Deerings/Soldiers Trail

don · Post by **don** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 11:43 am

thanks for your reply.
pretty impressive stuff at first glance. but mostly these are accounts from 20 yrs after the event and more.and again you would have thought that somebody would have recalled the year when this happened. that in itself would suggest to me that the sources quoted are merely repeating what they themselves have been told.
your reply that its a mystery why the event wasnt mentioned in contemporary news reports is indeed true.but obviously its not a mystery if it didnt happen lol.i personally think the two soldiers tale has been added on by sensation seekers but hey its only my opinion. for me the old scottish judicial verdict must apply-- not proven

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 12:33 pm

Peter quotes Al as having said the area of the mine itself is so rough that it could not be reached by animals. I assume he meant pack animals.
I was working my way around the south side of Weavers Needle, part way up the side. The ledge I was traversing was only a couple of inches wide. Another two inch ledge was at nose level and I was using that for a hand hold. I was trying to get to a fissure, visible from the south. It had a large bush growing in it and appeared to have a cave entrance behind the bush. As I worked my way towards the fissure, with a drop of a few hundred feet below me, I was congratulating myself for probably being where no man had been before. It's a special kind of thrill thinking you are treading virgin ground. At just that moment I found myself looking at a cigarette stubbed out on the ledge I was using for a handhold. What a letdown. When I reached the fissure there was no cave, just a shadow. Rusted bean cans were in front of the bush.
Bottom line is, no place is to rough for man and that goes double for animals. It's hard to believe S.C. has so much information in his head. I would need a large computer indeed. My hat is off to him, whoever he is.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 7:20 pm

Another question that comes to mind. Bluff Spring Mt. is pretty big. Near Bluff Spring Mt. covers a large piece of ground. Why so vague? It would be nice to know if the body was discovered on the East side, West side, North or South and what is close? Some might consider five miles to be close. Since their were so many in the party, you would think the location of the body would have been recorded a little more precisely. Some of you have historic documents not readily available to the rest of us. Is this one of those top secrete pieces of evidence known only to a select few, and their not talking? How about it S.C.? Is that bit of information buried deep in your LDM archives? If so you may think it important enough to just say BLINK....but even that would be interesting.

S.C. · Post by **S.C.** » Sat Sep 28, 2002 11:25 pm

Not that I am an authority...

But, the second soldier was found near Bluff Springs itself. The spring called Bluff Springs - that the mountain was named after... In LaBarge Canyon... the south east side of the mountain...

That is my understanding, at least...

For what it is worth...

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 11:13 am

Thanks S.C.
I reread that story last night and realized it only mentioned Bluff Spring. It's hell to get old. Seems like that points to a specific direction if you use Weavers Needle as a dividing line. You would have to make an assumption he was not running from his pursuers when he was killed. Now where is that ghastly, creepy place on the East side of Bluff Spring.
It's also possible he was only going there for water. Your destination from that point could really be anywhere in the range. Back to square one. The only real clues are a very long and deeply worn trail halfway up a mountain, a trick in the trail, hole or cave with two entrances and a graphic description of the area. If you could figure out the soldiers entry point into the mountains, a south trending trail that makes a pronounced turn to a norththern direction would be a huge find. Seems like a lot of information for Morrow, Piper, Aylor and the other treasure hunters who spent decades in those mountains, not just weekends, but lived there. Perhaps, compared to them, we amateurs should move on to other areas of research. Joe Deering's description sounds like the trail was EASY to locate. I have spent more time in this forum, on this question, then fourty plus years of previous research. All the stories and legends add to my conclusions in some manner, usually positive.
If you, S.C., are no authority, I am an Italian Astronaut.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 11:24 am

Bluff Spring is located in Bluff Spring Canyon. Bluff Spring Mountain is not an option for the mine location described in these two stories.

S.C. · Post by **S.C.** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 2:23 pm

Joe,

I will get to your "other question" when I have a little more time.
I have not forgotten your inquiry...

