Hi all,
I'm a noob to this site and the LDM in general, and of course I have only about a bazillion questions. I've been wading through the forums, both the old and the new, which can be difficult enough to follow simply because of the nature of forums in general.
I've ordered some books but they're still a couple of weeks away from delivery, and since there hasn't been any new public information coming from HEAT, and since this forum seems to move at glacial speed I thought I'd go ahead and ask a thoroughly newb question. It's probably been answered on the forum, but if it has, I haven't seen it, so here goes.
I can imagine any number of reasonable causes for Walz to stop going to his mine, but why would Walz not file a claim to his mine after he had decided to stop going to the mine?
A newb's question
A newb's question
Most of the world's problems are caused by people who take themselves too seriously.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Binary?
skeelos,
Welcome to "our crazy world".
Your question is a good one. One possible answer could be that there is no mine to file on.
It's possible that Waltz found the Massacre Grounds and picked up a good deal of ore there. Fearing that someone would lay claim to ownership of the ore from that site, he cached it in a "hard to find" place in the Superstitions. The Bank of Waltz, so to speak.
Lots of theories on that question.
"Binary": Isn't that a place where they put books together?
Respectfully,
Joe
Welcome to "our crazy world".
Your question is a good one. One possible answer could be that there is no mine to file on.
It's possible that Waltz found the Massacre Grounds and picked up a good deal of ore there. Fearing that someone would lay claim to ownership of the ore from that site, he cached it in a "hard to find" place in the Superstitions. The Bank of Waltz, so to speak.
Lots of theories on that question.
"Binary": Isn't that a place where they put books together?
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe,
Thanks for the reply. In reading the forums before I posted, I felt it most likely that you would have answered first if anyone answered at all.
As for Walz's claim, I realize I haven't read anywhere near enough on the subject, but when the question occurred to me, the answer I came up with was that he didn't have a mine at all and he had found Mexican/Jesuit gold. That would fit with Walz saying find the cache and find the mine find the mine and find the cache. It would also fit with Walz saying that no prospector (cowboy?) would find his mine.
Noticed my tag line did you?
I have to say that I have never seen a forum that is so barren of tag lines. Guess I'll just have to be different. And no, binary isn't where they make books, I think that's a library.
Thanks for the reply. In reading the forums before I posted, I felt it most likely that you would have answered first if anyone answered at all.
As for Walz's claim, I realize I haven't read anywhere near enough on the subject, but when the question occurred to me, the answer I came up with was that he didn't have a mine at all and he had found Mexican/Jesuit gold. That would fit with Walz saying find the cache and find the mine find the mine and find the cache. It would also fit with Walz saying that no prospector (cowboy?) would find his mine.
Noticed my tag line did you?
I have to say that I have never seen a forum that is so barren of tag lines. Guess I'll just have to be different. And no, binary isn't where they make books, I think that's a library.Most of the world's problems are caused by people who take themselves too seriously.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Library?
skeelos,
I thought a "library" was a place you went to borrow books.
Now a "binary" sounds like a place where they put them together.
I believe that the LDM is a case where, the more you read, the farther you get from whatever truth there ever was.
If you are going to look for the LDM, Sims Ely and Dr. Thomas Glover are the only two authors you really need to read.
I recommend you buy two copies of each author's work, so that when you wear out one you will still have a nice copy left. 
Respectfully,
Joe
I thought a "library" was a place you went to borrow books.
Now a "binary" sounds like a place where they put them together.
I believe that the LDM is a case where, the more you read, the farther you get from whatever truth there ever was.
If you are going to look for the LDM, Sims Ely and Dr. Thomas Glover are the only two authors you really need to read.
I recommend you buy two copies of each author's work, so that when you wear out one you will still have a nice copy left. Respectfully,
Joe
Webster Time
Time for a little Webster action:
Bindery - a place where books are bound.
Binary - made up of two parts. (My Commen t- lots of people think of zero's and one's with the term binary).
Hope this helps.
Roger
Bindery - a place where books are bound.
Binary - made up of two parts. (My Commen t- lots of people think of zero's and one's with the term binary).
Hope this helps.
Roger
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Webster?
Roger,
Thank's for the clarification. My play on words was "bound" to get an educated response.
Respectfully,
Joe
Thank's for the clarification. My play on words was "bound" to get an educated response.
Respectfully,
Joe
Re: Library?
Joe,
When I was very young, I used to think that the library made the books, and the reason they let you take them without paying for them was because they had so many.
Actually, I would love to go searching around the SMs at some point, but I don't see it any time in the forseeable future. For now I'll just have to be content to study up and do my hiking in the Blue Ridge.
