The Book Club

[starman 1]

jake Walzer

Mr. Croves,

An associate of mine was found of saying that you can lead them to water but you can not make them drink. I suspect one day you will understand this. Questions lead one to the truth and the fear of them lead you to other places. In terms of your efforts good luck, I am sure that your efforts will afford you an understanding of Jake that reflects the questions you are willing to ask. I am at this point simply happy that someone has finally got his name correct.

In terms of my understanding of Jake Walzer it maybe that I understand him a lot more than you think.


Martin Walzer
Starman


Mr. Ribaudo,

You seem a bit agitated. Is it because in your heart you understand that character assassination is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and you fear someone will smoke you out? Or do you fear that people will understand how little you really know and how even less you understand.

"As long as you persist on simply repeating the same mistakes that others have made then you will get no where with an understanding of the artifacts. Get a copy of Bent`s work again. Read it till it sinks in. Look at the pictures and ask yourself where have you seen landscapes that are recorded there. Just one example: The circumstances surrounding the discoveries of artifacts 6 and 7 on 01/24/1925 prove the artifacts were not planted. You just have to look at where the artifacts were found and who insisted Bent and Manier look there. Also on artifact 7(front Portion) is a carving of the saddle that is high up on the east side of West Boulder Canyon. Above that is a symbol of the ancients. That symbol is still up there. The artifact is showing you where a trail of the ancients begins and the back shows you where the trail ends.

Your work on the trail maps took you to little Boulder Canyon, artifact 7 will take you to the end of the trail. You really do not need the other trail maps or an understanding of how the two maps that are known can take you there".

If all you can do is repeat the same old worn out secondary sources there really is nothing to talk about. If you want to discuss the Tucson Artifacts do your homework.


As the above attests you cannot enter into a dialogue on the artifacts because you simply do not understand them well enough to even talk about them on a basic level. What you can do is repeat yesterday news time and time again.

Furthermore when someone approaches you with the opportunity to understand phenomena in a fundmenatally different way you simply recoil in fear because like those who thought the earth was flat the thought of it being round is simply too much.


"What I am trying to get you to see is these people have looked at the artifacts in a way that precludes any type of fundamental thinking. None have even begun to grasp the signifance of the artifacts as a map. Whether it be a map of the ancient world, Rome, Britain, Gaul, and Calalus, or a map of a specific location within the world. The Superstition Mountains of Arizona. Your saddle is on the artifacts, a map to the end of the trail is there also. You just have to see it"


And last but not least I generally never respond to personal attacks but having being involved somewhat in the business you like to drag up as evidence that you somehow possess a moral high ground let me say this. Your museum was graciously passed on for three reasons.

1. As Late told me on a number of occasions your efforts in trying to buy artifacts was such that your integrity was a serious issue. It seems you were more concerned with what you could squirrel away with more than what could be made available to the public.

2. The efforts of the people at the museum were neither timely nor respectful.

3. In my opinion to pursue providing your museum with a few trinkets was not worth the risk to your people or ours. The museum in South Africa is far bigger and is far better suited to deal with the magnitude of such a project. And I might add that was the opinon of a world class archeaologist who worked on the Oz project for over 20 years pointed out. She was quite a lady. I sat by her on a flight years ago from Phoenix to South Africa.

If you want to debate integrity Mr. Ribaudo you should perhaps get some of you own to start with. The folks you slander are far better than you. At the end of the day you are simply a footnote to history and not a very important one.

Mr. Croves

I was speaking on the phone with a gatekeeper last evening and he laughed and said something interesting. That being that if Mr. Croves can get Jake`s name right he should perhaps try to get his own name correct. Maybe that could be your next project.


Starman

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Hal Croves]

starman,

I am sitting here laughing this morning. Honestly, as I was writing that last post to you something in the back of my mind told me to expect a personal attack. And for what reason? Because I don't share the same position as you regarding Walzer? Is this your idea of being respectful? As far as leading me, I have never been a follower... unless I am tracking someone, or something.

