Joe:
Figured that would get a rise out of you........lol
Roger:
One of the reasons why I posted the information sent to me on the kilometer vs mile measurement was to have folks slow down a minute and think things through. The German clues are interesting and may well be genuine....but as in all things LDM, there is always room for another method of interpretation.
The "German" Clues
Re: Assumptions
Joe, I think Peter thought that because a couple of posts ago, you said: "I have never put a lot of time in the Holmes information, perhaps I should."Joe Ribaudo wrote: I admit my mind is fairly well closed to the Holmes story, but you should not assume I haven't spent enough time and done enough research, to reach a sound conclusion on this matter.
You seem to be making a lot of allusions to information without actually stating it, and vigorously defending your conclusions without actually saying what they are. You infer that you know exactly where the mine is, but do you have any gold to back it up?
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Got Gold?
Wiz,
I have been at this for forty-four years now. What might be considered not much time (when you look at the total number of hours I have spent on this legend) might be more than is needed for a solid opinion. The Holmes story is not something I have found without value. I throw out the deathbed dialog completely. I do not, however, throw out the baby with the bath water. The narrative of the Holme's search has a wealth of information, and I have used it often.
If I have given the impression that I know where the mine is, it was unintentional on my part. What is clear to me and my team members, is that we know with certainty where the evidence (which is available to everyone) is leading. That evidence includes a number of maps, stories and many clues on the ground, known and unknown by the general public. They do not lead to one place, but many. The LDM is the one we will check on our next trip. I don't know for sure that the mine will be there. I do know, by all the evidence available, that it should be. After that trip, I will have no problem saying whether the bulk of the information on the LDM is real or a hoax.
Is there a serious searcher in the forum who has been specific concerning his conclusions? I think I have offered more information on my personal conclusions and area of interest then anyone, save Ron. I have not revealed the location of most of the things I have found, for obvious reasons. Most of the members talk about known clues or information not available to the public.
Any idea why the members are not showing any interest in a true or false poll on the known clues? Could it be they don't want to know, because they would have to throw out the most accepted clues, to remain in their favorite area? What about you, or Peter?
Peter,
Good idea.
Joe
I have been at this for forty-four years now. What might be considered not much time (when you look at the total number of hours I have spent on this legend) might be more than is needed for a solid opinion. The Holmes story is not something I have found without value. I throw out the deathbed dialog completely. I do not, however, throw out the baby with the bath water. The narrative of the Holme's search has a wealth of information, and I have used it often.
If I have given the impression that I know where the mine is, it was unintentional on my part. What is clear to me and my team members, is that we know with certainty where the evidence (which is available to everyone) is leading. That evidence includes a number of maps, stories and many clues on the ground, known and unknown by the general public. They do not lead to one place, but many. The LDM is the one we will check on our next trip. I don't know for sure that the mine will be there. I do know, by all the evidence available, that it should be. After that trip, I will have no problem saying whether the bulk of the information on the LDM is real or a hoax.
Is there a serious searcher in the forum who has been specific concerning his conclusions? I think I have offered more information on my personal conclusions and area of interest then anyone, save Ron. I have not revealed the location of most of the things I have found, for obvious reasons. Most of the members talk about known clues or information not available to the public.
Any idea why the members are not showing any interest in a true or false poll on the known clues? Could it be they don't want to know, because they would have to throw out the most accepted clues, to remain in their favorite area? What about you, or Peter?
Peter,
Good idea.
Joe
Hi Joe
I would assume that most folks are reluctant to engage in the openess you are talking about because they do not wish to divulge which ever area they are interested in.
As far as a poll goes...doesnt matter much to me personally. If 95% of the respondents in a poll thought that the LDM was located underneath my swimming pool in my back yard..it still wouldnt make them right.
Same goes for folks that have looked for the LDM for 50 years..or have logged 15,000 man hours in the mountains. Whether or not you have put in your "dues" is immaterial. Yes it will help you..but still wont guarantee that you will find the mine...or know more about the location of the LDM
than someone who has been on the "job" for a considerably less period of time.
