The Lost Gold Mine of Jacob Waltz, not Peralta stones related

[Crazy Old Man]

HI Oroblanco, I am just a Crazy Old Man. So don't pay attention to me. I wrote a e-book titled: THE STONE SPOKE. The forgoing book is series of supposition essays Native American rock art and related subjects (interpretation of the forgoing subjects). The final chapter of the book is titled: THE PERALTA STONES FIND THE LOST DUTCHMAN GOLD MINE. The four Peralta Stones will get you to the general area of the LDM according to my interpretation of the stone. I believe the is a fifth stone that tell the rest of the story. In addition, the directions (the German Code) Jacob Waltz are correct. However, since I assume Jacob Waltz suffering from Alzheimer's disease when gave Julia Thomas the forgoing direction, the directions were his long term memory from Fort Mc Dowel no from Phoenix his short term memory. The Jacob Waltz map, page 134 of the LDM, of the book titled: The BIBLE on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz ISBN:1-879356-59-7, is gave Rheinhart Petrasch is correct. The Dick Holmes map of the LDM on page 192 of the forgoing book is general in nature, yet appears to be correct. You are correct it will difficult if not impossible to get a Treasure Trove Permit from the Supervising Ranger of the Tonto National Forest. Sincerely, Crazy oOd Man

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

HI Oroblanco, I am just a Crazy Old Man. So don't pay attention to me. I wrote a e-book titled: THE STONE SPOKE. The forgoing book is series of supposition essays Native American rock art and related subjects (interpretation of the forgoing subjects). The final chapter of the book is titled: THE PERALTA STONES FIND THE LOST DUTCHMAN GOLD MINE. The four Peralta Stones will get you to the general area of the LDM according to my interpretation of the stone. I believe the is a fifth stone that tell the rest of the story. In addition, the directions (the German Code) Jacob Waltz are correct. However, since I assume Jacob Waltz suffering from Alzheimer's disease when gave Julia Thomas the forgoing direction, the directions were his long term memory from Fort Mc Dowel no from Phoenix his short term memory. The Jacob Waltz map, page 134 of the LDM, of the book titled: The BIBLE on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz ISBN:1-879356-59-7, is gave Rheinhart Petrasch is correct. The Dick Holmes map of the LDM on page 192 of the forgoing book is general in nature, yet appears to be correct. You are correct it will difficult if not impossible to get a Treasure Trove Permit from the Supervising Ranger of the Tonto National Forest. Sincerely, Crazy oOd Man

Well C.O.M.,

A Treasure Trove Permit will do absolutely nothing for the person that finds the Dutchman's Lost Mine. A TT Permit is ONLY for a find of processed metal (coins, bars, plates, candlesticks, etc). If a person actually finds the DLM, the ONLY hope they would have is that there MAY be an argument for the fact that the DLM was a working mine when it was sealed, and it might be able to be grandfathered in because it was around long before the Wilderness Act of 1984. My guess is that the lucky finder would probably have to sue the State of Arizona and/or The BLM/Forest Service to get access to work it.

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

HI Oroblanco, I am just a Crazy Old Man. So don't pay attention to me. I wrote a e-book titled: THE STONE SPOKE. The forgoing book is series of supposition essays Native American rock art and related subjects (interpretation of the forgoing subjects). The final chapter of the book is titled: THE PERALTA STONES FIND THE LOST DUTCHMAN GOLD MINE. The four Peralta Stones will get you to the general area of the LDM according to my interpretation of the stone. I believe the is a fifth stone that tell the rest of the story. In addition, the directions (the German Code) Jacob Waltz are correct. However, since I assume Jacob Waltz suffering from Alzheimer's disease when gave Julia Thomas the forgoing direction, the directions were his long term memory from Fort Mc Dowel no from Phoenix his short term memory. The Jacob Waltz map, page 134 of the LDM, of the book titled: The BIBLE on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz ISBN:1-879356-59-7, is gave Rheinhart Petrasch is correct. The Dick Holmes map of the LDM on page 192 of the forgoing book is general in nature, yet appears to be correct. You are correct it will difficult if not impossible to get a Treasure Trove Permit from the Supervising Ranger of the Tonto National Forest. Sincerely, Crazy oOd Man

Well you did ask me to not pay any attention to your post, however I would suggest that since you are including the Peralta Stones, there are several other threads dedicated to that topic. Also, some of the information in Helen Corbin's book the Bible on the Lost Dutchman &c has been found to be questionable, so it is a wise policy to cross-check facts with other sources. If you do not find the same facts in alternate sources, then those points in the book may well be false.