When I was very young, I used to think that the library made the books, and the reason they let you take them without paying for them was because they had so many.
I think it quite funny that here we are only about 250 +/- years removed from the Jesuits/Peraltas/Walz with hundreds if not thousands looking and as far as I know there hasn't been a definative provable find yet, while on the other hand, Schlieman (sp?) working about 2500 +/- years from Troy was able to find it pretty much all on his own.I believe that the LDM is a case where, the more you read, the farther you get from whatever truth there ever was.
Thanks for the advice. I've ordered two books by Dr Glover and the Hiker's Guide to the Superstition Wilderness by Carlson et al. Now if they'd only get here. At some point I'll probably get Ely's. If I go looking for the LDM however, I will probably go looking in my back yard. It has a number of distinct advantages. For example, I'm not likely to miss dinner, and I'll have just as much success as all the other LDM hunters that have gone before me looking in the SMs. I might have a little more success in fact, because I do have some tomato plants that are coming along quite nicely if only I can keep the deer away from them.If you are going to look for the LDM, Sims Ely and Dr. Thomas Glover are the only two authors you really need to read.
Actually, I would love to go searching around the SMs at some point, but I don't see it any time in the forseeable future. For now I'll just have to be content to study up and do my hiking in the Blue Ridge.Most of the world's problems are caused by people who take themselves too seriously.
Skeelos,
Troy was a city ...and if memory serves me correctly it was one of a number of ancient cities found on that location...wasnt Homers Troy the 6th or 7th level down or some such? Being a city, Troy was a much larger target, and much easier to for Schliemann to find...imho.
The LDM, on the other hand, is a 4x4 covered over hole in the ground, located in very rough terrain, in country that is very difficult just to access. This, coupled with other complications associated with the mine area is the reason why the LDM has not been found to this day.
P
Troy was a city ...and if memory serves me correctly it was one of a number of ancient cities found on that location...wasnt Homers Troy the 6th or 7th level down or some such? Being a city, Troy was a much larger target, and much easier to for Schliemann to find...imho.
The LDM, on the other hand, is a 4x4 covered over hole in the ground, located in very rough terrain, in country that is very difficult just to access. This, coupled with other complications associated with the mine area is the reason why the LDM has not been found to this day.
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Cover Up?
Peter,
"The LDM, on the other hand, is a 4x4 covered over hole in the ground, located in very rough terrain, in country that is very difficult just to access. This, coupled with other complications associated with the mine area is the reason why the LDM has not been found to this day."
And yet Waltz is supposed to have cut logs and dragged them to the pit.
Remindes me of an old timer who told the tale of checking his bear trap, which was chained to a large log. Brer Bear drug the log behind him until he came to an Aspen forest. He continued by picking up the log and snaking through the trees with it. True story. How big did they say Waltz was?
The best evidence available, does not indicate that Waltz ever "covered over" his "mine". It also seems evident, that the LDM was found, sans gold.
Troy was the tenth of eleven cities found at the dig. There was one which was older, but it was not Homer's Troy. It seems certain that #10 was the real deal. I don't know how easy it was to find. Actually Schliemann found a "hill" which fit the bill, and started digging.
I seem to remember us taking a little run at this subject a while back.
Respectfully,
Joe
"The LDM, on the other hand, is a 4x4 covered over hole in the ground, located in very rough terrain, in country that is very difficult just to access. This, coupled with other complications associated with the mine area is the reason why the LDM has not been found to this day."
And yet Waltz is supposed to have cut logs and dragged them to the pit.
Remindes me of an old timer who told the tale of checking his bear trap, which was chained to a large log. Brer Bear drug the log behind him until he came to an Aspen forest. He continued by picking up the log and snaking through the trees with it.
True story. How big did they say Waltz was? The best evidence available, does not indicate that Waltz ever "covered over" his "mine". It also seems evident, that the LDM was found, sans gold.
Troy was the tenth of eleven cities found at the dig. There was one which was older, but it was not Homer's Troy. It seems certain that #10 was the real deal. I don't know how easy it was to find. Actually Schliemann found a "hill" which fit the bill,
and started digging.I seem to remember us taking a little run at this subject a while back.
Respectfully,
Joe
TGH
Good points. Among other differences is that nobody went out of their way to intentionally mislead people about the location of Troy. Too bad there wasn't anyone of Homer's mold around the Walz.
Joe
Well, that raises a host of questions. Please feel free to expound on your statements and enlighten me.
Good points. Among other differences is that nobody went out of their way to intentionally mislead people about the location of Troy. Too bad there wasn't anyone of Homer's mold around the Walz.
