Question about Barks Notes

[Ashton Page]

Question about Bark's Notes

Sorry if this seems like a newbie post. There's a lot that I have not read (yet).

I was re-reading Bark's Notes and I noticed:

Thorne
"we had walked through a hole or cave"

Deering
"you have to go through a cave or hole"
As a side note, I do not believe that Deering was at Thorne's mine (just my opinion).

Miner:
"through a crack or hole"

Bark tells us flat out that he believes the entrance to the mine is accessed through a cave or a hole or a crack in his recounting of Ned Andrews:
"There were many rumors from the cowboys, that my friend was looking for and searching all the caves in the mountains, which makes me think that their description called for a cave, hole, or crack in the mountains as an entrance to the mine."

End of Bark Notes quotes.

"A cave OR a hole" now that's an interesting way to describe something. So which is it? Is it a cave, or is it a hole? Which started me thinking, maybe that's NOT what whose men said - and "the cave or a hole" description may have been added in by the author. Which brings me to my question:

Tracing the stories back to those who actually interviewed the original participants, we have:

Holmes
Bark \ Ely
Bicknell

Holmes doesn't speak about what Waltz told Thomas and Petrasch.
Bricknell writes a few newspaper articles.
Doesn't this mean that our "close to the original" stories pretty much all come through (or have been filtered through) Bark? Or are there others I don't know about?

Thanks in Advance,

Ashton

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,

I can answer all of those questions myself, but have one of my own first.

I have never met anyone who has only been researching the LDM for six months and already has a copy of the Bark Notes. If you don't mind saying, how did you come by yours?

Thanks,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Hola amigo Ashton,

Sorry if this seems like a newbie post. There's a lot that I have not read (yet).

I was re-reading Bark's Notes and I noticed:

Thorne
"we had walked through a hole or cave"

Deering
"you have to go through a cave or hole"
As a side note, I do not believe that Deering was at Thorne's mine (just my opinion).

Miner:
"through a crack or hole"

Bark tells us flat out that he believes the entrance to the mine is accessed through a cave or a hole or a crack in his recounting of Ned Andrews:
"There were many rumors from the cowboys, that my friend was looking for and searching all the caves in the mountains, which makes me think that their description called for a cave, hole, or crack in the mountains as an entrance to the mine."

End of Bark Notes quotes.

"A cave OR a hole" now that's an interesting way to describe something. So which is it? Is it a cave, or is it a hole? Which started me thinking, maybe that's NOT what whose men said - and "the cave or a hole" description may have been added in by the author. Which brings me to my question:

Tracing the stories back to those who actually interviewed the original participants, we have:

Holmes
Bark \ Ely
Bicknell

Holmes doesn't speak about what Waltz told Thomas and Petrasch.
Bricknell writes a few newspaper articles.
Doesn't this mean that our "close to the original" stories pretty much all come through (or have been filtered through) Bark? Or are there others I don't know about?

Thanks in Advance,

Ashton

There was definitely some "note-comparing" going on, even Dick Holmes met with Julia Thomas and they are alleged to be sworn enemies. I see that you left out Tom Weedin? <The newspaper man> Weedin definitely had some input to Sims Ely. Also Doc Walker, who (if his story is to be believed, and I do accept it) met and assisted Waltz's partner Weiser after his being attacked by Indians presumed to be Apaches.

You have included Joe Deering's clue, and as far as I know, he never met Waltz nor had interactions with Thomas, Reiney or Holmes, but did tell some to John Chuning, another player in the drama of the Dutchman saga. I am not convinced that Deering's mine is one and the same with Waltz's, for one thing he mentioned finding ore samples lying around on the ground around the mine, which he showed to his friends (including Chuning) while Waltz made some efforts to conceal his mine - it is not logical that he would leave piles of ore scattered about the mine, after covering the opening and expect that a prospector would not notice the ore just laying there. The ore also does not sound like a perfect match to Waltz's but I am sure that others here will take exception to this.

Bicknell is perhaps the first to publish anything on the Lost Dutchman, but his material is highly suspect in most Dutch-hunting circles. His explanation of how to get to the mine, "...the first canyon on the south side from the west end, they found a monumented trail" etc which Ruth quoted in his own notes, does not appear to originate with Jacob Waltz. The cave or hole may be puzzling because the people who have seen it are not sure if you would call it a cave, or a man-made tunnel, or just a hole worn in the rock by water and weathering actions etc.

