Hola amigos,
A great number of posts have appeared and many points raised, so out of necessity this reply is extremely long. I must beg your indulgence, thank you in advance.
Klondike wrote
Roy did you ever suspect I make statements like that to simply give you a chance to engage in a productive conversation considering ore deposition and the role of the ancients in the Superstitions. I leave myself open to your type of response to see well if you have learned anything.
No, not when you have proceeded to close the door on such discussion along with WW Johnson, presenting arguments and claims of having seen documents which "prove" your assertions but refuse to post such documents. Hardly the road to an open discussion.
Klondike also wrote
Here you go again starting unsupported statements with no proof. What proof do you have the deposit is not epithermal. You simply have none because no one has given you any. Spend sometime in Pistol Canyon and read the rocks.
I am starting unsupported statements with no proof? Your perception and understanding of the written word appears quite contrary to fact. It is you whom have made the claims, along with WW Johnson, as mentioned previously; eg tellurium in the Dutchman ore, that it is classed epithermal etc. You have made another assumption here which is quite incorrect, concerning Pistol canyon too.
Klondike also wrote
What is lacking is imagination, not proof.
If a gold mine exists, no imagination is necessary to perceive it. Likewise with ancient ruins.
Klondike also wrote
If you find the terrain on Coronado Mesa to be terrifying you should simply stay away from it. No one should go into those mountains unprepared to deal with all of the hazards present. That would include men and critters. Do you have proof that anyone has ended up dead looking for Oz? Seems a lot of folks have ended up on the other side looking for the LDM.
Coronado Mesa does not "terrify" me, clearly you do not know me at all. We can not know the reasons why people enter the Superstitions, however it is good to remember that our discussions are a matter of public record; that others whom are not actively posting are reading them and take our words seriously. When someone makes a claim about the existence of something remarkable located in the hinterlands of the Superstitions, for some of those readers it will serve as motive to go risk life and limb to find it. Hence my negative view of any FALSE claims being made and a demand to see evidence before accepting claims and stories.
Klondike also wrote
Roy, how does it feel to enter a dialogue and have someone respond to you the way you and Joe interact? Imagine it does not feel good. Simply put you have no proof of anything and you simply rely on others to give you what you have not earned. Neither you or Joe participate in a dialogue on the issues at hand. That is why there really is no interest in taking this further. You folks carry paradigms around like a blinders that prevent you from being available for the truth. And if you are not available for the truth you will never find it. You simply cannot see it.
The "reaction" as you put it, has been a simple quest for truth; you have taken every opportunity to avoid answering simple questions or posting any proof to substantiate your stories. You are quite correct in that there is no interest in carrying a fictional thesis any further, however incorrect as to a serious discussion of Waltz's gold.
Klondike also wrote
Mr. Johnson gave you a gift. All you and Joe could do is simply not grasp it. Imagine Voodoo Geology is a strong force in some.
Mr Johnson gave YOU a gift, an argument and claim of having seen documents that support YOUR version of what Waltz's ore is. You presume that we have zero understanding of geology amigo, and you are wholly mistaken. Voodoo geology indeed. I would say that adding a mineral element to a famous ore, without providing a whit of evidence that it is present, would fall into the category of "voodoo geology".
WW Johnson wrote
There was no destructive test done on any of Mr. Glover's ore samples so there is no answer to what type of quartz was in any of the samples. No matter what anyone tells you. Without the destructive test having been done, they are simply guessing.
The guess of a professional geologist, holds greater weight than the guess of a prospector in my opinion. I have seen a document that mentioned the actual size of the grains in the matchbox ore, and the size fell in the range that is right on the borderline between mesothermal and hypothermal, in one of the two charts often used for categorizing. On the other chart the size falls in the hypothermal range. While Dr Glover was not able to use destructive tests, we know that at least one assay was done on ore from Waltz's candle box, and this assay came back with very high gold content, and quite low silver content. It is common for epithermal and mesothermal ores to have a fairly high silver to gold content, while the assay done by Holmes showed a LOW silver to gold content and this is a common factor in hypothermal ores. I would call it hypothermal based on these points, so do you now accept my gift of information to you?
Cubfan wrote
in the "for what it's worth" category, there was a report posted by "Wasp" back in 2009 in the attached link:
That was an interesting little game of teasing too, which may well be what we are dealing with here.
WW Johnson also wrote
I could post an ore report here and it would be meaningless because it could be called biased, lies, untrue, a forgery, on and on and on.
Why not go ahead and post it, and let the chips fall where they may? Even if the document were a forgery, surely some folks will accept it at face value, which will tend to increase the support for your (and Klondikes) contentions, right?
WW Johnson also wrote
The only issue here is Mr Glovers ore test analysis, everything else is just mindless arguing for the sake of arguing.
I can't agree that the issue is Dr Glover's analysis, the issue is the ore in my view. You and Klondike have taken issue with Dr Glover's analysis, for it does not support your own interpretations. We still have not seen documentary support for your interpretations.
I have to agree that discussing this topic does lead down further roads and learning, and that is definitely a good thing. To me it is not a big issue whether Waltz's ore has tellurides or is epithermal, however I want to see solid evidence to support those contentions when they are presented. I am still learning LDM lore and geology, hopefully a bit more each day, so the discussion has been productive for me personally.
Thank you all for the very interesting posts, I hope you all have a very pleasant evening.
Roy ~ Oroblanco