Joe
The best evidence available, does not indicate that Waltz ever "covered over" his "mine". It also seems evident, that the LDM was found, sans gold.
Well, that raises a host of questions. Please feel free to expound on your statements and enlighten me.
Most of the world's problems are caused by people who take themselves too seriously.
if you have ever spent any time in the supers...you'd know why that mine hasnt ever been found...first and formost...you cant drive to it....you have to walk in...that eliminates most of the searches...second its the roughest and nastiest place to walk around in....alot of enemies in there,(snakes,cactus,sticker bushes,cat claw,other people) the list goes on...if you really want to know why no one has found that mine yet...spend a couple days wandering around in there
Azdave
You are quite correct. When some folks claim a mine does not exist because it hasnt been found yet...they are either ignorant of the environment in which it exists...or havent done their homework. It takes a full days hikes/set up just to get near the LDM location. Couple this with no water and other complexities and its quite a task.
Skeelos
The more you look in on the forum, the more you will understand that a few members become bored and post silly things just to try and stir the pot up. One fellow in particular that seems compelled to answer every single post on the forum is generally treated with contempt and derision by other forum members (those that still talk to him ...their number has dwindled to a few).
Aurum
I'm with you on the vegetation thing...know of any likely clumps? Complex issues......tell me about it. Nothing to worry about in that department ...now or ever.
dists'ag shijii gozhoo
gagee nakah
P
You are quite correct. When some folks claim a mine does not exist because it hasnt been found yet...they are either ignorant of the environment in which it exists...or havent done their homework. It takes a full days hikes/set up just to get near the LDM location. Couple this with no water and other complexities and its quite a task.
Skeelos
The more you look in on the forum, the more you will understand that a few members become bored and post silly things just to try and stir the pot up. One fellow in particular that seems compelled to answer every single post on the forum is generally treated with contempt and derision by other forum members (those that still talk to him ...their number has dwindled to a few).
Aurum
I'm with you on the vegetation thing...know of any likely clumps?
Complex issues......tell me about it. Nothing to worry about in that department ...now or ever.dists'ag shijii gozhoo
gagee nakah
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Raven/Spirit Guide?
Peter,
"The more you look in on the forum, the more you will understand that a few members become bored and post silly things just to try and stir the pot up. One fellow in particular that seems compelled to answer every single post on the forum is generally treated with contempt and derision by other forum members (those that still talk to him ...their number has dwindled to a few)."
I think that is a reasonable assessment of a good many of my posts. Were you talking about me?
There are also a good number of people on this forum who have an oblique manner of speaking, sometimes speaking in a language no one else can understand, so that they can giggle at their own cleverness. At least I know that you "pretty much" understand me even if I am using Jicarilla or Western Apache.
I have never lowered myself into the gutter when addressing you. You, on the other hand, can't make the same claim. I have tried many times to "smooth the waters" with you, but that requires total agreement with everything you say.
I respect your knowledge, but that is not enough for you. When I have something to say, it willl be direct. Perhaps you will contiinue to post your "nameless" barbs to me, in messages to others, doo shil asi.
I would prefer to have conversations with you, where we can voice opposing points of view, without calling the olther person "genius" all the while meaning idiot.
I have many friends from this forum. I keep them by not exposing their identities, even to each other. I keep them by not exposing their secrets to others, even in private messages and using another name to hide my own identity. In other words, I keep them with mutural trust and respect.
I have no doubt you "hear" me, but I wonder if you "understand" what I am saying. If your "heart is good", you will see that "dists'ag shijii gozhoo".
Naana dii da.
Respectfully,
Joe
"The more you look in on the forum, the more you will understand that a few members become bored and post silly things just to try and stir the pot up. One fellow in particular that seems compelled to answer every single post on the forum is generally treated with contempt and derision by other forum members (those that still talk to him ...their number has dwindled to a few)."
I think that is a reasonable assessment of a good many of my posts. Were you talking about me?
There are also a good number of people on this forum who have an oblique manner of speaking, sometimes speaking in a language no one else can understand, so that they can giggle at their own cleverness. At least I know that you "pretty much" understand me even if I am using Jicarilla or Western Apache.
I have never lowered myself into the gutter when addressing you. You, on the other hand, can't make the same claim. I have tried many times to "smooth the waters" with you, but that requires total agreement with everything you say.
I respect your knowledge, but that is not enough for you. When I have something to say, it willl be direct. Perhaps you will contiinue to post your "nameless" barbs to me, in messages to others, doo shil asi.
I would prefer to have conversations with you, where we can voice opposing points of view, without calling the olther person "genius" all the while meaning idiot.