Comparing the "clues" from the different sources can be misleading - for there is reason to believe that there is not just one lost mine in the area but possibly three or even four; to support this, for example, Waltz's ore is a white quartz, Apache Jack's gold ore is black quartz, and Wagoner's gold ore is a rose quartz. It is unlikely that these are all coming from the same source, and the Superstitions cover a large area so it would not be geologically unlikely for several different gold deposits to exist, perhaps not far distant from each other but perhaps yes. The existence of rich gold ores in the adjacent Goldfield hills, and rich silver and copper deposits in the eastern end of the region are good geologic indicators that other metallic deposits which remain un-discovered are quite probable. Anyway just a word of caution about mixing up and comparing the "clues" from the various different sources, not saying that they are false, but that they could very well (and probably are in some cases) referring to quite different mines in quite different locations. I am sure that many of our other members here will have different views on much of this, no offense intended to anyone and this is all just my opinions.

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

 

[Ashton Page]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Thanks for the input Oroblanco. You give me a lot to think about..... not that I don't have enough questions spining around in my head already

Hi Joe - A member of a forum offered me a copy. I got told it was bad ju-ju to post peoples names without their permission, so I leave his name out of this post.

I know some folks are not sure about me being a newbie, and you’re not the only one. So I will spill the beans (to a point). As a newbie, I was looking for Deering's "portal to a tunnel" and was high up on a ridge when I turned around and saw what I couldn’t believe what I was looking at. I simply blunderbusted across it without a clue....... doooh!

I have always maintained that “getting close is not the problem.” That should tell you where I am. Please be patient and wait for cooler weather so I can go back in (with come climbing gear this time) and I PROMISE that I will have something interesting to share. It will be something that nobody else has posted – at least not that I have found anywhere. You have MY WORD on that. Until cooler weather arrives, we all have to wait.... me included and I'm geting ants in my pants just waiting.

In the meantime - I'm trying to sort out some of the things that I saw. Because what I saw doesn’t fit with what’s in print. I’m sure you read where I posted in DUSA that I’m not having a problem keeping the “who said what” straight, the problem I’m having is what I saw is not in print and there are parts of more than one story that overlap and they're not supposed to. That’s why sometimes my questions sound like I’m out in left field. I don't want to look like --beep-- and ---beep--- and post a bunch of stuff that goes against the mainstream thinking without being able to prove it first. Patience my friend, fall will be here soon enough.

Best,
Ashton

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,

I understand.

Your initial post here was the first time I have read anything by you. I don't frequent DesertUSA.

All of these forums get "newbies" who often turn out to be someone else altogether. After awhile, most of us look at such folks with a jaundiced eye, especially when they are born with too much knowledge of the subject. After a short time, they always end up telling us all how stupid we all are about the LDM.....etc.

I won't bring it up again.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Loke]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,
*chuckles* There's nothing more satisfying than actually stumbling onto something that no-one else as seen/heard-of before!!
The best of luck to you!

 

[Ashton Page]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Hi Loke,

It was a moment that I will never forget, to be sure. But first, I need to prove to people (myself included) that what I saw what what I think it was. BTW, it was not the LDM, but it would put me close, maybe even close enough. But, time will tell and everybody has seen something that they are sure is the "secret clue".

Hi Joe,

I understand people’s skepticism, especially on a public board. I assure you that I am who and what I say I am… of course, anybody could say that. If you want more on what I am thinking, take a look at DUSA - an excellent forum BTW.

OK – back to Barks’ Notes……. It seems to me that all the major works on the LDM regarding Waltz, Thomas and Petrasch were pretty much filtered through Jim Bark, including Sims Ely’s book. Yes? No? Maybe?

And I am beginning to think that Bark personally believed that the LDM must be through “a cave or a hole” and he inserted those parts into his notes. That’s just a guess and we will never know for sure. But people (especially multiple people) do not describe a passage between two boulders as “a cave or a hole”. Like I said - Well, which is it? Is it a cave or is it a hole?

Best,

Ashton

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton,

"Hi Joe,

I understand people’s skepticism, especially on a public board. I assure you that I am who and what I say I am… of course, anybody could say that. If you want more on what I am thinking, take a look at DUSA - an excellent forum BTW.

OK – back to Barks’ Notes……. It seems to me that all the major works on the LDM regarding Waltz, Thomas and Petrasch were pretty much filtered through Jim Bark, including Sims Ely’s book. Yes? No? Maybe?