As an aside, Joe..heres a question that you and every other mine seeker needs to ask yourself....and a question that really hasnt been addressed on this forum.
Why hasnt the LDM been found?
If folks thought about this long and hard... they might actually be closer to finding it. My own conclusions concerning the answer to that question have made me realize how difficult the task will be to uncover the "mine"
I would assume that most folks are reluctant to engage in the openess you are talking about because they do not wish to divulge which ever area they are interested in.
As far as a poll goes...doesnt matter much to me personally. If 95% of the respondents in a poll thought that the LDM was located underneath my swimming pool in my back yard..it still wouldnt make them right.
Same goes for folks that have looked for the LDM for 50 years..or have logged 15,000 man hours in the mountains. Whether or not you have put in your "dues" is immaterial. Yes it will help you..but still wont guarantee that you will find the mine...or know more about the location of the LDM
than someone who has been on the "job" for a considerably less period of time.
As an aside, Joe..heres a question that you and every other mine seeker needs to ask yourself....and a question that really hasnt been addressed on this forum.
Why hasnt the LDM been found?
If folks thought about this long and hard... they might actually be closer to finding it. My own conclusions concerning the answer to that question have made me realize how difficult the task will be to uncover the "mine"
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Peter,
Given a choice, I will take the advice of someone who has put fifty years into the search, as opposed to some hiker on a day trip. If 95 percent of the members answering the poll think the LDM is under your pool, you better start digging. The question would not be where is the LDM, but would only concern the clues and the collective confidence in their reliability. You seem to be approaching the question of a poll on the most accepted clues, in a deliberately obtuse manner. Perhaps I am the one who is being thick, in thinking that the combined knowledge of the members of the forum, as to the worth of the best known clues, would have little or no value. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
I have not questioned the reluctance of others to be open with their information. I made a statement in reply to a post by Wiz. The surest method to convey your thoughts, is by writing them down. That does not always hold true in this forum.
We are not talking about being right or wrong here, rather we would be looking at a percentage of opinion, derived from the collective knowledge and inteligence of the best informed group on this subject, that I know of.
If you want a guarantee, you should be shopping for a car, not searching for the LDM.
Looking back at my somewhat verbose replies, I think they may have been too clear. It appears that you may have been paying less attention to what I was saying, and concentrating more on how I was saying it. My fault, I am sure.
Joe
Given a choice, I will take the advice of someone who has put fifty years into the search, as opposed to some hiker on a day trip. If 95 percent of the members answering the poll think the LDM is under your pool, you better start digging. The question would not be where is the LDM, but would only concern the clues and the collective confidence in their reliability. You seem to be approaching the question of a poll on the most accepted clues, in a deliberately obtuse manner. Perhaps I am the one who is being thick, in thinking that the combined knowledge of the members of the forum, as to the worth of the best known clues, would have little or no value. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
I have not questioned the reluctance of others to be open with their information. I made a statement in reply to a post by Wiz. The surest method to convey your thoughts, is by writing them down. That does not always hold true in this forum.
We are not talking about being right or wrong here, rather we would be looking at a percentage of opinion, derived from the collective knowledge and inteligence of the best informed group on this subject, that I know of.
If you want a guarantee, you should be shopping for a car, not searching for the LDM.
Looking back at my somewhat verbose replies, I think they may have been too clear. It appears that you may have been paying less attention to what I was saying, and concentrating more on how I was saying it. My fault, I am sure.
Joe
Reply
Joe,
Getting back to this poll... How would the mechanics be done? Would you make a post listing a bunch of clues then asking people to post back with which ones they thought were good? And you'd keep track of the score.
I have not specifically commented - but what you propose might be interesting.
S.C.
Getting back to this poll... How would the mechanics be done? Would you make a post listing a bunch of clues then asking people to post back with which ones they thought were good? And you'd keep track of the score.
I have not specifically commented - but what you propose might be interesting.
S.C.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Why hasn't the LDM been found?
