I wasn't sure you were worth the visable profanity.
I have no doubt that you find a lot of things to hold your interest, on the soles of of your shoes. Probably not a good thing to advertise while your trying to impress folks with your intellect.
In the past, you have stated that you just don't have anything to add to the conversations on this forum. I said you were wrong, but you are working very hard to prove me wrong about that.
Joe Ribaudo wrote: ...Probably not a good thing to advertise while your trying to impress folks with your intellect.
That would be "you're", a contraction of "you are", as in "...while you are trying to impress..."
If you're going to try and be clever, at least spell it right.
Guess we will have to give this round to Wiz. Sometimes less is indeed more..and it is my opinion that the "blah, blah blah..." post byWiz was the decisive blow in this last contest.
Of course , as it is my opinion, I could be wrong.
If I had written out the profanity, it would have been visable. There was no substance to the posts, so it would be hard to "detract" anything from them.
joe,
very true, my attempted play on words was perhaps a little lame,but i tried .i suppose ill get into trouble for saying this,(so maybe id better apologise in advance) but i wouldnt single out your post for lack of substance ,when 99% of the posts have possibly even less substance to them.Im not heckling here but most of the posts ,interesting though some are,while dealing with the history of the area and the general time frame of waltzs supposed exploits have not(to me anyway) provided one piece of substantive evidence that waltz ever had a mine. Surmise,conjecture there is a-plenty,convenient explanations abound.But where ,oh where is there just ONE piece of indisputable proof that any of this happened?
Im still searching for a dwarf deer, so far ive had no luck.MAYBE SOMEONE can help me with that one. .
kind regards
"the cynic"
p.s actually it could just as easily been not "visable" or "visible" but indeed "risible" er or is it spelt risable?
I'm going to add my comments, ask one more question about this draft and then give it a rest for a while.
Frankly I'm starting to get a headache.
My gut feel is that our document is quite a bit further down the food chain than those Joe is referring to in "Control of Federal Expenditures". The Federal Government in Washington was always receiving claims for various services and goods and they certainly had to create some mechanism to control the accepting or rejecting of these claims. As I read some of the regulations, these are the types of transactions that keep popping to mind. I'm leaning toward Aurum's corner but hope I'm keeping an open mind. But that is neither here nor there as far as my question goes.
I am having trouble looking a this document as a fake, but I "give up" and will venture down that road a bit.
The biggest question to me is HOW?
I still tend to believe the form is legitimate from the 1881 time period.
Let's say someone, somewhere found a box of old documents that had been saved. Perhaps they could have taken a legitimate document (Already filled out) and removed the hand written data and substituted their own? Perhaps just the Jacob Waltz reference and the gold ore reference?
The question I have, that I suspect someone can help me with is the WHEN. Surely this document didn't just pop up one day in Corbin's book in 2002. There must have been whispered references to it's existence within the Dutchman Hunter community before this. Perhaps a long time?
Can someone Help? (just a rough time frame)
Novice,
The earliest public mention I've seen of the draft is in Dr. Glover's book (vol.1). In it, he had enough class to refrain from publishing it or mentioning its whereabouts, but he did use it as a primary data source.
I believe he did it this way because he didn't have the owners permission to publish it. That being the case, it seems unlikely to me that it would be a fake. What would be the point in making a phony document, and then not wishing it to be seen by the public?
Of course, it could have been forged at some point in the past for entirely different reasons, by someone not connected to the current owners. But I still don't see the point. What are your thoughts?
As much as it pains me to agree with Joe, I have to lean towards the idea that the document is a carefully constructed fake. I can’t imagine how anyone could obtain such a document and not carefully document all the details surrounding the discovery. Although the document is very interesting, Its creditability as a 19th century historical document hinges on it’s 20th century history. As pointed out by Novice, the 20th century history seems to be totally blank. Obviously there has been a deliberate effort to conceal the known details about the discovery of the document. I can only assume that these known details would do more to cast doubt on the authenticity of the document than support it if they were made public. Combine that with the excellent and detailed argument presented against its authenticity in view of the missing signatures presented by Joe and a definite picture begins to come into focus.
The “Finder” of this document obviously does not want to be subjected to the level of cross examination that the document is now being subjected to.
You are falling into a time-honored Ribaudo trap. Joe is after info (arent we all) and his modus operandi is to deride both the information and its
owner if none is forthcoming, in the hopes of obtaining what he seeks.
Why should someone who has obtained proprietary knowledge about "whatever" make that knowledge known on a public forum? As for myself, I have no opinion on the document and could care less whether its a fake or the real deal. Knowing the person involved and some of the history surrounding it, I am leaning towards the real deal.
So far, I am the ONLY one to provide any information, of substance, concerning this draft. When I say substance, I mean factual, provable, evidence concerning the manner in which the drafts actually work.
