Joe and Wiz,
There seem to be two possibilities from an "historical" perspective as to why Deering was intent on working at the King.
1) He was waiting for a partnership agreement to expire.
2) He was waiting for a "partner" to arrive on the scene.
Much has been made of the former possiblity while the latter has been ignored.
Why did Deering say he was waiting for a partner? Because he needed his partner to help open and explore the tunnel below the shafts. Deering describes the tunnel as a "rock wall that had settled some". He describes the shafts as "pretty well filled in". This would indicate that, being a mining man, he knew there would be a large amount of work to do and prefered to wait for help.
Deering Comments
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Best Evidence
Peter,
The best evidence for this would have to be from Jim Bark. He does not mention waiting for a partner to arrive and states that Deering told Chuning he did not want a partner. It is obvious that he intended to work the mine alone. Chuning would have no reason to lie on this point, so I think it is safe to assume Bark got the truth. I can think of no reason for Bark to lie in his notes. Brownie Holmes states that Deering asked Chuning to put up money and work the mine with him. Chuning agreed,
but on the condition that Deering wait one month. You can take your pick as to the truth of the matter, but one thing is obvious. Deering was not waiting for a partner to show up to work the mine.
I think I have given a reasonable account of why I believe there was no grubstake agreement in force, in the Twin Buttes discussion.
Thanks for moving this into it's own topic. I was having such a good time, I just didn't want to take the time.
Joe
The best evidence for this would have to be from Jim Bark. He does not mention waiting for a partner to arrive and states that Deering told Chuning he did not want a partner. It is obvious that he intended to work the mine alone. Chuning would have no reason to lie on this point, so I think it is safe to assume Bark got the truth. I can think of no reason for Bark to lie in his notes. Brownie Holmes states that Deering asked Chuning to put up money and work the mine with him. Chuning agreed,
but on the condition that Deering wait one month. You can take your pick as to the truth of the matter, but one thing is obvious. Deering was not waiting for a partner to show up to work the mine.
I think I have given a reasonable account of why I believe there was no grubstake agreement in force, in the Twin Buttes discussion.
Thanks for moving this into it's own topic. I was having such a good time, I just didn't want to take the time.
Joe
Last edited by Joe Ribaudo on Mon Feb 03, 2003 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Digging up Clues
Peter,
No need to dig for the information, unless you intend use someone other then Holmes or Bark for a source.
One thing is obvious in this story. One or more of the three players is lying here. It could be Bark or it could be Holmes. Now the kicker in this little tale, is that it could also be John Chuning, lying to both of them and thinking that no one would ever know. If it was Chuning, who would be the likely recipient of a lie? Holmes, who offered to become his partner, and was turned down, or Bark who actually became his partner? Your call here.
Joe Deering died in 1885. Chuning did not start his own search until 1892, although Bark thought it was in the late 1880s. I believe the later date was conjured-up by those who wanted to believe the Holmes story and that required that Chuning not start his search until after Oct. 25,1891. Is this another case of rewriting history? Why did Chunning wait any time at all, if he was ready to partner-up with Deering and go, in thirty days? Deering told him the five pounds of ore he had "evidently was thrown away as waste." Chuning said "it was quite rich." That's Barks description of what happened. Bark had two sources for this part of the story. Holmes tells a completely different story without a second source. The Deering story is all over the place, who knows what the truth of the matter is.
Joe
No need to dig for the information, unless you intend use someone other then Holmes or Bark for a source.
One thing is obvious in this story. One or more of the three players is lying here. It could be Bark or it could be Holmes. Now the kicker in this little tale, is that it could also be John Chuning, lying to both of them and thinking that no one would ever know. If it was Chuning, who would be the likely recipient of a lie? Holmes, who offered to become his partner, and was turned down, or Bark who actually became his partner? Your call here.
Joe Deering died in 1885. Chuning did not start his own search until 1892, although Bark thought it was in the late 1880s. I believe the later date was conjured-up by those who wanted to believe the Holmes story and that required that Chuning not start his search until after Oct. 25,1891. Is this another case of rewriting history? Why did Chunning wait any time at all, if he was ready to partner-up with Deering and go, in thirty days? Deering told him the five pounds of ore he had "evidently was thrown away as waste." Chuning said "it was quite rich." That's Barks description of what happened. Bark had two sources for this part of the story. Holmes tells a completely different story without a second source. The Deering story is all over the place, who knows what the truth of the matter is.
