Bill,
I have never seen even a hint that the two men were related in any way.
To the contrary, evry scrap of "evidence" seems to indicate that they were not related, but childhood friends with close family ties.
Perhaps Peter will chime in after the football games are over today. There are a few other members, who know a lot more about thiis subject, than anyone else. Maybe the one who probably knows the most, will return and clue us all in.
Respectfully,
Joe
Spitzfelsen.....
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Silence
Well, I guess everyones team must have lost Sunday. 
Now if we could just work some popular story into the "German Clues", this whole conversation, or lack of one, could tighten up a great deal.
Adolph Ruth? The Two Soldiers? Holmes? Ely/Bark? Jake Jacobs? John Chunning? Anything fit yet? Perhaps the Joe Dearing Trail....
Respectfully,
Joe
Now if we could just work some popular story into the "German Clues", this whole conversation, or lack of one, could tighten up a great deal.
Adolph Ruth? The Two Soldiers? Holmes? Ely/Bark? Jake Jacobs? John Chunning? Anything fit yet? Perhaps the Joe Dearing Trail....
Respectfully,
Joe
spitzfelsen
pecker 3 LATE Breaking News; www,s rearend is declared national monument. ruth,jake,dutch.....I do not know where???? On and On... 
Bill
Bill-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
If The Stories Fit, You Must Be Rich!
Peter,
If they all fit, it should be easy to find the LDM.
How does Adolph Ruth work his way into that picture?
Wouldn't you have to selectivly pick which of his "maps" to believe?
Respectfully,
Joe
If they all fit, it should be easy to find the LDM.
How does Adolph Ruth work his way into that picture?
Wouldn't you have to selectivly pick which of his "maps" to believe?Respectfully,
Joe
>>If they all fit, it should be easy to find the LDM.<<
Might be easy to find an "area of interest". Finding a covered over hole in the ground in that terrain after 120 years or so is another matter entirely.
>>How does Adolph Ruth work his way into that picture? Wouldn't you have to selectivly pick which of his "maps" to believe?<<
Not really. Just eliminate the Perfil Mapa (which I beleive does not pertain to AZ) . The rest of his stuff fits just fine......
Might be easy to find an "area of interest". Finding a covered over hole in the ground in that terrain after 120 years or so is another matter entirely.
>>How does Adolph Ruth work his way into that picture? Wouldn't you have to selectivly pick which of his "maps" to believe?<<
Not really. Just eliminate the Perfil Mapa (which I beleive does not pertain to AZ) . The rest of his stuff fits just fine......
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Eliminate?
Peter,
"Not really. Just eliminate the Perfil Mapa (which I beleive does not pertain to AZ) . The rest of his stuff fits just fine......"
I would consider "eliminate the Perfil Mapa" to be a selective choice.
For you to "believe" it "does not pertain to AZ", you must have another place that matches the map, outside of Arizona, in mind. There seems to be quite a bit of information on that particular map which matches up fairly close to a number of stories concerning the LDM, not to mention a bit of topography.
The fact that it does not match up with your particular theory should not be reason enough to "eliminate" it.
The fact" that it might fit into another State or area of Arizona is also a poor reason to set the map aside as a valuable clue to the location of the LDM.
Respectfully,
Joe
"Not really. Just eliminate the Perfil Mapa (which I beleive does not pertain to AZ) . The rest of his stuff fits just fine......"
I would consider "eliminate the Perfil Mapa" to be a selective choice.
For you to "believe" it "does not pertain to AZ", you must have another place that matches the map, outside of Arizona, in mind. There seems to be quite a bit of information on that particular map which matches up fairly close to a number of stories concerning the LDM, not to mention a bit of topography.
The fact that it does not match up with your particular theory should not be reason enough to "eliminate" it.
The fact" that it might fit into another State or area of Arizona is also a poor reason to set the map aside as a valuable clue to the location of the LDM.Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Period?
Peter,
I doubt anyone will take your last post, as the "final" word on the subject.
I know you folks don't like having to qualify your "irrefutable" statements of "fact", but don't you think some supporting evidence is appropriate when you make such a "positive" claim?
I am not saying you are wrong, just that there does seem to be a small voice of opposition to your statement, among the less informed elements of the Dutch Hunting community.
