On page 110 of "Ride Through Time" by Kollenborn and Swanson is a photo of Tex Barkely bagging up the "remains." This is a little easier to see than as it appears in Glover's "The LDM of Jacob Waltz - Part 1" on page 233.
In the photo in "Ride..." one can see a set of dentures - upper and lower. I point this out as Ruth had no teeth - so what would a dentist report? That the skull found had no teeth - and the lower jaw bone found had no teeth. So... it is extremely likely the skull was Ruth's. If not, is it not a billion to one coincidence that "another" skull of a toothless man shows up in the general area? Mighty strange. I have to chime-in on Tom Glover's thought - if it was not Ruth's skull, then whose was it?
Also, on page 301 of Helen Corbin's "The Bible on the LDGM..." is a shot of Ruth's remains. In it one can see the lower jaw bone.
Ruth Killing
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
"The Expedition Version"
Peter,
When you consider who had the power to "change" where the the skull was found, not saying anyone did, it seems within the realm of possibility that it was changed. If the Bark family requested that Ely change the location where the skull was found, that would be pretty interesting.
S.C..
I am going to guess here, that Dr. Ruth's dentist would have no problem identifying his patient's dentures. I think most would be satisfied that the skeleton and skull belonged to Adolph Ruth, considering the skills of the people who studied the evidence.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
When you consider who had the power to "change" where the the skull was found, not saying anyone did, it seems within the realm of possibility that it was changed. If the Bark family requested that Ely change the location where the skull was found, that would be pretty interesting.
S.C..
I am going to guess here, that Dr. Ruth's dentist would have no problem identifying his patient's dentures. I think most would be satisfied that the skeleton and skull belonged to Adolph Ruth, considering the skills of the people who studied the evidence.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Joe,
Your comment: “As a member of the Search and Rescue team for Mohave County, I can assure you that I always watch for birds. Having said that, and having spent considerable time in the area of the location of Dr. Ruth's skeleton, you would have to be in the right place to see any bird activity and you would need to be fairly close. I believe most of the searching was done from horseback and unless they rode over bull pass, which I doubt, they would have seen nothing.” Still leaves me wondering.
Ruth died in June with the onset of summer heat. I would have expected to see buzzards riding the thermals over the remains of, say, a 130 to 140 lb animal. Around here in summer with the thermals we see vultures all the time lazily circling. When one spots something others soon concentrate and we have a good number of birds over a specific area. Given the thermals in the Superstitions I would expect the same. That is, a few birds over a wide area, then one seeing remains and perhaps waiting for a ground scavenger to leave, then a concentration of circling birds. So I wonder why there seems to be no report of it within a day or so of Ruth’s death? And if there was such sign, then would not Tex have easily seen it. Would he not, in fact, have been looking for it? (How long to strip a body to the point that vultures loose interest?)
(Pure late rainy afternoon speculation – maybe Tex did see vultures, and maybe he found the body much earlier than reported. But then why wait to report it?)
Your comment: “As a member of the Search and Rescue team for Mohave County, I can assure you that I always watch for birds. Having said that, and having spent considerable time in the area of the location of Dr. Ruth's skeleton, you would have to be in the right place to see any bird activity and you would need to be fairly close. I believe most of the searching was done from horseback and unless they rode over bull pass, which I doubt, they would have seen nothing.” Still leaves me wondering.
Ruth died in June with the onset of summer heat. I would have expected to see buzzards riding the thermals over the remains of, say, a 130 to 140 lb animal. Around here in summer with the thermals we see vultures all the time lazily circling. When one spots something others soon concentrate and we have a good number of birds over a specific area. Given the thermals in the Superstitions I would expect the same. That is, a few birds over a wide area, then one seeing remains and perhaps waiting for a ground scavenger to leave, then a concentration of circling birds. So I wonder why there seems to be no report of it within a day or so of Ruth’s death? And if there was such sign, then would not Tex have easily seen it. Would he not, in fact, have been looking for it? (How long to strip a body to the point that vultures loose interest?)
(Pure late rainy afternoon speculation – maybe Tex did see vultures, and maybe he found the body much earlier than reported. But then why wait to report it?)
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Das Birds
Dr. Glover,
The deep canyons in the Superstitions would not help in looking for a body high up on Black Top Mesa. From a distance you might see the buzzards circling, but from what (horseback) search area would you expect to see buzzards over the north end of Black Top Mesa? It is likely that the searchers mainly searched the canyons.