And I am beginning to think that Bark personally believed that the LDM must be through “a cave or a hole” and he inserted those parts into his notes. That’s just a guess and we will never know for sure. But people (especially multiple people) do not describe a passage between two boulders as “a cave or a hole”. Like I said - Well, which is it? Is it a cave or is it a hole?
________________________________________

You are wasting your time touting the virtues of DUSA to me. It used to be a quality product before they
Changed things around a bit. If you toe the line and don't disagree with the powers that be, I'm sure it's wonderful.

If Jeff, the moderator here, were to start publicly calling me a fool and my theories a waste of space on this site, I probably would be out the door quickly. I don't suffer fools easily, which is why I like this forum just swell. Those that don't fall into a sane catagory just go on ignore.

Bark stated that you could see the mountain that the LDM was located on, from the Massacre Grounds. I am not sure he thought you had to go through a cave or hole. Memory is not so good anymore, so you may be right about that.

IMHO, all the books on the subject, that count, are filtered through the Bark Notes. As soon as someone steps outside that information, we are slipping into the twilight zone......for me. I am reminded of the Alkire story, which was a complete fabrication. That is a true statement despite the personal verification of it's truthfulness by one of the most respected historians in the LDM business.

Many of the highest rated, modern, books on the LDM are full of made up stories, clues and facts. I don't believe for a second that the authors had any idea they were being fed total BS. That makes it very tough for a newbie to get his ducks in a row.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Joe, I realize that anyone interested in the LDM has to start SOMEWHERE, and while I think Bark and Ely are the first sources to investigate, do any of us REALLY know the provenance of what we know and have read as the “Bark Notes?”

Apparently Jim Bark never found the LDM himself, and he supposedly had not only all the notes we’ve seen in print, but likely MUCH MUCH MORE information that we’ll either never see or no longer exists.

Personally, I think Ely’s accounts SHOULD hold the most evidence to locating the mine, but there are quite a few issues with his book as well, even though we know the provenance. As a matter of fact, I hope to finish reading it again in a few days at which point I want to start a specific thread on it here to go through all my “issues” and see if I can find a way to put some of them to rest.

There are definitely discrepancies between the Bark Notes we know and Ely’s book – and there are things in Ely’s book that are factually not correct. Like I said, one has to start somewhere in beginning their research into the LDM, but I personally don’t believe the Bark notes are necessarily the be all and end all.
Just my $0.02

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Joe, I realize that anyone interested in the LDM has to start SOMEWHERE, and while I think Bark and Ely are the first sources to investigate, do any of us REALLY know the provenance of what we know and have read as the “Bark Notes?”

Apparently Jim Bark never found the LDM himself, and he supposedly had not only all the notes we’ve seen in print, but likely MUCH MUCH MORE information that we’ll either never see or no longer exists.

Personally, I think Ely’s accounts SHOULD hold the most evidence to locating the mine, but there are quite a few issues with his book as well, even though we know the provenance. As a matter of fact, I hope to finish reading it again in a few days at which point I want to start a specific thread on it here to go through all my “issues” and see if I can find a way to put some of them to rest.

There are definitely discrepancies between the Bark Notes we know and Ely’s book – and there are things in Ely’s book that are factually not correct. Like I said, one has to start somewhere in beginning their research into the LDM, but I personally don’t believe the Bark notes are necessarily the be all and end all.
Just my $0.02

Paul,

To get a better feel for the authenticity of the Bark Notes, you should check out Dr. Glover's notes on them, and Spangler. Thomas' connections were very good, in fact about as good as it gets....IMHO.

I don't know if Garry got the same information on the Bark Notes from Steve Creager as I did, but I suspect he did. See if his information mentions the seventh version of the notes, and who actually saw them. They were in Spangler's possession.

While I tend to agree that the Bark Notes are not "the be all and end all", I don't believe there is anything out there that should be placed ahead of them.
Ely used Bark's notes for his book, and there are really few differences between them.

While some things were obviously changed, probably in the notes as well as Ely's book, that should negate the entire body of evidence. They may just have accidentally left something important in there.

I have alway gone on the silly assumption that everything in both accounts is the true. I'm not sure of what value there could be in thinking otherwise. What do you discount?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Joe - I have alot of work to do before I want to approach the differences. Mostly I just want to make absolutely certain I have all my ducks in a row before I get into the differences and things that don't seem factually correct to me.