Having seen the "Caverna Con Casa", along with matching topography, I would be interested in knowing how you can be so sure. I have also seen pictures (in Arizona) showing all of the same topography as seen in the map, just not in the Superstitions.
None of this means that the map is authentic, "period", but as every good archaeologist knows, the next turn of the spade could turn that "period" into an entire book, or even an entire career.
Respectfully,
Joe
I doubt anyone will take your last post, as the "final" word on the subject.
I know you folks don't like having to qualify your "irrefutable" statements of "fact", but don't you think some supporting evidence is appropriate when you make such a "positive" claim?
I am not saying you are wrong, just that there does seem to be a small voice of opposition to your statement, among the less informed elements of the Dutch Hunting community.
Having seen the "Caverna Con Casa", along with matching topography, I would be interested in knowing how you can be so sure. I have also seen pictures (in Arizona) showing all of the same topography as seen in the map, just not in the Superstitions.
None of this means that the map is authentic, "period", but as every good archaeologist knows, the next turn of the spade could turn that "period" into an entire book, or even an entire career.
Respectfully,
Joe
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
red mountain
there was a guy a few years that had a pretty good arguement that the map you are talking about was at red mountain....
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Red Mountain Gold
Dave,
That would be John Ramses. His book is: "Quest for Peralta Gold".
Respectfully,
Joe
That would be John Ramses. His book is: "Quest for Peralta Gold".
Respectfully,
Joe
Maps
The maps that I would be concerned with are.
1. Minos del Oro
2.Manuel Peralta Map
3. Peralta Map-1848
4. Oritz Map
The Peralta Stone Tablet Map of The Horse from Santa Fe and the above maps all cover the same area.
Other then that most clues are where you find them.
Bandit
1. Minos del Oro
2.Manuel Peralta Map
3. Peralta Map-1848
4. Oritz Map
The Peralta Stone Tablet Map of The Horse from Santa Fe and the above maps all cover the same area.
Other then that most clues are where you find them.
Bandit
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
A Horse, Of Course.
Bandit,
"The Peralta Stone Tablet Map of The Horse from Santa Fe and the above maps all cover the same area."
There are two maps that are not shown on the bumper of that car. There is a reason for that. They had not been carved yet.
One of those stones hints at it's creator. The other, confirms it. That does not mean that you are incorrect in your statement. It also does not mean that the other stones are a hoax.
It would appear that the Rev. Charles Polzer also suspected who created the Stone Maps, which makes Azmula's claimed belief in them a bit puzzling. Did Father Polzer confide his reasoning to Azmula?
There are other members of this forum who, I believe, also know the truth of this matter. As they make a bit of a living from the legends surrounding the Superstitions, I can understand their silence.
I wonder if Peter and Wiz's old friend Evan knows anything about this little mystery?
Respectfully,
Joe
"The Peralta Stone Tablet Map of The Horse from Santa Fe and the above maps all cover the same area."
There are two maps that are not shown on the bumper of that car. There is a reason for that. They had not been carved yet.
One of those stones hints at it's creator. The other, confirms it. That does not mean that you are incorrect in your statement. It also does not mean that the other stones are a hoax.
It would appear that the Rev. Charles Polzer also suspected who created the Stone Maps, which makes Azmula's claimed belief in them a bit puzzling.
Did Father Polzer confide his reasoning to Azmula?There are other members of this forum who, I believe, also know the truth of this matter. As they make a bit of a living from the legends surrounding the Superstitions, I can understand their silence.
I wonder if Peter and Wiz's old friend Evan knows anything about this little mystery?
Respectfully,
Joe
>>I wonder if Peter and Wiz's old friend Evan knows anything about this little mystery? <<
Errrr...... I am not sure "Evan" knows anything about it. As a matter of fact, I dont know anyone by the name of "Evan". Are you feeling ok Joe?
Perhaps you should check with your doctor to make sure you are receiving your medication in the prescribed dosage....
Errrr...... I am not sure "Evan" knows anything about it. As a matter of fact, I dont know anyone by the name of "Evan". Are you feeling ok Joe?
Perhaps you should check with your doctor to make sure you are receiving your medication in the prescribed dosage....
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Still Alive?
Peter and Wiz,
Just checking to make sure you two had not assumed "room temperature.
Respectfully,
Joe
Just checking to make sure you two had not assumed "room temperature.