I believe the body was not moved from the spot it was found. He may have been dead when he was placed there, but it's hard to imagine someone not just dumping Ruth and hightailing it.
There were forty-five days of heavy searching for Dr. Ruth's body, after Barkley notified Pinal and Maricopa Counties. The men who were searching, knew they were searching for a body. They would have been more than sensitive to the signs around them. That does not mean they could not have missed the buzzards or that none were circling the body, it means that obvious signs are overlooked by the best searchers every day. After the first day or two, the chances for overlooking clues increases. As each day passes, the search deteriorates exponentially. In those days they were prone to work their people beyond their limits.
SAR has come a long way from those days. It is now a science and one that works with a high percentage of success. A few of the many things that worked against finding Dr. Ruth's body were that it is probable that he was never lost, and it is also probable that his body was packed to it's final location. If he was lost, it is unlikely he would have made the climb to Bull Pass and his movements would have been more predictable......
to a point.
There are always buzzards circling over the Superstitions. If I were in Needle Canyon at the south end of Black Top Mesa I would not be able to see them over Dr. Ruth's body. If I were on Upper Black Top Mesa Pass it is also unlikely I would notice them. The best place to see birds over that area, other than the top of the Mesa, would be the junction of Needle and La Barge Canyons. That assumes they stayed on the trails and in the canyons. On the other hand, some of those old timers could see hair on the back of a frog at a quarter-mile.
I have no doubt that the searchers did the best they could, despite the fact that once the body was found, the work that the Sheriffs hated the most would begin.
While this has all been conjecture, it has been fun to speculate on what happened. While Ron's "Crooked Mountain" story of the death of Dr. Ruth is "kinda" logical and I believe he received it from a reliable source that he trusted, without some solid evidence it is just a good yarn. No offense intended, Ron.
Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
The deep canyons in the Superstitions would not help in looking for a body high up on Black Top Mesa. From a distance you might see the buzzards circling, but from what (horseback) search area would you expect to see buzzards over the north end of Black Top Mesa? It is likely that the searchers mainly searched the canyons.
I believe the body was not moved from the spot it was found. He may have been dead when he was placed there, but it's hard to imagine someone not just dumping Ruth and hightailing it.
There were forty-five days of heavy searching for Dr. Ruth's body, after Barkley notified Pinal and Maricopa Counties. The men who were searching, knew they were searching for a body. They would have been more than sensitive to the signs around them. That does not mean they could not have missed the buzzards or that none were circling the body, it means that obvious signs are overlooked by the best searchers every day. After the first day or two, the chances for overlooking clues increases. As each day passes, the search deteriorates exponentially. In those days they were prone to work their people beyond their limits.
SAR has come a long way from those days. It is now a science and one that works with a high percentage of success. A few of the many things that worked against finding Dr. Ruth's body were that it is probable that he was never lost, and it is also probable that his body was packed to it's final location. If he was lost, it is unlikely he would have made the climb to Bull Pass and his movements would have been more predictable......
to a point.
There are always buzzards circling over the Superstitions. If I were in Needle Canyon at the south end of Black Top Mesa I would not be able to see them over Dr. Ruth's body. If I were on Upper Black Top Mesa Pass it is also unlikely I would notice them. The best place to see birds over that area, other than the top of the Mesa, would be the junction of Needle and La Barge Canyons. That assumes they stayed on the trails and in the canyons. On the other hand, some of those old timers could see hair on the back of a frog at a quarter-mile.
I have no doubt that the searchers did the best they could, despite the fact that once the body was found, the work that the Sheriffs hated the most would begin.
While this has all been conjecture, it has been fun to speculate on what happened. While Ron's "Crooked Mountain" story of the death of Dr. Ruth is "kinda" logical and I believe he received it from a reliable source that he trusted, without some solid evidence it is just a good yarn. No offense intended, Ron.
Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Ruth killing
Dutchelm disease, I think you answered your own question. Although it may not be important as to which hole is where the fact is the entry hole was on the right side and the exit was on the left side of the head. I'm sorry , but at this time the source of what I saw , cannot be told as yet, but I'm sure in due time the pictures will end up in the new museum for all to see. As for where the remains were found , as most know I'm a firm believer that the body was transported from where he was shot.
Forum members,
I have been doing a little reading on the Ruth thing. Joes remark about Sims Ely THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE caused me to go back and re-read the section on Ruth.
Then I read the section on Ruth in Helen Corbin's "Bible".