Joe
Below are some Deering sources, along with their comments about the "partner". I would be leery of most of the comments from the book authors and more interested in the originals. Yes there are a couple of sources I do not mention...we all keep a few "secrets" after all. 
Bark Notes #1 #2 #3.
I have three different copies of the Notes (am working on the other 4 copies, but from what I understand the elusive 7th copy has been..well
"lifted"..if I might borrow a word from Treasure Island). All of my copies talk about the Deering waiting for a partnership agreement to run out.
Lost Dutchman Mine by Ely
Sims states that "Dearing" (sic) was waiting for a partner to arrive. I'd take this one with a grain of salt, as old Sims seems to have deliberately
fogged over some info in his book.
Holmes Manuscript (annotated by Tom Glover)
Deering and Chunning form a partnership.
Holmes Manuscript #1 & #2 (I have 2 different type-written copies)
Both talk about the Deering/Chunning partnership. These two manuscripts are striking in their similarities AND differences. I cant help but think that one of them is a not-so-clever forgery.
I Came I Saw I Conquered (by Robert Simpson Jacob)
Yes Crazy Jake. Laugh if you must, but I beleive Jake had compiled alot of solid LDM info over time...much of it culled from contemporaries like Bill Barkley..who knew a thing or two about the LDM. Echoes the Deering/Partnership angle from the Bark Notes.
John Chunning (by Tom Kollenborn)
An excellent little article about the life and times of Chunning. The Chunning Trail, the rope ladders on Tortilla, the Chunning Trench...all are prominently mentioned. Doesnt get too in depth on th eDeering angle, but is a good article nonetheless.
My favorite source for Deering info comes from a latter day seeker of the mine. It includes the drawing of Weavers Needle that I have talked about...along with an interesting map that fits a certain area of the mountains (alas, there is no "X" marks the spot on the map...only landmarks that still exist). This talks of a "partner" (not Chunning). I wonder if Ely derived his info from this same source?
The Deering/Chunning angle still fascinates. Some think it is total rubbish..some beleive it happened..probably along the lines of Jim Bark's Notes. Who can say for sure?
Bark Notes #1 #2 #3.
I have three different copies of the Notes (am working on the other 4 copies, but from what I understand the elusive 7th copy has been..well
"lifted"..if I might borrow a word from Treasure Island). All of my copies talk about the Deering waiting for a partnership agreement to run out.
Lost Dutchman Mine by Ely
Sims states that "Dearing" (sic) was waiting for a partner to arrive. I'd take this one with a grain of salt, as old Sims seems to have deliberately
fogged over some info in his book.
Holmes Manuscript (annotated by Tom Glover)
Deering and Chunning form a partnership.
Holmes Manuscript #1 & #2 (I have 2 different type-written copies)
Both talk about the Deering/Chunning partnership. These two manuscripts are striking in their similarities AND differences. I cant help but think that one of them is a not-so-clever forgery.
I Came I Saw I Conquered (by Robert Simpson Jacob)
Yes Crazy Jake. Laugh if you must, but I beleive Jake had compiled alot of solid LDM info over time...much of it culled from contemporaries like Bill Barkley..who knew a thing or two about the LDM. Echoes the Deering/Partnership angle from the Bark Notes.
John Chunning (by Tom Kollenborn)
An excellent little article about the life and times of Chunning. The Chunning Trail, the rope ladders on Tortilla, the Chunning Trench...all are prominently mentioned. Doesnt get too in depth on th eDeering angle, but is a good article nonetheless.
My favorite source for Deering info comes from a latter day seeker of the mine. It includes the drawing of Weavers Needle that I have talked about...along with an interesting map that fits a certain area of the mountains (alas, there is no "X" marks the spot on the map...only landmarks that still exist). This talks of a "partner" (not Chunning). I wonder if Ely derived his info from this same source?
The Deering/Chunning angle still fascinates. Some think it is total rubbish..some beleive it happened..probably along the lines of Jim Bark's Notes. Who can say for sure?
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Pick of the Litter
Peter,
It would seem that you have a lot of material to choose from. I went back through all of our posts on this Deering matter, and one thing becomes obvious to me. You have taken the information from several sources and used it to confirm your own conclusions, and you are not yet through looking at other sources from the same man. I have one copy, from a friend, of the Bark Notes and will not confuse myself by reading six other versions. I will accept the version from the Phoenix library. It is the grubstake version.