Regarding the use of "Hal Croves", it is a silly screen-name, just like "starman" and the hundreds of others funny screen-names here on TN. I thought it was clever at the time. My actual name has been shared several times here online and most of the people who contribute to my threads (and those who just follow it) have known the name since I began posting several years ago. Please tell me that you didn't run-up your phone bill with your gatekeeper friend on my account. I am an insignificant nobody with a great hobby and my name is unimportant in the grand scheme. I don't mind keeping it that way either.

We are very different people, you and I, and our reasons for being part of this forum are (in my mind) worlds apart. That is perfectly fine. It is "democratic". You have a great tale to tell and one day I hope that you find the humility to tell it complete, with all the nitty details that support it. You might even think about starting your own thread.

I think that this is as good a place as any to end the conversation.

 

[cactusjumper]

Mr. Croves,

An associate of mine was found of saying that you can lead them to water but you can not make them drink. I suspect one day you will understand this. Questions lead one to the truth and the fear of them lead you to other places. In terms of your efforts good luck, I am sure that your efforts will afford you an understanding of Jake that reflects the questions you are willing to ask. I am at this point simply happy that someone has finally got his name correct.

In terms of my understanding of Jake Walzer it maybe that I understand him a lot more than you think.


Martin Walzer
Starman


Mr. Ribaudo,

You seem a bit agitated. Is it because in your heart you understand that character assassination is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and you fear someone will smoke you out? Or do you fear that people will understand how little you really know and how even less you understand.

"As long as you persist on simply repeating the same mistakes that others have made then you will get no where with an understanding of the artifacts. Get a copy of Bent`s work again. Read it till it sinks in. Look at the pictures and ask yourself where have you seen landscapes that are recorded there. Just one example: The circumstances surrounding the discoveries of artifacts 6 and 7 on 01/24/1925 prove the artifacts were not planted. You just have to look at where the artifacts were found and who insisted Bent and Manier look there. Also on artifact 7(front Portion) is a carving of the saddle that is high up on the east side of West Boulder Canyon. Above that is a symbol of the ancients. That symbol is still up there. The artifact is showing you where a trail of the ancients begins and the back shows you where the trail ends.

Your work on the trail maps took you to little Boulder Canyon, artifact 7 will take you to the end of the trail. You really do not need the other trail maps or an understanding of how the two maps that are known can take you there".

If all you can do is repeat the same old worn out secondary sources there really is nothing to talk about. If you want to discuss the Tucson Artifacts do your homework.


As the above attests you cannot enter into a dialogue on the artifacts because you simply do not understand them well enough to even talk about them on a basic level. What you can do is repeat yesterday news time and time again.

Furthermore when someone approaches you with the opportunity to understand phenomena in a fundmenatally different way you simply recoil in fear because like those who thought the earth was flat the thought of it being round is simply too much.


"What I am trying to get you to see is these people have looked at the artifacts in a way that precludes any type of fundamental thinking. None have even begun to grasp the signifance of the artifacts as a map. Whether it be a map of the ancient world, Rome, Britain, Gaul, and Calalus, or a map of a specific location within the world. The Superstition Mountains of Arizona. Your saddle is on the artifacts, a map to the end of the trail is there also. You just have to see it"


And last but not least I generally never respond to personal attacks but having being involved somewhat in the business you like to drag up as evidence that you somehow possess a moral high ground let me say this. Your museum was graciously passed on for three reasons.

1. As Late told me on a number of occasions your efforts in trying to buy artifacts was such that your integrity was a serious issue. It seems you were more concerned with what you could squirrel away with more than what could be made available to the public.

2. The efforts of the people at the museum were neither timely nor respectful.

3. In my opinion to pursue providing your museum with a few trinkets was not worth the risk to your people or ours. The museum in South Africa is far bigger and is far better suited to deal with the magnitude of such a project. And I might add that was the opinon of a world class archeaologist who worked on the Oz project for over 20 years pointed out. She was quite a lady. I sat by her on a flight years ago from Phoenix to South Africa.

If you want to debate integrity Mr. Ribaudo you should perhaps get some of you own to start with. The folks you slander are far better than you. At the end of the day you are simply a footnote to history and not a very important one.