It was not easy to dig up that information, and there was no profit to be gained by my divulging the source to the forum. Every post that is made here is looking for a response. We are ALL hoping for someone else to add something to the conversation, perhaps something that we don't know.
My motives for posting here, are different than yours. I am no longer going into the mountains, you are. I am interested in the history, you believe there is still gold to be found and are seeking it. Nothing wrong with that, but we are in these conversations for different reasons.
I have provided a great deal more information to this forum, concerning the Superstitions and the legends that surround it, than I have ever received. You are an IDIOT for making that comment.
The reason I say that, is because the evidence to support the degree, and worth, of my participation in this forum has been read, post by post, by yourself and most of the other members. What you have retained from that reading is the only thing in question here.
I said that I was not totally convinced that the document was a fake. I have more information than what I have offered here. The source of that information is what keeps me from calling it a fake.
There are only a few of us who are not afraid to use our own names here.
For some, it is understandable. Others, like yourself, don't want to be held responsable for the crap you say and the veiled threats you have made. Since I have known who you are for some years now, I am able to "consider the source".
Having said all of that, if you are ever in Lake Havasu City, stop in for a chat. Face to face conversations have a way of revealing the real person behind the hidden identity. You have always been welcome here.
You are probably right, I walk into traps all the time. I guess if I hang around long enough I will learn. Looking at it from my point of view, using only what I have read in this form I have tried to use reason and logic to form my own opinions. You seem to have some background info about the Draft that is not known to all and could very well change my whole view on the matter and cause me to make adjustments to my reason and logic. Here is what I have come up with using my limited knowledge.
The Draft , even if authentic has a limited value or purpose within certain boundaries. Assuming for a moment that it is authentic;
What value or purpose would it then have?
It does not put anyone closer to the location of the LDM. It provides nothing in the way of verification of the fact that Jacob Waltz existed that cannot and has not already been verified by other and more reliable means.
It provides nothing in the way of proof that there is a rich gold mine somewhere in the Superstition Mountains, only that a man named Jacob Waltz (and there were many by that name during that time period) had in his possession at one time a certain quantity of gold. Our Jacob Waltz was a Miner! He was named on several recorded Mining Claims, and was always prospecting for new claims. All Miners and Prospectors have at one time or another made some kind of a strike.
This Draft is not going to change anyone’s mind about whether or not they believe in the existence of the LDM. Believers made up their mind long before the knowledge of the existence of the Draft was ever made public. Non-believers can poke holes in the theory that the draft verifies the existence of the LDM until the cows come home!
If authentic, would it not be in the best interest of the current owner to present the known 20th century history in support of it’s authenticity and increase it’s value to a potential buyer of historical memorabilia?
Now, assuming for a moment that the Draft is a fake;
If it is a fake, what could be gained by concealing the details of it’s discovery?
What value or purpose would it then have?
It could have an egotistical purpose or it could serve as a means of padding the wallet of the current owner. In either case, would it not be in the best interest of the owner to remain known only to a select group of individuals with fat bank accounts and overall obtuse about it’s 20th century background?
Further discussion and investigation into the authenticity of the document (in my own mind) seems to be pointless until the current owner comes out into the open with the 20th century history behind it.
I doubt there is a single forum member who does not know who I am by now.
You are correct, you have contributed a great deal of information about the history of the mountains. Not a single iota of which is going to help anyone find Waltzs' or Deering's mine.
As to the rest of your post...blah blah blah blah. I have been called an idiot by better men (and women) than you.
I doubt ego is the driving force behind the draft. It is much more likely that your "padding the wallet", assuming it is a fake, is closer to the truth.
There are any number of maps and stories that were created, floated, and circulated through the Dutch Hunting community for a goodly amount of time. The purpose of the time, was to give them weight as "fact". They then turn up in someone's book as "new" enformation, never before published.
There is additional information concerning this draft. It is not mine to expose to the public. Those who hold this information as "from the source" will choose the time and place to reveall it.
My focus has been to question the authenticity, not the source.
redison wrote:The Draft , even if authentic has a limited value or purpose within certain boundaries. Assuming for a moment that it is authentic;
What value or purpose would it then have?
It does not put anyone closer to the location of the LDM. It provides nothing in the way of verification of the fact that Jacob Waltz existed that cannot and has not already been verified by other and more reliable means.
It provides nothing in the way of proof that there is a rich gold mine somewhere in the Superstition Mountains, only that a man named Jacob Waltz (and there were many by that name during that time period) had in his possession at one time a certain quantity of gold. Our Jacob Waltz was a Miner! He was named on several recorded Mining Claims, and was always prospecting for new claims. All Miners and Prospectors have at one time or another made some kind of a strike.
Redison,
Assuming the draft to be real, the only thing it really does is provide evidence that Jacob Waltz (and it is our boy - IIRC, the signature on it matches Waltz's signature on other documents) did indeed have substantial amounts of gold during the timeframe in which the LDM stories were being hatched. You're right, it could all have come from somewhere else.
