Don Peralta's 1864 Letter to Jacob Waltz

[Loke]

My initial point with it all was really to question the '3000 metres'. It could be 3000 yds, 3000 feet, 3000 chains or whatever. I did not believe the 3000 metres (I might well be wrong!), but if it is not metres - what then. It all could make a helluva difference!!
I can easily agree with Markmar - distances where eye-balled - but ... if put down as meters, this might be a fallacy - and it still makes a helluva difference.

And one more thing - 1:24,000 is just fine with me. But ... how does it it easily translate into 'boots-on-the ground'?
OK - 1" => 24,000" = 2000 ft = 660 yds (or steps - near enough) - but you always need to do the conversion in your head - and what if you do it wrong?
1" on a map is really quite a long distance.
With metrics, 1cm => 240m =265 yds (or steps)

To me, the ultimate test of insanity are those 1"-to-1mile maps - I'm sorry, but that just leaves me stone cold!

Personally, I have been an avid golfer for more years than I care to remember (not that it has helped my score much!!). But ... my distance estimates for anything shorter than a 3-wood (about 220 yds / 200m) has always been almost spot on. I know how far I hit each club in my bag, and when judging (eyeballing) distances, I always think of which club I would use to reach the target. I will never be more than at most 10 yds (or metres!) out. Beats using a 'chain' any day!!

I'm sorry, I promised not to touch the subject again - but ... anything 1:xx000 is just fine with me, what I object to are those fancy 1"/1mile or whatever - hey, what about doing a 1"-to-a-furlong?. Or ... 1"-to-a-quarter-mile?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Idahodutch]

My initial point with it all was really to question the '3000 metres'. It could be 3000 yds, 3000 feet, 3000 chains or whatever. I did not believe the 3000 metres (I might well be wrong!), but if it is not metres - what then. It all could make a helluva difference!!
I can easily agree with Markmar - distances where eye-balled - but ... if put down as meters, this might be a fallacy - and it still makes a helluva difference.

And one more thing - 1:24,000 is just fine with me. But ... how does it it easily translate into 'boots-on-the ground'?
OK - 1" => 24,000" = 2000 ft = 660 yds (or steps - near enough) - but you always need to do the conversion in your head - and what if you do it wrong?
1" on a map is really quite a long distance.
With metrics, 1cm => 240m =265 yds (or steps)

To me, the ultimate test of insanity are those 1"-to-1mile maps - I'm sorry, but that just leaves me stone cold!

Personally, I have been an avid golfer for more years than I care to remember (not that it has helped my score much!!). But ... my distance estimates for anything shorter than a 3-wood (about 220 yds / 200m) has always been almost spot on. I know how far I hit each club in my bag, and when judging (eyeballing) distances, I always think of which club I would use to reach the target. I will never be more than at most 10 yds (or metres!) out. Beats using a 'chain' any day!!

I'm sorry, I promised not to touch the subject again - but ... anything 1:xx000 is just fine with me, what I object to are those fancy 1"/1mile or whatever - hey, what about doing a 1"-to-a-furlong?. Or ... 1"-to-a-quarter-mile?

Guys,
I can't tell if the letter says meters or not, but Markmar's eyes are pretty good. What does interst me about this, is I have spent many hours / days, perhaps an accumulation of weeks, looking at that ravine, and the sweet spot starts at a little over 100' above the canyon floor. And really, "about 2500' high" is amazingly there.
I can't explain how we got the clues anymore than anyone else. The 3000 meters used in the German clue could very well how Julia remembered the distance. Waltz may have explained it to her so that she understood. Perahs she could have related to meters, but not yards or miles. The clue is not a deal breaker, there are many springs in there, so I wasn't in a hurry, there were other priorities.
What is that saying. . . If the clue fits, wear it.
Idahodutch

 

[sdcfia]

Somehow Steve, I just can't see myself packing a 66 foot long chain around.....just to look around for this lost mine, or that old hidden treasure out there. Can't imagine those who made any of these maps doing so either. Too far out of the box I think.

