cravey /ruth

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
Post Reply
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

cravey /ruth

Post by don »

just filling in some idle time,thought id ask peoples opinions as to why the James Cravey case didnt attract the same interest, or fire the imagination in the same way as the Adolph Ruth suicide/murder/death by natural causes case did. Both cases ,on the face of it,could be described as mysterious,both supposedly had secret info regarding the mines location...both were supposedly beheaded,though personally i doubt they were,and both were discovered in "odd" locations. Was it because ,by then, interest had waned regards the LDM,or maybe that the clique of conspiracy theorists had moved on? or because a new generation of newspaper journalists had replaced the "old guard" and had other "fish to fry"? or because people had begun to realise that the mysterious deaths maybe werent so mysterious after all? and what truth was there in the story that craveys decapitated head was found,by a regularly used trail, sitting atop a rock with a rope round it?
kind regards
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by novice »

Don,

You may have already seen this but by far the most detailed account of the Cravey story I have seen is from the Kollenborn Chronicles. No Mystery though!

http://superstitionmountaintomkollenbor ... dream.html

BTW, What is your provenance for "craveys decapitated head was found,by a regularly used trail, sitting atop a rock with a rope round it?" How did that story reach your ears? :)

Novice
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Hello Novice,
Nice to see you posting again..and no I hadnt seen the link you posted before. Thanks for the link .As for where i heard of Craveys decapitated head ,sitting atop a rock cairn,on a regularly used trail with a rope round it..or more correctly the rope was supposedly on the trail and when followed led to craveys skull.i cant say exactly from where i derived that information..but i know i read it somewhere ,probabley years ago ,at a time when i perhaps was a lot more gullible..Now i dare say there was very little that was mysterious about it..same as ,with the benefit of hindsight ,there was very little that really was mysterious about Ruth,s death either ...but anyhow 1 story caught folks imaginations -the other 1 didnt.Considering the amount of fuss ,conspiracy theories and drama that ensued over ruths case ,it just surprises me that the "usual suspects" didnt use the Cravey issue to bolster their claims...in the plethora of books and articles that have been churned out Craveys fate is largely glossed over ..rarely mentioned or not mentioned at all.
kind regards
Don update your email address
novice
Expert
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by novice »

Don,

I'll share my opinion, but opinions are like navels, everybody has one.

I'm the poster boy for ignoring the Cravey Story and researching the Adolph Ruth Story.

Cravey was following a dream (or so they say) and Adolph was following a Genuine SPANISH map and was MURDERED for it. If anything makes a treasure hunter’s heart beat faster, it’s a treasure map. Map provenance be Damned!

Erwin Ruth planted the seed, the summer he showed up after Adolph’s disappearance, he suggested that foul play may have been involved. When the Archeology team stumbled across Adolph’s skull, in the fall, Brownie on looking at the skull, with two large ragged holes, said something to the effect that it looks like the old man has been shot.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who is a treasure hunter that doesn’t believe that Adolph was murdered.

Kollenborn indicates that there was little mysterious in either case, but he also apparently believed that the Jacob Waltz, Lost Dutchman Mine, didn’t exist, so how can you take him serious. :wink:

Novice
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Novice
I was under the impression Cravey was rumoured to have secret info too...but that aside,Ruth,s map might have been genuine ..might not have been..no real way of knowing in my opinion..as for whether Ruth was murdered ,well i think thats up for question. nothing is black or white as regards his death...even whether the skull was Ruths or not is debatable. at first it was identified ,by halseth i think, as likely the skull of an aged indian. I was always led to believe ruths skull was identified by being sent to washington to compare dental records. that event it seems never took place. as for Holmes statement that he recognised the skull as Ruths as absurd. How many of us could positively identify someone we knew in life ,by seeing their skull in death? and of course the 2 "bullet holes "in the skull that hrdlicka described were made by "possibly a pistol ,or a high powered rifle ,or a shotgun (probabley)" as you know hrdlickas verdict was replete with possibilities, probabilities and maybes..a few too many for me to have much faith in...and of course the skull was of a 66 year old man according to hrdlicka..when as you know ruth was 76..its odd that the age was given as precisely 66 years ..maybe that was because it was the age ruth was reputed to be..and ruth junior didnt tell him his real age. ..besides i cant see hrdlicka had any medical qualifications (i might be wrong) to determine whether or not they were bullet holes and judging by his verdict statement i doubt he was really sure of anything...as i understand it hrdlicka was "employed" by ruth junior to oversee the identification and cause of death..im assuming hrdlicka was paid by ruth junior..maybe just maybe ruth got the verdict he wanted ...and paid for..his agenda /conviction was well known. themystery of the placement of skull and skeleton was convincingly explained to me anyway, by a member of search and rescue i communicated with for a while a few years ago..he related to me a case of a skeleton of a missing person being found and the skull being located atop a saguaro cactus some 20 miles away...no mystery ,it had been carried there by a bird of prey ....and of course if ruth WAS murdered for his map supposedly by a gun shot-rifle shot-shotgun blast (take your pick ) why would the killer then saw ruths head off? it makes no sense unless the killer wasnt just a treasure hunter intent on getting ruths map ,but instead was a ted bundy type character? plus the official verdicts of natural death,or misadventure etc ...now to believe ruth was murdered (again my opinion) you also have to believe that sheriff jeff adams, tex barkley, the coroner,and other officials who would have been involved were "all in this subterfuge together" presumabley to keep the gold for themselves (you could ask WHAT GOLD? but thats another issue and would take up half a dozen threads :D ) or of course the people and agencies just mentioned made a mistake in their judgement...that isnt impossible of course ,ya pays yer money and yer makes yer choices i guess.....kind regards
Don update your email address
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Don, last summer a friend of mine was hiking down the road (in AZ) to get back to where his truck was parked…he stopped to lay down in some shade under a tree about 20ft. from the road. He just happened to be looking across the road when out of nowhere a tortoise fell out of the sky and ruptured on the asphalt. He looked up and saw a big raptor up there.

The bird theory makes the most sense to me as to how Ruth got holes in his head…right after a gunshot ;)
Perhaps the bird carried him all the way from Willow Spr. to Black Top Mesa, too. That would wrap things up nicely.

Questions: Did the medical folks examining Ruth’s skeleton have enough remains to determine “death by natural causes?” If so, why does his death certificate say the cause of death was unknown? Who are these doctors that maintain Ruth died of exposure, thirst, natural causes, etc? Where are their reports after examining the remains? What scientific indicators are present? :roll:

Also, where did Dr. Hrdlicka say anything other than a generic gunshot possibly caused the holes in Ruth’s skull? I’ve seen later writers change that up to specific types of weapons, but don’t remember it from Hrdlicka (other than where he changed his draft from “high-powered gun” to “gun”).

How much did the Ruth family pay Dr. Hrdlicka to falsify his professional opinion? Also, as far as I know, the skull was identified as Ruth’s by Hrdlicka using stereoscopic images of his head (in life)… taking key measurements between features, and comparing those to measurements of the skull (anthopometry), along with other individual traits he could identify on both the photographs and from history of denture use.

That’s all for now… :D
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

PS - it's "anthRopometry" but everyone knows I'm no spelling bee champ...

Also, Don: Not directing ALL my huffy questions at you...just that I've never understood why anyone would put more credence in what various later researchers said, about what some later doctor or medical examiner said...as opposed to what the actual doctors involved at the time said...and actually put signature to documents on same...unless, of course, we want to believe Ruth died innocently :P

IMO it's all subjective and arguments can be made effectively one way or the other. I'm not a treasure hunter, don't believe there's a large goldmine hidden out there, don't believe Ruth had a map worth the time it took to make it...but I don't believe he made it to Black Top Mesa on his own, and figure a gunshot is the most likely explanation for the holes in his noggin. All things considered, of course...and like Garry said...we all have belly buttons :lol:
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

PS again: I was a bit confused as to where the references to different firearms were coming from. I was remembering the final part of Hrdlicka’s notarized affidavit where he refers to it only as a shot from a gun (changing it from “high-powered gun”).

I went back and looked at the affidavit and saw that he also makes reference to a “shotgun or large caliber rifle” in the second paragraph.

I can understand why this type of flip-flopping would make one question Hrdlicka’s findings, but in the end I think Hrdlicka simply didn’t have enough information to identify what type of firearm was used. If he did, he didn’t communicate what that information was.

