JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[Springfield]

... You know, you hunt for a gold mine where there is gold, and silver where there is silver. ...

Oroblanco

Seekers of lost mines ought to have this message tattooed in a conspicuous place, say, their right forearm.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[deducer]

We don't read what mission he was at, or what year it was. Were there mines nearby (probably). It's even possible there were miners present, and it was their mercury.

Since his travel journals concern the Sonoran region between 1755-1767, it would be either at the Los Santos Reyes de Cucurpe mission up until 1761, then Baseraca (Bavispe) until 1764, when his health became so precarious that he had to take refuge at Guazabas under Nentvig, until he was taken to Mexico City around the time of the expulsion.

Since in the portion of the journal where he writes about the amalgamation, he refers to the Indians as "my Indians," this would most likely be Cucurpe where he was in charge, and especially so because those Indians were Pimas.

Since he was working with Indians, it's pretty safe to assume that the mercury was his. There is no written description of miners during the time he was at Cucurpe.

Also when he was brought to Mexico City, he "had lost control over all his limbs..." (Early history of the Southwest through the eyes of the German speaking Jesuits by Albert Classen). He has also been described as having "severe arthritis."

These are some of the described effects resulting from mercury poisoning, which involve distress or deterioration of the nervous system, so it's not unreasonable to assume that he had been in contact with mercury for a sustained period of time.

 

[gollum]

Joe,

You are absolutely correct that, in the midst of the debate, I quoted the Father incorrectly. I should have gone to the book for the quote. I usually do, but this has gotten long.

That said,

Joe, you are once again reaching at straws for possibilities that aren't hinted at by Father Och. He wasn't traveling in the company of miners. HE (not his company) was the dinner guest of this Indian Family. He does not not speak of carrying a cross on a long cord around his waist either, but he has one nonetheless. He does, however, mention the use of Mercury to test the quality of gold in those plates.

Springy,

A couple of pages ago, you asked why all the hubbub about Mercury. I answered that BEFORE you had asked it! HAHAHA Ask yourself,

"WHO GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON THE MERCURY QUESTION?"
Answer: Joe.

"WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?"
Answer: Right after I asked the questions that could not be answered without implicating the Order.

Remember when I said that EXACT thing would happen? When some people can't answer a question without admitting the "other side" is correct, they either:

1. Pretend to be insulted (which Joe did)

and/or

2. Go into pages long arguments on minutiae that have no relevance to the questions asked in hopes that everybody will forget about the original questions (which Joe did either knowingly or unknowingly)

HAHAHA.

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe,

You are absolutely correct that, in the midst of the debate, I quoted the Father incorrectly. I should have gone to the book for the quote. I usually do, but this has gotten long.

That said,

Joe, you are once again reaching at straws for possibilities that aren't hinted at by Father Och. He wasn't traveling in the company of miners. HE (not his company) was the dinner guest of this Indian Family. He does not not speak of carrying a cross on a long cord around his waist either, but he has one nonetheless. He does, however, mention the use of Mercury to test the quality of gold in those plates.

Springy,

A couple of pages ago, you asked why all the hubbub about Mercury. I answered that BEFORE you had asked it! HAHAHA Ask yourself,

"WHO GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON THE MERCURY QUESTION?"
Answer: Joe.

"WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?"
Answer: Right after I asked the questions that could not be answered without implicating the Order.

Remember when I said that EXACT thing would happen? When some people can't answer a question without admitting the "other side" is correct, they either:

1. Pretend to be insulted (which Joe did)

and/or

2. Go into pages long arguments on minutiae that have no relevance to the questions asked in hopes that everybody will forget about the original questions (which Joe did either knowingly or unknowingly)

HAHAHA.

Mike

Mike,

Everything you accuse me of doing is exactly what you do in......any debate. When you are trying to establish that Father Och carried a flask of mercury around with him in his travels, in case he needed it for purposes of mining, you are being misleading. You are desperate to make this connection.

Being at work now, I won't be able to quote exactly, but in truth, I will be more accurate than you......with a book. You add little details to what could be Father Och's narrative and couch them as "facts" in order to give your theories more weight.

Nowhere does Father Och mention a flask of mercury, and further, he does not mention the source of the mercury. He does not mention being at dinner with the Indians, and stating they are his, might indicate the events took place at one of his missions.

