Dorick's work has two pages (plus the map) on the LUE. There really isn't any useful information here. The first and second editions of his book have the same information. He moved to Segundo and published his little book there. I think at some point he and KvonM had a bit of a falling out. I know later, Karl wrote that Dorick's information on the LUE wasn't accurate. What little there is.
Dorick's book includes yarns copied from Ken Krippene's worthless book, and his treasure symbols are stolen directly from Dobie's classic Coronado's Children - or from another "author" who took them first.
Somewhere in Karl's scattered writings about the LUE is a reference to Bureau of Ethnology Report (Washington, DC) that told the story. I remember reading it, but I can't provide a cite to the source.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
Interesting piece here Bookaroo, but you're mistaken in a big way.
1st Edition was published in Segundo by Dorick, who also had an article in the first on the revised NPGs (Volume 6 Issue 1). His 1st edition write up of the LUE consists only of the map and several sentences combining information from Johnny Pounds "The Treasure Hunter" about symbol interpretation and a few passages taken straight from the write up in THM7 by Karl von Mueller. His introduction in the 1st edition also urges readers to buy THM7 and praises the Exanimo Establishment and Karl von Mueller.
Dorick republishes Treasure Galore only 6 months later, now out of Dallas, Texas, as a 2nd Edition. This new edition omits all references to Karl and his business in the introduction and commits about a page of text condemning the LUE but offering very little information about it.
I wrote the following, which was published in Paul Tainter's Treasure Hunter's Express, outlining much of my criticism of Dorick and his ilk:
It is worth noting that in later issues when Karl talks about the “old timers,” he never (as best I can tell) mentions Fred Dorick. All signs point to a falling out between Karl and Dorick, with Dorick adding the LUE into the 2nd edition as a way of “sticking it to” Karl. This is speculation on my part…purely…but I also think the pieces fit.
This is about the same time that a number of other things happened pointing to hard feelings in the treasure hunting fraternity. Until about this same time, Karl had been publishing “Karl’s Korner” (Essentially “Ask Exanimo) in John Latham’s
True Treasure. After about 8 or so issues, Karl’s column disappears and reappears not long after with (I believe) Thomas Penfield at the helm. Karl’s departure is never acknowledged by Latham or Karl.
Around the same time as well, Thomas Hilton’s piece on the LUE, enormously critical of the story, appears in
True Treasure and Latham makes several comments in his magazine about the treasure being false. Karl in turn publishes (NPG Vol. 6 #2) a lengthy article and references authors, publishers, and critics without specifying, though it’s clearly directed at Hilton and Latham. My suspicion is that Dorick ”fell in” with Latham and Hilton.
About Dorick’s comments, let me specifically address what you published because that’s what Dorick wrote on the LUE in its entirety in the 2nd edition of
Treasures Galore. A few thoughts on what he wrote...
1) Dorick states, ”only two men have discovered the secret of the map.” Karl’s first statement printed with the map was that “Only two people have been able to decipher it…” It is a small distinction but an important one – there is a difference between deciphering the map and recovering any treasure. Dorick also overlooks the fact that
Treasure Hunter’s Manual #7 was first published in 1966, 5 years before he wrote his piece on the LUE, and ample time for others to make recoveries.
2) Dorick mentions the cache being worth $40 million, a figure first introduced by Thomas Hilton and a figure that Karl never suggested. More to the point, Dorick (and Hilton) both suggest that the LUE is a single cache; Karl maintained in nearly all his communication on the LUE that there were many caches.
3) Dorick mentions a booklet in the works but omits a title or author. Interestingly, Karl did the same thing, perhaps about the same book?
4) Dorick says, “The map is basically simple to figure out. I know of several different methods that can be used to work it, every one of which will take you to the same location!” In his own book, doing his best to discredit the LUE, he states how easy the map is to solve yet declines to demonstrate it. He has free reign to put his money where his mouth is and doesn’t. I think that’s very telling. He also has every opportunity to state and describe WHERE he believes the map directs the reader but doesn’t. Also very telling. Why keep this information to himself, especially since he’s convinced the treasure is a fake?
5) Dorick continues, “I have been in the LUE area on nine different occasions myself and must admit that I found nothing.” If you thought the map was a fake, why would you go back eight more times after the first time? What happened in between those visits that made him want to keep going to the same area looking for a treasure he didn’t believe in?
Ultimately Dorick had a clear playing field to present details, evidence, and substance to establish and support his conclusions. Instead, he relies on the broadest, vaguest, and flimsiest methods to make an argument. He had nothing preventing him from putting the LUE to rest once and for all but relied on innuendo rather than facts and details. It feels like a hit piece, and if Dorick had an axe to grind I’d submit he wore it clear down to the handle.