Mr. Croves

I was speaking on the phone with a gatekeeper last evening and he laughed and said something interesting. That being that if Mr. Croves can get Jake`s name right he should perhaps try to get his own name correct. Maybe that could be your next project.


Starman

Starman,

1. As the folks down here were trying to figure out what Ben's/Late's game was, they came to the conclusion that you must be trying to force a cash offer for Ely's book, which we concluded you never had in the first place. I did offer to purchase it, with the understanding that I could not pay an unreasonable price. Since you did not have the book, no price was forthcoming. I was promised that a copy of Ely's signature would be faxed to me and, of course, that never happened.

2. As I have mentioned before, I have your original email from Ben, as well as the reply's from this side. I could post them all, but surely you realize that dog just won't hunt. Think of another smokescreen to obscure the true facts.

3. Another "fact" without a shred of evidence to back it up. As with Calalus, and Esconolia, just another tall tale.


"If you want to debate integrity Mr. Ribaudo you should perhaps get some of you own to start with. The folks you slander are far better than you. At the end of the day you are simply a footnote to history and not a very important one."

Really! I have slandered no one. I have there own words to confirm every word I have written. As with Calalus, you choose to bury your head in the sand to avoid seeing the truth. There are few people who believe in your story, other than folks with names like Starman, Klondike, Dog, .......etc. All names which will, no doubt, be more than a footnote to history.

Delusional is your word for the day. Google it and take what you read to heart. It describes your game to a T.


"What I am trying to get you to see is these people have looked at the artifacts in a way that precludes any type of fundamental thinking."

The obvious question here is.........Once again, WHY? Why would you care what we can see or believe? What are you trying to accomplish?

Bent's manuscript will be sent back to me soon. I have no intention of pouring over it again, trying to understand what a few demented people find so convincing. Been there done that.

"It seems you were more concerned with what you could squirrel away with more than what could be made available to the public."

I see. Where again was the place where you folks have squirreled away those priceless gifts to the world? Where can the "public" find them available for viewing and learning? I would be happy to go there and learn the truth that you folks have been trying so desperately to teach us over the years. Trouble is, we never get to meet our teachers, let alone see the instruments of our proposed education.

Your stories are nothing more than a diversion for us, just as we are a diversion for you, when things get boring.

If you knew anything at all about me, you would know that I am simply amused, not "agitated". I have no fear from anything that comes from your silly display of smoke and mirrors.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Starman,

I stand corrected. I see another ghost likes your last post. Perhaps he knows who Escanolia is. He does seem to know a great deal about Apache history., well.......at least he has impressed me. Has for years, actually.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

--> OT --< Morning Joe, and my other friends. I have a serious question, just how did the Apache, and other early tribes, handle sanitary diposal problems? Did they for example, have an equivelant to a single, 2, or 3 holer out house or just hide (?) behind the nearest bush? important for another project.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

The answer to your question is really quite simple. In most cases, our native people camped in one place until Cholera set in, and then they would move their camps upstream. The Apache, on the other hand, did not do their business in camp, but took a short hike.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

"A word about cactusjumper. This hard salami has been breaking my balls for a few years now. But in some twisted way I am in his debt because I know that anything I write will be scrutinized by him and if incorrect, challenged without reservation. It makes one try harder and dig a little deeper for the truth."

In truth, my friend, in most cases I don't have to scrutinize for mistakes........by any poster. The historical errors fairly leap off the page at me.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Hal Croves]

Wisner on the Walker Ranch?

I am looking for some help with this version of the Wisner story, specifically the genesis of the story and where one can find it in print. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'mormimg Joe mi amigo, my coffee? You posted --> The Apache, on the other hand, did not do their business in camp, but took a short hike.
*************
For a short trail or war party camp of a day or so, this might work. But for a semi permanent, or permanent camp, it would soon develop into a "Don't walk at night thingie".

Can you just see, you are achieving your conquest of that very pretty gal and as you lay her down behind a bush, she unfortunately finds that someone had beaten you to that place and left a very smelly card which is now plastered on her clothes. End of romantic episode.



Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Hal Croves]

Don Jose,

The answer to your question is really quite simple. In most cases, our native people camped in one place until Cholera set in, and then they would move their camps upstream. The Apache, on the other hand, did not do their business in camp, but took a short hike.