Regarding Bluff Springs Mountain and where the soldier was found: the location of finding the soldier there is not out of the question if one assumes that Bluff Springs Mounatin has nothing to do with where the soldiers found their gold....

Going back to an old statement... I do not have this stuff all in my head. But thanks for the kind words. I have an extensive file on the Two Soldiers that I draw upon. I have gone through all these questions before and answered them to myself for my own benefit. It is very easy to go back to my notes to pull out facts.

I have a friend who is the real Two Soldiers expert. We have discussed all the twists and turns of the tale for several years now. All I do is repeat what the two of us have discussed before. So, I must give credit where credit is due. HOWEVER, I want to state my interest is historical. And really has nothing to do with WHERE something might be. I am interested in what happened. All I can say is that - to me - I think there is a historic basis in the tale.

S.C.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Sep 29, 2002 3:23 pm

I have edited my previous post. I meant to say Bluff Spring Mountain is not an option for the mine location described in the two stories. I agree
that the two soldiers story is based in historical fact. Joe Deering however is another matter altogether. He obviously worked and died as stated. I believe the rest is pure fiction. It appears he worked at the mine for two years, which does not fit the story, unless you think he waited two years for his friend to show up, so they could work the mine together. Defies logic.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:26 am

Well, actually, the Deering story fits the Soldiers timeframe quite nicely.
If Deering worked in the Silver King area from '83 -85' and spent his "vacations" searching for the Soldiers Mine, then things do indeed add up calendar-wise at least.

For myself, I am fairly certain the Deering story unfolded as commonly beleived, give or take an episode or two.

To touch briefly on the Soldiers episode, I beleive the preponderance of the evidence points to the soldiers being bushwacked in the vicinity of Bluff Springs. One was slain there, the other almost escaped via Barks Draw, but was chased down and killed in the Barkley Basin.....and not in the location most folks think.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:41 am

Oops, one more comment.

Your commentary about Deering finding it easy to locate the Soldiers trail
is inncorrect , I believe.

You have to take into account that Deering spent nearly a YEAR (perhap a tad longer) searching for it. In all likelihood he began his search in one of the peripheral areas of the mountains and simply searched until he stumbled upon it. The trail was (and is) in a remote, almost inaccessible location (no day hiker would chance across it) and in a location that one would not associate with a trail
in that country ( "a curious place for a trail"...indeed).

Now the question begs..if Deering found the trail in '85 and the Soldiers a year before..why hasnt anyone found it since? The answer is simple. The trail HAS been found since. Bark certainly found it, so have several prospectors and occasional hikers who frequent the deep back-country.
Have they followed it to a walled up tunnel? No !

Why not ?

Well 3 reasons: 1) There IS a trick in the trail and if you dont know about it you wont locate the general area of the mine. 2) Earth changes. Both man-made and mother nature. 3) Rough aint the word ! Good luck.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:59 am

Peter,
I think you may have hit on the key to Deering's locating the LDM. Of course he found it while on vacation from the Silver King Mine. His paid vacation would have given him both the time and funds to make an extensive search. That is really more plausable then the story as it has been written. If he took the wife and kids with him, they could have split up and covered a lot more ground. LOL
Oops, just got your next post. In all the stories I have read, he had already found the LDM when he arrived at the Silver King. You must have information not readily available or unread by myself at least. That is quite possible as I have spent little time on Deering's story.

don · Post by **don** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:01 pm

hey im sorry if i sound churlish but gee to me it seems theres an awful lot of conjecture and supposition there. i meam listening or reading the legends of dearing /soldiers etc is fine but then going on to treat the whole story/stories as fact' including the directions the soldiers and dearing gave (as if anybody who found the mine would advertise detailed directions to it anyway) is rather foolish. trying to ascertain the actual sequence of events and where the two soldiers were shot -when we dont know whether or not they even existed seems a bit odd.
maybe the so called grave could be exhumed lol at least we might find out whether it contains any military relics etc.anyway continue the posts they are very interesting and sometimes informative.

