Exact location where Dick Holmes dug up the Dutchmans Nephew?

[cactusjumper]

Joe,

Thanks for checking!

EDN

EDN,

Glad to be prodded into making a correction. I may not be as reliable as I once was.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Ponchosportal]

EDN,

Glad to be prodded into making a correction. I may not be as reliable as I once was.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

I don't know about the reliability but you are for sure getting funnier.

Best wishes,
Poncho

 

[gollum]

Thanks Joe,

I was wondering why in hell Waltz would drag Weiser's (if he even existed) body THAT far North of Phoenix? HAHAHA

Mike

 

[EDN]

Joe,

My intent wasn't to call you out or make you fix a mistake. I really just wanted to get the conversation started and wanted to double check what I always thought was this place. This place has always intrigued me because of the number of times I heard it referenced. I'm sure just about everyone on this forum that lives around here has been out to this place. It's a pretty cool area. There is a very interesting black rock just outside the canyon to the north as the wash makes a sharp turn. The rock looks like it comes from deep in the earth. It is very different from the other types of rocks found in that area. I wonder if the water is there because it cannot penetrate the rock underneath that area. I will try to take some pictures of the rock I mentioned the next time I'm out there.

Does anyone know if a wagon could travel from Cottonwood Canyon down to the Salt River? I have driven my quad down there and it is extremely rough.

 

[EDN]

The rock is at Rock is at 33.592773°, -111.442404°.

EDN

 

[cactusjumper]

EDN,

I took no offense whatsoever. I'm not a fan of any information/clues that originate from the Holmes Manuscript. On the other hand, it could all be .....pretty much, true.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ed, the pioners, crossed the Sierra Nevadas in wagons. The Dutchmans Mtne area would be a picnic in comparison.

 

[markmar]

Don Jose

I believe you can not drive a wagon in the LDM area . But a picnic you can take overlooking the Military trail .

 

[TEGlover]

Good afternoon gentlemen,

Up here in Prescott it is warm and windy, and my choices this Friday afternoon are being inside enjoying a bit of civilized Dutchman banter, or laying more of a cement flagstone base for a raised bed. Guess which one lost.

Just a few points:

• George “Brownie” Holmes did write the manuscript we know today.

• I have talked with three people who watched him do it, er them. For it was not one manuscript; he kept making changes. And in days before word processors that could mean typing a whole chapter over. Some of the different versions in whole or in part are in the archives of the Superstition Mountain Historical Society.

• In the end Brownie decided not to have the manuscript published. It came to the public inadvertently. How Higham got his copy I know not, and have yet to find someone who does (for certain). That the Historical Society has parts of different versions arises from a near accident going back many decades to Tina’s Tiny Tavern. In no way was Brownie responsible for the manuscript becoming public.

• Kennison, I am told by a very reliable source, wrote the first draft and it was such a dime novel that Brownie essentially fired him. Brownie had specific reasons for wanting the manuscript out in public. But he never had a version that suited him or his motives.

• The question about why Waltz would take himself and his nephew on such a circuitous route back to Phoenix is a good question. Of course, if Waltz’s destination (real or used as an excuse) was not Phoenix then perhaps the route was not inappropriate---say Fort McDowell or its store? The site is remote enough that if the act was premeditated it could serve one’s purposes rather well. And my understanding is that the issue that got the nephew killed was one that had been simmering for some time.

• As for Waltz’s nephew, on our trip to Germany some years ago we (Carol and I) may have found a record of his name, his coming to American and disappearing.

• As for what happened on Waltz’s last night I respectfully beg off for some later time.

Happy Trails All!

Thomas

 

[somehiker]

Thanks Thomas...esp. for helping to clear up the questions raised about the source(s) of the manuscript.
I've wondered if one of the reasons for Brownie having disavowed the whole thing ( to some) was, in part, because of his friendship with Clay Worst.
That perhaps in doing so, he felt that he was helping Clay's own search by having others doubt the contents of the manuscript ??
Did Higham know Kennison ?
If so, perhaps it was Kennison who supplied an early version or draft, after being let go by Brownie.

Regards:Wayne S.

 

[EDN]

I don't want to pick a side. I think there are true and false information in all the books I've read about the LDM. Reading the manuscript and other online posts and personal research, I do believe Brownie was involved in creating the manuscript. Regardless if any of the information is true or not, Dick and Brownie believed the Dutchman had a mine. Why else would they spend a lifetime searching? I enjoy reading all the clues and stories and trying to figure out where it and other treasures might be located. The drive for me is simply, I enjoy exploring. When I'm out, I try not to come back the same way so I can see more stuff. The stories get me outside. Don't get me wrong, I would love to find the mine. However, even if I did, I think it would be cool if others were able to enjoy and see this place. I don't care about becoming a milti-millionaire.