Maybe its just me, but you folks might want to check out pages 6-7-8 of Elys book and compare them to pages 293-294-295 of Corbin's book.
Anybody see anything similar? I mean virtually word-for-word similar?
Jeez......
I have been doing a little reading on the Ruth thing. Joes remark about Sims Ely THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE caused me to go back and re-read the section on Ruth.
Then I read the section on Ruth in Helen Corbin's "Bible".
Maybe its just me, but you folks might want to check out pages 6-7-8 of Elys book and compare them to pages 293-294-295 of Corbin's book.
Anybody see anything similar? I mean virtually word-for-word similar?
Jeez......
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Not Her Own?
Peter,
Let me get this straight. Are you hinting that some "Dutch" writers may be guilty of a little plagiarism?
While Corbin did not place the passages in quotes, or directly give Ely credit for those pages, she did list "Ely, S. THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1953." in her Bibliography.
You may find the words first written by Sims Ely in more than a few books on the LDM. While there have been many better books, Dr. Glover's comes to mind, Ely's book was the second one I read a youngster, and it remains at the top of my (favorites) list.
Respectfully,
Joe
Let me get this straight. Are you hinting that some "Dutch" writers may be guilty of a little plagiarism?
While Corbin did not place the passages in quotes, or directly give Ely credit for those pages, she did list "Ely, S. THE LOST DUTCHMAN MINE. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1953." in her Bibliography.
You may find the words first written by Sims Ely in more than a few books on the LDM. While there have been many better books, Dr. Glover's comes to mind, Ely's book was the second one I read a youngster, and it remains at the top of my (favorites) list.
Respectfully,
Joe
<<Are you hinting that some "Dutch" writers may be guilty of a little plagiarism? >>
OK. A "little" plagiarism I can handle. But taking entire passages of other folks books...I mean c'mon.
I think I will write my own book called "Wacula". You know, about this feller from Transylvania with some sort of blood lust. I'll take Stokers novel, change a few words here and there and pass it off as my own. Hmmm, might even be a best seller and be good for a movie or two......
OK. A "little" plagiarism I can handle. But taking entire passages of other folks books...I mean c'mon.
I think I will write my own book called "Wacula". You know, about this feller from Transylvania with some sort of blood lust. I'll take Stokers novel, change a few words here and there and pass it off as my own. Hmmm, might even be a best seller and be good for a movie or two......
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
A Book of Her Own?
Peter,
Without participating in a search of your own, it would be a little tough to fill 358 pages with original work on the LDM. Although I have not read all of Helen's book, I understand from some of the previous comments on the forum that she took "questionable" liberties with some of her sources information.
As I looked at her picture on the back of her book, I realize she looked a great deal like a woman we met in the mountains around twenty or so years ago. She and her husband were camped just above Piper Spring and said they were gathering information for a book. He said he had worked for Ed Piper. Both were smokers and rolled their smokes with one hand.
Would that be "Obie Stoker's" book? If so,"Wacula" might be more than appropriate.
Respectfully,
Joe
Without participating in a search of your own, it would be a little tough to fill 358 pages with original work on the LDM. Although I have not read all of Helen's book, I understand from some of the previous comments on the forum that she took "questionable" liberties with some of her sources information.
As I looked at her picture on the back of her book, I realize she looked a great deal like a woman we met in the mountains around twenty or so years ago. She and her husband were camped just above Piper Spring and said they were gathering information for a book. He said he had worked for Ed Piper. Both were smokers and rolled their smokes with one hand.
Would that be "Obie Stoker's" book? If so,"Wacula" might be more than appropriate.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Entry or Exit?
Ron,
In light of the following quote from Dr. Hrdlicka it is difficult to see how anyone could say:
"the fact is the entry hole was on the right side and the exit was on the left side of the head".
[Dr. Ales Hrdlicka]
"My examination positively determined that it is the skull of an aged white man. Holes in the skull, one about two inches in diameter on the left side and a much larger one on the right side, indicate a strong probability that the man was shot to death by a high powered gun and that the bullet passed somewhat downwardly from the left."
The above statement was notarized.
If Dr. Hrdlicka's statement is true, the entry wound appears to be to the left side of the skull. It does not seem likely that he could have made such a mistake.
On the other hand, it is possible that Jim Swanson placed a false "verbatim report" into his book. I don't know the man, so I would not make that assumption.
