Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this picture?

[Javaone]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Sooo... tell me Peerless; what do you disagree about my post?

Jerry

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Peerless67]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Sooo... tell me Peerless; what do you disagree about my post?

Jerry

I really do not have an opinion on your post, I do not even recall expressing that I did.
If you want an opinion on your post you are certainly in the right place as many of the folks on the LDM forums know their stuff. Me on the other hand, just a reader with a passing interest.
Now if you want to come and talk some smack on the 17 tons forum, I could oblidge. But dont want to hijack the LDM discusions any further.

 

[Javaone]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Sooo... tell me Peerless; what do you disagree about my post?

Jerry

I really do not have an opinion on your post, I do not even recall expressing that I did.
If you want an opinion on your post you are certainly in the right place as many of the folks on the LDM forums know their stuff. Me on the other hand, just a reader with a passing interest.
Now if you want to come and talk some smack on the 17 tons forum, I could oblidge. But dont want to hijack the LDM discusions any further.

Peerless... By you commenting here you must have an opinion. Or - My my "clueless" comment might have been accurate. Which is it?


Jerry

 

[Javaone]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Quote by: Me
"The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry"

Anyone
Please I'm here to learn... I would like some constructive criticism, not BS.

Jerry

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Jerry,

Opinions are often formed on the basis of known facts and empirical evidence. My own opinions are backed up by the evidence that is shown on my map, which might be deemed to follow your "Mapquest....overlay" theory.

I am still waiting for someone to explain where my map goes wrong. Have you actually examined it, and walked any of Stone Map trail, as I have laid it out? Have you followed the curved trail off of the one (1) in West Boulder Canyon, over the saddle and directly into the center of the heart and seen the triangle just below it?

Can you tell us what facts you have based your opinion on?

If these questions are out of line, please feel free to ignore them.

If you can make it to the Rendezvous, I will be happy to show you how an overlay works very well with the Stone Maps. I can see where we could both be correct in the opinions we have expressed.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Mike <gollum> wrote

As far as the Mammoth being the DLM, I HIGHLY doubt it. I can imagine that both Bark and Ely had access to the same information, yet they continued their searches until their deaths in areas far from there. I can imagine that the Mammoth MIGHT have been one of the Peralta Mines (remember, they are supposed to have had several), but not the DLM.

Quote
The Mammoth mine was operating on a large scale by 1888
Don't you think that Waltz would have known if his mine was being operated on a large scale? After all, he WAS still alive and well in 1888.

And there are ore samples from the Mammoth. Think they matched the sample from under Waltz' Bed? Not me.

I did not say the Mammoth must be the Dutchman's mine, only that it might have been the mine the two Peralta brothers were working when attacked by Apaches circa 1879. I don't believe the Mammoth is Waltz's mine, for the same reasons you mention especially the ore being a non-match pretty well seals the question. The ore from the Mammoth was certainly rich, and since no example of the ore found by Silverlock and Malm is known to still exist, there is no way to verify or disprove that the ore they found actually came from the Mammoth. Now with Kochera's ore, a comparison may be possible and I for one would be very interested in such a comparison.
Oroblanco

 

[Javaone]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Jerry,

Opinions are often formed on the basis of known facts and empirical evidence. My own opinions are backed up by the evidence that is shown on my map, which might be deemed to follow your "Mapquest....overlay" theory.

I am still waiting for someone to explain where my map goes wrong. Have you actually examined it, and walked any of Stone Map trail, as I have laid it out? Have you followed the curved trail off of the one (1) in West Boulder Canyon, over the saddle and directly into the center of the heart and seen the triangle just below it?

Can you tell us what facts you have based your opinion on?

If these questions are out of line, please feel free to ignore them.

If you can make it to the Rendezvous, I will be happy to show you how an overlay works very well with the Stone Maps. I can see where we could both be correct in the opinions we have expressed.

Take care,

Joe

THANKS Joe,

I thought you might jump in – Please believe me… I mean no disrespect.

I value your opinion. This is only mine. – means nothing until there is results.

I have been working on yours…, but I will admit > I’m still a youngster when it comes to this. It is too easy to become sidetracked here. “Fresh Eyes”

“Boots on the ground” I hear a lot! Sooo… I have only so many steps left in me to follow up my own theories. I offer mine to spawn thought. NOT to cause controversy.

