Peter,
"The question is..were they 7 "regular" miles or "mountain" miles? There IS a difference as anyone who has spent any time in-country knows. 7 mountain miles might mean 3-4 regular miles."
That's an interesting concept. Since Deering probably did not have a pedometer, GPS or Topographic Map, how did he gauge that distance?
Those (experienced) old timers gauged distance by the time it took them to walk or ride from point A to point B. They adjusted that time/distance calculation by terrain.
How did they learn that little trick? I would guess that they made more than a few trips between known points, both on fairly level and mountainous terrain. I doubt that would give them the ability to gauge linear distance with elevation changes figured in.
Respectfully,
Joe
Spitzfelsen.....
Spitzfelsen
I have read and reread this thread 3 times and parts of it more. Joe and Peter shared their ideas and It was very entertaining. Oh for the good old days!
I have resisted poring over clues and maps until I get a handle on the players and the origins of their stories but I thought this would be a non threatening area to start since it's a long way from the actual location of the LDM. There was a lot of discussion in the thread about the Waltz clues and where you would start a search. There were three basic starting points indicated in the thread, the north side, the south side and the west side of the Superstitions!
Starting with Bark's (Bark's Notes) recollection of his meeting with Julia and Rhiney in August, 1892 or 1893 and the August, 1892 newspaper account of Julia and Rhiney searching for the LDM it seems they were on the western side of the Superstitions, probably in the area of First Water.
According to Bark, he was riding 6 miles west of the home ranch and he met Julia and Rhiney camped near an old well on his ranch. He invited them up to the house for shade.
1. What type of operation did Bark have at First Water?
2. What was the house he was referring to?
3. Would there have been permanent residents (cowboys) in August?
4. Why did he refer to the well as old? How old could it have been? Does anyone know where this old well was or is?
Bark also related that when he left them he rode on up the canyon following their buggy tracks and they had gone up the canyon toward the Superstition Mountains as far as possible with a horse and buggy and much further than he thought possible.
5. In which canyon were Julia and Rhiney's buggy tracks?
6. If Bark followed the tracks into the Superstitions, which trail would he have taken to return to the home ranch? Across the Superstitions or around the southern base?
And lastly:
7. Why did Julia and Rhiney come into the Superstitions from First Water if Waltz's instructions indicated that they would start from the "New Board House"?
8. Was the "Board House" and Bark's home ranch one and the same? I thought it was?
I would appreciate any thoughts,
Garry Cundiff
I have resisted poring over clues and maps until I get a handle on the players and the origins of their stories but I thought this would be a non threatening area to start since it's a long way from the actual location of the LDM. There was a lot of discussion in the thread about the Waltz clues and where you would start a search. There were three basic starting points indicated in the thread, the north side, the south side and the west side of the Superstitions!
Starting with Bark's (Bark's Notes) recollection of his meeting with Julia and Rhiney in August, 1892 or 1893 and the August, 1892 newspaper account of Julia and Rhiney searching for the LDM it seems they were on the western side of the Superstitions, probably in the area of First Water.
According to Bark, he was riding 6 miles west of the home ranch and he met Julia and Rhiney camped near an old well on his ranch. He invited them up to the house for shade.
1. What type of operation did Bark have at First Water?
2. What was the house he was referring to?
3. Would there have been permanent residents (cowboys) in August?
4. Why did he refer to the well as old? How old could it have been? Does anyone know where this old well was or is?
Bark also related that when he left them he rode on up the canyon following their buggy tracks and they had gone up the canyon toward the Superstition Mountains as far as possible with a horse and buggy and much further than he thought possible.
5. In which canyon were Julia and Rhiney's buggy tracks?
6. If Bark followed the tracks into the Superstitions, which trail would he have taken to return to the home ranch? Across the Superstitions or around the southern base?
And lastly:
7. Why did Julia and Rhiney come into the Superstitions from First Water if Waltz's instructions indicated that they would start from the "New Board House"?
8. Was the "Board House" and Bark's home ranch one and the same? I thought it was?
I would appreciate any thoughts,
Garry Cundiff
Last edited by novice on Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Getting back to Spitzfelsen.....
Peter, I did the same thing with the German clues right after Corbin's book came out. Something I discovered in the process that the group of Germans you were talking to didn't pick up on pertaining to to the word Spitzfelsen is as follows.Peter3 wrote:Heres something interesting.