Of course you wouldn't pack a chain, but if you knew a map was annotated in chains - not feet, yards, meters, varas, leagues, miles, or anything else - you could convert the numbers and then use them accordingly.

This brings up a good point re "thinking out of the box". If one was preparing a "treasure map" and wanted to add some obvious security to it, he might very well obfuscate the information by monkeying with the length units, directions, rotation, place names, landmarks, et al. "Too far out of the box" for a searcher might translate to "Ha ha, it worked!" for the hider. If those Peralta stone maps are of any value at all, then based on the apparent failure of all those who have tried to solve them, it seems like their creator was definitely thinking out of the box in some way.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

What's this? You mean you guys DON'T carry a 66 foot chain with you in the mountains? I always carry one.

How can you navigate with these old maps without your chain?:

 

[Oroblanco]

What's this? You mean you guys DON'T carry a 66 foot chain with you in the mountains? I always carry one.

How can you navigate with these old maps without your chain?:

View attachment 1801333

I always ALWAYS pack a chain along! (Used for the dogs but it is a chain!) Thanks for the giggles Jim!

I worked for a surveyor laying out the Richmond (VA) beltway, and although it was rarely used, he always had the chain along and it was used on several occasions.

Loke - what is so bad about the 1 inch to the mile scale? They were the best USGS topo maps ever published IMHO, scale of 1:63,360 after all, especially since the invention of calculators? Plus most veterans were trained to take a 30 inch step and that sticks with you for life. Two paces equals five feet. Those old 15 minute topo maps covered four times the area of the modern 7.5 minute scale, and while some detail was lost you could cover a much larger area with fewer maps. Lastly, and this is for anyone - don't be too quick to toss that old Anglo system, all mining claims are recorded to the old township, range and section system of grids that covers all of the US western states. All real estate is likewise linked to that same system. Unless you want to go re-survey the entire western US (west of the Mississippi river and including Alaska) to change it all over to a metric system of coordinates, it is wise to learn that older system and how to use it. Especially if you are wanting to file a claim and need to know if there are any active mining claims or legal restrictions on that section of land!

Sorry but I have serious doubts about Jacob Waltz being positively nailed down by any research. The trouble is there are several different Jacob Waltz-es that COULD be the right one. For that matter (and this is a major monkey wrench with wider aspects involved) those two documents found by earlier researchers, namely the one in which Jacob Waltz filed for US citizenship, and the other one where he was granted citizenship - might be of a different Jacob Waltz entirely. There was a Jacob Waltz living in California who never went to Arizona and was a German immigrant, and likewise the New Orleans declaration of intention to become a citizen, there are other Jacob Waltzes in the US that could have filed that document. It is open to question. As to what those 'ripples' might be IF these documents are not 'our' Jacob Waltz, then a major point about the Holmes manuscript (which I personally have taken issue with) in which Waltz tells Dick Holmes that he was 'not a citizen' MIGHT have been true!

That said, Jacob Waltz - our Jacob that is - is known to have been voting and a registered voter, which implies that he had obtained his citizenship.

Anyway it is good practice to never carve things in stone even when it is in a document or a book. It is too easy to leap to a conclusion that seems obvious when there is an alternative explanation that would not fit with our preconceived notions.

 

[gollum]

Gollum,
With all due respect, Mathew correctly labeled Needle canyon, it was only the uplift that was mislabeled as Weavers Needle. However, you are spot on as far as north end of Blacktop Mesa, for that uplift (south ridge of the ravine). It is still considered to be part of Blacktop Mesa though.
The part of Blacktop Mesa that most think of, you correctly state as just out of view to the south.

Mathew,
I have been on the road today, and don't have my computer with, or I would get something together that would be very easy to discern what is what. I've gotten some practice lately.

Sometimes, looking at Google earth can mess with your eyes. All the canyons, ridges and shadows sometimes seem to reverse polarity in my mind and can be difficult to see what are the canyons and what are the ridges. Changing viewing altitude usually gets rid of the effect.
I guess sort of an optical illusion.

You guys are both heavy hitters in my book,
Idaho Dutch

Thanks IdahoDutch. You are exactly correct.