On a different topic, it seems some folks think Ruth stayed at Morse’s ranch while he was in AZ. While that may be true, at least to some degree, I wondered if any press in DC had interviewed the Ruth family during the search for Adolph. Most of the reporting that I’d seen had originated in AZ.
Here’s an example of what the DC press had to say about where Adolph was staying, after interviewing the family:
DC Ruth.JPG
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Don,

Not sure if anyone has posted these before. I was curious as to what was in the newspapers at the time regarding Cravey's disappearance and the finding of his remains. I found that Tom K. had pretty much covered it all in his article that Garry linked to, but there are a few tidbits in the newspaper articles that didn't make it into Tom's article that you might find interesting. I didn't download them all, but these articles cover pretty much all the info available at the time:
Attachments
Cravey News.pdf
(429.01 KiB) Downloaded 30 times
Jim R.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Jim
hello i hope you are keeping well..i dont pretend to know anything about anthropometry ,other than what its used for...heres a short copy and paste printed in 2004..what is /was true in 2004 must have been equally true in 1931, "Anthropometry is the technical name for this preoccupation. It is the measurement of the body’s physical features, and these measures can play a key role as variables in epidemiology, psychology, and anthropology studies. The precise and unambiguous measurements of the body’s physical dimensions and underlying composition should allow us not only to accurately characterize our current health, but also to make predictions about outcomes as diverse as our physical attractiveness, ability to reproduce, and our long-term survival. However, as this article shall outline, most of the common techniques are LESS precise than we would wish and, although they have a reasonable validity at the population level, can give MISLEADING results when looking purely at an individual." .... So based on hrdlickas exercise in anthropometry and identification of ruths skull by that method.. it might give cause for one to pause ?...as regards hrdlickas testimony /conclusions..this is from a file allready on this site posted i believe by novice
The differences between Dr. Hrdlicka’s initial draft and his final draft are interesting and what
follows is a comparison.
INITIAL – Holes in the skull, one about two inches in diameter
FINAL – Holes in the skull, one over an inch in diameter
INITIAL – shot to death by a high powered gun and that the bullet passed
FINAL – shot to death by a shotgun OR large caliber rifle and that the shot or bullet passed
INITIAL – and have examined many skulls with bullet holes
FINAL – and have examined skulls with bullet wound holes
INITIAL – this skull is extremely UNLIKELY not to be that of Adolph Ruth
FINAL – this skull is in all PROBABILITY that of Adolph Ruth
INITIAL – Adolph Ruth very PROBABLEY met his death by means of a shot from a high powered
gun.
FINAL – Adolph Ruth PROBABLEY met his death by means of a shot from a gun....
1 UNLIKELY - 1 PROBABILITY- 2 PROBABLEY,s IN JUST 10 short sentences..and 2 altered conclusions....but it gets worse,or better ,depending on what side of the fence you stand..if we progress further ,and all this files are on this site ,though i found them on another location..the identificationof skull....quotes from hrd licka "REASONABLE certainty the skull is that of ruth" "INDICATION that this skull is in ALL PROBABILITY that of adolph ruth" etc etc ..judging him based on this almost farcical "MAYBE it was-MAYBE it wasnt- COULD have been-MIGHT have -in all PROBABILITY ,and i say that with REASONABLE certainty" etc etc ad infinitum..one might wonder if hrdlicka could track an elephant through 12 feet of snow..and if he did be REASONABLEY CERTAIN that it wasnt a grasshopper that had made the tracks. how can his report be taken seriously ?
my fingers are worn down to bloody stumps now lol...but heres a thought..if ruth was murdered and barkley,adams,the posse, the coroner and doctors and whomeever would have been involved knew it..knew the holes in ruths skull were bullet holes which would strongly indicate foul play (in all probability lol) with held that info and instead supported and declared it a death from natural causes.then they would be guilty of being accessories after the fact in a murder...following on from that serious breach they might even be accused of being accessories before during AND after the fact. .and for what exactly? equal shares in a map that would lead them nowhere? ...kind regards and tks for replying
Don update your email address
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Hi Don,

I really do understand the skepticism surrounding Hrdlicka’s changing of his draft report. However, it’s not uncommon for a scientist to make an initial finding, only to “scale it back” as he further considers the problem. I think these changes only reflect a desire to arrive at the most scientifically accurate judgment possible. IMO it’s not a good idea to try and draw conclusions from those initial drafts…Your mileage may vary…Belly buttons again :D .