The immediate question that comes to mind is: Why is it an issue? Is it important that the "new picture" be authenticated in some manner? If it is "authenticated", does that discredit the findings and report of
Dr. Hrdlicka? It seems to me, that the "new picture" is going to create more doubt and raise more questions than it could ever answer.
I hope that when this picture ends up in a museum, it will be displayed some distance (metaphorically speaking) from the counterfit Stone Maps. Despite the assurances of some, it does rub off.
It is interesting that there is some secrecy surrounding this picture, since it has been seen by many and talked about for years. I do love a good mystery.
Take care,
Joe
In light of the following quote from Dr. Hrdlicka it is difficult to see how anyone could say:
"the fact is the entry hole was on the right side and the exit was on the left side of the head".
[Dr. Ales Hrdlicka]
"My examination positively determined that it is the skull of an aged white man. Holes in the skull, one about two inches in diameter on the left side and a much larger one on the right side, indicate a strong probability that the man was shot to death by a high powered gun and that the bullet passed somewhat downwardly from the left."
The above statement was notarized.
If Dr. Hrdlicka's statement is true, the entry wound appears to be to the left side of the skull. It does not seem likely that he could have made such a mistake.
On the other hand, it is possible that Jim Swanson placed a false "verbatim report" into his book. I don't know the man, so I would not make that assumption.
The immediate question that comes to mind is: Why is it an issue? Is it important that the "new picture" be authenticated in some manner? If it is "authenticated", does that discredit the findings and report of
Dr. Hrdlicka? It seems to me, that the "new picture" is going to create more doubt and raise more questions than it could ever answer.
I hope that when this picture ends up in a museum, it will be displayed some distance (metaphorically speaking) from the counterfit Stone Maps. Despite the assurances of some, it does rub off.
It is interesting that there is some secrecy surrounding this picture, since it has been seen by many and talked about for years. I do love a good mystery.
Take care,
Joe
Ruth
Ron; If Ruth,s skull or head was moved by animals it would show gnawl marks. I believe Gus,s account of moving the body. I believe Gus already knew about the place that the body was found and didn,t want anyone fooling around there is why he moved the body. I believe Ruth was forced to take someone to the area where he was killed or he was killed at his camp and his body carried and dump there by the killers. Why would the man leave his canteen,dentures,hiking boots, etcetra?? Mr. Ruth was a educated and smart man, He had been out in the wilds before and he wouldn,t have left his things behind. He wasn,t that stupid even if he was from New York. He was from a well todo prominent family. His disappearance created a stink nation wide. Gus felt contaminated by disappearance of Ruth. The local authorities were under pressure to clean things up. Hence the setup to find his head and body. He was shot through the head. The head had been protected some where because it still had skin on it. Supposedly it outlasted the body and was in better shape. Hence the quick autopy and verdict of accidentle death. The authorities just wanted to shut things up and get back to normal. I believe the head had to be placed at the place it was found because that,s the only thing that makes any sense. The head was not damaged in anyway,it still had the nose cartilige on it, no gnawl marks or anything. I was wondering if a person with a metel detecter might could find the bullet??? If he was shot at an angle the bullet had to hit the ground somewhere. It looked like a 44 or 45 cal. hole to me. bill
<< He wasn,t that stupid even if he was from New York. >>
I am not sure how "stupid" most folks from New York are (though we do tend to have some real idiots here...just check out who our US Senators are). However, even the stupidest can generally tell the difference between a comma and an apostrophe...and know that "gnawl" is spelled g-n-a-w.
Something for you to "gnaw" on.
P
I am not sure how "stupid" most folks from New York are (though we do tend to have some real idiots here...just check out who our US Senators are). However, even the stupidest can generally tell the difference between a comma and an apostrophe...and know that "gnawl" is spelled g-n-a-w.
Something for you to "gnaw" on.
P
Peter and Rochha: In my own defense I have to agree that my grammer and punctuation is not up to snuff yet, But give me some time. I have to say in defense of my statement about New York, New Jersey, and california, that maybe there are some more intelligent people there But They must keep them in reserve or maybe I have had some rare experiences with them. What would you think if you had some of them stop at your service station and want to know where the wild indians are or where the cowboys stay? This wasn,t too long ago either. Now about myself I do not put alot of stock in spelling and punctuation, as long as I,m getting my question or idea across that,s the important thing to me. A person can write awhole page of words that are grammicially correct with the right punctuation BUT if he does not ask a question or convay an idea he is wasting everyones time. I,m sorry if I have offended either of you in anyway but we have to go with our lifes experiences. You do not pull your self up by tearing someone else down. It,s been over 40 years since I have touched a key board. I am used to dealing with people face to face. Alot of people will tell you I,m crazy BUT they will not say I,m stupid by along shot. When people come to me they always want something. Advice or where to find...something. enough said I hope this cools your feeling. Bill
Feelings
Bill,
My feelings did not need to be cooled, if your's were offended at my reply to Peter's post that was not my intent. Sometimes a post comes along to a reply that seems to say a mouthfull as that one did, it just happened to be at your expense! I'm sure your an intelligent kinda guy. I misspell words all the tme.