My mother,s uncle, Obie Stoker, spent a lot of time with Crazy Jake. Their partnership ended at the end of Obie's rifle and on a trail in your area of interest. They never crossed paths again, which probably was for the best, because one or both would have ended up dead, more than likely Uncle Obie. I have heard just enough to discount anything that
low-life, lying thief may have said or written. I am not, however, laughing at your using him for a source in this matter. I am sure you are sitting around some of Jake's old campfires.
Ely's book was massaged before going to print after his death. It is quite possible that they felt the Deering story made little sense and added some "facts".
I have asked a lot of questions on this story, which you were unable to offer a reasonable explanation for and a lot that you completley ignored. Since this is your particular cup of tea, I assumed you would be able to present a valid, fact-based theory. Since there are so many versions of the same story, I would hope you could pick just one to hang your hat on. Only one version of someone's notes can be the correct one. I must assume that you base your conclusions on unpublished information. It would be a good thing for you if that information had been published or made public so that it could be examined by us all.
Your "later-day seeker of the mine" has information that has not been tested for truth by the Dutch Hunters as a group. That would be the best test of all since we all have a tendancy to disagree. Debate on the evidence is the best finder of truth. You are a well educated and intelligent
person, but you could use some opposing opinions in your research. That's why I put together a team for my own search.
"At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." That Bible quote has stood the test of time and is still a good yardstick today. Ron may need to consider that in his Ted Cox story, or maybe he has.
Joe
It would seem that you have a lot of material to choose from. I went back through all of our posts on this Deering matter, and one thing becomes obvious to me. You have taken the information from several sources and used it to confirm your own conclusions, and you are not yet through looking at other sources from the same man. I have one copy, from a friend, of the Bark Notes and will not confuse myself by reading six other versions. I will accept the version from the Phoenix library. It is the grubstake version.
My mother,s uncle, Obie Stoker, spent a lot of time with Crazy Jake. Their partnership ended at the end of Obie's rifle and on a trail in your area of interest. They never crossed paths again, which probably was for the best, because one or both would have ended up dead, more than likely Uncle Obie. I have heard just enough to discount anything that
low-life, lying thief may have said or written. I am not, however, laughing at your using him for a source in this matter. I am sure you are sitting around some of Jake's old campfires.
Ely's book was massaged before going to print after his death. It is quite possible that they felt the Deering story made little sense and added some "facts".
I have asked a lot of questions on this story, which you were unable to offer a reasonable explanation for and a lot that you completley ignored. Since this is your particular cup of tea, I assumed you would be able to present a valid, fact-based theory. Since there are so many versions of the same story, I would hope you could pick just one to hang your hat on. Only one version of someone's notes can be the correct one. I must assume that you base your conclusions on unpublished information. It would be a good thing for you if that information had been published or made public so that it could be examined by us all.
Your "later-day seeker of the mine" has information that has not been tested for truth by the Dutch Hunters as a group. That would be the best test of all since we all have a tendancy to disagree. Debate on the evidence is the best finder of truth. You are a well educated and intelligent
person, but you could use some opposing opinions in your research. That's why I put together a team for my own search.
"At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." That Bible quote has stood the test of time and is still a good yardstick today. Ron may need to consider that in his Ted Cox story, or maybe he has.
Joe
Joe
I figured the Crazy Jake mention would raise some hackles on alot of folks. I know some people who have had run ins with him or his crew in the past. I still hold that Jake had some solid info to go on....he just had tunnel vision..trying to fit every story into his area of interest (ie: the south end of Malapais Mtn and Squaw Canyon). Many of his landmarks and campsites are still visible today..tho I will admit I have never camped in that vicinity.
I figured the Crazy Jake mention would raise some hackles on alot of folks. I know some people who have had run ins with him or his crew in the past. I still hold that Jake had some solid info to go on....he just had tunnel vision..trying to fit every story into his area of interest (ie: the south end of Malapais Mtn and Squaw Canyon). Many of his landmarks and campsites are still visible today..tho I will admit I have never camped in that vicinity.
Reply
We have - yet again - another butting of heads and a difference of opinion.
Most things like this that people feeling strongly about usually seems to come down to someone having information that makes them strongly believe in something. But, for the purposes of an arguemnet they cannot discuss such things in the context of something like this forum.