I do have a bit of experience in taking accurate measurements from photographs (in my professional life), but nothing to do with anthropometry. But, I get the process of taking a measurement on a photograph, determining the scale of the photograph, at which point you multiply the two, and arrive at the actual life-sized measurement. I also used stereo imagery. I think sometimes people may see “anthropometry” and think it’s the measuring of skull bumps, etc. which was used for (the discredited) “science” of eugenics. I don’t think that’s what was done here. It sounded to me like Hrdlicka determined it was Ruth’s skull by (among other things) taking measurements from photographs and comparing them to the actual skull. Such as distance between the mouth and nose, between the eyes, total skull size, etc. The stereo imagery would be helpful in determining the most accurate photo scale reciprocal…that’s how we did it in the military, anyway.

You may be right about some sort of conspiracy having taken place between all the participants in the search in AZ…IMO, it was much more simple…people gave their opinions back then, same as they do today. There was also the knowledge that there just wasn’t enough evidence to prove murder, and the authorities in both counties wanted to avoid any kind of wild-goose chase that would never see a conviction, much less result in actual charges being filed.

I would like to do some thinking on it (I know, thinking really doesn’t suit me :lol: ) and address some of the “conspiracy theories” in a later post.
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

don wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:39 am Jim
hello i hope you are keeping well..i dont pretend to know anything about anthropometry ,other than what its used for...heres a short copy and paste printed in 2004..what is /was true in 2004 must have been equally true in 1931, "Anthropometry is the technical name for this preoccupation. It is the measurement of the body’s physical features, and these measures can play a key role as variables in epidemiology, psychology, and anthropology studies. The precise and unambiguous measurements of the body’s physical dimensions and underlying composition should allow us not only to accurately characterize our current health, but also to make predictions about outcomes as diverse as our physical attractiveness, ability to reproduce, and our long-term survival. However, as this article shall outline, most of the common techniques are LESS precise than we would wish and, although they have a reasonable validity at the population level, can give MISLEADING results when looking purely at an individual." .... So based on hrdlickas exercise in anthropometry and identification of ruths skull by that method.. it might give cause for one to pause ?...as regards hrdlickas testimony /conclusions.
Hi Don,
I’ve done some serious research on Hrdlicka over the past few years. I believe there’s some sort of misunderstanding in the LDM community about Hrdlicka’s qualifications and breadth of experience, just based on some of the comments I’ve seen here.

Hrdlicka wrote hundreds of books and articles, and fortunately he wrote a book on Anthropometry in 1920 that is still being used by anthropologists today. So, we won’t have to go far, to get some kind of idea about whether or not Hrdlicka knew anything about the subject:

Here's an excerpt from the intro to his book "Anthropomentry" first published in 1920:
Intro.jpg
And here's just the chapter on the skull:
Skull Excerpt Anthropometry.pdf
(1.1 MiB) Downloaded 39 times
Hopefully this info will serve as a primer as to Hrdlicka's qualifications in this field.
Jim R.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Jim
not trying to be argumentative here (ok i guess i might be lol) but 1920 is a long way from today,just as Times Square is a long way from Golgotha... and without being cheeky ,and bearing his expertise in mind ,its odd that ,at least in the case of ruths skull and issues surrounding it he couldnt come to a more definitive conclusion regarding it...or a convincing conclusion. on a side issue regarding hrdlickas methods and even perhaps his character, i remember reading an article in a prestigious journal where hrdlicka and his methods were severely criticised both for his methods and for his perceived lack of professional ethics...it related to disturbing grave yards,unearthing skeletal remain s from an indian grave yard with no permission etc..im pretty sure it was in the hudson bay area ,tho i might be wrong ,its been several years now since i read it and the details are a bit foggy..i remember posting it here and joe took me to task about it...basically saying it was a different age and its not ungheard of in academic circles..maybe that is so ,but really its not the point. but anyway hrdlicka was severely criticised at the time by the local community and others..so it seems he was hardly a paragon of virtue .....take care
Don update your email address
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

jim
following on from previous post regarding hrdlicka...it seems to me that hrdlickas expertise was in the field of determining racial characteristics from skeletal remains,including skulls of course, rather than identifying a particular person a skull belonged to.1 error he made of course was the conclusion that ruths skull was of a white man of 66 years of age..ok whats 10 years between academics i suppose but even so... I apologise for saying the "grave robbing furore" took place in hudson bay,it in fact took place on the aleutian islands circa 1930. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-a ... y-to-tell/ I couldnt find the detailed version of events.
now opinions regarding hrdlickas expertise varied it seems. here follows a series of "copy and pastes"
y. Figures like Hrdli!ka and
Boas worked together as often as they were in personal and professional tension,
disagreeing over the correct interpretation of bodies as it pertained to questions of race
and occasionally finding personal distaste in their respective approaches to science