Peter,
Great question. Perhaps that should be a topic of it's own. Plenty of information. A ton of clues on the ground. More then enough searchers. Countless hours spent in the books and in the mountains. A lot of new clues and seceret information. Seems like it should have been found. There is an old newspaper story that says that it was found. There is the possibility that it has been found and worked out. There are stories that gold has been taken out of the mountains on a yearly basis since the forties.
Waltz pond has been muddied a bit since the old boy died. Each year it gets a little harder to see the bottom. We may have to go back in time, maybe even before the new information, stories and clues, to clear it up.
Anyway, that's my bet.
Joe
Great question. Perhaps that should be a topic of it's own. Plenty of information. A ton of clues on the ground. More then enough searchers. Countless hours spent in the books and in the mountains. A lot of new clues and seceret information. Seems like it should have been found. There is an old newspaper story that says that it was found. There is the possibility that it has been found and worked out. There are stories that gold has been taken out of the mountains on a yearly basis since the forties.
Waltz pond has been muddied a bit since the old boy died. Each year it gets a little harder to see the bottom. We may have to go back in time, maybe even before the new information, stories and clues, to clear it up.
Anyway, that's my bet.
Joe
Re: kilometers , miles
[quote="Aurum"]
Waltz was surely no scholar of the metric system but by the same token he wouldn't have known the "American mile" from a Monday night footbal game.[/quote]
I thought the Arizona Territory came into the Union using the 1sq mile range and township system. Wouldn't all subsequent mining claims then be staked using this as a point of reference? Also, didn't Phoenix come into being as a 1/2 square mile townsite? If so the mile would hardly be an unfamiliar unit of measure to a miner and Phoenix resident.
Maybe I have seen too many westerns. However, I just have a hard time imagining someone in that era and place responding to questions like - how far is it to the next town?, where is the Smith place?, how far is it to the Vulture mine from Wickenburg? etc using KILOMETERS.
Waltz was surely no scholar of the metric system but by the same token he wouldn't have known the "American mile" from a Monday night footbal game.[/quote]
I thought the Arizona Territory came into the Union using the 1sq mile range and township system. Wouldn't all subsequent mining claims then be staked using this as a point of reference? Also, didn't Phoenix come into being as a 1/2 square mile townsite? If so the mile would hardly be an unfamiliar unit of measure to a miner and Phoenix resident.
Maybe I have seen too many westerns. However, I just have a hard time imagining someone in that era and place responding to questions like - how far is it to the next town?, where is the Smith place?, how far is it to the Vulture mine from Wickenburg? etc using KILOMETERS.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Moot Point
walker12,
This question seems to be a moot point. Since no one can ask Waltz if it's a true statement, we can only ask if it's possible. From the qualified and less then, I think we can deduct that it is possible that Waltz used kilometers as a reference. In my own opinion it's possible but not likely.
Since both possibilities are an option, the rest of the information must be examined to lend weight (if possible) to the correct answer. I have not purchased Corbin's book and don't think I will. My mind just may balk at new clues and evidence. I don't think I will push it.
Joe
This question seems to be a moot point. Since no one can ask Waltz if it's a true statement, we can only ask if it's possible. From the qualified and less then, I think we can deduct that it is possible that Waltz used kilometers as a reference. In my own opinion it's possible but not likely.
Since both possibilities are an option, the rest of the information must be examined to lend weight (if possible) to the correct answer. I have not purchased Corbin's book and don't think I will. My mind just may balk at new clues and evidence. I don't think I will push it.
Joe
Another thought ......
Another thought on the German Clues, according to Corbin Herman questioned Julia and Rhinehart about what they remembered Waltz saying. And “When both Julia and Rhiney agreed on what was exactly stated, Herman would use that as a solid clue. When Julia and Rhiney differed on what Waltz said or meant, Herman would consider those statements suspect.” Is this relying on agreement between Julia and Rhinehart a good thing or bad?