I have many friends from this forum. I keep them by not exposing their identities, even to each other. I keep them by not exposing their secrets to others, even in private messages and using another name to hide my own identity. In other words, I keep them with mutural trust and respect.
I have no doubt you "hear" me, but I wonder if you "understand" what I am saying. If your "heart is good", you will see that "dists'ag shijii gozhoo".
Naana dii da.
Respectfully,
Joe
Well, I didn't mean to set a match to dry kindling. Get enough people together (where enough = 2) voicing their opinions and sooner or later somebody gets their hackles up. Online forums are no different. The nice thing about an online forum is that it's easy to ignore people I don't want to listen to. Nobody can force me to come to this site, though I do appreciate a wide spectrum of differing opinions. I think it helps to figure things out.
azdave35
I'm sure you're right about what you say, but at least we don't have as many people shooting at each other in there as there was in the past. So difficult yes, but maybe not as dangerous. As rugged as the terrain is, the mine if it exists at all was found at least once, by Walz.
azdave35
I'm sure you're right about what you say, but at least we don't have as many people shooting at each other in there as there was in the past. So difficult yes, but maybe not as dangerous. As rugged as the terrain is, the mine if it exists at all was found at least once, by Walz.
Most of the world's problems are caused by people who take themselves too seriously.
i dont think waltz found anything on his own...if he did have a mine ...someone showed it to him or he stumbled on it while someone was working it....one thing you have to remember....when the spaniards came here all the gold they found was on top of the ground in sight...or the indians showed it to them.....the out crops wernt hidden...after the indians ran the spaniards off...they covered or hid every thing....so now when we are searching...we could walk right over the top of it and never know it....the indians were pretty good at camoflaging things....example:..i was working a claim for a guy about 10 years ago...he had found 19 mines on his claims...every one of them had been covered by the indians...most of them back filled with ore taken out of the mine....it took him over 20 years to find these hidden mines and the terrain was nowhere near as nasty as the superstitions
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Waltz
Dave,
Here are some "facts".
Waltz, while he may have been afraid of the Apache, did not let that fear stop him from staking claims in the Prescott area. He had friends he trusted, from the same area, and they were also interested in mining.
He was not too greedy to share a claim with others. If this mine could make "twenty millionairs", he could and would have found nineteen others to keep him safe while in the mountains.
While his "cache" may have been hidden in a walled up tunnel with a pit above, there was no workable vein in the pit. Had there been such a vein, see above........
Historically, someone found the remaining "cache" and thus the "mine".
Since they were looking for the "story", they kept searching. Everyone here is looking for a place to match the story. That place/story requires a pit, or two, with a vein eighteen or twenty-four inches thick, depending on who you read.
There is a "dump" at the mine. That is not something that has been hidden, or (practically speaking) ever could be. Dump's scar the terrain for more years than we can count. Like you, I have found many old "digs" in the Supes, by seeing the dumps first.
The pit itself was never covered over by Waltz. If you read the "tale" that first makes that claim, you should end up laughing.
Waltz said there were three caches. Two small and one large. He took one of the small ones at the time of Weiser's death. He made only one (1) more trip into the mountains. At that time he took the other small cache, leaving the large one. He then threw dirt on the wall of the tunnel and left. That dirt will no longer be on the rock wall.
You will search long and hard for a source that will place you closer to the LDM than Jim Bark. There is no doubt that we don't get the entire truth from the documents that are available today, but what we have is enough.
The truth that is there, is backed up by the actions of those who followed the Dutchman.
I could, of course, be wrong.
Respectfully,
Joe
Here are some "facts".
Waltz, while he may have been afraid of the Apache, did not let that fear stop him from staking claims in the Prescott area. He had friends he trusted, from the same area, and they were also interested in mining.
He was not too greedy to share a claim with others. If this mine could make "twenty millionairs", he could and would have found nineteen others to keep him safe while in the mountains.
While his "cache" may have been hidden in a walled up tunnel with a pit above, there was no workable vein in the pit. Had there been such a vein, see above........
Historically, someone found the remaining "cache" and thus the "mine".
Since they were looking for the "story", they kept searching. Everyone here is looking for a place to match the story. That place/story requires a pit, or two, with a vein eighteen or twenty-four inches thick, depending on who you read.
There is a "dump" at the mine. That is not something that has been hidden, or (practically speaking) ever could be. Dump's scar the terrain for more years than we can count. Like you, I have found many old "digs" in the Supes, by seeing the dumps first.
The pit itself was never covered over by Waltz. If you read the "tale" that first makes that claim, you should end up laughing.