Rochha
My feelings did not need to be cooled, if your's were offended at my reply to Peter's post that was not my intent. Sometimes a post comes along to a reply that seems to say a mouthfull as that one did, it just happened to be at your expense! I'm sure your an intelligent kinda guy. I misspell words all the tme.
Rochha
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
just a query regarding dr hrdlickas findings. didnt his original findings state that "there was a strong probability that ruth was shot by a SHOTGUN or a HIGH POWERED RIFLE (my italics). now im not by any stretch of imagination an expert on bullet wounds 'but wouldnt the difference between a shotgun wound and a rifle shot be patently obvious?and wouldntt either weapon suggest that maybe ruth was shot(if indeed he was shot at all) from relatively long range?and if so why? bearingin mind he (according to most theories) a captive in one form or another.
Desease
Desease: Have you ever seen anyone shot in the head with a shotgun? I have and it just destroys the head or skull. A high powered rifle with go in small on the intrance and 1/4 to 1/2 of the exit side will be destroyed. A pistole will go in small and come out big. A small caliber gun alot of times will go in and not come out. ditto some big calibers pistoles if the shot was from pretty far away. IN THIS CASE: Maybe the negatives were accidentally reversed when the picture was made Maybe???? Gus didn,t say if the body had bled much at the site it was found in? If it was pretty clean where he found it, It was probley brought there. WE have to remember things were pretty slip shod back then, That why it,s so hard to do geneology. Black legions?? Are just some low lifes out there committing murder and blaming it on the poor indians, to keep people scared out of the mountains. Bill
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Shotgun?
DED,
It is a common mistake to say that Hrdlicka mentioned a shotgun in his report. In "A Ride Through Time", on pages 59, 60 and 61, is an "exact, verbatim" copy of Dr. Hrdlicka's report. It shows one of the major problems with authors of today. One makes a mistake and the rest repeat it, until it becomes an accepted "fact".
At the end of the report Dr. Hrdlicka states: "A consideration of all the evidence presented to me which is related in detail above, discloses with reasonable certainty that the aforementioned skull is that of Adolph Ruth. Furthermore, it is my opinion, as stated above that Adolph Ruth probably met his death by means of a shot from a gun." (emphasis in bold by Joe) This has been changed to "shotgun" by many, including Dr. Glover. Nowhere in his report does he say anything concerning the weapon used, except that there is "a strong probabilty that the man was shot to death by a high powered gun...".
Kollenborn's statement concerning the report is unequivocal. I assume he took his information directly from a signed, notarized copy.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
It is a common mistake to say that Hrdlicka mentioned a shotgun in his report. In "A Ride Through Time", on pages 59, 60 and 61, is an "exact, verbatim" copy of Dr. Hrdlicka's report. It shows one of the major problems with authors of today. One makes a mistake and the rest repeat it, until it becomes an accepted "fact".
At the end of the report Dr. Hrdlicka states: "A consideration of all the evidence presented to me which is related in detail above, discloses with reasonable certainty that the aforementioned skull is that of Adolph Ruth. Furthermore, it is my opinion, as stated above that Adolph Ruth probably met his death by means of a shot from a gun." (emphasis in bold by Joe) This has been changed to "shotgun" by many, including Dr. Glover. Nowhere in his report does he say anything concerning the weapon used, except that there is "a strong probabilty that the man was shot to death by a high powered gun...".