Like so many others, I’m not quite willing yet - to show all my cards. As I disprove my theories, I will share with all.

I am looking forward to the Rendezvous. I will not miss it! …

Jerry

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Jerry,

Trust me, I was not offended. I welcome opinions that question my own. Where I get sideways, is when the comments attack me personally. You only offered an honest opinion on what has been offerred here.

Look forward to meeting you at the Rendezvous.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Roy,

So, now are you saying that the Peralta Massacre that we know was only the killing of the two Peraltas? Everything we know counters that.

Your years are wrong. Not just off somewhat, but are WAY OFF! About fifteen years. Let's say we don't go by the Peralta Family Histories.m Go by what Waltz told Julia and Rhiney. The time frame that Peralta would have first shown the mine to Waltz and Weiser would have been in the early to mid 1870s.

I will say that you could be correct in that some of the other Peralta Gold and Silver Mines might have been in the Goldfield area. Maybe because they were too exposed and close to the Apache is why Peralta only showed Waltz and Weiser the one mine of theirs that was deep in the Supers when he did. The one area he felt more safe, because in the 1870s the Apache were still raising heII.

Its' good to see you come around. A year or so ago, you were arguing against the possibility of the Peraltas even being anywhere near the Supers, much less owning gold mines there.

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Well Mike sorry but I have not come around at all; I still see zero documentation of any Peralta presence IN the Superstitions at all, which is not at variance with what I have been saying right along. Yes there were Peraltas in Arizona, yes they were mining gold in Arizona, NO documentation of any Peraltas ever mining in the Superstitions. Unless we say the Goldfield hills are a part of the Superstitions, which could be the case.

I did not say that the killing of two Peralta brothers is the Peralta massacre. One Peralta brother was killed in that story published in 1879, the other survived but the article was reporting of an incident which happened before '79, not in 1879. There have been several massacres in the Superstitions, again zero documentation of any Peralta massacre there. You say go by what Waltz told his friends; however even the version we get via Julia & Reiney is not clear of suspicion for Holmes went to Julia and they compared notes long before anything was ever published. It would be the same as if two suspects in a criminal case were allowed to meet and get their stories straight before they are questioned. We don't have anything from Julia or Reiney that dates prior to that meeting with Holmes or any other info prior to the death of Waltz. <Unless you consider the Pioneer interviews referred to before, which most dismiss out of hand and is quite a different story.>

I posted a link to an article Tom K wrote which perhaps you read or may have missed; it presents the case better than I could.
http://www.superstitionmountain.info/chronicles/2009/08_10_09.html

As far as I can see, the legend of the Peralta massacre and lost Peralta mines in the Superstitions remains un-documented legend.
Roy

 

[gollum]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Okay,

When did Dick Holmes get with Julia Thomas and compare notes? She despised him because she always thought he stole Waltz' Gold from under the bed. To this day there are still people that dislike each other because they believe either Holmes or Thomas.

If you are still saying the Peraltas were never in the Supers, then you don't believe either Dick Holmes or Julia Thomas. You must completely discount everything Waltz said, after all, those were his words. Are you saying that Waltz lied about his mine? Think he just found it and made up the rest? Any particular reason? Why make up the whole Mexican Saga?

Are you saying that the Valenciana was the DLM? It's been tried before and it didn't work then either. I have the book. Research seems decent at first, but in order to believe the whole premise, you have to completely discount everything Waltz said, as well as many other facts that are well known (including ore sample testing).

Keep in mind that when Glover had the ore samples tested, the jewelry ore was from the same geologic event as the Camp, Kochera, and Vulture Ores. That is, from the Superstitions. Your supposition would have to completely discount all the scientific testing of known ore samples.

Best-mIKE

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Actually, there IS a place where you can overlay the stones with an area on the ground - and get almost an exact match - but not in the Superstitions.

B

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Okay,

When did Dick Holmes get with Julia Thomas and compare notes? She despised him because she always thought he stole Waltz' Gold from under the bed. To this day there are still people that dislike each other because they believe either Holmes or Thomas.

If you are still saying the Peraltas were never in the Supers, then you don't believe either Dick Holmes or Julia Thomas. You must completely discount everything Waltz said, after all, those were his words. Are you saying that Waltz lied about his mine? Think he just found it and made up the rest? Any particular reason? Why make up the whole Mexican Saga?