Waltz said there were three caches. Two small and one large. He took one of the small ones at the time of Weiser's death. He made only one (1) more trip into the mountains. At that time he took the other small cache, leaving the large one. He then threw dirt on the wall of the tunnel and left. That dirt will no longer be on the rock wall.
You will search long and hard for a source that will place you closer to the LDM than Jim Bark. There is no doubt that we don't get the entire truth from the documents that are available today, but what we have is enough.
The truth that is there, is backed up by the actions of those who followed the Dutchman.
I could, of course, be wrong.
Respectfully,
Joe
Re: Waltz
MAYBE: YOU SHOULD START OVER FROM THE BEGINNING AND GET YOUR "FACTS" STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU GO AROUND GIVING THEM OUT TO OTHERS?Joe Ribaudo wrote:Dave,
Here are some "facts".
Ribaudo uses the term "facts" rather "Loosely" here.
Waltz, while he may have been afraid of the Apache, did not let that fear stop him from staking claims in the Prescott area. He had friends he trusted, from the same area, and they were also interested in mining.
"MAY HAVE BEEN AFRAID" ? Are these MAYbe "Facts"? Friends in the Prescott Area? Are these like the friends that took advantage of him in the Gross Load and Big Rebel mining claims? WALTZ TRUSTED NOBODY!
He was not too greedy to share a claim with others. If this mine could make "twenty millionairs", he could and would have found nineteen others to keep him safe while in the mountains.
OH SURE, ANYBODY CAN FIND 20 TRUSTWORTHY MEN.
While his "cache" may have been hidden in a walled up tunnel with a pit above, there was no workable vein in the pit. Had there been such a vein, see above........
ANOTHER "MAY HAVE BEEN" "FACT" HERE TOSS IT OUT WITH THE OTHERS.
Historically, someone found the remaining "cache" and thus the "mine".
Since they were looking for the "story", they kept searching. Everyone here is looking for a place to match the story. That place/story requires a pit, or two, with a vein eighteen or twenty-four inches thick, depending on who you read.
NOTHING BUT HOSTORIC HEARSAY! AGAIN NO "FACT"
There is a "dump" at the mine. That is not something that has been hidden, or (practically speaking) ever could be. Dump's scar the terrain for more years than we can count. Like you, I have found many old "digs" in the Supes, by seeing the dumps first.
JUST ANOTHER OF JOE'S OPINIONS, NOT A "FACT" MANY OLD MINES IN THE SUPERSTITIONS HAVE NO DUMPS!
The pit itself was never covered over by Waltz. If you read the "tale" that first makes that claim, you should end up laughing.
JUST ANOTHER OPINION, NOT A "FACT"
Waltz said there were three caches. Two small and one large. He took one of the small ones at the time of Weiser's death. He made only one (1) more trip into the mountains. At that time he took the other small cache, leaving the large one. He then threw dirt on the wall of the tunnel and left. That dirt will no longer be on the rock wall.
AN ASSUMPTION, NOT A "FACT"
You will search long and hard for a source that will place you closer to the LDM than Jim Bark. There is no doubt that we don't get the entire truth from the documents that are available today, but what we have is enough.
The truth that is there, is backed up by the actions of those who followed the Dutchman.
JUST ANOTHER OPINION. STILL NO "FACTS"
I could, of course, be wrong.
YOUR "FACTS" ARE A BIT WEAK MR. RIBAUDO.
Respectfully,
Joe
redison
Last edited by redison on Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Redison,
Well done. I myself have seen mine dumps in the Superstitions. Some are indeed in plain sight....others seem to have been purposefully hidden and the dump material scattered over quite a large area and hidden in handy cracks and crevasses...then covered over with whatever fill was handy. Try finding those dumps...lol.
Some folks on the forum have their own theories on where and what the LDM might be...and dont mind deriding all other information if it clashes with their silly notions. Oh well....
P
Well done. I myself have seen mine dumps in the Superstitions. Some are indeed in plain sight....others seem to have been purposefully hidden and the dump material scattered over quite a large area and hidden in handy cracks and crevasses...then covered over with whatever fill was handy. Try finding those dumps...lol.
Some folks on the forum have their own theories on where and what the LDM might be...and dont mind deriding all other information if it clashes with their silly notions. Oh well....
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
And The Crowd Roars!
Redison,
Facts are not always "a thing that has actually happened or that is really true". Facts can also be "something said to have occurred or supposed to be true". That is a "fact".
"MAY HAVE BEEN AFRAID" ? Are these MAYbe "Facts"? Friends in the Prescott Area? Are these like the friends that took advantage of him in the Gross Load and Big Rebel minung claims? WALTZ TRUSTED NOBODY!"