HAHAHA I was on GE looking at something else, and just noticed my mistake. Yes, What Kraig labeled Needle Canyon is Needle Canyon. Sorry. I was looking right at it too. The ridge just North of Blacktop is that ridge. Getting old is HEII! LOL

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Getting old is HEII! LOL

Mike

Amen brother - it ain't for sissies!

 

[Idahodutch]

Thanks IdahoDutch. You are exactly correct.

HAHAHA I was on GE looking at something else, and just noticed my mistake. Yes, What Kraig labeled Needle Canyon is Needle Canyon. Sorry. I was looking right at it too. The ridge just North of Blacktop is that ridge. Getting old is HEII! LOL

Mike

Mike,
I'm smiling for you, big time
Those public bloopers really suck the most, right at moment of realization
I'm glad it isn't all the time. It is never a good place to find you're right in the middle of.
I feel for you man. (but for some reason, still smiling)
Idahodutch

 

[Loke]

...
Loke - what is so bad about the 1 inch to the mile scale? They were the best USGS topo maps ever published IMHO, scale of 1:63,360 after all, especially since the invention of calculators? Plus most veterans were trained to take a 30 inch step and that sticks with you for life. Two paces equals five feet. Those old 15 minute topo maps covered four times the area of the modern 7.5 minute scale, and while some detail was lost you could cover a much larger area with fewer maps. Lastly, and this is for anyone - don't be too quick to toss that old Anglo system, all mining claims are recorded to the old township, range and section system of grids that covers all of the US western states. All real estate is likewise linked to that same system. Unless you want to go re-survey the entire western US (west of the Mississippi river and including Alaska) to change it all over to a metric system of coordinates, it is wise to learn that older system and how to use it. Especially if you are wanting to file a claim and need to know if there are any active mining claims or legal restrictions on that section of land!
...

You are right, of course. The entire west is not going to be re-surveyed anytime soon, and as long as we have the old maps with townships, range and sections - we have to live with it. It doesn't mean we have to 'like' it, but we have to learn how to live with it. Also - older maps usually carry a lot more information than the modern ones - alas.
However - you go out there with a GPS, and it surely doesn't give township/range/section!! It gives you lat/lon/height (to an astonishing accuracy) - so somehow you have to convert that to trs-coordinates - life ain't always easy!

 

[sdcfia]

... Sometimes, looking at Google earth can mess with your eyes. All the canyons, ridges and shadows sometimes seem to reverse polarity in my mind and can be difficult to see what are the canyons and what are the ridges. Changing viewing altitude usually gets rid of the effect.
I guess sort of an optical illusion. ...

That used to be troublesome when viewing aerial photos. It has something to do with the way our brains interpret the shadows, which are always to a northerly direction. Try rotating your GE view, putting south at the top of the screen. This trick often makes the 3d effect pop out better.

 

[sdcfia]

... you go out there with a GPS, and it surely doesn't give township/range/section!! It gives you lat/lon/height (to an astonishing accuracy) - so somehow you have to convert that to trs-coordinates - life ain't always easy!

The hand-helds are great, but you can never expect more than 25' true accuracy simply because the coordinates readout is only to 5 decimal points, not to mention the satellite drift. That accuracy is way good enough though for what most of us are using it for.

However, remember that many older topos were created using NAD27 earth datum, while everything now is WGS84. The coordinates for them (lat/long, UTM, or whatever you use) may vary by 200-300 feet for the same point on the ground. You can use either system, but make sure you use the same one all the time. My searching buddy (a stubborn traditionalist) insists on always using NAD27 because we usually use old topos and he uses the old MapTech computer application. I've been plotting the same data on GE because of the photographic advantages it provides. However, GE is WGS84, so if we're exchanging data, one of us must always remember to convert to coordinates to what the other guy uses, or else one of us will be way off position on the ground.

 

[KANACKI]

Does anyone have a better picture of the alleged Don Peraltas 1864 letter to Waltz?