Glover states that Waltz spoke Swabian German and it was a dialect of German. Checking websites I find that a dialect is defined, by Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, as a “version of language differing in some aspects of grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary from other forms of the same language." Now Julia is believed to have spoken Swabian, but Rhinehart would not have. I believe Rhinehart came to this country very young, around 2 years of age. He would not have learned German in Germany, and if he did it would have been Prussian Germany as that is the area of Germany the Petrasches came from. The chances, however, are that Rhinehart would have learned German at home and it may have been his first language. But, it would have been Prussian German.
So you have a situation where Herman, who would have no knowledge of Swabian German, is quizzing Julia and Rhinehart about what Waltz said in German and only when they agree does he believe the clue is solid, but when they disagree he considered the statements suspect. Yet, Julia and Rhinehart spoke different dialects. And in dialects you have changes in vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. In “normal German” the numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine are: Ein, Zwie, Drei, Vier, Funf, Sechs, Sieben, Acht, Neun, – in Swabian they are Oes(e), Zwoe, Droe, Vier, Fumf, Sechs, Siibe, Acht, Noen. Sometimes the words are very similar, sometimes not. So does Herman’s method make the clues more or less reliable?
It seems to me that if Waltz said something as simple as take one pace Julia and Rhinehart would have had a difficult time agreeing on it; but, if he said take six paces they could easily have agreed. Not only would the word Oes have no meaning to Rhinehart, given differences in pronunciation of the same words what Julia might understand and what Rhinehart might understand could well be two different things. In fact, maybe they could not even have agreed on the number Sechs. So is requiring agreement between Julia and Rhinehart a good thing or not? Would it lead to more accurate and more complete information; or, would it lead to less accurate and less complete information?
Thoughts?
Glover states that Waltz spoke Swabian German and it was a dialect of German. Checking websites I find that a dialect is defined, by Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, as a “version of language differing in some aspects of grammar, pronunciation, or vocabulary from other forms of the same language." Now Julia is believed to have spoken Swabian, but Rhinehart would not have. I believe Rhinehart came to this country very young, around 2 years of age. He would not have learned German in Germany, and if he did it would have been Prussian Germany as that is the area of Germany the Petrasches came from. The chances, however, are that Rhinehart would have learned German at home and it may have been his first language. But, it would have been Prussian German.
So you have a situation where Herman, who would have no knowledge of Swabian German, is quizzing Julia and Rhinehart about what Waltz said in German and only when they agree does he believe the clue is solid, but when they disagree he considered the statements suspect. Yet, Julia and Rhinehart spoke different dialects. And in dialects you have changes in vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar. In “normal German” the numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine are: Ein, Zwie, Drei, Vier, Funf, Sechs, Sieben, Acht, Neun, – in Swabian they are Oes(e), Zwoe, Droe, Vier, Fumf, Sechs, Siibe, Acht, Noen. Sometimes the words are very similar, sometimes not. So does Herman’s method make the clues more or less reliable?
It seems to me that if Waltz said something as simple as take one pace Julia and Rhinehart would have had a difficult time agreeing on it; but, if he said take six paces they could easily have agreed. Not only would the word Oes have no meaning to Rhinehart, given differences in pronunciation of the same words what Julia might understand and what Rhinehart might understand could well be two different things. In fact, maybe they could not even have agreed on the number Sechs. So is requiring agreement between Julia and Rhinehart a good thing or not? Would it lead to more accurate and more complete information; or, would it lead to less accurate and less complete information?
Thoughts?
Good point. Also, though, Julia was not born in Germany, so her knowledge of the dialect would have been acquired, just as Rhiney's was. And both were used to listening to Waltz. I have a friend with a serious speech impediment, but I can understand him just fine because I'm used to it. Same with Julia and Rhiney, I would suspect.
Understood or misunderstood?
Wiz,
Nicely put. But, as you note you can understand your friend “because I'm used to it”. So the question would be were both Rhinehart and Julia used to Waltz’s Swabian German?
Some sources say that both Julia and Rhinehart were good friends of Waltz’s and knew him for years. Other sources say Julia was the good friend and Rhinehart essentially a hanger on working for Julia who mostly just overheard conversations between Julia and Waltz, and that it was only in Waltz final weeks or couple of months that Waltz talked much with Rhinehart -- and when Waltz did finally talk with Rhinehart he didn’t listen much.