It sounds like you believe that you have found the lost Dutchman's gold mine, so why not post some photos of the mine, the vein, the ore, etc? You can crop the photos so that no one else could tell exactly where the site is if you wish. There is no law against taking photos of gold ore even inside of Wilderness Areas.

Had thought this thread was pretty well dead, has not had a post in four years until today.

 

[nobodie]

I agree with crazy old man about the stone trail maps passing the area of the LDM. There is nothing on the maps that says here it is but if you follow the trail and look around using the clues, you should find it.

 

[Oroblanco]

Hmm it appears that putting "not Peralta stones related" in the thread title doesn't seem to make any difference. There are a number of Peralta stone maps threads however:

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/lost-dutchman-s-mine/461199-legend-stone-maps.html

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Well C.O.M.,

A Treasure Trove Permit will do absolutely nothing for the person that finds the Dutchman's Lost Mine. A TT Permit is ONLY for a find of processed metal (coins, bars, plates, candlesticks, etc). If a person actually finds the DLM, the ONLY hope they would have is that there MAY be an argument for the fact that the DLM was a working mine when it was sealed,

Hmmmm. How do we know this?

and it might be able to be grandfathered in because it was around long before the Wilderness Act of 1984. My guess is that the lucky finder would probably have to sue the State of Arizona and/or The BLM/Forest Service to get access to work it.

Mike

I have no delusion that some DLM exists in any 'non-minerailzed' area, sort of by definition. But -- if it can be proved that some rich deposit exists an argument could be made that that area is wrongly classified and restrictions/regulations based on that error should be obviated.

File a claim as if it was open to claims then argue in court why it should be.

 

[gollum]

Hmmmm. How do we know this?

A: Because I personally know three people that have currently active Treasure Trove Permits in different parts of the Southwest. If one person has a Mining Claim, another person can file for a TT Permit on that same area legally, because a mining claim and a TT Permit cover two different types of gold/silver. Even if you found a cache cave full of ore sacks full of hand cobbled super-rich gold ore, THAT would fall under a mining claim and not a TT Permit, because sacks of ore are not processed.

I have no delusion that some DLM exists in any 'non-minerailzed' area, sort of by definition. But -- if it can be proved that some rich deposit exists an argument could be made that that area is wrongly classified and restrictions/regulations based on that error should be obviated.

A: You say "non mineralized", but that is only the first 40-70 feet of volcanic tuff coverage. Under that is mineralization of three volcanic calderas (two in the East and one in the west). Do you REALLY think that there is no mineralization between the Goldfield Area and Globe? Where there isn't supposed to be any mineralization, in 1969, the USGS found MASSIVE amounts of mercury vapors emanating from the North Western area of the Supers, indicating either a very large ancient mining/smelting operation or an unknown very large Mercury Deposit (which often times coincide with a large gold deposit).

File a claim as if it was open to claims then argue in court why it should be.

A: Problem with that is that you wouldn't be allowed to file a claim as it is (possibly) in The SWA (Superstition Wilderness Area). All you could do would be to have an attorney ready to go when the BLM denied your claim. My best advice would be to speak to people in the BLM and GSA (General Services Admin), and let them tell you their side of what you should do. Then, speak to someone knowledgeable regarding mining and government protected areas like:

MINING LAW

I don't know him or anybody in his firm. I just googled "mining attorneys".

After you have spoken to both sides, get an attorney and provide for every possibility before even applying for a claim.