I, too, have what some might call "secret information" that leads me to put stock into the Deering tale. It may or may not be what Peter is referring to. But, that is irrelavent. The thing is it all comes down to faith. Even if Peter discussed what he knew - or we discussed what I know - and to heck with all promises of confidentiality or the keeping of sectrets - some still would discount the information and continue to believe what they want to believe - and disbelieve what they wish to dis-believe.
I have read Peter's postings for a long time. I believe I understand where he is coming from - and I too have that same outlook. That is - using multiple sources that all work as a whole. I believe - and he probably does as well - that it is impossible to put all of your eggs in one basket - or to put your hat on only one story or one version of events. Some might think this implies "bending" the facts to fit a preconceived idea. I have to disagree and say it is the opposite. For example, one cannot believe all of the Bark Notes. Nor all of anything. Therefore one must invoke the time honored rule of Dutch Hunting "one must separate the wheat from the chaffe..." Therefore all one can be left with is bits and pieces and making what one will of them.
So, maybe no one will win an argument. Nor will anyone change anyone's mind about something. We will all believe what we have faith in believing. That is all anyone can hope to do.
Most things like this that people feeling strongly about usually seems to come down to someone having information that makes them strongly believe in something. But, for the purposes of an arguemnet they cannot discuss such things in the context of something like this forum.
I, too, have what some might call "secret information" that leads me to put stock into the Deering tale. It may or may not be what Peter is referring to. But, that is irrelavent. The thing is it all comes down to faith. Even if Peter discussed what he knew - or we discussed what I know - and to heck with all promises of confidentiality or the keeping of sectrets - some still would discount the information and continue to believe what they want to believe - and disbelieve what they wish to dis-believe.
I have read Peter's postings for a long time. I believe I understand where he is coming from - and I too have that same outlook. That is - using multiple sources that all work as a whole. I believe - and he probably does as well - that it is impossible to put all of your eggs in one basket - or to put your hat on only one story or one version of events. Some might think this implies "bending" the facts to fit a preconceived idea. I have to disagree and say it is the opposite. For example, one cannot believe all of the Bark Notes. Nor all of anything. Therefore one must invoke the time honored rule of Dutch Hunting "one must separate the wheat from the chaffe..." Therefore all one can be left with is bits and pieces and making what one will of them.
So, maybe no one will win an argument. Nor will anyone change anyone's mind about something. We will all believe what we have faith in believing. That is all anyone can hope to do.
Re: Pick of the Litter
Joe, you're saying that one version is entirely correct, and all others are false. I don't think it's that simple. These things are doctored up a little with each version, depending on the Dutch hunting propensities of the editor. There can be a little truth and a lot of BS in each version. Pilate asked Christ what is truth? and it's still a good question.Joe Ribaudo wrote: Since there are so many versions of the same story, I would hope you could pick just one to hang your hat on. Only one version of someone's notes can be the correct one.
And surely you don't think Peter should publish his hard-won facts here on this forum for all of us to examine! Or at least, surely you don't think he's going to (and I didn't call you Shirley!). Of course it would be nice if he did, but I don't agree that the scrutiny of the Dutch hunting community will necessarily validate or invalidate his views. We all have our own views. If his fit in with yours, they'd be valid. If they didn't, they'd be nonsense.
What will validate someone's views will be some gold that matches the Dutchmans gold.
Deering comments
Well said Wiz.
Peter,
You are right about Jake having very good information. Jake didn't have tunnel vision, but one has to know he was out there for a different reason than most of us , I presume. His was the big con. To be sucessful at it , he had to be convincing and stay in one area. Back to his sources , which were pretty good. I was present , when he was with Chuck Aylor and they were discussing Deering and Chunning. They were to partner up (Deering and Chunning) .I remember some other things from a very long conversation that they had, but again to quote them, it might be difficult; however from the tapes Chuck made for me before he died, I could refresh my memory. I guess when time allows , I'll do just that. If anything is new I'll let you know. There are other tapes arouind from Chuck, and I have heard some of them also.
Peter,
You are right about Jake having very good information. Jake didn't have tunnel vision, but one has to know he was out there for a different reason than most of us , I presume. His was the big con. To be sucessful at it , he had to be convincing and stay in one area. Back to his sources , which were pretty good. I was present , when he was with Chuck Aylor and they were discussing Deering and Chunning. They were to partner up (Deering and Chunning) .I remember some other things from a very long conversation that they had, but again to quote them, it might be difficult; however from the tapes Chuck made for me before he died, I could refresh my memory. I guess when time allows , I'll do just that. If anything is new I'll let you know. There are other tapes arouind from Chuck, and I have heard some of them also.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
A Little Clarification
Wiz,
I don't think Peter or anyone else should make the exclusive information that they possess public. If you are going to debate your conclusions on an open forum, it does not advance your point to refer to facts that the people you are debating do not have access to. We all need to use the information that is available to the group as a whole for the purpose of any open discussion. If you advance a theory that is based on evidence that only you possess, there can be no further debate on the issue.