Are you saying that the Valenciana was the DLM? It's been tried before and it didn't work then either. I have the book. Research seems decent at first, but in order to believe the whole premise, you have to completely discount everything Waltz said, as well as many other facts that are well known (including ore sample testing).

Keep in mind that when Glover had the ore samples tested, the jewelry ore was from the same geologic event as the Camp, Kochera, and Vulture Ores. That is, from the Superstitions. Your supposition would have to completely discount all the scientific testing of known ore samples.

Best-mIKE

As for your first question, I am sure that one of our members here could find the date for you; I don't have it handy and only recall that it was after Julia had given up and returned to Phoenix, but before Bicknell came into the scene.

How are you making the Valenciana connection? Did I say that? You are the one saying you MUST discount EVERYTHING Waltz said, and I didn't say that either. Please don't put words into my mouth. Am I saying Waltz lied about his mine? YES - I strongly suspect that his tale to Holmes was a lie, and that Waltz's obvious self-guilt was over this huge lie he was compounding to Holmes, the man he caught trying to trail him to the mine previously. Why make up the whole Mexican saga - well that ought to be pretty obvious; mines must be FOUND in the first place or they never become mines, so some sort of story of origin had to go along with Waltz having his gold mine; if the *<unpopular>* alternate version is true, then it is possible to locate his mine with nothing more complicated than a portable drywasher. If it could be found that easily, he would not want a dry-gulcher like Holmes to know it. Note there is no real detailed explanation of how the Peraltas discovered the mine(s) in the first place. Julia would have no reason to correct Holmes when he approached her at her home, in fact based on the conflict over the deathbed ore she would have had motive to let him believe every falsehood possible. What is more attractive and more probable to be quickly accepted without question than to attribute a lost gold mine to some Mexicans? The fact that Peralta brothers had been involved in a fight with Apaches before 1879 and the survivor had a sack of rich gold ore was almost certainly known to Waltz, so he had the perfect name to associate and mix fact with fiction for Holmes to run in circles.

Yes Glover had the ores tested; coming from the "same geologic event" does not mean they must be in close physical proximity; you are making that assumption (as do many others) for "geologic events" can cover quite large areas. An earthquake is a geologic event, and often can be felt for hundreds of miles; a volcanic eruption can cover hundreds of square miles. I would not be surprised if it turned out that the Mammoth and Bulldog veins, and the Silver King all were "born" in the same geologic event. That doesn't mean they must be close together, or even in the same mountain range. We also do not know that the Kochera ore originally came from the Superstitions; if the story is to be believed (I see no reason not to) it was in saddlebags, which indicates that it had been transported. How far we can only guess.

Just because something is un-documented, does not mean it is not true; I am convinced that the El Naranjal gold mine exists and there is practically no documentation it ever did but I have no problem in saying that it is legendary and <virtually> un-documented.

One last thing, a correction to what you are having me state;
<you wrote>

If you are still saying the Peraltas were never in the Supers,

What I am and have been saying, is I know of no documentation to prove there ever were any Peraltas mining in the Superstitions, nor of a Peralta massacre in Massacre Field. No solid evidence is what I am saying, NOT the absolute statement you have put into my mouth that no Peraltas were ever in the Supers. The fact that there is no evidence <so far>, and the possibility of confabulation of other real events into a legend, certainly lends credence to the idea there were no Peraltas in the Supers, but doesn't PROVE that case.

Mike you have stated in past that you hate those sweeping statements people make, so please don't turn my statements into the sweeping type when that is not what was said. I am not saying there never were any Peraltas in the Supers, only that the evidence is lacking. I never said toss out all the geologic tests done, nor to ignore every word Waltz ever uttered, nor that the Valenciana is the LDM. You said that in your post. No need to make leaps from fact to assumption.

Roy

 

[Blindbowman]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

i guess i am not talking about the same Crystal skulls you are .. i am talking about one skull that was made of silcon ..all the rest are fakes .. the legend as i know it is only based on that one skull part of a codex .. and yes i did nknow most of the skulls were fakes ..

i dont watch the legend any more because untill some real evidecnce is found its nothing more then a good camp fire story . and yes i agree joe .. the true nature of the one skull has never been proven to be fake ...

i really dont watch this legend .. its not my focus point lol

i dont think i would waste time hunting for the sorce ether ...