Being bored and having some time on my hands, I went into a German chat room and had them translate the German Clues in Corbins book for me. And yes I went over every single sentence.....
Most of the wording was word for word with what Corbin relates in the book. However, there was a word: "spitzfelsen" that was interesting.
Some described it as a peak, spire , boulder or sharprock. Others described it as a series of ledges or large prominent cliffs that one would use as a landmark...depending on the context in which the word was used.
Thought that one or two of you might find
the above mighty intriguing......
P
The word is actually a combination of two words ( like we assemble Tele & Vision to make television) Spitze (sounds like sptizer or spitzA when hearing a German say it) and felzen. The group I was talking to all agreed that "Spitzfelzen" was an improper assembly of the two words and no German speaking individual would assemble those two words that way.
A German would say felzenspitze. To them spitzfelzen looks like "visiontele" instead ot television would look to us. Their conclusion was that a non german speaking individual had done direct conversions from English to German using a book of translations and formed the word felzenspitz backwords into spitzfelzen because of the way it would have been arranged in English. Keep this in mind if you run across any other people that speak German as their primary language.
I have more on the subject of the German clues, but my dinner is ready so I will have to leave that for another time.
redison
More on the German clues
One last note on Spitzfelzen vs Felzenspitze.
Look at page 184 of Corbin's book 3 lines up from the bottom of the page you will find the German word felsenseicter (again two seperate words spliced together into on) sorry, I keep putting a Z in felsen where an S should be. my error. Felsenseicter means "Rocky Shallow" correctly formed in German even tho the words should be seperated. Felsenspitze means "Rocky Peak" and Spitzefelsen would come out to be "Peak Rocky" (Backwards) to a German speaking person.
As I was saying in my last post, I got very interested in the German clues when Mrs Corbin's second book The BIBLE.... came out. I spent many hours on the internet looking up translations and talking people that grew up with German being their first language. My most important finding from that approach is already explained above. Felsenspitze vs Spitzfelsen.
I discussed the new book and the German clues with everyone I met that had an interest in the Lost Dutchman. I could not accept the idea that Hermann Petrasch had this information and never shared it with anyone other than Edwards & Roberts.
Anyway, after several years of researching the German clues, I finally found TWO people that stated that they had seen the German clues prior to them being published in Corbin's book. (Although the list of clues in Corbin's book is at least 5 times as long as the list of German clues they had been shown prior to her book coming out). This was at first good news and made the whole matter of the German clues easier to accept as maybe being valid. The catch in both cases was that the individual (current Source) for the German clues had a totally different story about the origination (original source) of the clues.
According to these two individuals that had seen the German clues prior to them being published, they were both told by the same individual that the clues had come from a letter that Jacob Waltz had written to his sister in Kansas. This letter was supposed to have been found while in the act of researching a Treasury Draft that showed that Waltz had sent money to this sister there. Neither Edwards & Roberts nor Herman Petrasch were ever mentioned in this version of where the (Shorter list of) German clues came from.
Although Mrs Corbin presents the same Treasury Draft in her book she makes no reference to the German clues being found in a letter that Waltz wrote to his sister in kansas, but instead states that they originated with Hermann Petrasch.
As Walter Brennan would say... "Somthin's cockeyed somewheres"
redison
Look at page 184 of Corbin's book 3 lines up from the bottom of the page you will find the German word felsenseicter (again two seperate words spliced together into on) sorry, I keep putting a Z in felsen where an S should be. my error. Felsenseicter means "Rocky Shallow" correctly formed in German even tho the words should be seperated. Felsenspitze means "Rocky Peak" and Spitzefelsen would come out to be "Peak Rocky" (Backwards) to a German speaking person.
As I was saying in my last post, I got very interested in the German clues when Mrs Corbin's second book The BIBLE.... came out. I spent many hours on the internet looking up translations and talking people that grew up with German being their first language. My most important finding from that approach is already explained above. Felsenspitze vs Spitzfelsen.
I discussed the new book and the German clues with everyone I met that had an interest in the Lost Dutchman. I could not accept the idea that Hermann Petrasch had this information and never shared it with anyone other than Edwards & Roberts.