Then again, it might have come from the LDM!
It's just one more little document which, added to many others, might help either substantiate or invalidate the whole idea of the LDM. Of course, if it's a fake, then it means nothing. But you're also correct about: what would be the motive for faking it and then hiding it?
I'll let other forum members decide whether I have contributed anything substantive to the forum or not. Those who can read behind the riddles
know what I am all about. There's more important things than gold in them thar hills....
I suppose I should throw in my opinion about things.
I tend to believe the document is "real." I doubt it was "forged." But, I think we just do not understand enough about how the PROCESS worked back then to make a judgement on what we see now. It is obviously a document out of context in a process.
The document could be real. But our conclusions about it are wrong. I know a lot of information has been presented on how "this thing" worked and how "that thing" worked. But there are always exceptions. And are we really understanding how a certain thing worked in a certain situation? That being the case - if the document was real and our "conclusions" are wrong - then what we are seeing is a record of a transaction that has nothing to do with what we are thinking. Perhaps there was another Jacob Waltz - and he lived in Kansas and did something. And this ended up in the hands of the family in question that claims to be related to Waltz - and they misunderstood what it was all about. And, as it passed from hand to hand - generation to generation, the "understanding" of it developed a life of its own.
The current discussion is all healthy to the process of understanding the issue better. But, between me, all of you, and a gate post, I'd like for it - when it's all said and done - to be validated. At this point, I still lean towards all that Aurum has been pointing out about there being a process involved - and, to get to the bottom of things, we have to understand how that worked - in that situation - at that time.
Regarding whether it was an outright "fake" - though I still doubt that - there is always the possibility that it could be. But not on the part of any current Dutch researchers - or of the Roberts family - to whom Ms. Corbin indicated the document was first presented. It must be understood there were some incorrect details given out - either intentionally or unintentionaly - in Ms. Corbin's book. And some things left out - either intentionally or unintentionally. And I have to say that is understandable as how much information she was trying to sort through and present. But the bottom line of the issue is that when it was presented by members of this family to members of the Roberts family, it was taken at face value - for at the time no one had any reason to believe the individuals involved would have reason to "fake" anything. But if it did happen. It was with them (members of the family claiming to be related to Waltz) that would have done so - and not anyone receiving it.
My own research into the said family is still underway and I am leery of making any judgements or false assumptions until I know more. There is a lot of evidence indicating they could be related to Waltz in some way. But, regardless of that, there is no way to know for sure whether the transfer of $7000 ever really occured other than what we have now. All I can say is that members of that family have that incident in their oral family history - and now accept it as fact.
However, my own research as well has come across similar situations - that of people being absolutely positive they were related to Jacob Waltz - but, after research - it was discovered they were not related at all. BUT they believe they are and have elaborate stories - even with interesting details - related to Jacob Waltz and even the Lost Dutchman Mine. But, facts to do not substaniate it - despite how much they want to "believe" it to be true.
So, for now, that is about all we can assume about anything until we can understand the facets of the issue better.
Steve,
I consider you to be the voice of authority on this matter.
Thanks for your balanced view, this discussion has been getting kind of "out there".
My reasoning and logic determined (in my mind) that missing 20th century history pertaining to the document is being concealed because it does not support the authenticity of the document.
Your responses provide reassurance that there is a certain amount of information concerning this Draft that is known only to select individuals.
In view of that, I guess I will reserve my final judgement of the authenticity of it based on the idea that I am just not familiar with all the facts. But, I still feel that the disclosure of the missing information would benifit the owner in the case that the Draft were authentic, and witholding the information could only benifit the owner if the draft were a fake.
Joe
Get over yourself! You're just not that big of a deal.
I don't remember you ever using your name here. My post was not aimed at you, as you are never impolite, nor do you ever stray from the facts, as you know them. And no one knows them better than you.
I also hope the draft will turn out to be authentic. My feelings about that are split because of what I have read, and the fact that you have told me what you believe, and why.
It is an important document, because it is the only real proof that Jacob Waltz ever possessed gold in a large amount. We all know he had gold, but physical evidence is impossible to come by.
Saying the draft is an "outright fake" is a long way from saying it is "suspect".
It's always nice to get the "facts", especially from a trusted source. That would be you.
.i suppose ill get into trouble for saying this,(so maybe id better apologise in advance) but i wouldnt single out your post for lack of substance ,when 99% of the posts have possibly even less substance to them.Im not heckling here but most of the posts ,interesting though some are,while dealing with the history of the area and the general time frame of waltzs supposed exploits have not(to me anyway) provided one piece of substantive evidence that waltz ever had a mine. Surmise,conjecture there is a-plenty,convenient explanations abound.But where ,oh where is there just ONE piece of indisputable proof that any of this happened? 