The seven versions of the Bark Notes, if Aurum is correct and I personally would Never doubt that, then my point would be unchanged by any other version. The fact that something is repeated by a number of people over a long period of time does not verify the truth of the matter. How much respect you have for those people also does not prove the truth of the statements they are repeating.
The truth of the various stories concerning Joe Deering and John Chuning or Chunning, whichever you prefer, are not something we can decide in 2003. The only questions for me would be: Is the story in question sensible? Is it logical? Is there any way to verify the source, such as the word of a second eyewitness to the event? If I quote something that Al Morrow told me, and swore it was the truth, does that make it true?
It seems to me, if you take one point from the Bark story concerning Deering because it fits your area of interest and then another from Holmes, Glover and Jacobs, who may all disagree on the substance of the facts, you might be making up your own story to fit your conclusions.
Peter,
Someone recently told me that you had "forgotten more information then he's seen about the Supes". I second that statement. That does not mean you are correct in your conclusions, only that you have a better chance at being correct then most. Wouldn't it be something if Chuning found the mine and there was nothing in it?
Joe
I don't think Peter or anyone else should make the exclusive information that they possess public. If you are going to debate your conclusions on an open forum, it does not advance your point to refer to facts that the people you are debating do not have access to. We all need to use the information that is available to the group as a whole for the purpose of any open discussion. If you advance a theory that is based on evidence that only you possess, there can be no further debate on the issue.
The seven versions of the Bark Notes, if Aurum is correct and I personally would Never doubt that, then my point would be unchanged by any other version. The fact that something is repeated by a number of people over a long period of time does not verify the truth of the matter. How much respect you have for those people also does not prove the truth of the statements they are repeating.
The truth of the various stories concerning Joe Deering and John Chuning or Chunning, whichever you prefer, are not something we can decide in 2003. The only questions for me would be: Is the story in question sensible? Is it logical? Is there any way to verify the source, such as the word of a second eyewitness to the event? If I quote something that Al Morrow told me, and swore it was the truth, does that make it true?
It seems to me, if you take one point from the Bark story concerning Deering because it fits your area of interest and then another from Holmes, Glover and Jacobs, who may all disagree on the substance of the facts, you might be making up your own story to fit your conclusions.
Peter,
Someone recently told me that you had "forgotten more information then he's seen about the Supes". I second that statement. That does not mean you are correct in your conclusions, only that you have a better chance at being correct then most. Wouldn't it be something if Chuning found the mine and there was nothing in it?
Joe
Deering comments
I reviewed the information I had on Aylor on Chunning. This should muddy up the water more.
Chunning was a change over attendant for the stage at Roosevelt. On weekends he boarded the stage and got off at Tortilla Flat. One day he was picked up and had two durham sacks of gold nuggets. He hired a couple of burros and could return in a day from where he supposedly found the gold. Aylor figured a burro could make 15 miles in that kind of country , in one day. He furthered stated that Chunning actually partnered with a barber from Mesa. Of course he died of jaundice and so the story ends. Aylor also states that Brownie Holmes tried to partner with Chunning and he would have nothing to do with him.Chuck Aylor claimed he was told this separately by Bill Barkley and Abe Reid.
Chunning was a change over attendant for the stage at Roosevelt. On weekends he boarded the stage and got off at Tortilla Flat. One day he was picked up and had two durham sacks of gold nuggets. He hired a couple of burros and could return in a day from where he supposedly found the gold. Aylor figured a burro could make 15 miles in that kind of country , in one day. He furthered stated that Chunning actually partnered with a barber from Mesa. Of course he died of jaundice and so the story ends. Aylor also states that Brownie Holmes tried to partner with Chunning and he would have nothing to do with him.Chuck Aylor claimed he was told this separately by Bill Barkley and Abe Reid.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
The Plot Thickens
Ron,
Now that's, a nice twist. Bark says, speaking of John Chuning, "he was in his usual condition financially broke". The mine they worked together never produced a great deal of gold, so that story may have some problems. We could of course assume that Bark lied about John's habitual, broke condition, perhaps to make himself look better in his notes. If we all repeat this story for twenty years or so, it may be accepted as the real deal
Joe
Now that's, a nice twist. Bark says, speaking of John Chuning, "he was in his usual condition financially broke". The mine they worked together never produced a great deal of gold, so that story may have some problems. We could of course assume that Bark lied about John's habitual, broke condition, perhaps to make himself look better in his notes. If we all repeat this story for twenty years or so, it may be accepted as the real deal
Joe
Joe,
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to this forum.