Anyway, after several years of researching the German clues, I finally found TWO people that stated that they had seen the German clues prior to them being published in Corbin's book. (Although the list of clues in Corbin's book is at least 5 times as long as the list of German clues they had been shown prior to her book coming out). This was at first good news and made the whole matter of the German clues easier to accept as maybe being valid. The catch in both cases was that the individual (current Source) for the German clues had a totally different story about the origination (original source) of the clues.
According to these two individuals that had seen the German clues prior to them being published, they were both told by the same individual that the clues had come from a letter that Jacob Waltz had written to his sister in Kansas. This letter was supposed to have been found while in the act of researching a Treasury Draft that showed that Waltz had sent money to this sister there. Neither Edwards & Roberts nor Herman Petrasch were ever mentioned in this version of where the (Shorter list of) German clues came from.
Although Mrs Corbin presents the same Treasury Draft in her book she makes no reference to the German clues being found in a letter that Waltz wrote to his sister in kansas, but instead states that they originated with Hermann Petrasch.
As Walter Brennan would say... "Somthin's cockeyed somewheres"
redison
German clues
P
What bothers me most about the German Clues in Corbin's book is that there is no overlap with the clues in the Bark Notes that are supposed to have come from Waltz thru the Petrasches.
25 bran new clues with no overlap of old clues?
They were easier to believe in when there were only 5 or 6 German clues and the source was a letter from Waltz to his sister in Kansas.
"Somthin's still cockeyed somewheres"
R
What bothers me most about the German Clues in Corbin's book is that there is no overlap with the clues in the Bark Notes that are supposed to have come from Waltz thru the Petrasches.
25 bran new clues with no overlap of old clues?
They were easier to believe in when there were only 5 or 6 German clues and the source was a letter from Waltz to his sister in Kansas.
"Somthin's still cockeyed somewheres"
R
Overlap of clues
P,
I guess one overlap is good, even if it is not "well known"
I still feel that since Jim Bark questioned and later cross examined Rhiney on 41 or so points on what Waltz said, and Hermann's only source of information was Rhiney (besides Julia which one would expect to be almost identical information to what Rhiney had) Then you could reasonably expect the MAJORITY of the points (for lack of a better word) would be the very same even allowing for slight differences via translations.
When new clues surface over 100 years after the fact, that contradict clues that have been aroud for over 100 years, You gotta suspect the validity of the new clues... Don't you?
Especially when they are all supposed to be tracable back to the same source.
R
I guess one overlap is good, even if it is not "well known"
I still feel that since Jim Bark questioned and later cross examined Rhiney on 41 or so points on what Waltz said, and Hermann's only source of information was Rhiney (besides Julia which one would expect to be almost identical information to what Rhiney had) Then you could reasonably expect the MAJORITY of the points (for lack of a better word) would be the very same even allowing for slight differences via translations.
When new clues surface over 100 years after the fact, that contradict clues that have been aroud for over 100 years, You gotta suspect the validity of the new clues... Don't you?
Especially when they are all supposed to be tracable back to the same source.
R
Bark Clues
P,
The copy I have of the Bark Notes Has a very detailed list of things that Rhiney told Bark. Maybe contradict was was a bad choice of words. My point was, Bark's list of clues and the German clues all of which are supposed to be what Waltz told Rhiney, are no where near the same.
CuMiner
Estee Conatser was pretty close to the Spangler family and has her own list of detailed clues in her book. The German clues do not align with her clues either. In fact, the German clues do not align with any other source of "Traditional" clues. They stand apart as if from a totally different source than Jacob Waltz.
Could be a lot of different reasons for that. It still leaves the whole thing about the German clues looking a little "cockeyed".
I fully agree with P that There is a lot of fulff and little fact in Ely's book. But the bark Notes were never intended for publication and are "preumably" a little closer to the truth.
re: "PS Aint it nice to be able to post now without interruption? This is kinda nice....lol"
Shhhhhh P, he might hear you!
R
The copy I have of the Bark Notes Has a very detailed list of things that Rhiney told Bark. Maybe contradict was was a bad choice of words. My point was, Bark's list of clues and the German clues all of which are supposed to be what Waltz told Rhiney, are no where near the same.
CuMiner
Estee Conatser was pretty close to the Spangler family and has her own list of detailed clues in her book. The German clues do not align with her clues either. In fact, the German clues do not align with any other source of "Traditional" clues. They stand apart as if from a totally different source than Jacob Waltz.