Respectfully,
Joe
spitzfelsen
JOH; You know that,s the wizzer dang it; when are you going to get his name right? bill
bill-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Moving Right Along
Peter,
As this conversation moved along towards Tortillia Mountain, you turned into Rip Van Winkle. Now you find "Evan" an irresistible topic. Actually, I think I may have been wrong about "Evan". I think it was Esteban.
"feller"? Glad to see you are getting a handle on the local patois. (yati')
Now Wiz, don't be such a stranger. Jump right in anytime, and throw some more green wood on the fire.
Respectfully,
Joe
As this conversation moved along towards Tortillia Mountain, you turned into Rip Van Winkle. Now you find "Evan" an irresistible topic. Actually, I think I may have been wrong about "Evan". I think it was Esteban.
"feller"? Glad to see you are getting a handle on the local patois. (yati')
Now Wiz, don't be such a stranger. Jump right in anytime, and throw some more green wood on the fire.
Respectfully,
Joe
Peter,
I have to agree with Joe, at least to a certain extent concerning the Profile Map. The Profile Map does not pertain to the superstitions, it must have a twin the looks just like it. Within the wilderness area as well. But not in any of the places the links to this website have shown it. Maybe you have just been looking in the wrong area.
Joe,
I noticed in one of your earlier posts that you mentioned you would not be making anymore trips to the superstitions. Health problems? When you get a chanve email me.
I have to agree with Joe, at least to a certain extent concerning the Profile Map. The Profile Map does not pertain to the superstitions, it must have a twin the looks just like it. Within the wilderness area as well. But not in any of the places the links to this website have shown it. Maybe you have just been looking in the wrong area.
Joe,
I noticed in one of your earlier posts that you mentioned you would not be making anymore trips to the superstitions. Health problems? When you get a chanve email me.
TERRY - Update your email address. Current one is dead and you will not receive notices.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
How Big?
Peter,
That could really be big, depending on which dam you are using for a comparison. Now if you used Parker Dam, it would make Tortillia Mountain pretty small. On the other hand, if you use Grande Coulee, or even looked ahead and compared it to the Three Gorges Dam, you would be talking a sizeable mountain.
The problem with using Tortillia, Bluff Spring or even Black Mountain, is that your perimiters are defined. That means your search area is defined.
In time you could search every canyon or steep ravine.
Over the years, those mountains have had an army of searchers looking into every likely location for the LDM. If you doubt that, just count the rusted cans and old campfire rings in any given area. Gary Jennings said a number of times in his book, "The Treasure of the Superstition Mountains", that he thought that he was in an area where "no white man had ever walked."
The old trail that comes off of Tortillia Mountain, drops down through Cottonwood Canyon into Peter's Canyon and then climbs up onto Peter's Mesa might be considered by some to be such a place. Undoubtedly it started out as a game trail, which it still is today, was then used by the Indians and finally by the prospectors who searched that area. We are all walking in their footprints.
There are some pretty good Dutch Hunters that belong on that list of "prospectors". I doubt any of them had the combined knowledge of the area that you have. What they did have, was information that has never seen the pages of a book, as well as a "fresh" (relatively speaking)
canvas.
Respectfully,
Joe
That could really be big, depending on which dam you are using for a comparison. Now if you used Parker Dam, it would make Tortillia Mountain pretty small. On the other hand, if you use Grande Coulee, or even looked ahead and compared it to the Three Gorges Dam, you would be talking a sizeable mountain.
The problem with using Tortillia, Bluff Spring or even Black Mountain, is that your perimiters are defined. That means your search area is defined.
In time you could search every canyon or steep ravine.
Over the years, those mountains have had an army of searchers looking into every likely location for the LDM. If you doubt that, just count the rusted cans and old campfire rings in any given area. Gary Jennings said a number of times in his book, "The Treasure of the Superstition Mountains", that he thought that he was in an area where "no white man had ever walked."
The old trail that comes off of Tortillia Mountain, drops down through Cottonwood Canyon into Peter's Canyon and then climbs up onto Peter's Mesa might be considered by some to be such a place. Undoubtedly it started out as a game trail, which it still is today, was then used by the Indians and finally by the prospectors who searched that area. We are all walking in their footprints.
There are some pretty good Dutch Hunters that belong on that list of "prospectors". I doubt any of them had the combined knowledge of the area that you have. What they did have, was information that has never seen the pages of a book, as well as a "fresh" (relatively speaking)
canvas.