Kanacki

 

[somehiker]

Of course you wouldn't pack a chain, but if you knew a map was annotated in chains - not feet, yards, meters, varas, leagues, miles, or anything else - you could convert the numbers and then use them accordingly.

This brings up a good point re "thinking out of the box". If one was preparing a "treasure map" and wanted to add some obvious security to it, he might very well obfuscate the information by monkeying with the length units, directions, rotation, place names, landmarks, et al. "Too far out of the box" for a searcher might translate to "Ha ha, it worked!" for the hider. If those Peralta stone maps are of any value at all, then based on the apparent failure of all those who have tried to solve them, it seems like their creator was definitely thinking out of the box in some way.

Must have been a tough job, deciding on what, where, and how many obfuscations to use for all those treasure map makers back then. That and digging holes to hide their goodies in.......and for the miners, more work than finding their gold/silver in the first place. I guess it might have been easier, had they each left a "legend" with each map they made, so that all us T-Her's could figger out what they did try to show, to at least their own trusted family or friends, an un-monkeyed with "where" to look....were they no longer around to guide them personally. Gotta admit though, that a hearty "ha-ha" might have relieved, in a comedic sort of way the angst of many a trickster as he went west.
Oh well. their omissions of explanation are our gain. At least in having something to spend our time and after-tax dollars/euros/pesos/dinars/yen and bonus bucks on while chasing rainbows and battling windmills out there. For me, it beats the hell out of shuffle board, card games, and trying to remember if I pooped yesterday.

The " Peralta" stone maps ?
It's only my opinion, but that one's a "box" of half eaten crayons. And anyone boarding that all too popular ride is entitled to a piece of their own to chew I guess. That, and a window to lick while their "expedition" winds it's way down the "Peralta Trail", looking for hidden mines and/or the Peralta treasure room or cache(s). Been there/done that myself.....so to speak. And while, in the beginning I actually liked the taste of the mission treasure-flavored version, it wasn't worth the aftertaste.
The "value" of the stones to me, is buried within the research I've done and the knowledge I've gained while both in and now out of THAT particular box.....some on the outside.....but with the greater amount occupying another stone box entirely. That one labeled "SANTA FE".

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Dang. Well said.

 

[Idahodutch]

Guys,
I can't tell if the letter says meters or not, but Markmar's eyes are pretty good. What does interst me about this, is I have spent many hours / days, perhaps an accumulation of weeks, looking at that ravine, and the sweet spot starts at a little over 100' above the canyon floor. And really, "about 2500' high" is amazingly there.
I can't explain how we got the clues anymore than anyone else. The 3000 meters used in the German clue could very well how Julia remembered the distance. Waltz may have explained it to her so that she understood. Perahs she could have related to meters, but not yards or miles. The clue is not a deal breaker, there are many springs in there, so I wasn't in a hurry, there were other priorities.
What is that saying. . . If the clue fits, wear it.
Idahodutch

I re-read this and should clarify a couple of points.
1) markmar's eyes are pretty good - I was referring to his extra readings on the letter, and the distance from the bottom.
2) about 2500' - from a version of Bicknells directions that appear to be referring to the approximate elevation of the mine.
Idahodutch
Ps- it is not like these clues are the only ones. I have to confess that since already being aware that Bicknells directions fit this ravine, I took the opportunity to bring it to light a little bit.
I wanted to apologize to skyhawk for taking the thread sideways, and would be interested in hearing about what his thread here was intended to be about.
Sincerely, Idaho Dutch

 

[Idahodutch]

Ok, last clarification. Both, the distance from bottom, and approximate elevation of the mine are, imho, unverified/un-collaborated interpretations, just that I found it interesting.

