Question about Barks Notes

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Personally i disagree on the use of the "ignore button". It is just as easy to simply pass over an offending post, you needn't read it, and occasionally, one may just have what you are looking for.

I have been subjected to this in here when asking simple technical questions to self proposed experts that they can't answer. I.E. calling their bluff. They would rather continue picking upon someone they considered below their level of intelligence and formal schooling. First they stuttered and mumbled, then just never answered, finally they just clicked on Ignore, where they presently are.

To be honest, I have no doubt that they occasionally peek, but it must be very frustrating to not be able to answer. heheh.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. I am sure that Marc would rather have warm, emotional posts and a bit of bickering going on, rather then just abbreviated, cold, postings on various subjects.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Don Jose,

"To be honest, I have no doubt that they occasionally peek, but it must be very frustrating to not be able to answer."

But that's the beauty of "ignore". It helps those of us who are weak, to resist the urge to encourage certain gene pools to proliferate. That's what I've been doing for a number of years now, and suddenly we have a nice little family going here.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Don Guacamole del Frito de la Enchilada,

I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Joe here. I hate to use the Nuk-u-ler Option, but there are times when it is necessary (just ask President Truman). When someone keeps using the exact same arguments ad-nauseum which require you to repost the exact same statements over and over and over, I nuke'em (Lamar & SWR). When whack jobs start blathering, I nuke'em. Life is just too short for that much BS.

Best-Mike

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Oh, and Ashton,

Do you know which version of The Bark Notes you have? There are several (Seven I think), and I believe each one reads somewhat differently.

When investigating the DLM, one innocent question can lead down a VERY circuitous route of many other questions with differing versions of many answers. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!

Add that in with the fact that almost from the beginning (1891), there has been many times more BS written about supposed clues and statements made by folks, you are required to weed through to try and get some semblance of a basic fact, that researching the subject gets very tiresome! HAHAHA Only for the strong at heart!

Best-Mike

 

[Ashton Page]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Hi Mike,

Uh, interesting nick-name, remind me not to ask you to bring your pick

I don’t know which version I have – I felt lucky to have someone offer it to me.

I’m already beginning to feel that the Bark notes are troublesome for a variety of reasons, probably too many to list here. But for starters, it seems like Jim found just about every “clue” that he was ever told about. I realize he was close to the actual occurrence and that he spent a lot of time looking. But it does smell a bit fishy to me….. just my opinion, and I’m a greenhorn.

I know that others have put all their eggs in the Holmes basket (Glover for one). And I’m finding things in the mountains that don’t really match either camp exactly as written – but are a bit of mish-mash of both. Where it really gets interesting is there are one or two markers (documented in print) that lead to other markers that are nowhere in print (that’s what I saw). Now you tell me… I dunno. I sometimes wonder if there are a few tricksters in the hills.

All the Best,

Ashton

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

After reading all the requisite books, Ely, Glover, Corbin, Gentry, Bernard, blah, blah, blah, I realized one thing: forget most of it. Forget about smaller individual monuments. Many of the old timers tore down any monuments they found after noting their locations. That left them being the only people who knew exactly where certain things were.

Those are my biggest problems with hunting the DLM;

1. Much of what you will find written is either regurgitated or made up BS.

2. Many of the monuments needed to put you where X marks the spot have been destroyed over the years.

That leaves some pretty good (you have to know whose word to put your faith in), but pretty general directions to the mine. Why do you think that nobody has REALLY found it in 119 years?

I have said for several years now, that the likely person to find the DLM is some granola eating hiker, who just happens to accidentally put all his weight on one step, and the ground will give way under his foot. VOILA! The discovery of the century!

Best-Mike

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

oh, and as for my name "GOLLUM"

I got it from the Lord of the Rings BOOKS (it's not in the movies). The reason that Gollum went underground was because he was looking for the truth of things. He figured the greatest truths to all things had to be in the deepest roots of the biggest mountains. So he went to look for them, and didn't come out until Bilbo got his precious.