I know you and I know some of the other folks here who's memories are much better than mine and I don't want to get caught saying something that's wrong

I don't know that there's going to be anything "earthshattering" to point out, but I do believe there are enough differences to make one question some things.

I'll start the thread when I'm much better prepared

 

[Ashton Page]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

>> at which point I want to start a specific thread on it here to go through all my “issues” and see if I can find a way to put some of them to rest.

Cubfan,
Yes I can think of no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I hope I can contribute something of value.

>>> While some things were obviously changed, probably in the notes as well as Ely's book, that should negate the entire body of evidence. They may just have accidentally left something important in there.

Joe,
Think about this – because they never actually found the mine, they really would not be sure of what to leave out and what to leave in. You’re spot on that they may have left something of importance in there.

A curious thing struck me about Sims book – he left out the details. Things like “where the trail turns south you will see a rock that looks like a man”…… Note to the other readers –> I KNOW that quote came from Holmes, I was using it as an example to demonstrate kind of details that are in Holmes but are mysteriously missing in Sims. My comment about Sims book missing details and using the Holmes example caused a lot of flack on the other forum. That’s one reason why I am posting here now.

Considering Sims got a lot of his information from Julia, I would have expected SOME of those details to be in his book. Kinda makes you wonder.

Best,
Ashton

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Ashton wrote

A curious thing struck me about Sims book – he left out the details. Things like “where the trail turns south you will see a rock that looks like a man”…… Note to the other readers –> I KNOW that quote came from Holmes, I was using it as an example to demonstrate kind of details that are in Holmes but are mysteriously missing in Sims. My comment about Sims book missing details and using the Holmes example caused a lot of flack on the other forum. That’s one reason why I am posting here now.

I have to ask you here, how you can be so certain that anything can be traced to Holmes? The Holmes manuscript that has been in circulation, has been disowned even by Brownie Holmes, and there are prove-able falsehoods in it. It doesn't seem to have come from anyone in the Holmes family or close friends like Clay Wurst, so as far as I know 'we the public' really don't know what set of clues that Dick Holmes actually had, or believed he had. It is notable that in that Holmes manuscript, the very first landmark you are to go to is First Water, but where did Dick Holmes rush to first, after the death of Waltz but to Hidden Water, NOT First Water spring. Actions speak louder than words IMHO, so why didn't Dick simply follow that set of directions right to the mine a day after Waltz was in the grave? It makes that manuscript very suspect for me. If it did not come from Holmes, who wrote it, and how accurate can it be? Anyway if you can enlighten me as to how you can be certain that any statement found in Ely's book (or Bark's notes) can be proven to have come from Holmes, I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

cactus, It took almost an hr to read all of the posts in DSU. Djuicy's were very interesting.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Roy,

The so called Holmes Manuscript did not come to public light until the early 1970's. When it was shown to Brownie Holmes he stated that he had never seen it before. That statement was printed in "Superstition Mountain, A Ride through Time" by Tom Kollenborn.

Tom has told me many times that Brownie denied being the author, right up to his death. It seems likely, due to available evidence that was discovered by Dr. Glover, that Brownie actually did write the manuscript.

My guess is that there were so many false stories in the manuscript, that he did not want it to see the light of day. It may be that he had a ghost writer who just added too much fluff for Brownie to stomach.

That being said, there may be some truth in the manuscript. Dick Holmes was on the scene early and probably followed Julia and Rhiney. They made their first attempt to enter the mountains at Hog Canyon and Brownie started his later "systematic" search for the LDM on the main mountain.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Roy,

The so called Holmes Manuscript did not come to public light until the early 1970's. When it was shown to Brownie Holmes he stated that he had never seen it before. That statement was printed in "Superstition Mountain, A Ride through Time" by Tom Kollenborn.

Tom has told me many times that Brownie denied being the author, right up to his death. It seems likely, due to available evidence that was discovered by Dr. Glover, that Brownie actually did write the manuscript.

My guess is that there were so many false stories in the manuscript, that he did not want it to see the light of day. It may be that he had a ghost writer who just added too much fluff for Brownie to stomach.

That being said, there may be some truth in the manuscript. Dick Holmes was on the scene early and probably followed Julia and Rhiney. They made their first attempt to enter the mountains at Hog Canyon and Brownie started his later "systematic" search for the LDM on the main mountain.