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:39 pm

don wrote:(as if anybody who found the mine would advertise detailed directions to it anyway)

They didn't. That's the whole problem!

don · Post by **don** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:49 pm

Wiz wrote:
don wrote:(as if anybody who found the mine would advertise detailed directions to it anyway)
They didn'

t. That's the whole problem!

they didnt? hmmmmm the waterfall ? trick in the trail?(trick in the trail my ass lol) maybe they told this to ely etc thro a medium? ok im kidding (i think)

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 2:41 pm

Good point!
Story has Deering following the directions left by the two soldiers. Since I don't believe the Deering LDM story at all, I am left with only the soldiers story. I have an idea of the location of the area they describe. I will eventually have to check it out. It is nowhere near the places discussed, so I may be mistaken. So many treasure troves, so little time.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Mon Sep 30, 2002 2:48 pm

Well, don, to be honest, it strikes me as "odd" that you would simply dismiss out of hand the Soldiers/Deering episode...without doing any digging of your own.

I have always been interested in those events, but have also spent a considerable amount of time checking and researching the "facts" such as they are.
I am satisfied that there is some "beef" to the tales.... whether it is hamburger or filet mignon still remains to be seen.

On another note to take up where WIZ left off.... Wiz is correct..while the story seems to offer up a number of clues in detail, the detail is sorely lacking.

The mountains abound with trails, waterfalls, cracks, rough areas, caves and the like. Trying to gage a location WITHOUT ANYPLACE NAMES (which is what the early prospectors were doing back in the 1880s) is very difficult. Try to tell someone how to get to your house without using a name or number (whether it is town,street, store or address) and see how that goes......lol

don · Post by **don** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:55 am

ok peter i admit ive done no "digging" lol but im not dismissing two soldiers story but just really find it "odd" that people believe it wholrheartedly and with out any reservations when theres so little evidence to support it. ok you can quote me the various "testimonies" frpom people who were told such and such in a bar or were told the tale by someone who knew a friend who knew a prospector etc.
i mean no one felt it was worth reporting at the time did they?so why 20 years after the event and more?having said that who knows? it might have happened.but as i said until real evidence is found it must remain nothing more than conjecture.and please please pleae dont bring up the panikin and saloon swamper story to support the tale- cos if you do ill scream lol
and of course as an aside "its not the amount of digging you do that counts- its where you dig-and if you dig up a farmyard its more than likely youll end up with b.s on yer shovel.
no offence meant but you invited that lol

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 2:56 am

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Don. It IS the amount of digging you do. You dig in the farmyard, outside the yard, everywhere you can think of, and sometimes you are rewarded with the gold nugget among the mountain of BS.
If you want, you can disbelieve the entire LDM story. After all, no one has found it (that we know of) in 112 years of looking. First hand evidence of any of this stuff is awfully hard to come by these days. But you'll find that the people who have REALLY researched the matter, people like Peter, S.C., Tom Glover, and several others on this site, generally come away convinced there's a real event behind it all. These guys are pros - they're focused, determined, and patient. I wouldn't bet against their actually knowing the names of the soldiers. By being so quick to disbelieve, you may miss the vital bit of information.

You're from the UK. Tell me, is there really a Holy Grail? Are you sure?

S.C. · Post by **S.C.** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 5:13 am

To clarify some of the Two Soldiers info... If you refer to my "lengthy" posting made (sorry about its length, btw...) and the "list" I presented please note that I divide them into "PRIMARY" and "secondary" sources. A primary source is one who SAW the soldiers. Not heard about them in a bar... Nor from a friend... Nor years later... They are listed as "primary" because they saw them.

The Flahrity episode recounted by McCarthy is one of the earliest. Though McCarthy wrote of the event in 1931, he met and discussed the soldiers with Flahrity in 1885. Just a year or so after the event...

I suppose we could argue this back and forth all day long. It has happened before here. A person either will accept something might have happened or they do not.

