Greetings,
This is a very long reply, my apologies but it was necessary to try to address all the interesting points raised.
Springfield wrote
We know Waltz existed and sold some ore. I really don't know if the 'Lost Dutchman Mine' existed or not. If I were young again and lived in Central Arizona, I would not spend serious time or energy trying to locate this alleged mine. Why? You cannot trust any information that did not come directly to you from the protagonist (and much from him either) - sorry, it's a fact of life. I believe my point is well demonstrated in this particular case by the lack of a LDM to gawk at, despite untold effort to find it.
Sure, the sources who have provided all the LDM lore may be forthcoming, of the highest integrity and believe with all their hearts that the info is accurate - and they have developed a loyal following who use this stuff as accepted dogma. Many have died in those hills believing in 'facts' they should have realized were most certainly disinformation. That's not to say an avid hobbiest might take on the legend for fun's sake - 'research', history, theories, what-if discussions, a good excuse to explore the mountains, 'adventure', etc. That's why most of us participate in these discussions.
Lost mines and concealed caches have been found, but not from information available in the public domain. As with so much else in life, you don't choose a golden opportunity, the opportunity chooses you. Sorry to seemingly throw cold water on all this, but I've learned to accept reality in life. Bottom line: the evidence supporting a 'Lost Dutchman Mine' seems too thin to warrent a serious commitment.
No apologies necessary for any 'cold water' applied, there are plenty of level headed historians whom would surely agree with you. Your first point is why we are reduced to what is generally available in public domain, for Waltz did not leave a written set of directions or hand-drawn map, though he did try to tell his friends which actually fits your specification; it was the protagonist attempting to give the directions directly and privately to his closest friends. These friends did not leave us those directions written down but were interviewed by others who did, as in Sims Ely, Pierpont Bicknell, Dick Holmes and Jim Bark. So indeed it is "third hand" so not of equal value to direct from the protagonist but is the best available.
Mitchell talked to people who claimed to have known Waltz so may "fit" with this third hand level to some degree, but as his version has elements which are not found in Ely or Bark. Dick Holmes information as passed to Brownie may not match what is found in the Holmes manuscript, as Brownie disowned it, so that source may not fit third hand level either.
The pioneer interviews are also third hand at best, and not verifiable as being "friends" with Waltz. They could be what Joe (Cactusjumper) classifies as the Elmer Keith "He11 I was there" syndrome type material.
Don Jose de la Mancha wrote
Gentlemen ?? As I have gathered, Waltz 'did file' on other prospects, mines, if so, why not on this one? He was naturalized and legally able to do so, no?
As Mike already addressed this, I have to agree. We can't know what Waltz's true reason(s) were for not filing on this mine, when he had no problems filing on three (and yes Cubfan you are correct, I don't have the books at hand but they are published) yet didn't file on this one. It appears that he did not want a crowd of people at his mine, when his home was in Phoenix so far away. As it was, if the story of Phipps is to be believed, it was being sniped even while he was still visiting the mine and he knew it. There appears to have been a greater concentration of claim jumpers and dry gulchers in the Phoenix-Florence area than was the case in the Bradshaws, where most of the prospectors seem to have been fairly honest, banded together against enemy Apaches etc.
One key difference between Waltz's claims in the Bradshaws and the case with the mine in the Superstitions, is that he had partners in the Bradshaws. For most of the time he had sole possession of the LDM.
Blindbowman wrote
well if we are going to debate waltz citizenship ,. i have to say i found nothing else in question as much as the statement about his citizenship in the Holmes manuscript. why becasue knowing where the real mine is and knowning how the Holmes manuscript is translate i know the rest of the Holmes manuscript is true to the word ...
i dont think the Waltz in ca. was the same waltz we know as the lost dutchman
What grounds do you base this belief on, that Jacob Waltz of CA is not the Jacob Waltz of AZ? Thank you in advance.
BB also wrote
say this waltz is not the same waltz that had citizenship in ca .. maybe someone used his name come on you got to agree that if thats the case what else in this Holmes manuscript is not true .. i can tell you for a fact i know the translation is true to the letter..
Maybe someone used his ID? For what purpose? This is speculation, pure and simple. As to a "translation" of the Holmes manuscript, it was as far as I know, written in English so no translation is called for.
BB also wrote
so what other parts of the Holmes manuscript do you think are not true ...?
I don't think we can put much trust in any of it, especially when Brownie disowned it. With the false info and no author admitting to it, the Holmes manuscript is highly questionable.
BB also wrote
and let me go on record and say
" i plain to prove the Holmes manuscript is in fact waltz 's WILL"
That will take some proving, to put it mildly. The rest of your speculation as to Waltz encoding his "will" in the form of a deathbed confessional, and Brownie supposedly keeping his father's "theft" of Waltz's will, also will take a lot of proving to get people to believe it. It is fun to speculate but without some solid evidence to support it, we could as easily speculate that Reiney stole Waltz's will and Julia wrote the Holmes manuscript to cover up Reiney's theft, then planted it on Holmes and so on. Speculation without any foundation. I hope you can show something to substantiate all this.
BB also wrote
and ROY you ask .. the BTK killer <snip>
The BTK killer did not give away a large portion of his life savings to help a friend in financial distress - good try, but his "good deeds" were confined to what helped to cover his identity as a vicious killer.
BB also wrote
ok let me ask you this . say i am correct about the will ; who would you beleave , a record in ca ,we dont even know if thats the same waltz or who made the record . or waltz him self in his own will ... i got to beleave the most logical sorce . and thats waltz him self .. he put it in the will . he would have known ....if you want debate the rest of the Holmes manuscript i will be more then willing to .. but lets keep it about the manuscript it self .....
just becasue you beleave one thing and i know the facts to be diffrent then what other beleave dose not make me wrong ...
I don't know why you follow this line of theory; the signatures on the documents sure look alike. Waltz had to sign the document for his citizenship. Waltz also signed a petition while mining in the Bradshaws. There is no reason to think that someone would assume his ID, fake his signature etc. This whole line of reasoning, however much you may believe you know it to be true, is lacking on several grounds - like a foundation for starters.
Gollum wrote
He filed for citizenship from Mississippi and received his actual citizenship papers while in California (I believe).
I still say it was too easy for others to get to his mine for him to file. <snip>
You said that much better than I could, have to agree completely.
Gossamer wrote
Oro as always you are a great read! When does the book come out on Beth and your adventures?
Thank you for the very kind words, but no book on that subject is in the works nor planned. Who would believe it anyway!
However I do hope to keep the pressure on our mutual amigo Don Jose' to write his life story, I would appreciate your assistance - we don't want to let him off the hook.
Oroblanco
