Legends, Maps, Coincidences, Logic, and Hunches.

[EE THr]

BB---

Thanks for bringing it to my attention that I accidentally called Oro "Oreo." I must have been getting hungry.

Actually, I asked Oro, not you.

If I promise to put you on Ignore, will you promise to put me on Ignore?

We could be "Ignore Buddies." Start a new trend! That would make us both "Trendy," and keep us out of each other's hair at the same time. How about it?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

EE Thr wrote

I accidentally called Oro "Oreo."

I don't mind; have been called much worse than that!

I hope that my last response was not TOO long, I don't wish to irritate anyone with long meandering posts-to-nowhere.
Oreo-blanko

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

You have a working watch?? Just point the hour hand at the sun and half way between this and 12:00 is due south.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

Don't worry. Your posts actually go in some kind of meaningful direction!

 

[Loke]

You have a working watch?? Just point the hour hand at the sun and half way between this and 12:00 is due south.

Don Jose de La Mancha

he, he, he - and that would help me a lot if the watch is of the digital kind!!
Incidentally, it is an analogue one - and I had forgotten about that li'l trick - thank you!

 

[Blindbowman]

BB---

Thanks for bringing it to my attention that I accidentally called Oro "Oreo." I must have been getting hungry.

Actually, I asked Oro, not you.

If I promise to put you on Ignore, will you promise to put me on Ignore?

We could be "Ignore Buddies." Start a new trend! That would make us both "Trendy," and keep us out of each other's hair at the same time. How about it?

i dont really give a sh** what you do


you misunder the reply . why would that shock me ...lol

you said " do you have any idea ?"

and what was my reply ?

i dont have enough hours in my day to waste talking about this crap

 

[EE THr]

In an effort to make some sense out of "the maps," and the depiction of the creeks and canyons in particular, here are a couple references.

One shows creeks and trails, with main roads in gold and other roads in gray.

The other one shows the Supers, with creeks and canyons added by me.





There is some difference in opinion of how far creeks go, to be still considered creeks; and how dry they must be before being considered canyons. But, neverthe less, they are there; and they are whatever they are. I'm thinking that where they are is more important. Some are considered to be more prominent than others, so apparently some are left off of certain of "the maps."

I marked The Flatiron, Weaver's Needle, and Battleship Mountain with yellow dots.

 

[EE THr]

As can be seen in comparing the maps above, with several others in this thread, there are usually discrepancies in the freehand maps of the creeks, canyons, and other landmarks. This corroborates what I said early in the thread, that there are lots of errors, whether accidentally or on purpose, in the proportional relationships between landmarks of most hand drawn maps. Therefore some assumptions must be made, even though assumptions can lead to even more errors.

I think it comes down to a "best guess" situation, using common sense, and, well, hunches.

The more that can be gotten to match up, the more likely that any resultant "likely" area or specific location will be the legendary "spot." But even then, it should be remembered, that it's mostly all based on legands. However, this is not, in any way, to invalidate many true facts which researchers, some of who are members of Treasurenet, have worked diligently over many years to uncover.

Below is another map from the "library" of LDM related maps, linked in a post above, which shows another example of the confusion in the placement of creeks and canyons.




Nonetheless, this map does indicate the North East quadrant of the subject area of the Supers, as do others posted in this thread.

I would assume that in this map, the creek shown going down and turning East, is La Barge, as can be seen in post #24, and that the "hump" shown down there is Miner's Needle Picacho Butte, as indicated in that post. This would make the other "hump," to the left between creeks, most likely Weaver's Needle.

But, compare this with Bark's map, in post #65!

 

[EE THr]

Taking the legend that Waltz said, essentially, "From the hill above my mine, to the north, the Four Peaks appear as one, and in the other direction you can see a Needle," and, "My mine is within five miles of Weaver's Needle;" by process of elimination, the legendary site would fall somewhere within the darker yellow line area in the map below (or, at least the hill above his mine would)---

Edit: The original source of the distance from Weaver's Needle is apparently the Adolph Ruth handwritten note, an alleged photocopy of which appears in a link on post #102. In this note, the distances, shape(s) of the area, and possibly other landmark(s) are replaced with horizontal lines so to have been left blank. Therefore the circle is a moot point. Other versions actually say that the circle is five miles in diameter, instead of radius, but these sources appear to have the note as their origin, and the distance and shape just guessed at. Oh well.

