Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this picture?

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

cactusjumper said:
Per,

"And of course, I'm not going to ask _where_ and _how_ you got that li'l scetch of Jacob's, but where is it from?? I've never,ever seen that one referred to before .."

I've posted that picture many times on different forums, including here. Probably the first time I didn't give proper credit as to the source. It's an interesting story, but I will not post it here. You will need to buy Helen Corbin's book, "The Bible on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz." Page 134

I have two copies, one in soft cover and the other leather bound. The leather-bound hard cover was given to me as a gift. I count it as one of the many treasures I have received from my years of keeping close company with the Superstition Mountains and her legends.

Take care,

Joe
*lol* ... and I thought I had been through almost everything ever written (on the forums). I believe I must revise that particular notion!
However, I do have the 'bible' so I shall look it up as soon as I get home! Thanks for the tip!

Have a good day (and don't do anything I wouldn't do!) - and take care.
Per
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Cubfan64 said:
cactusjumper said:
Hi Paul,

[Joe, I know you've mentioned more than once that Julia and Rhiney made their first search through Hog Canyon. I know you put alot of stock in Sims Ely, so why don't you believe when Sims says that Helena (Julia) sold her business and with Rhiney took a wagon and team to First Water on the northerly side of the Superstition Wall and walked into the mountains from that direction?]

Actually, I've been saying that for many years now. I am aware of what is in Ely's book, but my guess is that this fact was one of the things from the Bark Notes that the family asked, or told him, to leave out.

"As I was riding the range about six miles west of the home ranch in August 1892 or 1893. I met some campers near an old well belonging to ranch, and they proved to be a colored woman by the name of Thomas and a young man about 18 years old by the name of Rhiney Petrach, whom Mr. and Mrs. Thomas had adopted." The Bark Notes.

"Six miles west of the home ranch" (Quarter Circle-U) puts them at Hog Canyon. For many reasons, Hog Canyon makes perfect sense.

Take care,

Joe

Joe,

While you may be correct in your assumptions, take a step back and look at this from my perspective. As I mentioned, you've made it clear that you put a great deal of faith in Sims Ely's book and his word. His book has a definitive provenance - that being that he was the author. I don't know how much was actually written directly by him, or how much editing took place, etc... but the fact is, it's documented that he is the author.

The Bark notes on the other hand (at least all the copies you and I have seen) have little or no provenance. There's no proof that they are truly Jim Bark's word at all, in fact one could make a better case that it's likely they are an adulterated version at best, and possibly a fabrication at worst. You know the stories about how they were "discovered" as well as anyone - as a source of information, at the very least, the Bark Notes as we know them should be strongly questioned as to their accuracy.

I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to.

Does that make sense? I honestly don't mean to be argumentative here Joe, and I don't mean to come off as being a smart%#$. Heck, when it comes down to it, both the Ely story and Bark story about Julia and Rhiney might be correct since neither one actually comes out and says it was their "first" trip into the mountains. It's implied that way in Ely's book, but never says it.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you saying that Sims Ely got a bogus set of notes from his partner of fifty or so years (at that time)?

I can fully believe that some things were left out and some places changed while writing to placate the Bark Family who were still hunting the DLM, but not that Ely got a set of bogus notes. ANYWAY, don't you think that since he was there when all this stuff took place that he would know if the notes were accurate or not?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

No Mike - I knew I wasn't making myself very clear in my response to Joe. I'll try to do better here, but I have a hard time putting it into words.

I don't have the exact documents in front of me, but the first reference Ely makes in his book to Julia and Rhiney attempting to find the mine has them entering the mountains using a wagon and team, heading near first water and entering the mountains to the N of the main mountain.

The reference Joe used to suggest they entered via Hog Canyon came from the Bark Notes - Jim Bark ran across them camped somewhere 6 miles west of the ranch.

If you believe each of those accounts are addressing Julia and Rhiney's FIRST attempt to find the mine, all I'm suggesting is that one of those 2 accounts cannot be correct (if you assume 6 miles west of the ranch is Hog Canyon). Either you believe Ely's account, or you believe Bark's account - you can't pick and choose which author to believe based on preference. I think there are enough questions surrounding how the Bark Notes that we've all seen were found and reproduced to wonder more about their authenticity than there are Sims Ely's book.

Does that make sense or did I confuse the issue even more?
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Paul,

"I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to."

