Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,872
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
HOLA amigos,
Gollum wrote
To put it simply, YES. There was no good reason for this imposter to lie about the origins of his specimen. He could have not bothered to show any specimen at all, and would likely have still obtained the papers he wished. We could argue about what POSSIBLE motives such a person might have, and that he is definitely a liar, etc but on this point I have zero doubt. I also trust Tom Kollenborn's assessment, and though this statement may not appear in his articles, he stated it on public television for an episode of the TV series "Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Robert Stack, the episode is number 20 and was first aired 3/15/1989. If you have not seen this episode, I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the Lost Dutchman gold mine. In this episode, Kollenborn states that the ore specimen shown to him by the imposter Roland looked to be the same as Waltz's ore.
In Helen Corbin's book "The Curse of the Dutchman's Gold" she states, quote
Helen repeats this same set of statements in her book "The Bible on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz" on page 338. As far as I know, Tom Kollenborn has never contradicted her statements nor recanted his statements given on Unsolved Mysteries way back in '89.
This has been enough for MY PERSONAL OPINION as 'proof' that Walt Gassler had in fact found what he so excitedly told his friends Bob Corbin and Tom Kollenborn, the Lost Dutchman mine. Of the various other claimants who say they found the mine, none have shown any specimen which matched so well. Assay testing would be "final" proof, but a good geologist can tell by looking with the naked eye in most cases, and Kollenborn is known as a competent geologist, in fact he has published at least one study on the geology of the Superstition mountains. This set of evidences is likely NOT enough to suit many folks, but as I have stated previously (repeatedly) I do not need to see stacks of gold bars to be convinced, but need SOME evidence, just as I don't mind exploring many a wild theory, but wish to keep one foot on the ground rather than making leaps based on a string of suppositions. It is a "leap" to accept the statement of the imposter Roland, but not much of a leap and good old "Occam's Razor" comes in handy.
Not sure why this has become a bone of contention, as this is surely not "the" pillar of the subject here is it? After all there are plenty of folks who are convinced that Joe Deering, John Chuning, Sims Ely and others truly found the Lost Dutchman, it is just my own opinion concerning Gassler as the "sole" discoverer since Waltz.
Oroblanco

Gollum wrote
Do you REALLY want to believe the fake Roland Gassler as to the origin of the ore he showed TK?
To put it simply, YES. There was no good reason for this imposter to lie about the origins of his specimen. He could have not bothered to show any specimen at all, and would likely have still obtained the papers he wished. We could argue about what POSSIBLE motives such a person might have, and that he is definitely a liar, etc but on this point I have zero doubt. I also trust Tom Kollenborn's assessment, and though this statement may not appear in his articles, he stated it on public television for an episode of the TV series "Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Robert Stack, the episode is number 20 and was first aired 3/15/1989. If you have not seen this episode, I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the Lost Dutchman gold mine. In this episode, Kollenborn states that the ore specimen shown to him by the imposter Roland looked to be the same as Waltz's ore.
In Helen Corbin's book "The Curse of the Dutchman's Gold" she states, quote
<The Curse of the Dutchman's Gold Helen Corbin 1990 Foxwest Publishing Phoenix AZ pp 229>"That weekend a man appeared at Tom Kollenborn's home. He introduced himself as Walter Gassler's son. Tom invited the man in and after exchanging pleasantries the man brought out some rich gold ore. He said it was in his father's backpack when he was found on the trail. Tom was shocked. But, maintaining his usual dour facade, he examined the ore and later said it looked exactly like the gold which came from under the Dutchman's bed."
Helen repeats this same set of statements in her book "The Bible on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz" on page 338. As far as I know, Tom Kollenborn has never contradicted her statements nor recanted his statements given on Unsolved Mysteries way back in '89.
This has been enough for MY PERSONAL OPINION as 'proof' that Walt Gassler had in fact found what he so excitedly told his friends Bob Corbin and Tom Kollenborn, the Lost Dutchman mine. Of the various other claimants who say they found the mine, none have shown any specimen which matched so well. Assay testing would be "final" proof, but a good geologist can tell by looking with the naked eye in most cases, and Kollenborn is known as a competent geologist, in fact he has published at least one study on the geology of the Superstition mountains. This set of evidences is likely NOT enough to suit many folks, but as I have stated previously (repeatedly) I do not need to see stacks of gold bars to be convinced, but need SOME evidence, just as I don't mind exploring many a wild theory, but wish to keep one foot on the ground rather than making leaps based on a string of suppositions. It is a "leap" to accept the statement of the imposter Roland, but not much of a leap and good old "Occam's Razor" comes in handy.
Not sure why this has become a bone of contention, as this is surely not "the" pillar of the subject here is it? After all there are plenty of folks who are convinced that Joe Deering, John Chuning, Sims Ely and others truly found the Lost Dutchman, it is just my own opinion concerning Gassler as the "sole" discoverer since Waltz.
Oroblanco