I am not sure what "minung claims" are, but......
I assume you have a source for your Prescott statements. The "facts" that are documented, show that Waltz worked claims in an area under constant attack by Indians. Your statement that "WALTZ TRUSTED NOBODY", which you felt the need to shout, shows that the facts are not on your side. There are numerous documents available that show that Jacob Waltz had people/friends, that he trusted. In those days and especially in those places, you did not "partner-up" wiith people you did not trust. It is people like you, the lone wolves, who do not trust anyone, and thus can't be trusted. In those days, you placed your life in the hands of your partners as well as holding their lives in your own hands.
"He was not too greedy to share a claim with others. If this mine could make "twenty millionairs", he could and would have found nineteen others to keep him safe while in the mountains."
"OH SURE, ANYBODY CAN FIND 20 TRUSTWORTHY MEN."
Once again you show the level of your intelligence by shouting. If you had not been so eager to shout down my comments, you might have taken the time to absorb what I actually said. Waltz only needed to find "nineteen others".
"Historically, someone found the remaining "cache" and thus the "mine".
Since they were looking for the "story", they kept searching. Everyone here is looking for a place to match the story. That place/story requires a pit, or two, with a vein eighteen or twenty-four inches thick, depending on who you read."
"NOTHING BUT HOSTORIC HEARSAY! AGAIN NO 'FACT'"
History is "an account of what has or might have happened". Those accounts must be "recorded". The recording may be written or spoken to qualify. All history, that you have not experienced yourself, would be "HEARSAY".
"There is a "dump" at the mine. That is not something that has been hidden, or (practically speaking) ever could be. Dump's scar the terrain for more years than we can count. Like you, I have found many old "digs" in the Supes, by seeing the dumps first."
"JUST ANOTHER OF JOE'S OPINIONS, NOT A "FACT" MANY OLD MINES IN THE SUPERSTITIONS HAVE NO DUMPS!"
Despite the accolades that are still ringing in your ears, you are wrong.
Every mine in the Superstitions has a "dump". Despite Aurum's comments to Peter, the "mine" he gives as an example had a dump. He found it, and recognized it for what it was.
"The pit itself was never covered over by Waltz. If you read the "tale" that first makes that claim, you should end up laughing."
"JUST ANOTHER OPINION, NOT A 'FACT'"
There are many facts which support my statement. Joe Deering is supposed to have said "...further over, it looked as though there had been two big shafts, but they were pretty well filled." Deering had no trouble seeing those shafts.
I understand that "you" would not be laughing at the account of Waltz covering the pit. That's because you (probably) spent a good deal of time throwing the rocks out of your own heart shaped pit.
The Two Soldiers, according to Bark, said "...came to a tunnel that had been walled up, with working above and over". They had no trouble finding the pit. "They said that they did not believe that what they saw was gold, as there was so much of it. They said they certainly could load their burros down to the water line."
"Waltz said there were three caches. Two small and one large. He took one of the small ones at the time of Weiser's death. He made only one (1) more trip into the mountains. At that time he took the other small cache, leaving the large one. He then threw dirt on the wall of the tunnel and left. That dirt will no longer be on the rock wall."
"AN ASSUMPTION, NOT A 'FACT'"
You are correct here, in saying that it is "AN ASSUMPTION", but it is an assumption based on the best facts available. (See definition of fact above)
Other than "NOT A 'FACT'", do you have something to refute my statement? Considering the facts that we do know, anyone who believes the Brownie Holmes story is betting on a dead hand.
"You will search long and hard for a source that will place you closer to the LDM than Jim Bark. There is no doubt that we don't get the entire truth from the documents that are available today, but what we have is enough.
The truth that is there, is backed up by the actions of those who followed the Dutchman." (I have place the last sentence in bold for the mentally impaired.)
"JUST ANOTHER OPINION. STILL NO 'FACTS'"
I did not think that anyone would take my statements as anything but my own "opinion" of the facts (see above definition) that are available to everyone. That is why I said: "I could, of course, be wrong."
I also did not say here are the facts. Instead, I said, "Here are some facts". That does not preclude other "facts" being available.
"MAYBE: YOU SHOULD START OVER FROM THE BEGINNING AND GET YOUR 'FACTS' STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU GO AROUND GIVING OUT ADVICE TO OTHERS?"
Maybe you can explain one place in my post where I am "GIVING OUT ADVICE TO OTHERS?"
Just so you will be able to recognize advice when you see it, here are two samples: Never shout when a whisper will suffice.
For those of you (Peter) who are shouting encouragement from the sidelines, quit proping up the cannon fodder and deliver your insults man to man. You will never be or know the Apache. Above everything, they were men.