I like looking for the truth in all things. I also like climbing down in deep holes in the ground. HAHAHA

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Mike,

All six versions of the Bark Notes are fundamentally the same. The only difference is punctuation and formating. The seventh version is another story.
It consists of the actual raw notes. Spangler was said to have those notes.
Get a peek at those, and you have the real Bark.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Mike,

All six versions of the Bark Notes are fundamentally the same. The only difference is punctuation and formating. The seventh version is another story.
It consists of the actual raw notes. Spangler was said to have those notes.
Get a peek at those, and you have the real Bark.

Take care,

Joe

Are they basically just seventy years of notes that someone else went and formatted to arrive at the other six versions, or is the information contained in them actually different (or at odds) with the info in the other six?

Mike

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

HIO Gullible gully, temp in possession of a white Land rover. No will power other than 'I WILL hit the ignore button ? Look at what you used to do when a 2nd Lt gave you orders. You simply went on doing what you were doing in the first place.

a. no ignor

b. no ignora'

C no ignore'

D no ignori'

F No igno'ro

G no ignoro'

H no ignor'em

I nicht verstehen sie mein lieber k now I understand. smooch gullible.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s I'll never desert my beautiful Blue Isuzu Trooper for a break down prone, pore Britland Land Rover, unless you throw in 3 gorgeous females that are flung together as the Lord intended them to be flung together.

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Mike,

All six versions of the Bark Notes are fundamentally the same. The only difference is punctuation and formating. The seventh version is another story.
It consists of the actual raw notes. Spangler was said to have those notes.
Get a peek at those, and you have the real Bark.

Take care,

Joe

Are they basically just seventy years of notes that someone else went and formatted to arrive at the other six versions, or is the information contained in them actually different (or at odds) with the info in the other six?

Mike

Mike,

I have been told........that all of the six versions that have been seen by most, came from the manuscript that Bark was preparing for publication. Each is basically the same, as I have said.

"However, the OTHER Bark Notes was not a manuscript at all. But rather a collection of Notes in the true sense of the word that Bark had accumulated over time up until almost his death. This version supposedly has the list of 40 questions-and answers-that Bark asked Rhiney when he first questioned him about Waltz's mine. It also has clues galore gained from Thomas and Petrasch."

[There are only two known individuals who were made privy to this info and (have) seen this "seventh version." One was Richard Peck. He kept good notes. There are references to his knowledge of this "secret" Bark information. But no hard-copy "seventh version" of the Bark Notes has appeared. The other person-and this is OFF THE RECORD-FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY-was....................will NEVER admit this-but it happened.]

Now this information came from a very well respected source. On the other hand, I suspect that his source, although once thought to be AAA, may now be a person who has been exposed as someone who has been fabricating stories for decades. On the other hand, it may be totally true.

I know that doesn't help much, but it's what I have been told........

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,

"I know that others have put all their eggs in the Holmes basket (Glover for one)."

That's an interesting comment for someone who has only spent six months researching the LDM. Do you know Dr. Glover? I don't believe he has bought anyones "basket". I don't believe he has ever vouched for the truthfulness of Brownies Manuscript.

Dr. Glover is a superb researcher, and not really an advocate for either side's "camp".

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,

"I know that others have put all their eggs in the Holmes basket (Glover for one)."

That's an interesting comment for someone who has only spent six months researching the LDM. Do you know Dr. Glover? I don't believe he has bought anyones "basket". I don't believe he has ever vouched for the truthfulness of Brownies Manuscript.

Dr. Glover is a superb researcher, and not really an advocate for either side's "camp".

Take care,

Joe

Joe,

Actually, Ashton is somewhat correct.

In the Forward of Glover's "Part II: The Holmes Manuscript" page X he states:

But what about Brownie's disclaiming The Manuscript?Two possibilities suggested themselves: either Brownie truly did not write it and it was a fake; or, for some reason Brownie wanted to distance himself from the very manuscript he had written. THE LATTER HAS PROVED TO BE THE CASE. INTERVIEWS WITH BROWNIE'S FAMILY HAVE REVEALED THAT NOT ONLY DID BROWNIE TALK TO THEM OF THE MANUSCRIPT, BUT THEY ALSO REMEMBER BROWNIE WALKING AROUND (PACING?) DICTATING PARTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT TO A TYPIST AT THEIR KITCHEN TABLE. But why would Brownie have created a manuscript only to deny it?