I will give you that (probably) every Jesuit had knowledge of mining. That means nothing, other than that they found it impossible to adhere to some precepts. Carnal knowledge, in those days, meant you were engaging in sex, not that you didn't know how babies were made. Considering the fact that they were paid in gold and silver, it would be impossible to not know anything about the metals.

"1. Pretend to be insulted (which Joe did)

and/or

2. Go into pages long arguments on minutiae that have no relevance to the questions asked in hopes that everybody will forget about the original questions (which Joe did either knowingly or unknowingly)


Everything in bold is just more insults trying, once again, to diminish your opponent in any debate you get involved in.

["WHO GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON THE MERCURY QUESTION?"
Answer: Joe.]

I suppose that could be, but I don't remember it that way. Actually the mercury debate was started by YOU! Post #57, Dec. 10, 2009:

[Next, we come to Father Joseph Och SJ once again. In his book "Missionary in Sonora; the travel reports of Joseph Och, S.J., 1755-1767":

After this the dishes were ready for use in cookery. .... many were worth more than a ducat because of the thousands of gold scales found mixed in with the clay. This gold could not have been collected through washing without an expenditure of labor in excess of the cost. It was true gold as I proved with a bit of quicksilver with which it immediately formed an amalgam....


Okay Joe. There ya go! If no Jesuit was supposed to show knowledge of mining (either direct or indirect) under Ecclesiastical Precept, and to do so would mean committing teh SIN of breaking his Vow of Obedience. Why then, is Father Och SJ carrying mercury? Mercury would have had no use in 1755 (when that happened) other than in amalgamating precious metals! That is DISPLAYING a very intimate knowledge of mining and/or refining (which is a part of mining). So......maybe the naysayers could enlighten us as to why Father Och SJ was carrying mercury? I guess they'll say he was delivering it to a secular at a mine. Okay, then why did he display the knowledge of how to use it in regards to mining by verifying the gold scale in the plates was actually gold by amalgamating it with some quicksilver (mercury)?

Best-Mike]

Here's more minutia showing that you just make up the "facts" as you go along. "HE (not his company) was the dinner guest of this Indian Family." Once again you are adding your own unique brand of "color" to make a story more interesting......I suppose. Try, just once, to stick to what was written.

There are other explanations of what took place. Miners were often at the missions. That could be the source of the mercury. The fact that he mentions no miners, or the fact that he wore a cross suspended around his waist in not evidence that neither existed at the time and place.

Mike, I like you in person, but you should stop trying to bolster a false story with inaccurate, made up "facts". Are they important......not really. History is changed one word at a time, and in some cases one story at a time. You are part of that ongoing decay of the truth.

All of this has nothing to do with "JESUIT TREASURES-ARE THEY REAL?" It's all about adding little branches to the fire to make it a white-man's fire.

All that being said, I still love ya and hope to see you at the Rendezvous again this year. This will be our last one, as my mind and body are failing fast. Quit trying to take advantage of that.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

"Carnal knowledge, in those days, meant you were engaging in sex, not that you didn't know how babies were made"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Babies I thought that the Stork made and brought them ?? ya mean that Beth fibbed to me >>>

 

[gollum]

Mike,

Everything you accuse me of doing is exactly what you do in......any debate. When you are trying to establish that Father Och carried a flask of mercury around with him in his travels, in case he needed it for purposes of mining, you are being misleading. You are desperate to make this connection.

Being at work now, I won't be able to quote exactly, but in truth, I will be more accurate than you......with a book. You add little details to what could be Father Och's narrative and couch them as "facts" in order to give your theories more weight.

No where does Father Och mention a flask of mercury, and further, he does not mention the source of the mercury. He does not mention being at dinner with the Indians, and stating they are his, might indicate the events took place at one of his missions.

I will give you that (probably) every Jesuit had knowledge of mining. That means nothing, other than that they found it impossible to adhere to some precepts. Carnal knowledge, in those days, meant you were engaging in sex, not that you didn't know how babies were made. Considering the fact that they were paid in gold and silver, it would be impossible to not know anything about the metals.

"1. Pretend to be insulted (which Joe did)

and/or

2. Go into pages long arguments on minutiae that have no relevance to the questions asked in hopes that everybody will forget about the original questions (which Joe did either knowingly or unknowingly)


Everything in bold is just more insults trying, once again, to diminish your opponent in any debate you get involved in.