You seem to enjoy making debate points, or keeping some sort of forum scorecard. If that's what you enjoy...have at it.
I like to BS about the LDM. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else
about the validity of my own lunatic theories. The thing I stress over and over again is that there is a wealth of info out there concerning the history of the LDM, the men that looked (and still do) for it and the history of the mountains. If you or anyone else is seriously interested in the mine, then research....and come to your own conclusions.
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to this forum.
You seem to enjoy making debate points, or keeping some sort of forum scorecard. If that's what you enjoy...have at it.
I like to BS about the LDM. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else
about the validity of my own lunatic theories. The thing I stress over and over again is that there is a wealth of info out there concerning the history of the LDM, the men that looked (and still do) for it and the history of the mountains. If you or anyone else is seriously interested in the mine, then research....and come to your own conclusions.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Different Approach
Peter,
Shows you how dense I am. I thought we had the same approach all this time. It's true, I have enjoyed our debates over who, what, where and when and thought you did too. Not to worry, most of the time I agree with you, but just want to know how sure you are of your facts.
I don't keep a scorecard, but I do pay attention to what others say on the forum. I like to push the conversation in order to arrive at some kind of understanding of the other guy's point of view. Your's, as well as the other members of the forum, are all of value and deserve respect. I respect your views, even when I disagree with them. I know you are coming from a position of strength, derived from hard won knowledge. None of your conclusions are wrong because they are all based on the information you received from your research. By the same token, none of our conclusions are wrong for the very same reason. Why we believe what we do, in this case, is sometimes more important then what we believe.
Joe
Shows you how dense I am. I thought we had the same approach all this time. It's true, I have enjoyed our debates over who, what, where and when and thought you did too. Not to worry, most of the time I agree with you, but just want to know how sure you are of your facts.
I don't keep a scorecard, but I do pay attention to what others say on the forum. I like to push the conversation in order to arrive at some kind of understanding of the other guy's point of view. Your's, as well as the other members of the forum, are all of value and deserve respect. I respect your views, even when I disagree with them. I know you are coming from a position of strength, derived from hard won knowledge. None of your conclusions are wrong because they are all based on the information you received from your research. By the same token, none of our conclusions are wrong for the very same reason. Why we believe what we do, in this case, is sometimes more important then what we believe.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
A New Me
Peter,
"V" in vinegar should have been capitalized.
Doctor changed my drugs.
Joe
"V" in vinegar should have been capitalized.
Doctor changed my drugs.
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
More Clarification
Peter, Wiz and Aurum,
I don't believe that just because there are seven copies of the Bark Notes out there, that only one is legitimate, however, it would seem logical to me that Jim Bark did not make seven copies of his notes, each with small changes from the last.
Is the concensus of opinion that Deering needed a partner to work the mine he had found and was waiting for his partner to show up, or that he was waiting for his grubstake partnership to expire, so he would not have to share his find with a valid and legal partner, or that he was going to partner-up with Chuning and Chuning had asked him to wait thirty days?
Are all of those possibilities in the other versions of the Bark Notes that I have not read?
Does everyone believe that Deering, after finding the richest gold mine in his world, went back to the mine without his burro, and brought out only five pounds of the richest ore he had ever seen? Did Bark lie about the amount of ore that Chuning told him Deering had shown and also lie about looking up Jessie Brown, who confirmed the story? Just how big a poke would five pounds of that type of ore be?
Is the Silver King the only record of Deering's existance?
Just how skewwy was this location, that it turned Deering into a little child, afraid of the dark? Since Peter has been all over the end of Deering's seven mile or so trail, why is this skewwy place still a mystery and why isn't Peter's hair snow white?
If Chuning had information from Deering, why did he search from one end of the range to the other? By extension, why didn't Bark spend all his time looking at Chunings tracks? If Brownie Holmes had information from Waltz and Chuning, why did he search from one end of the range to the other end?