So I guess you toss a coin. But, I still say it is not a slam dunk that Julia and Rhinehart equally understood Waltz, and that Rhinehart may not have understood him well at all. AND IF that is the case does it portend well or otherwise for Julia and Rhinehart having to agree on a clue??
Nicely put. But, as you note you can understand your friend “because I'm used to it”. So the question would be were both Rhinehart and Julia used to Waltz’s Swabian German?
Some sources say that both Julia and Rhinehart were good friends of Waltz’s and knew him for years. Other sources say Julia was the good friend and Rhinehart essentially a hanger on working for Julia who mostly just overheard conversations between Julia and Waltz, and that it was only in Waltz final weeks or couple of months that Waltz talked much with Rhinehart -- and when Waltz did finally talk with Rhinehart he didn’t listen much.
So I guess you toss a coin. But, I still say it is not a slam dunk that Julia and Rhinehart equally understood Waltz, and that Rhinehart may not have understood him well at all. AND IF that is the case does it portend well or otherwise for Julia and Rhinehart having to agree on a clue??
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I just spent 3 days on top of Bluff Spring Mtn., and I can attest that from the north part of it, you can see Miner's Needle, hole and all, to the south, and to the west is Weaver's Needle. Not that there aren't dozens of places in the mountains that also fit the bill!
Personally, I like these clues a lot better than the Holmes clues. They came from people who were genuinely, verifiably close to Waltz. Holmes, on the other hand, even said that Waltz threatened to kill him if he followed him again. It's a big jump from that to "here, take my gold". I've never seen any other documentation that said they were friends.
But on the other hand, if Holmes was the only guy on hand when Waltz was checking out and Waltz didn't think Julia and Rhiney had gotten the directions right, he might spill it to whoever was around. And like Tom Glover said, it may have been Gideon Roberts who was Waltz's friend, and Holmes was just along for the ride at the right place and time.
Maybe the best thing about these clues for me, though, is that they're new and I'm not totally frustrated with them. As far as I know, none of the clues from any source have yet enabled anyone to find the mine, so they could all be true. You could certainly mix them all together and come up with a couple of locations that matched all of them.
The jury will remain out until someone whips out some gold and says:
"... and these are the clues I used to find it:".
Now I'm going home. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone.
Personally, I like these clues a lot better than the Holmes clues. They came from people who were genuinely, verifiably close to Waltz. Holmes, on the other hand, even said that Waltz threatened to kill him if he followed him again. It's a big jump from that to "here, take my gold". I've never seen any other documentation that said they were friends.
But on the other hand, if Holmes was the only guy on hand when Waltz was checking out and Waltz didn't think Julia and Rhiney had gotten the directions right, he might spill it to whoever was around. And like Tom Glover said, it may have been Gideon Roberts who was Waltz's friend, and Holmes was just along for the ride at the right place and time.
Maybe the best thing about these clues for me, though, is that they're new and I'm not totally frustrated with them. As far as I know, none of the clues from any source have yet enabled anyone to find the mine, so they could all be true. You could certainly mix them all together and come up with a couple of locations that matched all of them.
The jury will remain out until someone whips out some gold and says:
"... and these are the clues I used to find it:".
Now I'm going home. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to everyone.
I can't believe I'm still thinking about this on Christmas Eve, but here's something that just struck me. I'll bet most everyone here has already thought of this, but since no one has said it, I will: If you compare the German clues and the Holmes clues, they're very similar. The whole Brownie manuscript concerning Waltz's deathbed instructions, etc. could have been built around those German clues. If Dick or Brownie Holmes had gotten hold of a copy of those clues, who knows. The manuscript didn't appear until 1944.
Go through the Brownie instructions side-by-side with the German clues. What do you think?
Now I'm REALLY out of here! Seriously, this time.
Go through the Brownie instructions side-by-side with the German clues. What do you think?
Now I'm REALLY out of here! Seriously, this time.