I can't remember exactly where I read this but, thought it was interesting that when the Dutchman and Nephew left the mine and on the fist day from the mine stopped at hidden water. I have often wondered if this is second water.

 

[billyjoe]

Hey fast ship this is more of the Lost Dutchman fake news but the believers will not admit it. Just ask the RUTH FAMILY.

 

[cactusjumper]

I don't want to pick a side. I think there are true and false information in all the books I've read about the LDM. Reading the manuscript and other online posts and personal research, I do believe Brownie was involved in creating the manuscript. Regardless if any of the information is true or not, Dick and Brownie believed the Dutchman had a mine. Why else would they spend a lifetime searching? I enjoy reading all the clues and stories and trying to figure out where it and other treasures might be located. The drive for me is simply, I enjoy exploring. When I'm out, I try not to come back the same way so I can see more stuff. The stories get me outside. Don't get me wrong, I would love to find the mine. However, even if I did, I think it would be cool if others were able to enjoy and see this place. I don't care about becoming a milti-millionaire.

I can't remember exactly where I read this but, thought it was interesting that when the Dutchman and Nephew left the mine and on the fist day from the mine stopped at hidden water. I have often wondered if this is second water.

Over the years, and up to his death, Brownie denied writing the manuscript. Dr. Glover has said Brownie's family told him they remembered Brownie sitting at the kitchen table and working on the book. I believe both stories.

He may have thought there was some worth in the book, despite many errors and made up "facts". I believe he decided to give the manuscript some authenticity and added a little "ghost writing". In that effort, at the kitchen table, he added some true history from himself and his family. The one man who may be able to shed some light on this theory is Dr. Glover. There may be some others, but I know he spent some time with the family.

It would be interesting to see the final draft that came from Brownie. Anyone know what became of that original?......(Greg)? Was it all written in one hand, or perhaps two?

Good luck,

Joe

 

[azdave35]

Over the years, and up to his death, Brownie denied writing the manuscript. Dr. Glover has said Brownie's family told him they remembered Brownie sitting at the kitchen table and working on the book. I believe both stories.

He may have thought there was some worth in the book, despite many errors and made up "facts". I believe he decided to give the manuscript some authenticity and added a little "ghost writing". In that effort, at the kitchen table, he added some true history from himself and his family. The one man who may be able to shed some light on this theory is Dr. Glover. There may be some others, but I know he spent some time with the family.

It would be interesting to see the final draft that came from Brownie. Anyone know what became of that original?......(Greg)? Was it all written in one hand, or perhaps two?

Good luck,

Joe

there is another man that would for sure

 

[cactusjumper]

there is another man that would for sure

Dave,

Yes, I would imagine Clay would know.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

To get back to the original topic here, I don't believe Waltz killed his nephew......period. The story does not really conform to what the people who knew him best, related about the man.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[PotBelly Jim]

To get back to the original topic here, I don't believe Waltz killed his nephew......period. The story does not really conform to what the people who knew him best, related about the man.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Joe, I would agree that it really doesn't fit with ONE or MORE versions of Waltz. But, Dr. Glover has posted that Waltz actually did have a nephew that came to America and seemingly disappeared. This in my opinion is unusual, but not a smoking gun...pun intended...the name of the nephew is public record so I would imagine at some point, some intrepid researcher will track this fellow down if there's a record existing somewhere as to what happened to him.

What I'm totally confident in: His nephew's name was not Peter Backens, unless it was an alias.

Speculation: if Waltz did indeed kill someone and caved in a dirt bank over him at Agua Escondido, whether Holmes actually found that body or not, it very well could have been Peter Backens in that grave. Or, his nephew...or, the entire story is complete BS. I'm not sure we will ever know which is which.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

PotbellyJim,

How do you know Peter Backens was definitely not Waltz nephew, the man he killed at agua escondido? I have no opinion one way or the other but have found something that links Waltz and Backen beyond their mining claim partnership.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

PotbellyJim,

How do you know Peter Backens was definitely not Waltz nephew, the man he killed at agua escondido? I have no opinion one way or the other but have found something that links Waltz and Backen beyond their mining claim partnership.

Hi Matthew,

That is a good question, but I’m afraid I have no answer beyond what you are already aware. I will answer it anyway to the best of my ability for other folks reading this.

First, I want to distinguish clearly that I said I was “totally confident”. What I am totally confident about may appear to be hogwash to others, and that’s OK. I did not say it was definite, or to be more clear, historical fact.

My confidence comes from the research of Dr. Oertel, in the 2007 Superstition Mountain Journal. I’m totally confident that he located the correct Waltz family. To say why would take too long, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who has checked for themselves and come to a similar conclusion.

Waltz’s sister’s married surname was PREISS. None of his brothers married a BACKENS.

