them in a round-about manner. Because of Bark's connection to Jacob Waltz, Julia Thomas and Rhinehart, I tend to put more weight behind his, and by extension Ely's, stories that deal directly with what they told him, rather than some of the others.
A lot of my beliefs in Jim Bark and Sims Ely have more to do with the nature of the men, as opposed to the irrefutable??? "facts"
In their stories.Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe
>>Bark and Ely tell a lot of stories that came to them in a round-about manner.<<
That may be so, but the Joe Deering story is not one of them. The "meat" of the story as told by Jim Bark came directly from John Chunning and the tale was checked and rechecked by Ely, referencing secondary and tertiary sources such as Aaron Mason, Bob Bowden, Huse Ward and Jess Brown. Throw the Pankin anecdotes into the mix and it is difficult to ignore SOME type of genuine historocity concerning the Deering/Soldiers/Pankin
triumvirate.
P
That may be so, but the Joe Deering story is not one of them. The "meat" of the story as told by Jim Bark came directly from John Chunning and the tale was checked and rechecked by Ely, referencing secondary and tertiary sources such as Aaron Mason, Bob Bowden, Huse Ward and Jess Brown. Throw the Pankin anecdotes into the mix and it is difficult to ignore SOME type of genuine historocity concerning the Deering/Soldiers/Pankin
triumvirate.
P
One thing I'd like to throw in is about Waltz being at the back of Julia's store in his last days and the "selling of tickets" scenario. There was a question about how this was documented. Was there someone besides Alkire that reported the same version of events?
Thomas Glover in his book gets the account from an unbiased individual - Frank Alkire - who had no vested interest in making up a story. Nor did he make a big deal out of it. He was interviewed and discussed it. He simply was running a family errand and was asked to check on Waltz. He reported what he saw. This was through Margaret Roberts (I said Sarah Bertie Roberts earlier, and was wrong. Bertie Roberts was a generation older than Margaret.)
Glover indicates this version of events with Waltz was also confirmed to the Roberts family by Charles White. And, there was a gentleman by the name of Tull whose father was a boy when the event took place and confirmed the same story. Again, the gentleman had no reason to make it up.
So, there were at least two other people who independently confirm the events.
Thomas Glover in his book gets the account from an unbiased individual - Frank Alkire - who had no vested interest in making up a story. Nor did he make a big deal out of it. He was interviewed and discussed it. He simply was running a family errand and was asked to check on Waltz. He reported what he saw. This was through Margaret Roberts (I said Sarah Bertie Roberts earlier, and was wrong. Bertie Roberts was a generation older than Margaret.)
Glover indicates this version of events with Waltz was also confirmed to the Roberts family by Charles White. And, there was a gentleman by the name of Tull whose father was a boy when the event took place and confirmed the same story. Again, the gentleman had no reason to make it up.
So, there were at least two other people who independently confirm the events.