Take care,

Joe

As for Brownie authoring the Holmes manuscript, it is one possibility, another would be that a treasure writer had been questioning him and was putting the info into a highly fictionalized manuscript to be sold. Brownie would have good reason to wish to distance himself from such a work. Not that all treasure writers would stoop to such a thing, but it happens. After all, had Brownie been the true author, he could just as easily said "yes" and then taken it to edit it, change whatever he was not happy with and then present to a publisher. To author it and then deny it is not logical to me, but then a lot of things are not too logical to me.

Hog canyon was first on the list for Julia and Reiney, but it was hardly the only canyon they attempted. If it were the correct one to start with, there would have been no reason to even try any other canyons. I have doubts that Dick Holmes got any kind of a set of directions from Waltz, and think it possible that he had picked up a statement or two from that fevered, dying mind and put it with the bits he had observed while trying to track Waltz back to the mine. There is a reason why Dick Holmes spent the rest of his life searching unsuccessfully.

Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

i kept think who in their right mind would have a over hanging rock over their head why working the mine .. it was not there before .. Waltz added . and then i got thinking about where it was and why would Waltz put it there to protect the mine from people already in the mine .. he didnt .. he put it there because he knew what directions they would use to find the mine .. then i got it and started looking to see how it worked .. Waltz was one smart old desert rat cold blooded killer and it was hard to get dick to take the bait ...

the trap is still out there with lots of cheese waiting any one want a bite....lol

You found a deadfall that is intact (un-tripped) in place in recent years, in the Superstitions? Are you not surprised that it would still be "set" after the significant earthquakes that struck, I think 1887 and 1906? <Several authors have theorized that '87 earthquake caused the Lost Dutchman mine to be covered forever, likewise the Lost Adams Diggings due to rock-slides or major shifting of the landscape.>

Is it not possible that deadfall is:

1:....of more recent manufacture (as it set by someone hunting bears or mountain lions, in my youth I was taught how to set them for bears and people were still using them as recently as the 1960s) perhaps by a trapper or even by another Dutch-hunter trying to do harm to anyone who got "too close" to what he (or she) believed was the real location of the Lost Dutchman mine, whether it was real or not. (I said she quite on purpose too, don't forget that Celeste Jones went so far as to hire a gunman to kill Ed Piper, so in her quest she was not above cold-blooded murder; the drive to kill is not limited to the male gender).

2:....possibly a NATURAL "deadfall" that is simply the way the rocks and boulders ended up in a quite un-stable and dangerous position, due to natural occurances (gravity, winds, earthquakes as mentioned etc) there are such things as natural deadfalls, in fact extremely loose and dangerous rocks of various sizes are fairly numerous in the Superstitions. I personally took a minor fall there due to such a treacherous but all-natural boulder that appeared to be perfectly safe and sound, when it suddenly tipped up on end, tossing me down the canyon several yards. I was not seriously hurt <other than in pride, of course someone WAS watching just at that moment> but people often are injured or even killed by such loose rocks. I would point out that in my own case, the boulder that dumped me arse-over-teacups so unceremonially, simply rocked right back into its original position the instant my weight was off. It is still there, waiting for the next un-suspecting treasure hunter or birdwatcher to trust their weight on it.

I just wonder why you are certain that this deadfall must have been constructed by Waltz, when there are other possibilities? Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Oro - I took Joe's advice and used the "ignore" button. I hated to do it because I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but when serious questions continually are unanswered and/or threads deleted because the questions get too difficult, it becomes impossible to follow or continue a rational discussion.

You have more patience than I do, but I can tell you that using the "ignore" button has made reading and discussing LDM issues far more enjoyable .

It's likely that 5 years from now, we'll see the same folks at the same spot as they are today and as they were 3-5 years ago making the exact same claims and offering to turn over their information to the public/newspaper/government, etc... without a shred of factual evidence.

The "ignore" button when used sparingly is exceedingly liberating

 

[SGnAZ]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

It's likely that 5 years from now, we'll see the same folks at the same spot as they are today and as they were 3-5 years ago making the exact same claims and offering to turn over their information to the public/newspaper/government, etc... without a shred of factual evidence.

Good point but,this has been going on for many years.

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Question about Bark's Notes

Steve,

You are right.

Hope you and Kathi are doing well and thinking about changing your mind about the Rendezvous this year. We had so many people last year that it became a job. I didn't get much of a chance to sit down with friends.


Take care,

Joe