Looks as though Dr. Glover indeed is a believer in the authenticity of the Holmes Manuscript.

Best-Mike

 

[Springfield]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

After reading all the requisite books, Ely, Glover, Corbin, Gentry, Bernard, blah, blah, blah, I realized one thing: forget most of it. Forget about smaller individual monuments. Many of the old timers tore down any monuments they found after noting their locations. That left them being the only people who knew exactly where certain things were.

Those are my biggest problems with hunting the DLM;

1. Much of what you will find written is either regurgitated or made up BS.

2. Many of the monuments needed to put you where X marks the spot have been destroyed over the years.

That leaves some pretty good (you have to know whose word to put your faith in), but pretty general directions to the mine. Why do you think that nobody has REALLY found it in 119 years?

I have said for several years now, that the likely person to find the DLM is some granola eating hiker, who just happens to accidentally put all his weight on one step, and the ground will give way under his foot. VOILA! The discovery of the century!

Best-Mike

Anybody who truly wants to locate one of these lost things should study the above post and understand what is being said.

Re whatever the LDM is: all witnesses who are not buried at City Loosely Cemetery in Phoenix, no matter how much personal integrity they possess, do not know what Waltz knew unless he took them to the secret place. All else is hearsay.

 

[cactusjumper]

Ashton,

You wrote, elsewhere:

"Julia and Reiney who knew Waltz better than anybody and supposedly saw some of the gold, spent everything they had in order to go looking for the gold mine. There had to be a mighty powerful incentive for Reiney to spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM – not to mention convincing his father and brother to join him on the quest.

Best,
Ashton"
________________________

According to Blair: Rinehart Petrasch, too, dropped out of the grand search sometime after Julia's defection......". Did he "spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM"?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Ashton,

You wrote, elsewhere:

"Julia and Reiney who knew Waltz better than anybody and supposedly saw some of the gold, spent everything they had in order to go looking for the gold mine. There had to be a mighty powerful incentive for Reiney to spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM – not to mention convincing his father and brother to join him on the quest.

Best,
Ashton"
________________________

According to Blair: Rinehart Petrasch, too, dropped out of the grand search sometime after Julia's defection......". Did he "spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM"?

Take care,

Joe

Not to speak for our mutual friend Aston, but according to another source, Reiney did indeed spend the "rest of his life" hunting for the mine, though after fifteen years and his move to Globe-Miami, only went out sporadically rather than full time, right up to his committing suicide in 1943. I would call that hunting for the mine for the rest of his life, perhaps not quite as dedicated as Herman, but nonetheless still searching.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

PS Oh and my source for that statement is Tom K and James Swanson, "Superstition Mountain A Ride Through Time" pp 43-44

 

[cactusjumper]

Hi Roy,

I guess it's all in how you read the statement.

"There had to be a mighty powerful incentive for Reiney to spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM"


I take that to mean some kind of obsession with finding the LDM. I can name a dozen people who were obsessed with finding the LDM. Rhiney does not fit in that list. He actually had a life and real jobs. He did not "spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM."

That's just my opinion. You could be right.

Sorry I won't see you and Beth at the Rendezvous. I was looking forward to that visit.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Hi Roy,

I guess it's all in how you read the statement.

"There had to be a mighty powerful incentive for Reiney to spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM"


I take that to mean some kind of obsession with finding the LDM. I can name a dozen people who were obsessed with finding the LDM. Rhiney does not fit in that list. He actually had a life and real jobs. He did not "spend the rest of his life chasing after the LDM."

That's just my opinion. You could be right.

Sorry I won't see you and Beth at the Rendezvous. I was looking forward to that visit.

Take care,

Joe

Hmm - how do you define "obsession"? If Reiney were not obsessed to some degree, why would he continue to go back out searching at all? Surely he would give it up, rather than return over and over right? I think we could probably agree to disagree on what this means.

Hey at least any political discussions at the rendezvous won't have to be concerned about offending any "liberals". I hope you have the best rendezvous ever, wish we could be there.
Roy

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

no oroblanco's at the rendezvous?

 

[cactusjumper]

no oroblanco's at the rendezvous?

Donald,

Anarchy!

Take care,

Joe