Edit #2: Upon seeing another comment on the "five mile" statement, it has occurred to me that the original statement from Waltz, if there ever was one, has a high probability of having been, "...within a five mile circle of Weaver's Needle." This form of wording would be saying it's within five miles of the needle, rather than the 2.5 miles if the term "diameter" was used. And, as the other person suggested, would Waltz have used the term "diameter"? It just doesn't seem like an old-time prospecter's way of saying something. I mean, he would probably know about how far it was from the needle, but would he bother doubling that to say "diameter"? It seems more sophisticated than would be necessary. Hmmmmm.





Can it be narrowed down further?

 

[EE THr]

Here is a map that, at first, I couldn't make heads or tales of. It just didn't "look right." It reminded me of a single-slice toaster, on the right. The boxy shape on the left looked odd. And the little kidney shaped "layers" in the lower middle, where the arrow from the left indicates "mines," just didn't look natural to me.

But I came across a scene using Google Earth, that somehow eeriely resembles it, I think.

Here is the map---





And here is the scene---





This site is just over 2 1/2 miles beyond the "circle five miles in diameter." But it is within the yellow line between Four Peaks and Weavers Needle. And is a little more than five miles from the needle, which would be very close, if Waltz actually said, "...within a circle five miles from Weaver's Needle."

Who knows, maybe Waltz didn't have his transom with him, and he just estimated the five miles.

Or maybe the Polka #1 Map has nothing to do with the LDM. Or maybe it's just my imagination!

Another problem is that the picture is facing to the South West, and the map is supposedly facing generally Northward according to the instructions with the other arrow. But then, what would be to the North of the Supers, "Six Peaks," as shown in the map?

Or instead of meaning "1 mi. S.E. to go to the mine," the notation means, "1 mi. S.E. in relation to the mine"? That would mean the map is supposedly facing generally Southward.

If the person drawing the map was off by only 1/8th of a compass rose, the map could match the picture, if the second possible meaning of the notation is the right one. Could anyone make a 45 degree mistake and still find his way in and out of the Supers?

The mountains in the background of the Google picture are the Superstition Mountains. If these are the same mountains depicted in the map drawing, that would mean that the maker of it was looking South West, but thought he was looking South. Is that big of a mistake possible?

Actually, the compass on the Google shot is showing about half way between SW and SSW, so he would "only" off by about 35 degrees. But that's still a lot.

Edit, 5-30-11: This lower right hand portion of a 1907 survey map posted by Somehiker, in post #293 of the "LDM why you can't get it !" topic, shows the difference between true North and Magnetic North, in the Superstitions back then. This could account for some of the difference, too.

On the other hand, it's hard to judge compass angles in a map which is not a direct overhead view, whether you are reading it or drawing it. He may have positioned the window differently than it actually is, merely to make it more visible in the drawing. Since he added his compass direction, he may have figured that exact placement in the map was not critical. And, when you think about it, since he notated the compass direction, it's not. In fact, maybe that's why he added the direction.

 

[EE THr]

Getting back to the creeks and canyons style of maps, here is the Johnson--Walker Map.

This map has a definite North indicator symbol. The creek appears to be headed North West, toward the Salt River. The only NE running creek in the area of a Superstitions Military trail would be Tortilla. But it forks with Peter's Canyon, and there are no other streams off Peter's in that area, so the extra lines might be drainages or trails.

However, there is another creek, that forks off of Tortilla, north of the actual Tortilla-Peter's fork. This is the creek that crosses back and forth over the Apache Trail highway. If this is the Northernmost creek shown on this map, then the creek that forks Southward off it would be the continuation of Tortilla, and the small fork further South would be Peter's Canyon, placing the circle-dot symbol marked "spring" between Tortilla and Peter's.

Incidently, this map even has the legendary laurel trees, which appear on some of the other maps.






Then, also involving both Tortilla Creek and Perter's Canyon, there is Tom Kollenborn's map, dated 1979. This map includes the legendary "Trick in the Trail," which was supposedly mentioned by Waltz as being on the trail to his mine, and, I think he also indicated that it was near it.






These two, as can be seen, represent the North East quadrant of the subject area, as do many of the other maps, as well as parts of the legend mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[EE THr]

The above two maps each have clues which are part of the verbal legends.

The Johnson--Walker map has the "Hill" from which the Needle can be seen, and the Tom Kollenborn map has the "Trick in the Trail."

If there is a single spot where both "the Four Peaks appear as one," and "in the other direction the Needle can be seen, it might be close to the supposed mine or cache. Trouble is, there might be several spots where these both can be seen. But there is a small area where it may be narrowed down to, using the yellow circle and line, in a post above.

So, here is one spot---

"To the North."




"And in the opposite direction."

 

[EE THr]

Here are a couple North and South screen shots, with better perspective.

These show the same push-pin marker in both shots.


Four Peaks as one.






Needle from hill.

 

[EE THr]

There is another eerie similarity that belongs in here, I think.