Back in the 80's,I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours with Anna and her crystal skull ,other maya artifacts and photo albums.I held the skull on my lap ,while she told me some of the stories and showed me her photo collection.She had a few figurines made of jade that were very similar in quality and finish,so it would have been possible,I suppose,for the Maya to have made such a skull.I have yet,though,to see any similar objects made of pure quartz crystal by the Toltec,Maya or the Aztec.
My own feeling was that Anna believed her story,perhaps a result of telling it so many times over the years.It is possible that her father purchased and later "planted" the skull for her to find,without knowing where it would all lead.

Regards:SH.

http://www.thestar.com/Travel/article/196456

the reason i stated anything about the crystal skul was because i did find other objects made of silcon .. this same type and grade... arrow heads ..cloveis.. shocking but true .. when we relate to the legend of chicomoztoc being the brithplace of tribes .. it is the only location known to have gone threw the great flood ..

i have been trying to find someone that has one of those crystal arrowheads . to have testeed to see if it is a match to the silcon at my old site 1, my new site is more then 4 miles away but dose have this pure type of silcon ..

i agree SH i dont know if the stroy was true or faults but the logic dose not make me beleive she knew the skull was fake ..often to hide a real object fakes are made and often confused with the real object to hide its where abouts ...as most .. its just a legend at this point .. yet for it to be found in a maya temple if it was .. then chicomoztoc is not unrelated to these sites ...

the real question is that skull fake and is there any real crystal skulls that are not fakes ...i was only makeing that statement because of the high grade silcon at site one ..

i do want to send a sample to be tested and find out as much about the silcon grade as i can .. no dout it is a almost pure grade of silcon ...

BB - I just want to correct you in your use of the word silicon. Since I work in the industry, I have to assume you meant to use the word silica not silicon correct?

if you want to test the sample ,you can tell me what it is .. i am a rock hound ..its a rock to me .. almost pure gem quality vs crystal formation vs matrix

and yes there is black sands stuck to this sample ..sorry i am just learning how to use this new nikon L110

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

I would say that, at some point, either Waltz lied, or, much like the conversations here - things that happened have been stretched, turned, things eliminated and god knows what else.

First - one has to to decide just who they want to believe. If you believe Sims Ely (which, by the way, some credit is given by Helen Corbin as to his corroboration), it was Weiser, not Waltz, who "rescued" Peralta and started the old ball rolling for the mine.

If you read the Holmes manuscript - neither Waltz nor Weiser even KNEW a Peralta. In fact, the Holmes manuscript says what about Weiser? Nothing. In fact, what it says (shortened version), is that Waltz was on a prospecting trip to the Picket Post area, decided he didn't like it, started back, met up with Indians, lost his outfit and escaped. Came across some Mexicans who KNEW where there was a mine that Pedro Peralta had made 3 expeditions to, complete with soldiers, wives, children and livestock, who were demolished by the Indians, with only a 12 year old boy escaping (that boy was one of the 3 Mexicans that Waltz met up with after the Indian mess on his return trip from Picket Post to Fort McDowell, and went to the mine with them on his first trip). Oh, and it also mentions Waltz bringing lumber and building a rocker box. It also mentions that Holmes had followed Waltz into the Supes, and Waltz considered killing him.
The story was supposedly told to Holmes and Roberts.

Then, there is the Storm version, complete with deerskin map and Barry Storm's own signature and Rose's version. (and many, many other stories after Waltz died).

So, how do you pick and choose. More than one person has spent many, many years interviewing and taking copious notes and gathered piles of evidence.

As far as I can tell, the best bet is to take only the things that correspond to all reasonable accounts, and put the other things - not out of your mind - but on the back burner.

Keeping this all in mind, yes, there is "more likely" and "less likely", but, really, how can you determine who's story is "more likely" true?

According to the Holmes manuscript, the mine was already dug 4 feet across - and Waltz, after working it, went and cut timbers and placed them 6 feet down, filled the rest with rock, etc, and added a trap to kill anyone who messed with it. I haven't heard of any stories of prospectors with missing body parts. (and traps don't reset themselves).

So----what do all the stories have in common? One of the investigators/writers (and Bark) took notes, and came up with about 40 points that they considered valid and corroborated.

But, again - has it been found?