In his leadership capacity, Hrdli!ka eventually founded the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology and, given his position on both the journal and at the Smithsonian,
he commanded much of the discipline of physical anthropology and the study of race and
history through the study of human remains. His drive to collect and organize skeletons
was based on his theories about race; Hrdli!ka adopted the racial classification scheme of
the nineteenth century authority Georges Cuvier. Following Cuvier, Hrdli!ka extended
the idea that there existed three main stems of mankind—white, black, and yellow brown.

y. For all his faults and commitments to shortsighted ideas, Hrdli!ka had a
knack for collecting, measuring, observing, and organizing human bones. Overall, he
generally encouraged the growth of American physical anthropology and morphological
studies of both living humans and collections of human remains housed in museums.144
His legacy is not beyond reproach, however, and his complex views toward race and
evolution have since been roundly criticized.

In a private letter written during the midst
of Hrdli!ka’s career, one cultural anthropologist would describe him as “never [having]
produced scientific work above the level of mediocrity.”

Oh dear! this is beginning to read like a character assassination of hrdlicka ..that wasnt the intention.sorry if it reads like that..im really trying to put forward that just because hrdlickaoccupied the position he did, doesnt neccesarilly mean his expertise was suited to the task of identifying the skull as being Ruths ,nor identifying whether holes in ruths skull were bullet holes or not,let alone determing what calibre of pistol,rifle or shotgun was used ...he was a compiler of skeletal remains ,amongst other things,(including dabbling in eugenics it appears),and not an expert in bullet holes,though no doubt he had seen wounds before.
kind regards
Don update your email address
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Hi Don,

First, no need to explain or apologize for being “argumentative”…it’s just discussion. You’re not going to offend me, I say keep it up. 8)

Second, I see nothing presented so far, which would indicate Hrdlicka was unqualified to identify skeletal remains using anthropometry. Quite the opposite, he not only wrote the book on the subject in 1920, but in 1936 he wrote another one called “Practical Anthropometry” which greatly expanded on his earlier work. Those were not the only ones; he was prolific on the subject.

It appears that not only was Hrdlicka qualified to identify Ruth’s skull using forensic techniques of the day, he was EMMINENTLY qualified to do so. I also believe, based on research into forensic techniques of today, that modern forensic pathologists would use the same or similar techniques in identifying remains. Most of those modern scientists were probably educated using those books of Hrdlicka’s. They’re still being used and referenced today.

As to arguments about his character, the bad things he did, well I just don’t see how that has any bearing on his abilities. Yes, he was a grave robber. So was DaVinci. I’m only concerned with evidence supporting, one way or the other, his ability to identify the skull as Ruth’s. I don’t think you, or anyone else, have presented a single scientifically invalid technique Hrdlicka used which would invalidate his findings, either in whole or in part.

Third, can you please give your source that Hrdlicka identified Ruth’s skull as being from a 66 y/o man? I don’t recall seeing that anywhere and would like to see where that came from. Thanks amigo.

PS – Yes, we are doing well! Best wishes and I hope you and yours are too!
Jim R.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

jim
no..at present i cant find the source for hrdlicka saying "skull of 66 year old" but im certain i read that...somewhere.ill keep looking but if i cant find it ,ill certainly admit i was wrong.
"Hrdlicka wrote books that people still reference today" you wrote..Barry Storm wrote a few books too,and id hazard a guess lots still reference them today as well. ok that quip was partly tongue in cheek but not completely.
As for him being qualified ,my question would be, was he a fire arms expert ,or a bullet wound expert? if he was then id say ok i believe his verdict..even if hrdlicka wasnt certain he believed his own verdict himself, judging by his own words ,and thats all we have to judge him by.Could he judge whether a skeleton was caucasian,negro or asian? ,it would appear that he could. but thats a different thing to identifying a person by his skull,or identifying what was or wasnt a bullet hole in said skull. same goes for weapon and calibre used.id suspect he made a best guess,an informed guess maybe, but a guess all the same, armed with tools and techniques available at the time. im pretty sure there would have been-must have been other,
experts for want of a better word,more qualified ,though maybe not academically qualified,who would have been able to determine the presence or non presence of bullet wounds. I recall a line from kearneys article which basically said "being an expert in 1 field doesnt neccesarilly make you an expert in every other field"..which of course is true.
anyhow signing off now..its bugging me where i got the firm impression hrdlicka stated the skull was of a 66 year old..ill try to search for that.
kind regards






2
Don update your email address
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Hi Don,

If Hrdlicka ever said that the skull came from a 66 y/o man, we’d know right then and there that he was probably exaggerating what he was able to discern from a skull. So it would be significant. Based on actually reading and studying Hrdlicka’s work, I would be surprised if he really said he was able to date a skull to a specific year of age.