Of the previous maps posted, the four that I referred to as, "Pit-tunnel-Casa," also have a site which is visible in Google Earth, that seem like it matches up to them.

Here are a couple of the maps I'm talking about---

These can be seen in larger size, in post #46. Also note the label, "ESCARDADIA" in the top two on that page. This seems to indicate heavy growth of folage, or difficult ground, in the indicated area.

Also look at how the person drawing the map on the right has tried to show striations on the tall formation on the left, and on the left of the tunnel label. Also, neither of these maps have the escardadia label, but do have markings in that area which could represent heavy folage or difficult ground.

Could the head-looking structure actually be a symbolic representation of Geronimo Head? Did they even call it Geronimo Head back in those days?




Here is a scene which looks like it could be a match---




The tiny yellow dot which is on the hill in the middle of the far background is Geronimo Peak.

 

[EE THr]

One problem with the scene in the post directly above, is that the right wall of the canyon is not a needle. Instead, it is flat on top, and kind of square, like a box, but slightly tilted downward on the Northern end.

So, where is the needle shown in the maps?

Could it be this one?





The three push pin markers in a row, facing town, are, from front to back, a needle, the Southern tip of the box, and Geronimo Peak.

The other two push pins are, in the front, the point on "The Hill..." from which Weaver's Needle and the Four Peaks were viewed in the previous screen shots of them, and the back one is the highest peak on the left side of the canyon shot, and appears to be what is labeled "El Sombrero" in the maps.


Here is a shot from a lower viewpoint, showing alignment of the three points in a row. The "small" peak in the background is the Northern end of the Superstition Mountains.





Does this have enough close matches to the legendary clues and maps related to the Lost Dutchman Mine, to be an area of interest?

 

[cactusjumper]

EE,

Do you know the source for the Four Peaks viewed as one clue?

Take care,

Joe

 

[EE THr]

There are a couple more things that just might match up, but didn't make any sense to me at all, until I started looking more closely at this area.

This shot is a wide angle, from a Northerly direction. In the central part is the "box" and the canyon mentioned above. But it also includes, in the foreground, the fork in the creek which was shown in post #38. Tortilla Creek goes to the left, at the fork, and Peters Canyon Creek branches to the right.

That's Weaver's Needle, in the upper right corner of the shot.





Now take a look at the "Sleeping Lady Squaw Map," below. Could the "Three stones all by themselves," labeled as "Key to mines," be the same three boulders which are seen on the rise within the creek fork in the screen shot above? There is also a "stone" labeled on this map, and there is a "trail rock" labeled in Tom Kollenborn's map, in post #90.

Also note that this map states "treasure" at the top left, and remember Julia's map said "ore here." This one does also say, "key to mines," however.





Notice the interesting striations depicted on the feature to the right. Could this have something to do with the striations shown in the "pit-tunnel-casa" map, in post #93?

Could the small hump that is labeled "* a spanish treasure" be the box? And the mountain behind it, where "I suspect maybe bar gold" is written be "The Hill..."? This map only shows one stream, however; but that could just be a matter of perception by whoever made the map. It could be that the top of the box was accessed from the Tortilla Creek side, as it looks like there is a way to get up there, on that side; so maybe the map maker figured that was all that was important. Plus, the arrow-line and "V" symbols are marked "canyon," so that could be Peter's Canyon.

It gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[EE THr]

EE,

Do you know the source for the Four Peaks viewed as one clue?

Take care,

Joe

Yes, I do. The source is "somewhere online"!

Really I have no idea!

Do you?

 

[EE THr]

Here is a wider screen shot of the area, with the same push pins as before, the needle now being on the far left, then the box, then Geronimo Peak on the far right.

The three pins in the background are also needles, with Weaver's on the right.





This is an overhead screen shot with North at the top, and "the area" toward the right, just above center.

Far left is Boulder Canyon, then La Barge Canyon just to the right of it. The shape of these two, and where they connect at the top, is very familiar to those who study the maps of the Supers, as they are on almost all of them, both old and new.

 

[EE THr]

Joe---

EE,

Do you know the source for the Four Peaks viewed as one clue?

Take care,

Joe

Yes, I do. The source is "somewhere online"!

Really I have no idea!

Do you?

I do know that there are a couple places online that have lists of all, or most, of the legendary clues from various sources, as I'm sure you already know. But I've no idea where the "original" source of that one is.

I also have read online, about a year ago, a clue which says, "Go up Boulder Canyon to where it joins La Barge Canyon, then go down La Barge to the first drainage on the left, and follow that toward the mine." But when I tried to search for that last night, I couldn't find it again. (?) Do you have any idea about this one too?

Don