Kollenborn's statement concerning the report is unequivocal. I assume he took his information directly from a signed, notarized copy.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
joe
yes you are correct (ive just readthe passage in question aminute ago)and as tom kollenborn is unquestionabley one of the more honest authors around i guess its areliable document.im surprised that kearney made the mistake of including the shotgun version...but he did.im still troubled though by the "ruth PROBABLEY died from a shot from a gun" and also the STRONG PROBABILITY of said shooting. maybe im splitting hairs but to me it seems therewas doubt as to whether they were bullet holes or not. i remain unconvinced of either the murder or forthat matter the natural causes verdict
thanks
yes you are correct (ive just readthe passage in question aminute ago)and as tom kollenborn is unquestionabley one of the more honest authors around i guess its areliable document.im surprised that kearney made the mistake of including the shotgun version...but he did.im still troubled though by the "ruth PROBABLEY died from a shot from a gun" and also the STRONG PROBABILITY of said shooting. maybe im splitting hairs but to me it seems therewas doubt as to whether they were bullet holes or not. i remain unconvinced of either the murder or forthat matter the natural causes verdict
thanks
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Was Ruth Murdered?
DED,
It has been said more than a few times that my statements may have a strong resemblence to B.S. Because of that, I try to never make historical statements without some kind of reliable source. Dr. Glover's book is usually the best source on all things "Dutchman", at least for me.
I do like to rely on the words of Ely and Bark because of their "first hand" sources. I strongly believe that the farther we get from the events the less chance we have of learning the true facts. The "facts" changes one word at a time.
The fact that Dr. Hrdlicka said "strong probability" and "probably" is nothing unusual for any doctor or man of science. Most are reluctant to make any statement that would leave them no "wriggle room" if later facts are unearthed. I have no doubt that Dr. Hrdlicka believed that Ruth was murdered.
Because of the "obvious" bullet wound in Dr. Ruth's head, the location of his body and the place his skull was found, as well as it's condition, I am convinced he was murdered.
Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
It has been said more than a few times that my statements may have a strong resemblence to B.S.
Because of that, I try to never make historical statements without some kind of reliable source. Dr. Glover's book is usually the best source on all things "Dutchman", at least for me.I do like to rely on the words of Ely and Bark because of their "first hand" sources. I strongly believe that the farther we get from the events the less chance we have of learning the true facts. The "facts" changes one word at a time.
The fact that Dr. Hrdlicka said "strong probability" and "probably" is nothing unusual for any doctor or man of science. Most are reluctant to make any statement that would leave them no "wriggle room" if later facts are unearthed. I have no doubt that Dr. Hrdlicka believed that Ruth was murdered.
Because of the "obvious" bullet wound in Dr. Ruth's head, the location of his body and the place his skull was found, as well as it's condition, I am convinced he was murdered.
Thanks for your reply.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
joe
maybe its all down to the way in which every individual interprets things.yes i accept that the scientific brethren do indeed tend to leave themselves a get out clause. but judging from the way the document (andweare both presuming its word for word correct) is presented i think it must leave room for doubt. after all a bullet hole is either a bullet hole or it isnt. by saying probabley must indicate uncertainty whether to a large or a small degree is unclear.and of course just the semantics of his report isnt the complete picture is it?as allready discussed in depth earlier at least 2 other agencies dismissed the idea of any form offoul play...so maybe with this in mind hrdlickas level of percieved doubt( at least by me lol) might indeed not make things as"obvious" as might appear.
tks
maybe its all down to the way in which every individual interprets things.yes i accept that the scientific brethren do indeed tend to leave themselves a get out clause. but judging from the way the document (andweare both presuming its word for word correct) is presented i think it must leave room for doubt. after all a bullet hole is either a bullet hole or it isnt. by saying probabley must indicate uncertainty whether to a large or a small degree is unclear.and of course just the semantics of his report isnt the complete picture is it?as allready discussed in depth earlier at least 2 other agencies dismissed the idea of any form offoul play...so maybe with this in mind hrdlickas level of percieved doubt( at least by me lol) might indeed not make things as"obvious" as might appear.
tks
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Doctor's Doubt?
DED,
If you stop looking after reading Kollenborn's account, you might think that Dr. Hrdlicka was not absolutely sure that Dr. Ruth was shot. While I don't usually quote this lady or her book, I will make an exception here because I believe it is a statement which the truth or falsity of, could easily be determined. It will be interesting to see if anyone steps up to confirm or deny the existence of such evidence.
Helen Corbin states in her LDM Bible on page 306: "Twelve years later, Sims Ely interviewed Dr. Hrdlicka, who by then had retired. He told Sims he remembered every detail of the case and added two more details - the caliber of the fatal bullet was a .44 or .45, and the shot had been fired from an old model army revolver." If this interview actually took place and the details of the conversation are as described, it puts Dr. Hrdlicka's conclusions in a whole new light.