If you are hanging your hat on the searches of any or all of these, most knowledgeable Dutch Hunters, you will need a large hat indeed.
If you have information from other sources who are better informed then these gentlemen were, you should be scraping the debris off the pit right now.
The best clue as to the location of the LDM, if true, is the seven or eight mile trail that leads directly to the walled up tunnel and the pit. The skewwyness of the location is subject to the imagination of the person standing there. Waltz obviously did not have a weak mind, although he had the best reason of all of them to be afraid of the area. Since Peter is the only living person to know where this trail begins and where it ends, the rest of us are just waiting for him to start selling gold.
There are literally, dozens of Dutch Hunters, who have worked the end of that trail, for years on end and only come up with rotting rope ladders. That does not mean that the LDM is somewhere else, but it does tend to raise the odds. Why did John Chuning give up on this area?
Joe
I don't believe that just because there are seven copies of the Bark Notes out there, that only one is legitimate, however, it would seem logical to me that Jim Bark did not make seven copies of his notes, each with small changes from the last.
Is the concensus of opinion that Deering needed a partner to work the mine he had found and was waiting for his partner to show up, or that he was waiting for his grubstake partnership to expire, so he would not have to share his find with a valid and legal partner, or that he was going to partner-up with Chuning and Chuning had asked him to wait thirty days?
Are all of those possibilities in the other versions of the Bark Notes that I have not read?
Does everyone believe that Deering, after finding the richest gold mine in his world, went back to the mine without his burro, and brought out only five pounds of the richest ore he had ever seen? Did Bark lie about the amount of ore that Chuning told him Deering had shown and also lie about looking up Jessie Brown, who confirmed the story? Just how big a poke would five pounds of that type of ore be?
Is the Silver King the only record of Deering's existance?
Just how skewwy was this location, that it turned Deering into a little child, afraid of the dark? Since Peter has been all over the end of Deering's seven mile or so trail, why is this skewwy place still a mystery and why isn't Peter's hair snow white?
If Chuning had information from Deering, why did he search from one end of the range to the other? By extension, why didn't Bark spend all his time looking at Chunings tracks? If Brownie Holmes had information from Waltz and Chuning, why did he search from one end of the range to the other end?
If you are hanging your hat on the searches of any or all of these, most knowledgeable Dutch Hunters, you will need a large hat indeed.
If you have information from other sources who are better informed then these gentlemen were, you should be scraping the debris off the pit right now.
The best clue as to the location of the LDM, if true, is the seven or eight mile trail that leads directly to the walled up tunnel and the pit. The skewwyness of the location is subject to the imagination of the person standing there. Waltz obviously did not have a weak mind, although he had the best reason of all of them to be afraid of the area. Since Peter is the only living person to know where this trail begins and where it ends, the rest of us are just waiting for him to start selling gold.
There are literally, dozens of Dutch Hunters, who have worked the end of that trail, for years on end and only come up with rotting rope ladders. That does not mean that the LDM is somewhere else, but it does tend to raise the odds. Why did John Chuning give up on this area?
Joe
Oh boy.
You are right , Joe. I admit that there was no Joe Deering. The entire story was made up by Chunning , Bark and Holmes one night when they were on a Tizwin drunk...and has been perpetrated by imbeciles like Wiz, Aurum, and of course, myself.
You have the correct information as to the location of the LDM, and I am certain your team will come up with the location of the cache and mine very shortly.
P
You are right , Joe. I admit that there was no Joe Deering. The entire story was made up by Chunning , Bark and Holmes one night when they were on a Tizwin drunk...and has been perpetrated by imbeciles like Wiz, Aurum, and of course, myself.
You have the correct information as to the location of the LDM, and I am certain your team will come up with the location of the cache and mine very shortly.
P
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
No Questions?
Peter,
Now don't go putting words in my mouth. I have tremendous respect for all three of you and your opinions. This topic is "Deering Comments".