Beth

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

The “Stones” are not your typical “Mapquest” maps. They were never intended to simply be laid over a topo or surveyed area, and then simply follow whatever fits best. The trail (18 lugares) was never meant to be followed – more so to throw a follower off the trail. – To make the follower say to himself “this can’t be right!” It is everything else on the "Stones" that truly lead the way… IMHO

Jerry

Jerry,

Opinions are often formed on the basis of known facts and empirical evidence. My own opinions are backed up by the evidence that is shown on my map, which might be deemed to follow your "Mapquest....overlay" theory.

I am still waiting for someone to explain where my map goes wrong. Have you actually examined it, and walked any of Stone Map trail, as I have laid it out? Have you followed the curved trail off of the one (1) in West Boulder Canyon, over the saddle and directly into the center of the heart and seen the triangle just below it?

Can you tell us what facts you have based your opinion on?

If these questions are out of line, please feel free to ignore them.

If you can make it to the Rendezvous, I will be happy to show you how an overlay works very well with the Stone Maps. I can see where we could both be correct in the opinions we have expressed.

Take care,

Joe

Joe - I think (for me at least), the only way I'm going to be able to base an opinion on whether your map matches up with the Stone Maps or not will be to get out there and walk parts of it. I've spent a little time the last few days looking it over in comparison to various topo maps and I just can't make all the connections that you feel are so obvious - there are things I just can't "see" the way you are. It could very well be a spatial thing and specific to me - I know that throughout my work career I've never been good at learning how to do something by reading about it or watching someone else do it - the ONLY way I can positively learn how to do something is to do it myself a few times.

I'll talk to you more about it at the Rendezvous.

 

[Cubfan64]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

i guess i am not talking about the same Crystal skulls you are .. i am talking about one skull that was made of silcon ..all the rest are fakes .. the legend as i know it is only based on that one skull part of a codex .. and yes i did nknow most of the skulls were fakes ..

i dont watch the legend any more because untill some real evidecnce is found its nothing more then a good camp fire story . and yes i agree joe .. the true nature of the one skull has never been proven to be fake ...

i really dont watch this legend .. its not my focus point lol

i dont think i would waste time hunting for the sorce ether ...

Back in the 80's,I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours with Anna and her crystal skull ,other maya artifacts and photo albums.I held the skull on my lap ,while she told me some of the stories and showed me her photo collection.She had a few figurines made of jade that were very similar in quality and finish,so it would have been possible,I suppose,for the Maya to have made such a skull.I have yet,though,to see any similar objects made of pure quartz crystal by the Toltec,Maya or the Aztec.
My own feeling was that Anna believed her story,perhaps a result of telling it so many times over the years.It is possible that her father purchased and later "planted" the skull for her to find,without knowing where it would all lead.

Regards:SH.

http://www.thestar.com/Travel/article/196456

the reason i stated anything about the crystal skul was because i did find other objects made of silcon .. this same type and grade... arrow heads ..cloveis.. shocking but true .. when we relate to the legend of chicomoztoc being the brithplace of tribes .. it is the only location known to have gone threw the great flood ..

i have been trying to find someone that has one of those crystal arrowheads . to have testeed to see if it is a match to the silcon at my old site 1, my new site is more then 4 miles away but dose have this pure type of silcon ..

i agree SH i dont know if the stroy was true or faults but the logic dose not make me beleive she knew the skull was fake ..often to hide a real object fakes are made and often confused with the real object to hide its where abouts ...as most .. its just a legend at this point .. yet for it to be found in a maya temple if it was .. then chicomoztoc is not unrelated to these sites ...

the real question is that skull fake and is there any real crystal skulls that are not fakes ...i was only makeing that statement because of the high grade silcon at site one ..

i do want to send a sample to be tested and find out as much about the silcon grade as i can .. no dout it is a almost pure grade of silcon ...

BB - I just want to correct you in your use of the word silicon. Since I work in the industry, I have to assume you meant to use the word silica not silicon correct?

if you want to test the sample ,you can tell me what it is .. i am a rock hound ..its a rock to me .. almost pure gem quality vs crystal formation vs matrix

and yes there is black sands stuck to this sample ..sorry i am just learning how to use this new nikon L110

BB - The place I work has the equipment necessary to test the crystalline structure of your sample, and although I've made the offer to a few people over the years to analyze things for them for free, I'm honestly not comfortable giving you an address to send the sample to me. The best suggestion I can make is for you contact a local university geology department and ask them for recommendations as to where to send it for analysis and hope it doesn't cost too much.