While it's true that "it fits" my theory, it also fits many, many other stories and legends of the Superstitions.
I did not shoehorn P.C. Bicknell's article into my theory. That story was around a few years before I was born.

The "monumented trail" was not something I fit into my theory. People knew about it years before I was born, as well. I can't help it that many things "fit" my theory. Ruth did not take my theories into consideration when he went to Willow Spring. I did not build or imagine those two monuments on the ridge between West and East Boulder Canyons......Located on the Stone Map Trail.

I did not create the heart in Little Boulder Canyon, in the exact spot that is shown to be the center of the heart in the heart stone.

The thing is, after sooo many years, and sooo many coincidences, I think it's reasonable for me to believe my theories are correct. I've been sleeping with this mistress for 52 years now. Believe I know her pretty well. On the other hand, she does have a few secrets she doesn't share with anyone.

Mike,

Believe you have the correct outlook here. I don't see any advantage to not believing Ely and Bark. Even though I am sure there are some tales there, I do see the advantage in accepting everything they wrote as true, even when it doesn't agree with my own conclusions. It seems prudent to check it out on the ground......if possible.

Take care,

Joe
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Cubfan64 said:
I think there are enough questions surrounding how the Bark Notes that we've all seen were found and reproduced to wonder more about their authenticity
Hey Paul,can you go into further detail about this?
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

cactusjumper said:
Paul,

"I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to."

While it's true that "it fits" my theory, it also fits many, many other stories and legends of the Superstitions.
I did not shoehorn P.C. Bicknell's article into my theory. That story was around a few years before I was born.

The "monumented trail" was not something I fit into my theory. People knew about it years before I was born, as well. I can't help it that many things "fit" my theory. Ruth did not take my theories into consideration when he went to Willow Spring. I did not build or imagine those two monuments on the ridge between West and East Boulder Canyons......Located on the Stone Map Trail.

I did not create the heart in Little Boulder Canyon, in the exact spot that is shown to be the center of the heart in the heart stone.

The thing is, after sooo many years, and sooo many coincidences, I think it's reasonable for me to believe my theories are correct. I've been sleeping with this mistress for 52 years now. Believe I know her pretty well. On the other hand, she does have a few secrets she doesn't share with anyone.

Mike,

Believe you have the correct outlook here. I don't see any advantage to not believing Ely and Bark. Even though I am sure there are some tales there, I do see the advantage in accepting everything they wrote as true, even when it doesn't agree with my own conclusions. It seems prudent to check it out on the ground......if possible.

Take care,

Joe

Joe & Mike,

I guess I'm just not getting my point across. I said nothing at all about Bicknell, Ruth, Willow Spring, Boulder Canyon, monumented trail or the heart in Little Boulder Canyon - those are all separate discussions and have no bearing at all on my point.

My point very simply is this...

If you believe Rhiney and Julia entered the mountains on their FIRST trip via Hog Canyon - following Waltz's directions as best they could, then Sims Ely's notation about them entering N of the main mountain near First Water can't be correct. Why would two men who worked as partners together have different stories?
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

SGnAZ said:
Cubfan64 said:
I think there are enough questions surrounding how the Bark Notes that we've all seen were found and reproduced to wonder more about their authenticity
Hey Paul,can you go into further detail about this?

The story as I've heard it (and there are a few different ones if you can imagine that :laughing7:) is that a relative of Jim Bark got access to a set of notes after Bark passed away. These notes have been described as a diary, a set of notes or even a rough draft of a manuscript to be published at a later date. They were supposed to be recorded by Jim Bark during the years he looked for the Lost Dutchman Mine - much of which was while he was partnered with Sims Ely.

As the story goes (this one at least), this relative carried the set of notes with him while out searching and exploring, and though he was very secretive about the notes, there were other folks who suspected or knew he had them. At one point, supposedly he was "lured" away from his camp by someone he knew and trusted and while they were away exploring, there enough time to copy the notes. I've heard a number of different specifics on how it was done - from riding into a nearby town to make copies (I have no clue if quick copy services were even available at that time), to reading the notes into a tape recorder of some kind to just hand copying them.

By the time Bark's relative returned to camp, all was back in it's place and he didn't suspect anything - until of course, eventually rumors started circulating and other copies ended up being seen, etc... You know how it goes :).