["WHO GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON THE MERCURY QUESTION?"
Answer: Joe.]

I suppose that could be, but I don't remember it that way.

Here's more minutia showing that you just make up the "facts" as you go along. "HE (not his company) was the dinner guest of this Indian Family." Once again you are adding your own unique brand of "color" to make a story more interesting......I suppose. Try, just once, to stick to what was written.

There are other explanations of what took place. Miners were often at the missions. That could be the source of the mercury. The fact that he mentions no miners, or the fact that he wore a cross suspended around his waist in not evidence that neither existed at the time and place.

Mike, I like you in person, but you should stop trying to bolster a false story with inaccurate, made up "facts". Are they important......not really. History is changed one word at a time, and in some cases one story at a time. You are part of that ongoing decay of the truth.

All of this has nothing to do with "JESUIT TREASURES-ARE THEY REAL?" It's all about adding little branches to the fire to make it a white-man's fire.

All that being said, I still love ya and hope to see you at the Rendezvous again this year. This will be our last one, as my mind and body are failing fast. Quit trying to take advantage of that.

Take care,

Joe

Joe,

Before anything else, again, we are friends. Nobody insulted you. I just stated a fact. Remember when Deducer cast aspersions on your research skills? Who was th first person to jump in your corner?

Once again, very simple: Father Och was nt traveling with any miners. He did nt have an entourage with him. HE was invited to join an Indian Family for dinner. He noticed all the gold flakes in the dinner plates. HE made the statement that the cost to extract them would have exceeded the value of the gold. HE said the flecks were proven to be gold by virtue of rubbing some quicksilver on them.

Lets say that for the sake of argument, that the Indian had the mercury. Father Och made two statements and committed one action showing his knowledge of the mining arts. That was the Sin of Disobedience by breaking the Ecclesiastical Precept against Priests of mining, or having knowledge of mining (either directly or indirectly).

Please show me where I have feigned insult where no insult was intended in order to avoid answering a question? Please also show me where I have started a multi page argument about some minescule deatail that had no relevance to a question asked of me? The quickest example: When Springy had some specific questions he wanted answered, did I not address them each as soon as I returned to the forum? I had some simple questions of you, and at first you avoided them, then after Deducer mentioned I was still waiting on answers, you answered one of the questions in a smarta$$ed way (basically dismissing it), then came the multi page mercury arguments. I have never ignored a direct question put to me (that I can remember). There are times when I have taken some time away from the forums, and things go unanswered. I like to think that if someone can show me convincing arguments that I am wrong on a given subject, that I am enough of a man to admit it. In the almost 140 pages of this thread, people have shown massive amounts of evidence (some documentary, some anecdotal, some circumstantial, and some wishful thinking) that the Jesuit Order was involved in mining, BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN THRUST OF THIS THREAD!

Remember, it is titled: "JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?"

THAT is why I keep saying For arguments sake, lets pretend that the Jesuits were not involved in mining........" It does not matter in the least! JUST with the loot they obtained from their LEGAL ventures, they had ammassed an enormous amount of wealth! Just read all the Jesuit Fathers' Journals. There are detailed descriptions. WHERE DID IT ALL GO?

THESE ARE THE ABSOLUTE FACTS:

1. Largest Sugar Plantation in the New World (worth millions): Taken by Spain and sold

2. Largest herds of Horses, Cattle, and Sheep in the New World: Taken by Spain and sold

3. Largest fields of crops in the New World for sale and for the missions. Taken by Spain and sold

4. Many properties received by sale, donation, and willed. Taken by Spain and sold

5. Rich Church Vestments of gold and silver: ? NOBODY KNOWS?

6. Millions of dollars annual revenue from the sugar plantation: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

7. Millions of dollars of revenue from sales of livestock: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

8. Revenues from the sale of crops: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

9. Millions upon millions of dollars donated/tithed to the Church (by law): ?NOBODY KNOWS?

Possible/Probable Wealth:

1. Gold and Silver Bullion made from secret mining operations: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

We know all that wealth was there at one point in time. It was seen and vividly described by several Jesuit Missionary Priests in their journals. Then, on the night of 25-26 June 1767, the Spanish rounded up all the Jesuits in Nueva Vizcaya. It was supposed to have been a big secret. So, why when the Spanish Soldiers tore up all the Cabeceras, Colegios, and Missions did they not find anything but a couple of thousand pesos here and there? Of the millions, upon millions, upon millions of pesos we know they made legally, only a dab was found when they were arrested.