Could be a lot of different reasons for that. It still leaves the whole thing about the German clues looking a little "cockeyed".
I fully agree with P that There is a lot of fulff and little fact in Ely's book. But the bark Notes were never intended for publication and are "preumably" a little closer to the truth.
re: "PS Aint it nice to be able to post now without interruption? This is kinda nice....lol"
Shhhhhh P, he might hear you!
R
German clues
CuMiner,
No offense taken at all. It was an excellent post and you point is excellent.
We often slip into a mode of bouncing one author's work against another's and wind up contradicting our selves in the process.
Unless you have spent a lot of time in the mtns and found things yourself that aren't in any books or hooked up with an ole timer that has, you just end up going round and round in circles in all the published material.
Great Post!
But I still favor the Bark Notes over an un-named source. Especially in a case like the German clues where the source is known to have modified their story about where the German clues originated. I think he shot himself in the foot when he switched his story from Waltz' sister to claim Hermann was the source of the German clues. There are too many people still alive today that were close to Herman and never heard him speak of these German clues.
I believe that an Investigative Journalist should have every right to conceal and protect their sources and that right should be protected. Information they receive is never considered as evidence to convict anyone of anything, but it leads to solid evidence that does. In that case, the source does not matter.
Historians are obligated to a completely different set of rules. Without a creditable and verifiable source they are just rambling. I do consider Herman to be a very creditable and verifiable source, but Herman is not the one claiming to be the source of this information. There is a mysterious middle man claiming Herman is the source, that has also claimed in the past that Waltz' sister was the source for the same information.
Some information can be very difficult for a researcher to accept, other information can be very easy for a researcher to reject. Each researcher has to make up his own mind.
If Mrs. Corbin's source would ever step forward and identify himself as being the source of the German clues, I would be more than happy to come forward with the names of the two sources (Both still very much alive) that claim the same individual told them Waltz' sister was the source for the German clues long before Corbin's book was published.
Lastly, It is pretty well documented that there was an existing fued between the Holmes and Petrasch camps that carried all the way to their graves. Edwards & Roberts were about as solidly in the Holmes camp as anyone could get and well known for it. By what logic could a rational person conclude that Herman Petrasch would devulge clues to members of the Holmes camp that he never shared with his own camp?
redison
No offense taken at all. It was an excellent post and you point is excellent.
We often slip into a mode of bouncing one author's work against another's and wind up contradicting our selves in the process.
Unless you have spent a lot of time in the mtns and found things yourself that aren't in any books or hooked up with an ole timer that has, you just end up going round and round in circles in all the published material.
Great Post!
But I still favor the Bark Notes over an un-named source. Especially in a case like the German clues where the source is known to have modified their story about where the German clues originated. I think he shot himself in the foot when he switched his story from Waltz' sister to claim Hermann was the source of the German clues. There are too many people still alive today that were close to Herman and never heard him speak of these German clues.
I believe that an Investigative Journalist should have every right to conceal and protect their sources and that right should be protected. Information they receive is never considered as evidence to convict anyone of anything, but it leads to solid evidence that does. In that case, the source does not matter.
Historians are obligated to a completely different set of rules. Without a creditable and verifiable source they are just rambling. I do consider Herman to be a very creditable and verifiable source, but Herman is not the one claiming to be the source of this information. There is a mysterious middle man claiming Herman is the source, that has also claimed in the past that Waltz' sister was the source for the same information.
Some information can be very difficult for a researcher to accept, other information can be very easy for a researcher to reject. Each researcher has to make up his own mind.
If Mrs. Corbin's source would ever step forward and identify himself as being the source of the German clues, I would be more than happy to come forward with the names of the two sources (Both still very much alive) that claim the same individual told them Waltz' sister was the source for the German clues long before Corbin's book was published.
Lastly, It is pretty well documented that there was an existing fued between the Holmes and Petrasch camps that carried all the way to their graves. Edwards & Roberts were about as solidly in the Holmes camp as anyone could get and well known for it. By what logic could a rational person conclude that Herman Petrasch would devulge clues to members of the Holmes camp that he never shared with his own camp?
redison
German clues
James, (CuMiner)
Sorry if it sounded like I was addressing you personally. I see how you could take it that way. It was meant for the open forum and was just the luck of the draw that your post triggered it.