The versions of the Holmes manuscript that I’ve seen do not name Waltz’s nephew as Peter Backens, or anything at all with one exception.
Robert Lee’s, Dr. Glover’s, and Helen Corbin’s “Curse” printings of the story also have no name for the nephew.

The only reference I’ve seen that names the nephew as Peter Backens, is Helen Corbin’s “Bible”. She references him as the nephew both in the text, and for some reason inserted it in what seemed to be an otherwise a verbatim copy of the Holmes manuscript. She provides no reference for this. It’s clear by mentioning Backens both in the text, and inserting Peter Backens in this version of the Holmes Manuscript, that she believed she knew who Waltz’s nephew was. I have no idea why. But in the absence of a verifiable source, and one I might add I’ve been unable to find despite considerable searching, I’m fairly confident that she was either mistaken, or using the name of one of Waltz’s German fellow miners as a “placeholder” and never corrected it before the book went to print.

My last point is that Dr. Glover has posted earlier in this thread that he had found what appears to be a nephew of Waltz’s that emigrated to America and seemingly disappeared. I’m confident that if this nephew’s name was Backens, he would have mentioned it as it would have been a very significant indicator that Helen’s “Bible” references had been corroborated to a large degree.

So it is all the above taken in totality, and a familiarity with Waltz’s actual association with a Peter Backens, that gives me total confidence that if Waltz did kill his nephew, that nephew’s name was not Peter Backens unless it was an alias he was using for some reason.

I'm sure I've not added to your understanding of the situation, but have answered your question. Would you be willing to share with us what information you've found linking Peter Backens to Waltz, beyond their mining claim partnership? Thanks, Jim

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Hi Matthew,

That is a good question, but I’m afraid I have no answer beyond what you are already aware. I will answer it anyway to the best of my ability for other folks reading this.

First, I want to distinguish clearly that I said I was “totally confident”. What I am totally confident about may appear to be hogwash to others, and that’s OK. I did not say it was definite, or to be more clear, historical fact.

My confidence comes from the research of Dr. Oertel, in the 2007 Superstition Mountain Journal. I’m totally confident that he located the correct Waltz family. To say why would take too long, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who has checked for themselves and come to a similar conclusion.

Waltz’s sister’s married surname was PREISS. None of his brothers married a BACKENS.

The versions of the Holmes manuscript that I’ve seen do not name Waltz’s nephew as Peter Backens, or anything at all with one exception.
Robert Lee’s, Dr. Glover’s, and Helen Corbin’s “Curse” printings of the story also have no name for the nephew.

The only reference I’ve seen that names the nephew as Peter Backens, is Helen Corbin’s “Bible”. She references him as the nephew both in the text, and for some reason inserted it in what seemed to be an otherwise a verbatim copy of the Holmes manuscript. She provides no reference for this. It’s clear by mentioning Backens both in the text, and inserting Peter Backens in this version of the Holmes Manuscript, that she believed she knew who Waltz’s nephew was. I have no idea why. But in the absence of a verifiable source, and one I might add I’ve been unable to find despite considerable searching, I’m fairly confident that she was either mistaken, or using the name of one of Waltz’s German fellow miners as a “placeholder” and never corrected it before the book went to print.

My last point is that Dr. Glover has posted earlier in this thread that he had found what appears to be a nephew of Waltz’s that emigrated to America and seemingly disappeared. I’m confident that if this nephew’s name was Backens, he would have mentioned it as it would have been a very significant indicator that Helen’s “Bible” references had been corroborated to a large degree.
[FONT=&]
So it is all the above taken in totality, and a familiarity with Waltz’s actual association with a Peter Backens, that gives me total confidence that if Waltz did kill his nephew, that nephew’s name was not Peter Backens unless it was an alias he was using for some reason.

I'm sure I've not added to your understanding of the situation, but have answered your question. Would you be willing to share with us what information you've found linking Peter Backens to Waltz, beyond their mining claim partnership? Thanks, Jim
[/FONT]

Potbelly Jim,

Thank you for that explanation. I have no opinion if Backen was Waltz nephew or not, only a suspicion he may have been. The Ortel (Waltz) is definitely not the dutchman. Born in a different Year with the name Jakob Walz. Came to America, married and died almost 20 years before the dutchman death. What Ortel did was find a Walz close to our dutchman, followed him to America but then lost track of him completely. At that point he simply tacked onto the man what we already knew about the real dutchman.

As for Backen he is the man Glover found that mysteriously disappeared at the time Waltz supposedly killed his nephew.

Someone died at agua escondido and their skull was taken from there. That is not only in the Holmes family stories but also in the Jones and Coolidge family stories. Was that dead man Backen? I don't know for sure but he is a good candidate. Backen was the correct age to be Waltz nephew and disappeared in the time period Waltz killed his nephew. He was involved in mine claims with Waltz in Arizona.