So we know it was hidden before 25 June 1767. That idea is strengthened by the list Fray Serra put together. When he was tasked with founding the California Mission System in 1768, he was told to take anything he needed from the old Jesuit Missions. There was no wealth.

So, we are left with three choices:

1. The Jesuit Fathers lied n their journals about what they say they saw. Not very likely in my book.

2. The Jesuits had a very good "underground railroad" (not literally) tha transported all their wealth to one or the other coast for shipping to either Rome or Manilla. In 1765-1766, the Order was under VERY close surveillance by representatives of the King of Spain. It is not likely that all their collected wealth could have been shipped out of the country before then, and definitely not during or after.

3. All or some of the wealth was hidden during the three years after the French Jesuits were suppressed from French Territories, before their Spanish Suppression. Based on more anecdotal evidence than written documents (except Canada Law Review Article about Jesuit Treasure in Rio). I tend to believe theis one mainly due to the Law Review Article.

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

As for another reason why Father Och may have had mercury in his possession at his mission, I submit it may have been because of his long term illness. Mercury was known as a medicine for arthritis. He considered himself a "doctor". In that capacity, he treated the Indians with a mixture that included liberal doses of mice feces.

If he believed in that mixture, he may very well have used it on himself. That being the case, he may have added the Hantavirus to his problems. A potentially lethal combination.

I only offer this to show other answers for his having mercury are possible.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[deducer]

As for another reason why Father Och may have had mercury in his possession at his mission, I submit it may have been because of his long term illness. Mercury was known as a medicine for arthritis. He considered himself a "doctor". In that capacity, he treated the Indians with a mixture that included liberal doses of mice feces.

If he believed in that mixture, he may very well have used it on himself. That being the case, he may have added the Hantavirus to his problems. A potentially lethal combination.

I only offer this to show other answers for his having mercury are possible.

Good luck,

Joe

You continually confuse the fact that the actual metal itself was not, has never been, and never will be used for medicinal purposes. Only the salts derived via precipitation or sublimation was. So if, in fact, Fr. Och was treating himself with mercury, it would have been in powder form and completely useless for amalgamating.

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

[Before anything else, again, we are friends. Nobody insulted you. I just stated a fact. Remember when Deducer cast aspersions on your research skills? Who was th first person to jump in your corner?

Once again, very simple: Father Och was nt traveling with any miners. He did nt have an entourage with him. HE was invited to join an Indian Family for dinner. He noticed all the gold flakes in the dinner plates. HE made the statement that the cost to extract them would have exceeded the value of the gold. HE said the flecks were proven to be gold by virtue of rubbing some quicksilver on them.]

Of course we are friends. There is no requirement that friends must think alike or never disagree. I never signed up for that. I may not have said so, but I certainly did appreciate your jumping in my corner. I have been in your corner as well.

I don't think anyone said that Father Och had an "entourage" of miners traveling with him, or that he was even traveling. I believe he was at his own mission, as he called the Indians "my Indians". Miners did a lot of business with the missions, as you well know.

He was not "invited to join an Indian Family for dinner". That is just your overactive imagination at work again. Than again, maybe he was. As you can see, there are many possibilities for what took place so many years ago. You know this history better than anyone. Just stick to that history, without embellishment.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Father Och does not say anything about carrying around a dangerous vial of mercury. Nowhere does he claim the quicksilver was even his. We don't read what mission he was at, or what year it was. Were there mines nearby (probably). It's even possible there were miners present, and it was their mercury.

and

There are other explanations of what took place. Miners were often at the missions. That could be the source of the mercury. The fact that he mentions no miners, or the fact that he wore a cross suspended around his waist in not evidence that neither existed at the time and place.

and

As for another reason why Father Och may have had mercury in his possession at his mission, I submit it may have been because of his long term illness. Mercury was known as a medicine for arthritis. He considered himself a "doctor". In that capacity, he treated the Indians with a mixture that included liberal doses of mice feces.

If he believed in that mixture, he may very well have used it on himself. That being the case, he may have added the Hantavirus to his problems. A potentially lethal combination.
I only offer this to show other answers for his having mercury are possible.