In the paragraph that follows this statement, she writes: "Deputy Sheriff Jeff Adams accompanied Tex Barkley on the final search. On a brushy ridge overlooking West Boulder Canyon, a considerable distance from where the skull was discovered, they found the dismembered skeleton of the elder Ruth." (emphasis in bold by Joe) That might also give you some pause. Did she just make a mistatement? If not, where did she get this information? It seems obvious, to me, that she made a mistake here or that someone (Sheriff J.D. Adams) and others lied and "someone" told another story.
Some of the members here who have done more research and seen more documentation than I have, know the truth of the matter. Perhaps they will tell us what they have seen and where they have seen it.
As for the authorities failing to do their job, surely you are kidding.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
If you stop looking after reading Kollenborn's account, you might think that Dr. Hrdlicka was not absolutely sure that Dr. Ruth was shot. While I don't usually quote this lady or her book, I will make an exception here because I believe it is a statement which the truth or falsity of, could easily be determined. It will be interesting to see if anyone steps up to confirm or deny the existence of such evidence.
Helen Corbin states in her LDM Bible on page 306: "Twelve years later, Sims Ely interviewed Dr. Hrdlicka, who by then had retired. He told Sims he remembered every detail of the case and added two more details - the caliber of the fatal bullet was a .44 or .45, and the shot had been fired from an old model army revolver." If this interview actually took place and the details of the conversation are as described, it puts Dr. Hrdlicka's conclusions in a whole new light.
In the paragraph that follows this statement, she writes: "Deputy Sheriff Jeff Adams accompanied Tex Barkley on the final search. On a brushy ridge overlooking West Boulder Canyon, a considerable distance from where the skull was discovered, they found the dismembered skeleton of the elder Ruth." (emphasis in bold by Joe) That might also give you some pause. Did she just make a mistatement? If not, where did she get this information? It seems obvious, to me, that she made a mistake here or that someone (Sheriff J.D. Adams) and others lied and "someone" told another story.
Some of the members here who have done more research and seen more documentation than I have, know the truth of the matter. Perhaps they will tell us what they have seen and where they have seen it.
As for the authorities failing to do their job, surely you are kidding.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Dease and Joe: When it comes to if,s It could be a bow and arrow wound or a lance wound or a gunshot wound BUT it looks just like some of the gunshot wounds that we had around here back in the early 1970,s We had some looong hot summers and the crazies come unhinged we had 33 killing in 3 months time. The next year we had 31 killing in 3 months time, it was another looong hot summer. It looked like it was going to pass the old record but it didn,t. If we had the skull we could find out. By the way the first long hot summer just about killed all the wino,s off in Muldrow, We had 6 killing one rape in one nite. This happened all around my home. Bill
-
dutch elm disease
- Part Timer
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm
well joe its hard to know just how much credence can be given to any of corbins claims. but if indeed the said conversation DID take place it seems rather convenient that dr hrdlicka suddenly recalled such intimate details i.e not only being certain but even identifying calibre and gun type.one might wonder why he didnt include these revelations in his original report.while im not saying these conversations of hrdlicka ely and the rest didnt take place...they do ..depending on which part of the fence one is sitting appear at first glance to be somewhat fortuitious( im not sure if that last word is spelt correctly).
as for police force not doing job properly..well who knows? but i just cannot see why the police the coroner and countless others woulddeliberately falsify the (if one believes the supposedly obvious state of ruths skull)evidence. to protect the perpetrator? why not just say murder by person(s) unknown? im sure both coroner and local police would have superiors they would be accountable to.and by all accounts the commotion erwin kicked up must have led tosome kind of inquiry? i think the whole ruth affair might well have been jumped upon by authors and pressmen to create a far greater mystery than in reality exists . if truth be told what other fate could be expected of a 66/76 year old guy with a gait impediment going into the mounts at the time that he did....unfamiliar with terrain..alone (eventually) accompanied with nothing but a collection of most probabley fraudelent treasure guides...methinks it would have been a miracle if heHAD survived!
another point which has intrigued me is while the ruth story has gained notoriety and widespread publicity ..very rarely does the james cravey story get a mention.yet there is a tale just as gory ...just as mysterious(supposedly maybe even more so. why did ruth become a legend while cravey is ignored?
authors feed all of us gullible souls a diet of b.s morning noon and night....instead of looking for the simple answer they instead search relentlessly for the complicated one...creating mysteries where none exist.aaaaaaaaa methinks i talk too much.