By extension it is comments on Jim Bark, John Chuning, Brownie Holmes and the conclusions they and the rest of the Dutch Hunters have and will come up with, and that includes me, as well as you. Most of my post was legitimate questions on the Joe Deering story. You have chosen to address the manner of my post rather than the substance. Since you have lumped Wiz and Aurum into your response, perhaps they would like to weigh in on my questions. Believing or not believing in Joe Deering is not the point here. Questioning the available evidence to arrive at an informed opinion is the purpose of the whole conversation. I don't take S.C.'s ridicule of the Stone Maps personally, even though I believe they are ligitimate. I also don't take your and S.C.'s ridicule of the Black Legion personally. It all depends on what you have seen, or care not to see in these matters. You have followed the Joe Deering story to the absolute correct conclusion. If I believed the story had merit, you would be looking at my tracks. That belief and five bucks, will get me a cup of coffee. Take a few deep breaths, break five #2 pencils and we can continue this conversation.
Joe
Now don't go putting words in my mouth. I have tremendous respect for all three of you and your opinions. This topic is "Deering Comments".
By extension it is comments on Jim Bark, John Chuning, Brownie Holmes and the conclusions they and the rest of the Dutch Hunters have and will come up with, and that includes me, as well as you. Most of my post was legitimate questions on the Joe Deering story. You have chosen to address the manner of my post rather than the substance. Since you have lumped Wiz and Aurum into your response, perhaps they would like to weigh in on my questions. Believing or not believing in Joe Deering is not the point here. Questioning the available evidence to arrive at an informed opinion is the purpose of the whole conversation. I don't take S.C.'s ridicule of the Stone Maps personally, even though I believe they are ligitimate. I also don't take your and S.C.'s ridicule of the Black Legion personally. It all depends on what you have seen, or care not to see in these matters. You have followed the Joe Deering story to the absolute correct conclusion. If I believed the story had merit, you would be looking at my tracks. That belief and five bucks, will get me a cup of coffee.
Take a few deep breaths, break five #2 pencils and we can continue this conversation. Joe
OK, I'll weigh in.
First, if I remember correctly, Deering did not give Chunning directions to the mine. He just said there was a trick to the trail.
Second, Deering may have had his reasons for only bringing out 5 pounds of ore. Like maybe lack of space in his rig, which he didn't want to chuck in order to bring out more ore. I have this problem with my backpack every time I discover the mine.
Third, what makes you think Peter's hair isn't snow white?
Fourth, I don't think it really matters if Deering was waiting for 30 days for his partner to arrive, or waiting 30 days for his partnership to dissolve. The operative words "wait" and "partner" could have been misconstrued at some point. The consensus of opinion on this point is basically meaningless.
Fifth, if you are so skeptical of the skewwy place, maybe you just haven't been there.
Sixth, why do you think Peter is the only living person who knows where the trail begins and ends? Maybe everyone does, and we're just not telling you. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one).
Joe, your fishing expeditions are really obvious. If Peter does know where Deerings trail is, he isn't about to fall into your snares and tell you where it is. No offense, but the good Dutch hunter / bad Dutch hunter ploy is so old, I don't think it's going to work.
It is fun to watch, though.
First, if I remember correctly, Deering did not give Chunning directions to the mine. He just said there was a trick to the trail.
Second, Deering may have had his reasons for only bringing out 5 pounds of ore. Like maybe lack of space in his rig, which he didn't want to chuck in order to bring out more ore. I have this problem with my backpack every time I discover the mine.
Third, what makes you think Peter's hair isn't snow white?
Fourth, I don't think it really matters if Deering was waiting for 30 days for his partner to arrive, or waiting 30 days for his partnership to dissolve. The operative words "wait" and "partner" could have been misconstrued at some point. The consensus of opinion on this point is basically meaningless.
Fifth, if you are so skeptical of the skewwy place, maybe you just haven't been there.
Sixth, why do you think Peter is the only living person who knows where the trail begins and ends? Maybe everyone does, and we're just not telling you. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one).
Joe, your fishing expeditions are really obvious. If Peter does know where Deerings trail is, he isn't about to fall into your snares and tell you where it is. No offense, but the good Dutch hunter / bad Dutch hunter ploy is so old, I don't think it's going to work.
It is fun to watch, though.
Wiz,
Joe? Gone fishing??? Ya think.......?
You mean all this time he's been hurting my feelings by alluding to my lack of "evidence" (and lack of clear, semi-lucid thought) he really has been trying to prod me for information???
Would a Dutch Hunter really do that???
Say it aint so...Wiz...say it aint so........
Joe? Gone fishing??? Ya think.......?
You mean all this time he's been hurting my feelings by alluding to my lack of "evidence" (and lack of clear, semi-lucid thought) he really has been trying to prod me for information???
Would a Dutch Hunter really do that???
Say it aint so...Wiz...say it aint so........