Take care,

Joe

cactusjumper, DJ,
While this topic is not related to the Dutchman, and not addressed to me, I thought that you may want to expand on the Apache's (generalized) use of the owl and owl symbols intentionally left along trails leading to villages effected by contagious disease. Any that survive (there is a small chance) may prove confusing to modern day treasure hunters.

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

Owls are not a good sign to the Apache. In fact, as a sign, they fear them. If an Apache dreamed of an owl, it meant death was close by. That would tie into your question, I would think.

I have held off on your question about Wisner at the Walker ranch to give someone else a chance to answer. Almost any good book on the LDM will have the story.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

Owls are not a good sign to the Apache. In fact, as a sign, they fear them. If an Apache dreamed of an owl, it meant death was close by. That would tie into your question, I would think.

I have held off on your question about Wisner at the Walker ranch to give someone else a chance to answer. Almost any good book on the LDM will have the story.

Good luck,

Joe

Thanks cactusjumper. I have read the article by T. Kollenborn which is great, but I am looking for more. Who did Walker tell this story to if he did tell it and when? Is that person known and what is their credibility? I guess that I am looking for the chain of custody so to speak. This is important. Barnard thought the story to be fiction, but I am not so sure.

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

If you believe that the Bark Notes, that are in circulation today are legitimate, than Jim Bark would have been the first one to tell the Jacob Weiser story. He did not get it from Walker, but got the story from Thomas Weedin, owner and publisher of The Arizona Blade newspaper, published in Florence, AZ.

Bark claims that Jacob Weiser was the name that Waltz used to enter the U.S. at Baltimore in 1837. If that were true, there was no Jacob Weiser. In truth, the story is quite convoluted and includes a Pima woman who was Waltz's actual partner.

If all of that is true, I have no idea how anyone can get to the bottom of that can of worms. The book that Sims Ely wrote tells a slightly different story. He claims there was actually a Jacob Weiser.

There were many crazy stories coming out of the woodwork after Waltz died, much like the people who claimed to have known him or to have been a close personal friend.

All I can say is, Good Luck trying to find the truth at this late date.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,
I nearly fell off my chair when I read your last post. The correct name was known by those closest to the Dutchman. H. Petrasch and Mulford Winsor confirmed this fact in 53' (Barnard). The name (I believe) was Walzer, not Waltzer, Waltz, Walz, or Wolz and there is good evidence to support this belief. If we are being honest here, I have to say that the manipulation of the Dutchman's name is as much a mystery as the man. I simply can not get my head around it.

However you may be right about not everyone knowing the name. B. Storms lawyer didn't even get it right. It just doesn't make sense.

View attachment 734069

Hal,

I have my doubts that Herman Petrasch knew Waltz that well......If at all.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

I have my doubts that Herman Petrasch knew Waltz that well......If at all.

Take care,

Joe

Here you are once again correct. Herman entered the story after the fact, so to speak, and his information was (I am guessing) secondary. But with concerns to the validity of his information on Walzer, specifically the name itself, this was confirmed by Frank Alkire. I have not gone too far into Frank's history yet, however Barnard and Kollenborn both write flattering things about Herman. Alright, TK does imply that in the end Herman's memory was slipping, however two independent sources do make for a compelling argument. And what about the bronze markers dedicated by The Ancient and Honorable Order of E Clampus Vitus and the amazing Don's? These groups initially believed the name was Walzer... then the unexplained change to Waltz. I am still struggling to understand that decision. It would be a great gift if someone from these groups could explain the thinking behind their decision.

The Petrasch's obviously did have a history of mental instability. Gotfried's pains were well known (including his legal trouble in the NorthWest) and his commitment/suicided attempt even written about in the paper. And Reinhart's fate seems no better. I am still not sure about young George Petrasch. Seems he passed at thirteen, but I don't know the cause yet. Any idea?