I put selected words in BOLD which were not that way when posted, to highlight the nature of these statements; namely they are all speculation. If we simply read what father Och wrote,

quote

"Besides the three days' toil that went into these vessels, many were worth more than a ducat because of the thousands of gold scales found mixed in with the clay. This gold could not have been collected through washing without an expenditure of labor in excess of the cost. It was true gold as I proved with a bit of quicksilver with which it immediately formed an amalgam. Girls and women fetch water from the brook in these vessels, place them brimful on their heads, and walk along straight as an arrow, balancing them without spilling a drop."

Now what is the only stated use of Mercury by father Och? Does he say he was using it to mix up medicines, or build thermometers or for coating glass to make mirrors etc? No, he states that he used it to test some gold flakes, which formed an amalgam. That is the main reason for having liquid mercury really.

Also you do not have to wait twenty years for this to 'morph' into a lost mine story, for father Och matter-of-factly reported on a clay deposit loaded with gold flakes, which as far as anyone knows has never been developed into a mine; so in fact this is a legitimate lost gold mine, though one which would be very labor intensive to extract the gold from. Now you may well view that as being akin to making fantasies, however father Och seems to be a very sound source, no reasons to dismiss what he stated, nor any reason to suppose that this clay bed used by the local Indians to make dishes has since been "discovered" and developed, so is actually a very sound "lost mine story" right on the face of it. Shall we name this one, Father Och's Lost Gold Clay Bed of Sonora? Or do you deny that it was gold, or that the gold scales were found mixed in the clay, that Och was making up a story etc or that some treasure writer, feverishly working in his basement made it up from whole cloth to get rich from the sale of the resulting treasure books, as is so frequently framed up here on this treasure forum?

About the friendship there should be no doubts; we can read the very same words in a written source and get several different interpretations as to what it really means. Trying to win over our friends to see things from a different perspective however is not that easy.

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

Babies

I thought that the Stork made and brought them

?? ya mean that Beth fibbed to me >>>

Stork? That sure is a funny name for "it", must have a LONG NECK!

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Father Och had suffered long and hard by the time he wrote those words. He may, or may not, have had accurate memories of what transpired. I have seen it many, many times with the elderly. That is especially true with those who have had long bouts with illness.

As Mike mentioned, it's not 100% that the words were his, although he believes they were.

Once again, other answers are POSSIBLE.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

You continually confuse the fact that the actual metal itself was not, has never been, and never will be used for medicinal purposes. Only the salts derived via precipitation or sublimation was. So if, in fact, Fr. Och was treating himself with mercury, it would have been in powder form and completely useless for amalgamating.

deducer,

I believe the only one who is confused is you. On the other hand, uninformed would probably be more appropriate.

"Mercury was among the first metals known, and its compounds have been used throughout history. Archaeologists found mercury in an Egyptian tomb dating from 1500 BC. The Egyptians and the Chinese may have been using cinnabar as a red pigment for centuries before the birth of Christ. In many civilizations mercury was used to placate or chase away evil spirits. The alchemists thought that mercury, which they associated with the planet Mercury, had mystical properties and used it in their attempts to transmute base metals into gold. The Greeks knew of mercury and used it as a medicine. Mercury and mercury compounds were used from about the 15th century to the mid 20th century to cure syphilis. Because mercury is extremely toxic and its curative effect is unproven, other syphilis medicines are now used. The usefulness of mercury is limited by its poisonous nature and scarcity."

In addition to being used in attempts to cure syphilis, it was also used to treat constipation.

No one is saying that it was good medicine, but it's not the first or last time that doctors will prescribe stuff that will make you worse, or even kill you. That's why they call it PRACTICING MEDICINE. I give you Father Och, who was using rat turds to treat his Indians. Considering the pain he was in, it would not really surprise me to learn that he was using a combination of rat turds and mercury.

Joe

 

[deducer]

deducer,

I believe the only one who is confused is you. On the other hand, uninformed would probably be more appropriate.

"Mercury was among the first metals known, and its compounds have been used throughout history. Archaeologists found mercury in an Egyptian tomb dating from 1500 BC. The Egyptians and the Chinese may have been using cinnabar as a red pigment for centuries before the birth of Christ. In many civilizations mercury was used to placate or chase away evil spirits. The alchemists thought that mercury, which they associated with the planet Mercury, had mystical properties and used it in their attempts to transmute base metals into gold. The Greeks knew of mercury and used it as a medicine. Mercury and mercury compounds were used from about the 15th century to the mid 20th century to cure syphilis. Because mercury is extremely toxic and its curative effect is unproven, other syphilis medicines are now used. The usefulness of mercury is limited by its poisonous nature and scarcity."