Best of luck - it looks like silica quartz, but without an analysis there's no way of assuming the purity of it or the crystalline structure.

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Good Morning Paul,

"Joe - I think (for me at least), the only way I'm going to be able to base an opinion on whether your map matches up with the Stone Maps or not will be to get out there and walk parts of it. I've spent a little time the last few days looking it over in comparison to various topo maps and I just can't make all the connections that you feel are so obvious - there are things I just can't "see" the way you are. It could very well be a spatial thing and specific to me - I know that throughout my work career I've never been good at learning how to do something by reading about it or watching someone else do it - the ONLY way I can positively learn how to do something is to do it myself a few times."

My map was put together around 45 years ago. It has a number of inaccuracies. Where I placed the trail going up onto the ridge is wrong.
It was actually a little north of the saddle above Willow Spring. It was not until 2002 that we made the climb into the saddle from East Boulder that I realized that the trail to the two monuments we originally found, was not through the saddle.

What is accurate, are the placement of the canyons and locator dots. The dots at the beginning of the trail are exact. After the trail turns to the east and climbs up onto the ridge......less so. I made some natural assumptions when I first drew the map, and the trail going through the saddle was one. I have never changed my map to match the reality of where we found those two monuments on the top of the ridge.

Everyone who has been in the mountains with me is aware of that fact. I have also had a number of friends who have looked for the monuments and they all knew they were not in the saddle.

The Stone Maps are, basically, hand drawn maps. They were not using any technology for accuracy. Write down your questions for what you can't see in the maps, and I will do my best to explain them. You can wait for the Rendezvous or just send them to me.

Over the years, my view of the maps has changed. At first I was convinced they were Jesuit. After around forty years of research, I no longer believe in a vast Jesuit treasure. LaFrance's cave of gold bars was the treasure I eventually gravitated towards. At this point in time, I believe the maps are a compilation of many treasure stories that have existed over the years. I am convinced that they are accurate as to landmarks, and some old mines and natural caves but will probably not point directly to any treasure.

The only thing that gives me pause, is the fact that I could not find those two monuments again. It's hard to believe that someone tore them down. That would have been a lot of work. It seems to me that there had to be a purpose for destroying them, beyond wanton destruction.
It's not an easy location to get to. You don't need ropes or climbing gear, but it ain't easy. After all, my Brother Phil and I made it.....with a dog, in a few hours.

I would not suggest that anyone go anywhere, off the main trails, in the Superstitions......alone. Three, or more, is the best number off the trails. You can end up doing a mid-air flip in the blink of an eye.

See you soon,

Joe

 

[Blindbowman]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Good Morning Paul,

"Joe - I think (for me at least), the only way I'm going to be able to base an opinion on whether your map matches up with the Stone Maps or not will be to get out there and walk parts of it. I've spent a little time the last few days looking it over in comparison to various topo maps and I just can't make all the connections that you feel are so obvious - there are things I just can't "see" the way you are. It could very well be a spatial thing and specific to me - I know that throughout my work career I've never been good at learning how to do something by reading about it or watching someone else do it - the ONLY way I can positively learn how to do something is to do it myself a few times."

My map was put together around 45 years ago. It has a number of inaccuracies. Where I placed the trail going up onto the ridge is wrong.
It was actually a little north of the saddle above Willow Spring. It was not until 2002 that we made the climb into the saddle from East Boulder that I realized that the trail to the two monuments we originally found, was not through the saddle.

What is accurate, are the placement of the canyons and locator dots. The dots at the beginning of the trail are exact. After the trail turns to the east and climbs up onto the ridge......less so. I made some natural assumptions when I first drew the map, and the trail going through the saddle was one. I have never changed my map to match the reality of where we found those two monuments on the top of the ridge.

Everyone who has been in the mountains with me is aware of that fact. I have also had a number of friends who have looked for the monuments and they all knew they were not in the saddle.

The Stone Maps are, basically, hand drawn maps. They were not using any technology for accuracy. Write down your questions for what you can't see in the maps, and I will do my best to explain them. You can wait for the Rendezvous or just send them to me.