Respectfully,
Joe
>>I doubt any of them had the combined knowledge of the area that you have.<<
I am hardly an expert on Tortilla Mtn...or any other mtn (well I might be an "expert"...yeah right...on one particular mtn..lol) for that matter.
What I do have is some small expertise in a few relatively small areas.
I have always been amazed that some Dutch hunters search in a vacuum.
That is, they base their search on one particular source of information and exclude all other information and clues. The two greatest (in my opinion)
Dutch Hunters alive have searched in this manner for many years.
Me, I have always tried the "combined knowledge" approach. If one can fit various sources into a particular area, then that area becomes our famous "area of interest". If one can fit many clues into this area of interest, then one should take notice and narrow ones search...
I am hardly an expert on Tortilla Mtn...or any other mtn (well I might be an "expert"...yeah right...on one particular mtn..lol) for that matter.
What I do have is some small expertise in a few relatively small areas.
I have always been amazed that some Dutch hunters search in a vacuum.
That is, they base their search on one particular source of information and exclude all other information and clues. The two greatest (in my opinion)
Dutch Hunters alive have searched in this manner for many years.
Me, I have always tried the "combined knowledge" approach. If one can fit various sources into a particular area, then that area becomes our famous "area of interest". If one can fit many clues into this area of interest, then one should take notice and narrow ones search...
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Evidence Mounts?
Peter,
I think most people tend to focus on their favorite clues and stories. That does tend to make it more difficult to look at existing information from new perspectives. We become locked in to a conclusion that might lead us into the wrong area. I did that very thing for a number of years, with the Stone Maps. My own conclusion was correct, and we found that proof in a number of places, but a new perspective, as to what we were looking for was needed.
I feel that the traill of the "Two Soldiers" may also be such a case of being open to a new perspective. If it makes you leave your "comfort zone", no consideration should be allowed.
The idea that Joe Deering stepped onto a trail, without preparation, and followed it for seven miles through some pretty "rough" country is ludicrous. That's a fourteen mile round trip. There are many examples of that focused approach.
"La Baston" on the Fish Map may be another case where it would be a good idea to look at a clue from another direction or not take the accepted "walking stick or cane" as the appearance of something we should be looking for. My guess is that the word is bastion, which might work out much better, as a clue.
I didn't say you were an "expert" on any mountain, or for that matter, area. What I said was: " I doubt any of them had the combined knowledge of the area that you have". While that may (probably) does not include the terrain itself, it does include the combined published, and likely some unpublished, information of all the searchers who came before you. They were some pretty savvy Dutch Hunters.
Respectfully,
Joe
I think most people tend to focus on their favorite clues and stories. That does tend to make it more difficult to look at existing information from new perspectives. We become locked in to a conclusion that might lead us into the wrong area. I did that very thing for a number of years, with the Stone Maps. My own conclusion was correct, and we found that proof in a number of places, but a new perspective, as to what we were looking for was needed.
I feel that the traill of the "Two Soldiers" may also be such a case of being open to a new perspective. If it makes you leave your "comfort zone", no consideration should be allowed.
The idea that Joe Deering stepped onto a trail, without preparation, and followed it for seven miles through some pretty "rough" country is ludicrous. That's a fourteen mile round trip. There are many examples of that focused approach.
"La Baston" on the Fish Map may be another case where it would be a good idea to look at a clue from another direction or not take the accepted "walking stick or cane" as the appearance of something we should be looking for. My guess is that the word is bastion, which might work out much better, as a clue.
I didn't say you were an "expert" on any mountain, or for that matter, area. What I said was: " I doubt any of them had the combined knowledge of the area that you have". While that may (probably) does not include the terrain itself, it does include the combined published, and likely some unpublished, information of all the searchers who came before you. They were some pretty savvy Dutch Hunters.
Respectfully,
Joe
>>The idea that Joe Deering stepped onto a trail, without preparation, and followed it for seven miles through some pretty "rough" country is ludicrous. That's a fourteen mile round trip. <<
I agree completely. 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.
Deering also alluded to being only a "mile or two" from the Salt River. Did he mean his camp or the mine? (Most likely his camp ...imho).
I agree completely. 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.
Deering also alluded to being only a "mile or two" from the Salt River. Did he mean his camp or the mine? (Most likely his camp ...imho).