In addition to being used in attempts to cure syphilis, it was also used to treat constipation.

No one is saying that it was good medicine, but it's not the first or last time that doctors will prescribe stuff that will make you worse, or even kill you. That's why they call it PRACTICING MEDICINE. I give you Father Och, who was using rat turds to treat his Indians. Considering the pain he was in, it would not really surprise me to learn that he was using a combination of rat turds and mercury.

Joe

I fail to see what the Chinese, the Greek, and the Egyptians have to do with the discussion at hand.

When I said the actual metal itself was never used as medicine, I said it in the context of this thread, as in the context of Fr. Och, as in there is no record of the New World Jesuits ever having used mercury as medicine. But if they had, it would most certainly not have been the metal itself, but the powder byproduct achieved via precipitation.

You continually try to drag the discussion elsewhere, or extrapolate as is your MO. We are not discussing who else may have used mercury as medicine, we are discussing if the Jesuits did so, in the context of Fr. Och and what he was doing with mercury on his person, and there is no evidence to suggest that they did, and you did not come up with any, to prove me wrong. So it is not plausible at all, that Fr. Och was carrying mercury for anything else than amalgamation. And as I pointed out, if we even assume that Fr. Och was using it as medicine, it would have been the powder byproduct as was the practice at the time, and therefore useless for amalgamating.

Insofar as we are discussing Fr. Och, we are then discussing the Jesuits of the New World, and not once in Florilegium Medicinal does the subject of mercury or calomel come up. The Jesuits of the New World relied heavily on indigenous remedies which naturally precludes mercury.

 

[Oroblanco]

Mmm-mm rodent-dropping tea! I wonder if it will catch on like ferret-dropping coffee!

And yes we are getting off the topic onto minutea, which may not be intentional but is a common "method" used by debunkers to 'debunk' a topic. As in, (off topic naturally) a UFO report, the debunker will check into whether it was a cloudless night, were any stars or satellites passing in the time reported etc; it works pretty well for explaining some reports of course, and has helped turn up numerous spoofs and hoaxes by deeper examination. "Holding up to scrutiny" is the term.

However what we have is a fairly short sentence or set of sentences found in father Och's journal, which clearly states he used mercury to amalgamate some questionable gold flakes. No medicinal use mentioned or implied, in fact no explanation of where the mercury came from but it seems a pretty safe bet that the local Indians were not keeping it on hand in case of someone wanting it, and there is NO mention of any "miners" present so I think we can safely say that father Och had the mercury, either with him (as in, at his own mission) or on him, if traveling. And he used it the way miners and prospectors do - not for treating a case of syphilis from unknown and un-mentioned raping Spaniards, just to test some gold.

To be honest I don't think this particular piece of evidence will make or break the case, even if we were to ignore it entirely. From other Jesuits we have statements that have as much weight or more. For that matter, did not father Och mention about picking up pieces of placer copper, for use in making bells, which would be placer mining by definition? All of which we can set aside for the moment, as Mike pointed out, the un-contested business ventures of the Jesuits, which spans everything from slavery to banking and sugar refining, were generating a massive income; we know that SOME money made it to Europe, yet apparently did not go to the Church but to the Order and their own bank accounts, <not to mention that huge solid silver statue of Ignatius> and that when expelled, very little money or bullion was found. Where is it? There is no solid proof that it got spent, or shipped out, which the Spanish authorities knew and gave them reason to hunt for treasures. I have to say the odds are, the biggest part of their amassed wealth (in money and bullion, ornaments, jewels etc) remains hidden, still in the southwest, and that the Jesuits have indeed lost track of exactly where, thanks to unfortunate deaths during the expulsion, the sudden way the suppression occurred, and the rather long time span before the Order was brought back from the dead.

We have seen published defenses by Jesuits denying any and all mining and of course all treasures, rather unlike the Franciscans whom say nothing at all, but then the Franciscan Order does not hesitate to lay claim to found treasures which they may have a claim on either. This practice of the Jesuits of denial of everything could well work against them in future, should a truly large treasure which looks to have been theirs, be found in the US or Mexico, for we have several published denials to use to argue they have no claim on it.