Mike

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

We really need to understand the geologic proceses

Hmmmm. How do we know this?

A: Because I personally know three people that have currently active Treasure Trove Permits in different parts of the Southwest. If one person has a Mining Claim, another person can file for a TT Permit on that same area legally, because a mining claim and a TT Permit cover two different types of gold/silver. Even if you found a cache cave full of ore sacks full of hand cobbled super-rich gold ore, THAT would fall under a mining claim and not a TT Permit, because sacks of ore are not processed.

I carefully and skillfully interjected my question right after the part of your post: 'the fact that the DLM was a working mine when it was sealed' for the specific reason of questioning that in particular. Sorry for any confusion, please have a stab at it with that clarification.

I have no delusion that some DLM exists in any 'non-minerailzed' area, sort of by definition. But -- if it can be proved that some rich deposit exists an argument could be made that that area is wrongly classified and restrictions/regulations based on that error should be obviated.

A: You say "non mineralized", but that is only the first 40-70 feet of volcanic tuff coverage. Under that is mineralization of three volcanic calderas (two in the East and one in the west). Do you REALLY think that there is no mineralization between the Goldfield Area and Globe? Where there isn't supposed to be any mineralization, in 1969, the USGS found MASSIVE amounts of mercury vapors emanating from the North Western area of the Supers, indicating either a very large ancient mining/smelting operation or an unknown very large Mercury Deposit (which often times coincide with a large gold deposit).

Nothing about Hg proves anything. Simple as that. But think 3 dimension-ally about a caldera. There are no older rocks (which could have been mineralized or whatever) under any younger magma. Calderas are NOT lava flows pouring out smothering the land around a volcano with a thin veneer. Any things of interest that might have predated a caldera are (if still discernible in any way whatsoever) at a depth beyond a simple miners reach. No human(s) in all the history of earth has ever prospected a mine shaft to any such depth. Diamond bit drill cores lately, sure. Even in your claim of 40 to 70 feet, who would have ever been looking with exploratory shafts that deep back then? Nobody. Every mine of depth from back then started with some sort of surface indication/discovery, even if only correlated. Not to mention the supposed DLM was never conjured to be deep by anyone - unless you want to be the one to initiate such a claim (you almost do in that post).

Now, about "Under that is mineralization of three volcanic calderas" in particular: Science has yet to discover and report mineralized magma or lava. Anywhere ever. Those calderas are too young to have been mineralized. You mention the 'area' but really we need to consider volume, but even that does not support your supposition to any reasonable depth. The geologic processes over tens and hundreds of millions of years that led up to the eventual formation of conditions for calderas of either explosive or collapse nature (or both) may have concentrated minerals in and around the volumes eventually consumed by the calderas in their final act. Hence the surrounding deposits you mention which survived the caldera events. If there is some other rich deposit yet to be found near there (previously worked and lost or not) it is from the fringe area of the calderas outward.

File a claim as if it was open to claims then argue in court why it should be.

A: Problem with that is that you wouldn't be allowed to file a claim as it is (possibly) in The SWA (Superstition Wilderness Area). All you could do would be to have an attorney ready to go when the BLM denied your claim. My best advice would be to speak to people in the BLM and GSA (General Services Admin), and let them tell you their side of what you should do. Then, speak to someone knowledgeable regarding mining and government protected areas like:

MINING LAW

I don't know him or anybody in his firm. I just googled "mining attorneys".

After you have spoken to both sides, get an attorney and provide for every possibility before even applying for a claim.

Mike

Regards the legals, I suppose we agree it would be complicated and competent help should be utilized. I do think the best tact for a hypothetical deposit in the restricted area would be to attack the 'non mineralzed' status and be sure to have the first claim of record. You might lose it by not making the claim first (first claim) and have that made by others while you pave the legal road for someone else. If I caught wind of anyone making the legal argument I'd sure file a claim ASAP if they hadn't already. Old claim law/precedent would be hard to beat.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Like rabbit stew, first ya gotta find it.