Just to be clear, most of this post is opinion based on the available facts.
Almost any idiot would come to that conclusion, without having to be told.
Joe
Facts are not always "a thing that has actually happened or that is really true". Facts can also be "something said to have occurred or supposed to be true". That is a "fact".
"MAY HAVE BEEN AFRAID" ? Are these MAYbe "Facts"? Friends in the Prescott Area? Are these like the friends that took advantage of him in the Gross Load and Big Rebel minung claims? WALTZ TRUSTED NOBODY!"
I am not sure what "minung claims" are, but......
I assume you have a source for your Prescott statements. The "facts" that are documented, show that Waltz worked claims in an area under constant attack by Indians. Your statement that "WALTZ TRUSTED NOBODY", which you felt the need to shout, shows that the facts are not on your side. There are numerous documents available that show that Jacob Waltz had people/friends, that he trusted. In those days and especially in those places, you did not "partner-up" wiith people you did not trust. It is people like you, the lone wolves, who do not trust anyone, and thus can't be trusted. In those days, you placed your life in the hands of your partners as well as holding their lives in your own hands.
"He was not too greedy to share a claim with others. If this mine could make "twenty millionairs", he could and would have found nineteen others to keep him safe while in the mountains."
"OH SURE, ANYBODY CAN FIND 20 TRUSTWORTHY MEN."
Once again you show the level of your intelligence by shouting. If you had not been so eager to shout down my comments, you might have taken the time to absorb what I actually said. Waltz only needed to find "nineteen others".
"Historically, someone found the remaining "cache" and thus the "mine".
Since they were looking for the "story", they kept searching. Everyone here is looking for a place to match the story. That place/story requires a pit, or two, with a vein eighteen or twenty-four inches thick, depending on who you read."
"NOTHING BUT HOSTORIC HEARSAY! AGAIN NO 'FACT'"
History is "an account of what has or might have happened". Those accounts must be "recorded". The recording may be written or spoken to qualify. All history, that you have not experienced yourself, would be "HEARSAY".
"There is a "dump" at the mine. That is not something that has been hidden, or (practically speaking) ever could be. Dump's scar the terrain for more years than we can count. Like you, I have found many old "digs" in the Supes, by seeing the dumps first."
"JUST ANOTHER OF JOE'S OPINIONS, NOT A "FACT" MANY OLD MINES IN THE SUPERSTITIONS HAVE NO DUMPS!"
Despite the accolades that are still ringing in your ears, you are wrong.
Every mine in the Superstitions has a "dump". Despite Aurum's comments to Peter, the "mine" he gives as an example had a dump. He found it, and recognized it for what it was.
"The pit itself was never covered over by Waltz. If you read the "tale" that first makes that claim, you should end up laughing."
"JUST ANOTHER OPINION, NOT A 'FACT'"
There are many facts which support my statement. Joe Deering is supposed to have said "...further over, it looked as though there had been two big shafts, but they were pretty well filled." Deering had no trouble seeing those shafts.
I understand that "you" would not be laughing at the account of Waltz covering the pit. That's because you (probably) spent a good deal of time throwing the rocks out of your own heart shaped pit.
The Two Soldiers, according to Bark, said "...came to a tunnel that had been walled up, with working above and over". They had no trouble finding the pit. "They said that they did not believe that what they saw was gold, as there was so much of it. They said they certainly could load their burros down to the water line."
"Waltz said there were three caches. Two small and one large. He took one of the small ones at the time of Weiser's death. He made only one (1) more trip into the mountains. At that time he took the other small cache, leaving the large one. He then threw dirt on the wall of the tunnel and left. That dirt will no longer be on the rock wall."
"AN ASSUMPTION, NOT A 'FACT'"
You are correct here, in saying that it is "AN ASSUMPTION", but it is an assumption based on the best facts available. (See definition of fact above)
Other than "NOT A 'FACT'", do you have something to refute my statement? Considering the facts that we do know, anyone who believes the Brownie Holmes story is betting on a dead hand.
"You will search long and hard for a source that will place you closer to the LDM than Jim Bark. There is no doubt that we don't get the entire truth from the documents that are available today, but what we have is enough.
The truth that is there, is backed up by the actions of those who followed the Dutchman." (I have place the last sentence in bold for the mentally impaired.)
"JUST ANOTHER OPINION. STILL NO 'FACTS'"
I did not think that anyone would take my statements as anything but my own "opinion" of the facts (see above definition) that are available to everyone. That is why I said: "I could, of course, be wrong."