Having said that, I still have to grant the Jesuits the honors of being the first Europeans to mine and smelt the precious metals (and copper) west of the Rockies in the USA. Working with primitive tools and equipment, and fairly primitive methods, not to mention mostly unskilled labor, if the reports are true of what they had amassed, it is a remarkable achievement. Of course tons of silver might not be that much of a treasure for some folks but to me, that is impressive for someone working the way they would have been forced to, for lack of modern tools and equipment. To anyone whom might scoff at this, try getting some metal out of a rock, using only what you can find while camping out in the field, you will get some idea of the task.

I would also have ONE more thing to add about father Och; it is possible that his illnesses might have come from careless handling of mercury, or even from smelting activities; most of the silver ores of the southwest also carry notable amounts of lead and copper, so that the fumes from smelting would be pretty toxic to say the least. It is also possible that his illnesses were just bad luck, or from being forced to use unsanitary water often etc not to mention drinking rodent dropping tea, which might not give you Hanta virus (which was only "discovered" in the 20th century, I believe but correction is welcomed) but could give you other nasty diseases and parasites to boot. Hard to say at this point.

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

deducer,

I did not drag the conversation anywhere.

Originally Posted by deducer
You continually confuse the fact that the actual metal itself was not, has never been, and never will be used for medicinal purposes. Only the salts derived via precipitation or sublimation was. So if, in fact, Fr. Och was treating himself with mercury, it would have been in powder form and completely useless for amalgamating.

That assertion seemed pretty plain and, as I said, was uninformed. Spin it anyway you like.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Good article on the use of mercury in treating syphilis:
http://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/f-syphilis.pdf
Not as a straight liquid metal however. I suppose that I would choose the mercury cure, as opposed to the red hot wire treatment also used on the frontier. <YIKES!>

Roy

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"It is also possible that his illnesses were just bad luck, or from being forced to use unsanitary water often etc not to mention drinking rodent dropping tea, which might not give you Hanta virus (which was only "discovered" in the 20th century, I believe but correction is welcomed) but could give you other nasty diseases and parasites to boot. Hard to say at this point."

Maybe yes, maybe no.

"In late Medieval England a mysterious sweating sickness swept through the country in 1485 just before the Battle of Bosworth Field. Noting the similar symptoms which overlap with Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS, see below), several scientists have theorised that the virus may have been the cause of the disease.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP] The hypothesis was criticised because sweating sickness was recorded as being transmitted human-to-human whereas hantaviruses were not known to spread in this way.[SUP][10][/SUP] Limited transmission via human-to-human contact has since been shown in Hantavirus outbreaks in Argentina.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP]"
[/SUP]
Hard to believe had to be discovered and named or it didn't exist. I doubt mouse turds have changed that much over the centuries. Of course I could be wrong about that.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Well putting the turds in water, would likely dampen the Hanta virus as it thrives in dry, dusty conditions; in fact when entering a long-closed cabin, wetting it down is recommended to help cut down the dust and odds of transmission.

There is a theory that the Hanta virus is not a natural one, but an accidental "escapee" from a military bio-weapons lab in Utah, which coincidentally happens to be rather close to the first confirmed cases.

I could be wrong of course.
Roy

 

[: Michael-Robert.]

Thank for staying on topic Mike. Do you have more to contribute?

Joe,

Before anything else, again, we are friends. Nobody insulted you. I just stated a fact. Remember when Deducer cast aspersions on your research skills? Who was th first person to jump in your corner?

Once again, very simple: Father Och was nt traveling with any miners. He did nt have an entourage with him. HE was invited to join an Indian Family for dinner. He noticed all the gold flakes in the dinner plates. HE made the statement that the cost to extract them would have exceeded the value of the gold. HE said the flecks were proven to be gold by virtue of rubbing some quicksilver on them.

Lets say that for the sake of argument, that the Indian had the mercury. Father Och made two statements and committed one action showing his knowledge of the mining arts. That was the Sin of Disobedience by breaking the Ecclesiastical Precept against Priests of mining, or having knowledge of mining (either directly or indirectly).