However, I did find something similar…but not nearly as specific, and rightly so; I wonder if the following is where a “66 y/o man” came from? This is from the National Anthropological Archives about a case Hrdlicka was working for the FBI. He reported the skeleton was from “a rather aged white man, probably over 65 years of age.” It also involved a gunshot wound to the skull, at any rate the skull sounded like it had holes in it similar to Ruth’s…a quote from Hrdlicka’s report below:

“In both the right and the left temples of the skull, at the location of the pterion, there is a hole smaller on the right larger on the left, evidently made by a small calliber [sic] but rather powerfully projected bullet, which was shot almost horizontally from the right side and passed out on the left. This identification is quite positive.”

Four months after Hrdlicka submitted his report in the above case, the Director of the Smithsonian got a letter of appreciation from the FBI regarding three cases Hrdlicka had worked for the FBI, all involving skulls: one from the FBI office in Seattle, one from the police dept. in Lockland Ohio, and one from the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Bismarck, ND.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some later LDM researcher/author confused the files from the Ruth and Seattle cases as they’re kind of similar…older white men with two holes in the skull from what Hrdlicka determined to be a gunshot. Maybe the “66 y/o man” came from one of the LDM books or articles, and it wasn’t something Hrdlicka actually said in one of his reports?

Regarding Barry Storm, I have little doubt of his usefulness compared to Hrdlicka. I suppose the longtime director of the FBI wrote Storm’s family a letter when he died? Same as he did when Hrdlicka died? We can safely assume that ol’ J. Edgar Hoover wrote glowing letters of praise when every quack that had a decades long record of screwing up the FBI’s cases with stupidity and incompetence finally croaked. They were all so dumb and backward back then. :wink:

Sorry, just getting into the spirit of the person (Samuel Redman) who wrote the doctoral thesis you quoted above…maybe I shouldn’t though. I don’t hold “woke” revisionist-history philosophers from UC Berkeley in very high regard. The whole purpose of his thesis was to portray every last American anthropologist, soldier, and civilian as stupid, backward, racist, and so much dumber than him. I’m not surprised he portrayed Hrdlicka the way he did, but don’t ask me to believe his drivel. :lol:
Jim R.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Jim
I cant seem to find the "66 year old man" quote from hrdlicka..but the search continues..but until i find it, or if, ill have to say he didnt say it...but i know i read it somewhere.maybe your explanation could well be correct..i hope i didnt read it in one of barry storms books..cant check cos they went in the trash years ago,together with 500 odd photo copied newspaper pages regarding the ldm i bought from the arizona historical society ,plus a whole lot of ldmbooks,journals and stuff i acquired thro the years..i have nothing i can reference ,all i have is my memory,plus google lol.
as for samuel redman,im no fan of the politically correct ,"everythings racist",woke rabble..in fact im sick to death of them, and they will drag the world down to the abyss , or have a bloody good try. but.even some woke folk have some valid things to say, some times about some things, at some times..and just because redman is a wokie doesnt mean i will dismiss everything he says..there WAS blatant racism in hrdlickas times ,we both know it,but not all criticism can be disbelieved because its a wokie that said it,anymore than if a racist said it...but damn it,i doubt hrdlicka owned any slaves ,and i doubt redman ever picked cotton on a slave plantation either. It seems weve reached a point where almost everything is racist in one way or other..its hard to have any kind of public conversation these days without suspicions of racism or wokeism coming to the fore. anyway the "hrdlicka never rose above the level of mediocrity" quote was apparently made by a contemporary anthropologist during hrdlickas "peak period" .who this person was isnt mentioned.
As for hrdlicka getting a personal letter from hoover,well the devil in me says it could well have been because hrdlicka was a fellow transvestite maybe?.or an example of cronyism? i mean was hrdlicka the only one in those days capable of identifying a bullet hole? The more i read about revered or important public figures of today and yesteryear the more i take their utterings with a gallon drum of salt...im drifting a bit here,but the only things that have kept the ldm legend alive this long,in my opinion, are the falsehoods.i believe ruth being murdered is just another of those falsehoods which can be put alongside the 2 soldiers,doc thorne, aged pima indian chiefs,julia (cant remember her last name) financial windfall, waltzs gold receipt, businessmen taking loads of gold bullion out of the mountains in the 40s, stone watch towers on bluff springs, spanish race tracks,indian curses, spectral horses galloping up and down needle canyon,kidnappings,beheadings, vanishing water canteens, sims elys creative writings, gold bars, ranchers with small feet, ..im sure i left a few out ..but im sure you know what i mean....im in a silly mood today ,but ive written it -ill post it now lol..kinda publish and be damned...but i think in the end the jurys still out regards ruths murder /bullet holes vs critter damage /suicide/natural causes vs murder
kind regards
Don update your email address
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Well said, Don. :D
don wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:25 am anyway the "hrdlicka never rose above the level of mediocrity" quote was apparently made by a contemporary anthropologist during hrdlickas "peak period" .who this person was isnt mentioned.
The guy’s name was Robert H. Lowie…he was a protégé and “on the team” of Franz Boaz, who was always in competition/disagreement with Hrdlicka. Lowie wrote the letter that Redman refers to, in order to try and sabotage Hrdlicka’s appointment as an executive in the American Anthropological Association. Needless to say, he was unsuccessful.