Over the years, my view of the maps has changed. At first I was convinced they were Jesuit. After around forty years of research, I no longer believe in a vast Jesuit treasure. LaFrance's cave of gold bars was the treasure I eventually gravitated towards. At this point in time, I believe the maps are a compilation of many treasure stories that have existed over the years. I am convinced that they are accurate as to landmarks, and some old mines and natural caves but will probably not point directly to any treasure.

The only thing that gives me pause, is the fact that I could not find those two monuments again. It's hard to believe that someone tore them down. That would have been a lot of work. It seems to me that there had to be a purpose for destroying them, beyond wanton destruction.
It's not an easy location to get to. You don't need ropes or climbing gear, but it ain't easy. After all, my Brother Phil and I made it.....with a dog, in a few hours.

I would not suggest that anyone go anywhere, off the main trails, in the Superstitions......alone. Three, or more, is the best number off the trails. You can end up doing a mid-air flip in the blink of an eye.

See you soon,

Joe

i would have to agree with your last statement joe .. me and brother almost walked off a stright drop cliff you could not see it from 8 ft away why talking back and forth we got to with in a few ft away before we saw it .. really dangerous .. the fall would have been life ending in those conditions .. some of the readers may think your trying to scare them ... i think your being logical about it .. there are a lot of dangerous things out there not related to man at all , the nature of the mts i guess ..

 

[Blindbowman]

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

i guess i am not talking about the same Crystal skulls you are .. i am talking about one skull that was made of silcon ..all the rest are fakes .. the legend as i know it is only based on that one skull part of a codex .. and yes i did nknow most of the skulls were fakes ..

i dont watch the legend any more because untill some real evidecnce is found its nothing more then a good camp fire story . and yes i agree joe .. the true nature of the one skull has never been proven to be fake ...

i really dont watch this legend .. its not my focus point lol

i dont think i would waste time hunting for the sorce ether ...

Back in the 80's,I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours with Anna and her crystal skull ,other maya artifacts and photo albums.I held the skull on my lap ,while she told me some of the stories and showed me her photo collection.She had a few figurines made of jade that were very similar in quality and finish,so it would have been possible,I suppose,for the Maya to have made such a skull.I have yet,though,to see any similar objects made of pure quartz crystal by the Toltec,Maya or the Aztec.
My own feeling was that Anna believed her story,perhaps a result of telling it so many times over the years.It is possible that her father purchased and later "planted" the skull for her to find,without knowing where it would all lead.

Regards:SH.

http://www.thestar.com/Travel/article/196456

the reason i stated anything about the crystal skul was because i did find other objects made of silcon .. this same type and grade... arrow heads ..cloveis.. shocking but true .. when we relate to the legend of chicomoztoc being the brithplace of tribes .. it is the only location known to have gone threw the great flood ..

i have been trying to find someone that has one of those crystal arrowheads . to have testeed to see if it is a match to the silcon at my old site 1, my new site is more then 4 miles away but dose have this pure type of silcon ..

i agree SH i dont know if the stroy was true or faults but the logic dose not make me beleive she knew the skull was fake ..often to hide a real object fakes are made and often confused with the real object to hide its where abouts ...as most .. its just a legend at this point .. yet for it to be found in a maya temple if it was .. then chicomoztoc is not unrelated to these sites ...

the real question is that skull fake and is there any real crystal skulls that are not fakes ...i was only makeing that statement because of the high grade silcon at site one ..

i do want to send a sample to be tested and find out as much about the silcon grade as i can .. no dout it is a almost pure grade of silcon ...

BB - I just want to correct you in your use of the word silicon. Since I work in the industry, I have to assume you meant to use the word silica not silicon correct?

if you want to test the sample ,you can tell me what it is .. i am a rock hound ..its a rock to me .. almost pure gem quality vs crystal formation vs matrix

and yes there is black sands stuck to this sample ..sorry i am just learning how to use this new nikon L110

BB - The place I work has the equipment necessary to test the crystalline structure of your sample, and although I've made the offer to a few people over the years to analyze things for them for free, I'm honestly not comfortable giving you an address to send the sample to me. The best suggestion I can make is for you contact a local university geology department and ask them for recommendations as to where to send it for analysis and hope it doesn't cost too much.

Best of luck - it looks like silica quartz, but without an analysis there's no way of assuming the purity of it or the crystalline structure.

no problem dude i would have had it tested by now if i really wanted to ..i would expect nothing less from you cupand if you work there smart on your part ...

its been in this bottle for 7 years,, its not going any where ..