Please show me where I have feigned insult where no insult was intended in order to avoid answering a question? Please also show me where I have started a multi page argument about some minescule deatail that had no relevance to a question asked of me? The quickest example: When Springy had some specific questions he wanted answered, did I not address them each as soon as I returned to the forum? I had some simple questions of you, and at first you avoided them, then after Deducer mentioned I was still waiting on answers, you answered one of the questions in a smarta$$ed way (basically dismissing it), then came the multi page mercury arguments. I have never ignored a direct question put to me (that I can remember). There are times when I have taken some time away from the forums, and things go unanswered. I like to think that if someone can show me convincing arguments that I am wrong on a given subject, that I am enough of a man to admit it. In the almost 140 pages of this thread, people have shown massive amounts of evidence (some documentary, some anecdotal, some circumstantial, and some wishful thinking) that the Jesuit Order was involved in mining, BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAIN THRUST OF THIS THREAD!

Remember, it is titled: "JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?"

THAT is why I keep saying For arguments sake, lets pretend that the Jesuits were not involved in mining........" It does not matter in the least! JUST with the loot they obtained from their LEGAL ventures, they had ammassed an enormous amount of wealth! Just read all the Jesuit Fathers' Journals. There are detailed descriptions. WHERE DID IT ALL GO?

THESE ARE THE ABSOLUTE FACTS:

1. Largest Sugar Plantation in the New World (worth millions): Taken by Spain and sold

2. Largest herds of Horses, Cattle, and Sheep in the New World: Taken by Spain and sold

3. Largest fields of crops in the New World for sale and for the missions. Taken by Spain and sold

4. Many properties received by sale, donation, and willed. Taken by Spain and sold

5. Rich Church Vestments of gold and silver: ? NOBODY KNOWS?

6. Millions of dollars annual revenue from the sugar plantation: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

7. Millions of dollars of revenue from sales of livestock: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

8. Revenues from the sale of crops: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

9. Millions upon millions of dollars donated/tithed to the Church (by law): ?NOBODY KNOWS?

Possible/Probable Wealth:

1. Gold and Silver Bullion made from secret mining operations: ?NOBODY KNOWS?

We know all that wealth was there at one point in time. It was seen and vividly described by several Jesuit Missionary Priests in their journals. Then, on the night of 25-26 June 1767, the Spanish rounded up all the Jesuits in Nueva Vizcaya. It was supposed to have been a big secret. So, why when the Spanish Soldiers tore up all the Cabeceras, Colegios, and Missions did they not find anything but a couple of thousand pesos here and there? Of the millions, upon millions, upon millions of pesos we know they made legally, only a dab was found when they were arrested.

So we know it was hidden before 25 June 1767. That idea is strengthened by the list Fray Serra put together. When he was tasked with founding the California Mission System in 1768, he was told to take anything he needed from the old Jesuit Missions. There was no wealth.

So, we are left with three choices:

1. The Jesuit Fathers lied n their journals about what they say they saw. Not very likely in my book.

2. The Jesuits had a very good "underground railroad" (not literally) tha transported all their wealth to one or the other coast for shipping to either Rome or Manilla. In 1765-1766, the Order was under VERY close surveillance by representatives of the King of Spain. It is not likely that all their collected wealth could have been shipped out of the country before then, and definitely not during or after.

3. All or some of the wealth was hidden during the three years after the French Jesuits were suppressed from French Territories, before their Spanish Suppression. Based on more anecdotal evidence than written documents (except Canada Law Review Article about Jesuit Treasure in Rio). I tend to believe theis one mainly due to the Law Review Article.

Mike

 

[deducer]

deducer,

I did not drag the conversation anywhere.

Originally Posted by deducer
You continually confuse the fact that the actual metal itself was not, has never been, and never will be used for medicinal purposes. Only the salts derived via precipitation or sublimation was. So if, in fact, Fr. Och was treating himself with mercury, it would have been in powder form and completely useless for amalgamating.

That assertion seemed pretty plain and, as I said, was uninformed. Spin it anyway you like.

Joe Ribaudo

Not going to engage in splitting hairs over semantics with you as that allows you to shift the focus away from the discussion.

It also still doesn't change the fact that you were not able to prove me wrong on the use of mercury as medicine by the Jesuits, which is the challenge I issued you.

The mercury that Fr. Och was carrying was highly unlikely to have been for anything else than for amalgamation.

And as others have mentioned, rather than addressing that fact directly, you are trying to bury the discussion in minutiae, and you've managed to drag in pretty much all of Western Civilization, the Chinese, syphilis, with a little rat turd thrown in.