I also did not say here are the facts. Instead, I said, "Here are some facts". That does not preclude other "facts" being available.
"MAYBE: YOU SHOULD START OVER FROM THE BEGINNING AND GET YOUR 'FACTS' STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU GO AROUND GIVING OUT ADVICE TO OTHERS?"
Maybe you can explain one place in my post where I am "GIVING OUT ADVICE TO OTHERS?"
Just so you will be able to recognize advice when you see it, here are two samples: Never shout when a whisper will suffice.
For those of you (Peter) who are shouting encouragement from the sidelines, quit proping up the cannon fodder and deliver your insults man to man. You will never be or know the Apache. Above everything, they were men.
Just to be clear, most of this post is opinion based on the available facts.
Almost any idiot would come to that conclusion, without having to be told.
Joe
Rambling response
Joe,
Capitalization in bold is not shouting. It is a simple way of clearly seperating the text of two different authors.
This is shouting: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
I'll make a note of your unusual and personal definition of the term "fact" and apply it to your future use of the word.
re:
For those of you (Peter) who are shouting encouragement from the sidelines, quit proping up the cannon fodder and deliver your insults man to man. You will never be or know the Apache. Above everything, they were men.
Really botheres you that Peter won't talk to you doesn't it? Accept it and drop the childish insults, they reflect more on peoples opinions of you than anyone else.
redison
Capitalization in bold is not shouting. It is a simple way of clearly seperating the text of two different authors.
This is shouting: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
I'll make a note of your unusual and personal definition of the term "fact" and apply it to your future use of the word.
re:
For those of you (Peter) who are shouting encouragement from the sidelines, quit proping up the cannon fodder and deliver your insults man to man. You will never be or know the Apache. Above everything, they were men.
Really botheres you that Peter won't talk to you doesn't it? Accept it and drop the childish insults, they reflect more on peoples opinions of you than anyone else.
redison
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
No Content
Redison,
Peter is talking to me, you idiot. He is just using you as his dummy. He knows who you are, and keeps his hand up your backside to make your lips move.
In case you didn't notice, "something said to have occurred or supposed to be true" was in quotes. I doubt you will ever see the source for that quote.
The "childish insults" should be dropped, but then how would I be able to respond to you boys in kind?
The two of you come from whatever rock you usually hide under, to address a post made to someone I consider a friend. In your heated and insulting replies you actually say nothing of substance.
In truth, I like it that the two of you are are so angry. Each time you make such mindless replies, you just prove how right I am about your characters.
If you would like to discuss the things this forum was created for, sans a litany of insulting WRONG, WRONG, WRONGS, without a single opposing fact, you will find that I will respond in kind. It's really a simple process. You present your case, I present mine.
You ran from the one statement where you actually addressed something I said. Is there a source for your Prescott statement, or is that empty rhetoric, like everything else you write?
I will never worry about "peoples opinions". The ones who are important to me, have expressed them personally.
Joe
Peter is talking to me, you idiot. He is just using you as his dummy. He knows who you are, and keeps his hand up your backside to make your lips move.
In case you didn't notice, "something said to have occurred or supposed to be true" was in quotes. I doubt you will ever see the source for that quote.
The "childish insults" should be dropped, but then how would I be able to respond to you boys in kind?
The two of you come from whatever rock you usually hide under, to address a post made to someone I consider a friend. In your heated and insulting replies you actually say nothing of substance.
In truth, I like it that the two of you are are so angry. Each time you make such mindless replies, you just prove how right I am about your characters.
If you would like to discuss the things this forum was created for, sans a litany of insulting WRONG, WRONG, WRONGS, without a single opposing fact, you will find that I will respond in kind. It's really a simple process. You present your case, I present mine.
You ran from the one statement where you actually addressed something I said. Is there a source for your Prescott statement, or is that empty rhetoric, like everything else you write?
I will never worry about "peoples opinions". The ones who are important to me, have expressed them personally.
Joe
Aurum,
You are, as usual, correct. At least one of the dumps was hidden in a fashion you describe, but I have also found some of the dump material (also hidden in "cracks") some distance from the main mass, in what some might consider the same rough area. Couple this with the amount of material that can be found in the canyon below (that someone probably dumped over the side) ...so much so it almost looks like a landslide.... that I wonder if all of that came from one place.....
P
You are, as usual, correct. At least one of the dumps was hidden in a fashion you describe, but I have also found some of the dump material (also hidden in "cracks") some distance from the main mass, in what some might consider the same rough area. Couple this with the amount of material that can be found in the canyon below (that someone probably dumped over the side) ...so much so it almost looks like a landslide.... that I wonder if all of that came from one place.....
P