All the discussion on various methods of measuring and surveying was very good, the discussions of Marsh Valley, and the strategic location. . . All great discussions. There are a lot of highly skilled folks on this forum that bring a wealth of experience and information to the table. I'm still kind of a newby here, so just expressing some gratitude for this venue being available for this to happen.
Idahodutch

 

[skyhawk1251]

I re-read this and should clarify a couple of points.
1) markmar's eyes are pretty good - I was referring to his extra readings on the letter, and the distance from the bottom.
2) about 2500' - from a version of Bicknells directions that appear to be referring to the approximate elevation of the mine.
Idahodutch
Ps- it is not like these clues are the only ones. I have to confess that since already being aware that Bicknells directions fit this ravine, I took the opportunity to bring it to light a little bit.
I wanted to apologize to skyhawk for taking the thread sideways, and would be interested in hearing about what his thread here was intended to be about.
Sincerely, Idaho Dutch

The purpose of this thread was to determine if anyone had the complete text of the Ortiz Letter. Some words in the letter, as it is reproduced in books, are not readable. Forum members were able to provide the missing words to my satisfaction. The Ortiz Letter is, in my opinion, a hoax, penned by some prankster sometime after Bicknell's newspaper article was published. I say that because the prankster used much of the same wording as contained in Bicknell's article, although the prankster added some of his own embellishments. The Ortiz Letter is totally inadequate to lead anyone to any mine site, but I intend to use it as a guide to a general vicinity in the Superstition Mountains. My chosen route will, without any doubt, be different from routes chosen by other forum members who have read the Ortiz Letter, thus proving that it can mean many things to many people, and that it is a worthless piece of paper. By the way, the prankster tried to be somewhat historically accurate by using meters as units of measurement. Mexico officially adopted the metric system March 15, 1857. Germany went metric in 1872.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

skyhawk1251 wrote: Mexico officially adopted the metric system March 15, 1857. Germany went metric in 1872.

Historical Note* On May 17, 1866 the 39th US Congress under HR596 also known as the Kasson Act, legalized, authorized and protected the use of the Metric System within the United States and provided the official metric conversion table.

 

[markmar]

The purpose of this thread was to determine if anyone had the complete text of the Ortiz Letter. Some words in the letter, as it is reproduced in books, are not readable. Forum members were able to provide the missing words to my satisfaction. The Ortiz Letter is, in my opinion, a hoax, penned by some prankster sometime after Bicknell's newspaper article was published. I say that because the prankster used much of the same wording as contained in Bicknell's article, although the prankster added some of his own embellishments. The Ortiz Letter is totally inadequate to lead anyone to any mine site, but I intend to use it as a guide to a general vicinity in the Superstition Mountains. My chosen route will, without any doubt, be different from routes chosen by other forum members who have read the Ortiz Letter, thus proving that it can mean many things to many people, and that it is a worthless piece of paper. By the way, the prankster tried to be somewhat historically accurate by using meters as units of measurement. Mexico officially adopted the metric system March 15, 1857. Germany went metric in 1872.

I can't say with certitude how Bicknell article was the original description of the route written in the Ortiz letter. There is a difference only in few details of this route to lead someone to the LDM or to the Gonzalez-Two Soldiers mine. Actually they used the same route in some way, but at one point they took different paths.
I wrote in a previous post how my opinion is the Ortiz letter is for the Gonzalez mine because this mine is located 30-40 meters from the canyon floor versus the LDM which is more higher.
There is a detail in the original map which makes the difference but seems nobody has recognized it.

 

[coazon de oro]

Howdy All,

If Mexico adopted the metric system in March 15, 1857, it was because it was already being used by many. One example would be in the Salazar Survey by Clay Worst. According to Mr. Salazar, the Peralta's surveyed the mine in April 13, 1854. We know surveyors can't use their chains to get all measurements, computations are used, and they did theirs in meters. They said that a pinnacle known as El Sombrero was 14 kilometers from the Salt River. If you check it out with the google earth ruler set at kilometers, you will find that Weaver's Needle is exactly 14 kilometers from the Salt River. This not only verifies that they used the metric system, it also verifies that Weaver's Needle is indeed the actual pinnacle known as El Sombrero. There are some who call other pinnacle's El Sombrero just to make their theory fit.

Another thing that I want to add is that Ed Gunter's chain was not the only chain used. Most Spanish, and Mexican land grants were surveyed using the Vara, or Texas chain which was 20 varas, or 55 1/2 feet.

Homar