Regarding the time frame... Yes, as some have pointed out, it is disturbing that there is no time frame established. But... Is that really the case. No. It is not. If one looks at who claims to have seen the soldiers and when people worked at the Silver King we have several people that would have had to all be there at the same time. This has been established via info provided by a couple of individuals who have made a lifetime study of area mines. There is only a brief 6-7 month time frame in which these key primary witnesses were all there. When? It was mid to late 1883 to early 1884. For all practical purposes that establishes a time frame.

Names? If we accept they WERE French-Canadian immigrants, then their names might have been dififcult to remember by people who met them. Can anyone remember the name of that French actor with the big nose who was such a heart-throb to the ladies a few years back? I can't. That's because to me and others the name was "exotic." One can go back to discharge records for Ft. McDowell for 1883-1884 and look for foreign sounding names. There are indeed some in those records. Not just two but many. I would say that it is a safe bet the names of the soldiers are in that group. I cannot (nor have others been able to) pick the "two" in question.

What does all this mean? We can never be 100% certain what happened. But, to me, I believe there is sufficent information to assume there was a historical basis in the tale.

don · Post by **don** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:10 am

well sc is there a holy grail?funnily enough the holy grail could be compared with the lost dutchman in a kinda way. because the holy grail is many different things to many different people-so i guess yeah there is to some people dependin on what they visualize the holy grail as being.the holy grail is a dream that has become a symbol to some of what humanity needs or wants. likewise the dutchman in a rather more limited way perhaps but nonetheless for that a dream. now im not knocking it cos im a dreamer too and the dutchman has been an obsessive interest fer me also fer a good few years now aLBEIT FROM A DISTANCE.
first of all i dont believe that reading every published book on the dutchman qualifies anyone as an expert or a pro. the expert will be the one who discovers it surely.sure ive read most of the books too and as i guess you all have discovered also that the majority of it is contrived- i dont think that there would be much disagreement on that. all i am saying is that the two soldiers story might or might not be true- the evidence that is offered to back it up is circumstantial to say the least.second hand hearsay testimonies regarding anything must by definition be questionable .
maybe there is a mine maybe there isnt-maybe theres a cache maybe there aint. if people want to follow their own particular "lead" or s "story" thats fine but when camp fire tales are presented as solid unrefutable evidence it becomes something else.
hey im sorry if ive weed in anyones cornflakes here but itwasnt my intention to upset anyone and apologise if i have. but i think same as anything u research logic must be applied lol thanks

S.C. · Post by **S.C.** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:26 am

don,

I beleive it was Wiz who inquired about the Holy Grail.... But, I agree - logic must be applied to anything. Though much is circumstantial and indirect in various LDM topics, things sometime become a matter of belief. Thus, I have my own view. And you have yours. Rest assured, I respect yours. I think many people here have various opinions and I do not want anyone to think I am (or others are) trying to ram something down anyone's throat. Speaking for myself, I am simply explaining why I believe there was a historic basis in the tale. Nothing more. There is nothing wrong with a good "discussion." We do not need to be shy about expressing our opinions.

S.C.

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:32 am

Yes. No one is offended by anything you say, Don. this is the place to hash it all out, and your views are as valid as any of ours. Like you said, the REAL expert will be the one who finds it.

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:17 pm

don wrote:well sc is there a holy grail?funnily enough the holy grail could be compared with the lost dutchman in a kinda way. because the holy grail is many different things to many different people-so i guess yeah there is to some people dependin on what they visualize the holy grail as being.the holy grail is a dream that has become a symbol to some of what humanity needs or wantslol thanks

Don, Really like your Holy Grail analogy. There is good evidence unearthed in the book, The Sign And The Seal, which puts forth the idea that the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are the same artifact. Many of the legends concerning the treasures in the Superstitions surely come from the same original source. Ditto on what Wiz and S.C. said.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:31 pm

<<which puts forth the idea that the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are the same artifact. >>

This statement, of course, is nonsense if taken literally. Hancock juxtaposes the point that perhaps the Ark and Grail are the same...but in a philosophical light..not a literal one.

LDM · Post by **LDM** » Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:50 pm

Deleted.

Lost Dutchman Goldmine