You're right IMO that the jury is still out on Ruth. Short of digging him up and doing some chemical analysis of his skull, I don't think we can prove the way he died one way or another. Perhaps examining his remains with modern techniques wouldn't even help.

I believe Hrdlicka and Hoover had a lot in common...not sure about their taste in clothes :lol: but both were building huge bureaucracies after being appointed as the first "head" of their respective departments.

Didn't know you had thrown out all your LDM stuff...I'll quit badgering you for a source on the "66 y/o".

I have so much LDM related crap...my wife asked what in the world our heirs would do with it all, when we depart this realm...I told her there was only one rightful place for it all...a museum? University? Nope...I told her the most appropriate place to put it all would be in one of those big dumpsters that they use on construction sites. She made some quip to the effect of "why wait?" She is usually right about such things. :lol:
Jim R.
don
Part Timer
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 12:17 pm
Location: united kingdom

Re: cravey /ruth

Post by don »

Jim,
your wife is probabley correct about "why wait?" :D Id guess out of my collection i had ,the factual stuff could have been condensed into a paragraph..maybe 2 . i think the beginning of the end came for me in one of storms books when i read that weiser once had a potshot at a deer ,or mountain lion in needle canyon..and fortuitiously for storm he found a spent bullet from that era in the canyon which "proved" that weiser was telling the truth etc etc and the discovery of some carpenters nails in same area added "proof" to the story ,if indeed extra proof was needed. weiser was a carpenter apparently so the conclusion was inescapable. such stupidities are rife within dutchman folklore ,though other stupidities ,while a bit more subtle ,are still stupidities nonetheless..then along came the barnard, estee conatsers,arnold, gassler ely and corbin tomes and a host of others..i began thinking why do i read this crap anymore? and i guess i might be weeing in some folks cornflakes here but the reprint books or essays i bought from the superstition mountain historical society were equally as bad,if not worse in lots of ways...a total and utter waste of money in my opinion..anyway i assume all that stuff is now safe and sound buried under tons of other rubbish in some landfill ..somewhere. if by chance some adventurer in 200 years time uncovers them ..all i can say to him /her is "good luck with that pile of crap!"...The only real aspect of the legend which still interests me is the Ruth story..and i cant for the life of me really understand why it should...but it does ..must be similar to the guy who doses himself up with heroin every day..he knows its doing him no good,knows its a waste of time,knows theres no sense to it,but does it all the same.
All that aside, i dont have a great deal of time for "grave robbers " especially "grave robbers" who dont/didnt seem able to write a sentence without including the word probabley and possibly at least once..it would seem ,from this distance in time,that its not only I that have grave doubts about his conclusion..(theres that word "grave" again :| ) because it would appear nobody else in authority took his claim seriously either ,or if they did they didnt act on it.not that any of it matters now of course i suppose.
kind regards
Don update your email address
Post Reply