I just get very agitated about the idea of someone attempting to introduce NEW evidence into the legend and using the names of creditable individuals to do it. If Hermann was still alive it might not be so bad. He could speak up for himself.
I believe that if Mrs. Corbin would have thought about it a little more or even discussed the pros and cons with local Historians before publishing the German clues she would have doubted that Hermann Petrasch would have been providing any kind of information to the Holmes camp and left the German clues out. The whole idea has a very off-key ring to it.
The agonizing task of “separating the wheat from the chaff” as Mr. Bark put it, is only made more difficult as more chaff is introduced. In the case of the German clues we at least have a historical basis to evaluate the logical pros and cons of their validity against. All we need now is a new list of clues, landmarks or directions that Julia Thomas got directly from Dick Holmes or Giddeon Roberts. No doubt that some people would buy into them too.
There may be other valuable “new” information in her latest book “The Bible…” but without knowing her sources, how can you separate it out from possibly being from the same source as the German clues?
redison
Sorry if it sounded like I was addressing you personally. I see how you could take it that way. It was meant for the open forum and was just the luck of the draw that your post triggered it.
I just get very agitated about the idea of someone attempting to introduce NEW evidence into the legend and using the names of creditable individuals to do it. If Hermann was still alive it might not be so bad. He could speak up for himself.
I believe that if Mrs. Corbin would have thought about it a little more or even discussed the pros and cons with local Historians before publishing the German clues she would have doubted that Hermann Petrasch would have been providing any kind of information to the Holmes camp and left the German clues out. The whole idea has a very off-key ring to it.
The agonizing task of “separating the wheat from the chaff” as Mr. Bark put it, is only made more difficult as more chaff is introduced. In the case of the German clues we at least have a historical basis to evaluate the logical pros and cons of their validity against. All we need now is a new list of clues, landmarks or directions that Julia Thomas got directly from Dick Holmes or Giddeon Roberts. No doubt that some people would buy into them too.
There may be other valuable “new” information in her latest book “The Bible…” but without knowing her sources, how can you separate it out from possibly being from the same source as the German clues?
redison
P,TGH wrote:Gents,
Here's another thought. Perhaps the Bark/Conatser clues attempt to get someone into a specific area of the mountains from a specific direction. And the German Clues try to get someone into the same area. but from a different direction.
Just talking off the top of my head....but it is a possibility.
P
It is an interesting thought, and has a lot of merit! If you know the lay of the land in the mountains well enough you can pretty well follow the German clues along the Dick Holmes route. At least much better than you can by trying to follow them in accordance with anything Herman, Rhiney, Julia or Jim Bark described.
I can't help but believe the German clues were fabricated to shore up the Holmes side of the legend and use the name of Petrasch to do it.
Just my opinion!
You really do have your mind made up on that one part of the mountains don't you? Between you me and the fence post, I think you are correct. I know at least one other person that thinks so too, and you make him very nervous with your posts sometimes. LOL
Yes actually, if loosely translated, the clues, landmarks and directions from both camps could land you in that area. Maybe that's why they all ended up there, or in the general vicinity.
Is it just coincidence that so many people also end up in that vicinity following their interpretation of the stone maps?
R
P,
The first "Why" that comes to mind about the fabrication of the German clues is: Either someone seeking attention and admiration or wanting to sell some information that nobody else had.
Another reason someone would circulate false information would be to lead people away from an area they were interested in.
In this case, since they could be interpreted in a way that would lead you to a place with a lot of potential, they could have been used to solicit help with an area they were interested in, because of what you said. "Finding it is alot more complicated than folks think....otherwise it would have been found already".
I have seen every one of the tactics above used at one time or another over the years.
R
The first "Why" that comes to mind about the fabrication of the German clues is: Either someone seeking attention and admiration or wanting to sell some information that nobody else had.
Another reason someone would circulate false information would be to lead people away from an area they were interested in.
In this case, since they could be interpreted in a way that would lead you to a place with a lot of potential, they could have been used to solicit help with an area they were interested in, because of what you said. "Finding it is alot more complicated than folks think....otherwise it would have been found already".
I have seen every one of the tactics above used at one time or another over the years.
R