 

[cactusjumper]

Here you are once again correct. Herman entered the story after the fact, so to speak, and his information was (I am guessing) secondary. But with concerns to the validity of his information on Walzer, specifically the name itself, this was confirmed by Frank Alkire. I have not gone too far into Frank's history yet, however Barnard and Kollenborn both write flattering things about Herman. Alright, TK does imply that in the end Herman's memory was slipping, however two independent sources do make for a compelling argument. And what about the bronze markers dedicated by The Ancient and Honorable Order of E Clampus Vitus and the amazing Don's? These groups initially believed the name was Walzer... then the unexplained change to Waltz. I am still struggling to understand that decision. It would be a great gift if someone from these groups could explain the thinking behind their decision.

The Petrasch's obviously did have a history of mental instability. Gotfried's pains were well known (including his legal trouble in the NorthWest) and his commitment/suicided attempt even written about in the paper. And Reinhart's fate seems no better. I am still not sure about young George Petrasch. Seems he passed at thirteen, but I don't know the cause yet. Any idea?

Hal,

I hate making this a two person dialog, but I would question your source on Frank Alkire. A good deal of the information that puts him close to Waltz is made up fiction. I doubt there are many people who have dug into that man's history as deeply as I have. A number who have, were gifted the documented historical, personal, records of Alkire........by me.

It appears that there was one modern source for much of the erroneous "history". He provided that fictitious information to both Helen Corbin and Dr. Thomas Glover. His deceit has caused a lot of bad feelings in the Dutch Hunting Community.

It's unlikely that Frank Alkire even knew Petrasch, Jacob Waltz or was even in town at the time of Waltz's death. Frank was a prolific writer and never mentioned any of the names that surround the Waltz story.

There are people who will shake your hand, look sincere, and honest as the day is long, all the time while they are lying their ass off.

You might want to spend some time here:

Lost Dutchman Gold Mine - Arizona Superstition Mountain Wilderness - Gold Mining ? View topic - THE FRANK ALKIRE STORY......?

On looking back over my posts on Alkire, I notice where I mentioned that I felt Berti Roberts was as good as it gets, as a source. In those days my source was a friend. At this time I would urge anyone researching Berti Roberts to first try to find some source that documents that she even existed.

Please let me know if you find.......anything.

Take care,

Joe

I see Garry is looking in. Perhaps he can tell us if he has found anything on the lady.

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

"And what about the bronze markers dedicated by The Ancient and Honorable Order of E Clampus Vitus and the amazing Don's? These groups initially believed the name was Walzer... then the unexplained change to Waltz. I am still struggling to understand that decision. It would be a great gift if someone from these groups could explain the thinking behind their decision."

I would suggest you get in touch with Greg Davis for that question.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

WARNING!!!!

While I try to always be accurate, my memory is not as good as it used to be. I have always suggested that everyone double check any "facts" that I post. You would do well to double check everyone else as well. I will usually go back to my books and check on myself.

There are some really positive benefits attached to getting into this habit. Not only will you be sure of your own conclusions, but in checking othe's posted "facts" you will/may learn more on the subject.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Hal Croves]

cactusjumper,

"I hate making this a two person dialog, but I would question your source on Frank Alkire. A good deal of the information that puts him close to Waltz is made up fiction. I doubt there are many people who have dug into that man's history as deeply as I have. A number who have, were gifted the documented historical, personal, records of Alkire........by me.

I actually do not mind this two person dialog. When I read back through this thread, I become more appreciative of all that grey matter oozing from your noggin. I am sure that more than a few followers are paying attention to our conversation and don't blame them for their hesitation in posting. My deleting of past threads has made some apprehensive, which is understandable. Anyway I will read through your link tonight. There is just so much to absorb.

I would ask Greg Davis about the name change, however I think that I have pestered him enough. He has been quite generous and I don't want to push my luck. I can't begin to imagine what that mans inbox must look like.

I would like to know your thoughts on Jacob Wisner, the Dutchman's partner. Do you believe that he existed as part of this story? And his fate?

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

I'm afraid there has been a bit too much of that grey matter oozing/leaking from my noggin.

Yes, I think he did exist. Don't have much to bolster that belief, but maybe I just like the story better that way. Be more than happy to see some of the lurkers chiming in. Often notice Somehiker and Garry paying attention.

Hello Wayne.

Take care,

Joe