bill
sorry tohear bout the recent crime wave in your neighbourhood...i truly hope that life is returning to normal for the survivors. i am of course assuming that a few did survive.
as for police force not doing job properly..well who knows? but i just cannot see why the police the coroner and countless others woulddeliberately falsify the (if one believes the supposedly obvious state of ruths skull)evidence. to protect the perpetrator? why not just say murder by person(s) unknown? im sure both coroner and local police would have superiors they would be accountable to.and by all accounts the commotion erwin kicked up must have led tosome kind of inquiry? i think the whole ruth affair might well have been jumped upon by authors and pressmen to create a far greater mystery than in reality exists . if truth be told what other fate could be expected of a 66/76 year old guy with a gait impediment going into the mounts at the time that he did....unfamiliar with terrain..alone (eventually) accompanied with nothing but a collection of most probabley fraudelent treasure guides...methinks it would have been a miracle if heHAD survived!
another point which has intrigued me is while the ruth story has gained notoriety and widespread publicity ..very rarely does the james cravey story get a mention.yet there is a tale just as gory ...just as mysterious(supposedly maybe even more so. why did ruth become a legend while cravey is ignored?
authors feed all of us gullible souls a diet of b.s morning noon and night....instead of looking for the simple answer they instead search relentlessly for the complicated one...creating mysteries where none exist.aaaaaaaaa methinks i talk too much.
bill
sorry tohear bout the recent crime wave in your neighbourhood...i truly hope that life is returning to normal for the survivors. i am of course assuming that a few did survive.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
No Axe To Grind
DED,
Dr. Hrdlicka had no axe to grind here. He is more than just well respected. He was at the top of his profession and had no interest in the outcome of this story. If he actually said what has been reported in Corbin's book, I would not be one to question the motive or lack
thereof in a man of his stature. The reason that Dr. Hrdlicka would not state unequivocally the Dr. Ruth had been killed by a bullet through the head, was because he had no way of knowing if that was the cause of death. That phrasing would be standard procedure for any man of science, given the evidence he had to work with.
I think you should reread the James Cravey story and then the history of the Dr. Ruth story. If, after doing that, you still wonder why one story gained so much more notoriety over the other, I will be very surprised. I could be wrong, but I believe both stories have been given their proper due in the history of the LDM legend. Many years ago, my Uncle Chuck gave me a copy of the certificate of death for James Cravey. You might find it interesting to know, that Lottie C. Devine, Coroner for Pinal County,
Listed the cause of death as "lack of food, water and shelter".
I think any motives that the authorities may have had in coming to their conclusions would be pure speculation. That is something I have always been good at, but I will leave this one alone. It's a dead end for me.
I believe that Dr. Ruth was shot through the head with a handgun. I have seen my share of such wounds and feel he was killed for what he had, or what he knew. I am totally convinced that he did not die anywhere near where his body was found. Many will say that it does not really matter, because he had nothing of importance to begin with. There is a lot of weight in that conclusion.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo
Dr. Hrdlicka had no axe to grind here. He is more than just well respected. He was at the top of his profession and had no interest in the outcome of this story. If he actually said what has been reported in Corbin's book, I would not be one to question the motive or lack
thereof in a man of his stature. The reason that Dr. Hrdlicka would not state unequivocally the Dr. Ruth had been killed by a bullet through the head, was because he had no way of knowing if that was the cause of death. That phrasing would be standard procedure for any man of science, given the evidence he had to work with.
I think you should reread the James Cravey story and then the history of the Dr. Ruth story. If, after doing that, you still wonder why one story gained so much more notoriety over the other, I will be very surprised. I could be wrong, but I believe both stories have been given their proper due in the history of the LDM legend. Many years ago, my Uncle Chuck gave me a copy of the certificate of death for James Cravey. You might find it interesting to know, that Lottie C. Devine, Coroner for Pinal County,
Listed the cause of death as "lack of food, water and shelter".
I think any motives that the authorities may have had in coming to their conclusions would be pure speculation. That is something I have always been good at, but I will leave this one alone. It's a dead end for me.
I believe that Dr. Ruth was shot through the head with a handgun. I have seen my share of such wounds and feel he was killed for what he had, or what he knew. I am totally convinced that he did not die anywhere near where his body was found. Many will say that it does not really matter, because he had nothing of importance to begin with. There is a lot of weight in that conclusion.
Respectfully,
Joe Ribaudo