The question of course is how close are the notes as we see them today, to the "original" notes which Jim Bark left when he passed away? There has been at least a couple opportunities to alter those notes - for whatever purposes - before they made it to the "general public" as we see them now. Are there misdirections? Are there fabricated facts? Are there things left out?

I have no idea, but the questions are there - unlike Sims Ely's book where at least we can assume that other than an editor, the words we see are those written or dictated by Ely himself.

Joe or anyone else - please correct anything I may have misrepresented, and feel free to add more to the story if you have some or can. Gary, if you come to the Rendezvous, make sure to ask that question about the Bark Notes and we'll see if we can get someone like Greg Davis or Joe who has a better memory than I do to tell you what they know.

Paul
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Paul,

"I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to."

I believe I understand your point. What I tried to do, was provide a few reasons why it fits my theory. I don't have to accept every word in either man's work as the absolute truth. What I can do, is read both accounts and find places where they agree, and where other accounts and clues I have found on the ground, seem to support their words.

I like to think that I have done that in a logical manner, without making up my own facts to fit my theories. No one else needs to follow my theories, or accept them as "fact". It's true that I am convinced, but it was never Bark's or Ely's words alone that created that conviction. It was the weight of all the evidence I have gathered, found and read over the last 52 years.

Your vision of that collective accumulation is focused on small snippets of what I have posted and provided to you in private email's. While you think you have a pretty good grasp on where I am coming from, you have only received a small portion of the evidence that formed my conclusions.

I have stepped back and looked at my conclusions and the evidence that brought me there many, many times. Unless someone brings something better to the table, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon. As new evidence has come along, I have adjusted some of those conclusions to include new possibilities.

I have not discarded the old theories, just as I don't believe we should discard Bark or Ely, just because their works may have been "colored" a bit. There is no positive advantage to that.....IMHO. Let the evidence you find on your own dictate the road you finally take. Some of that evidence may very well match up to Bark and Ely, and some of it may not.

That got a bit long, but that's where I am coming from.

Take care,

Joe
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

cactusjumper said:
Paul,

"I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to."

I believe I understand your point. What I tried to do, was provide a few reasons why it fits my theory. I don't have to accept every word in either man's work as the absolute truth. What I can do, is read both accounts and find places where they agree, and where other accounts and clues I have found on the ground, seem to support their words.

I like to think that I have done that in a logical manner, without making up my own facts to fit my theories. No one else needs to follow my theories, or accept them as "fact". It's true that I am convinced, but it was never Bark's or Ely's words alone that created that conviction. It was the weight of all the evidence I have gathered, found and read over the last 52 years.

Your vision of that collective accumulation is focused on small snippets of what I have posted and provided to you in private email's. While you think you have a pretty good grasp on where I am coming from, you have only received a small portion of the evidence that formed my conclusions.

I have stepped back and looked at my conclusions and the evidence that brought me there many, many times. Unless someone brings something better to the table, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon. As new evidence has come along, I have adjusted some of those conclusions to include new possibilities.

I have not discarded the old theories, just as I don't believe we should discard Bark or Ely, just because their works may have been "colored" a bit. There is no positive advantage to that.....IMHO. Let the evidence you find on your own dictate the road you finally take. Some of that evidence may very well match up to Bark and Ely, and some of it may not.

That got a bit long, but that's where I am coming from.

Take care,

Joe

All very well stated Joe, and points noted. Your experience and knowlege on this matter is very much respected, I mean that sincerely :notworthy:; however, you know what they say about that "fresh set of eyes". :o
With that said, if I had to make a choise - I would take the path less traveled only because the more traveled route has proven somewhat fruitless thus far. Just sayin :dontknow: :)

Jerry

incidently - I found...... nope, nope, that wasn't it.
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

cactusjumper said:
Paul,

"I understand why you choose to believe that Julia and Rhiney's first trip was through Hog Canyon, but when you step back and look at why you believe that, it's primarily because it fits your theory correct? The issue I have is that you can't just pick and choose what parts of something you want to believe just because they match your theory. Either you believe Sims Ely's book and his word, or you don't - it becomes problematic when parts of his book are used to defend a belief, while other parts are discarded because they don't point in the same direction one wants it to."

I believe I understand your point. What I tried to do, was provide a few reasons why it fits my theory. I don't have to accept every word in either man's work as the absolute truth. What I can do, is read both accounts and find places where they agree, and where other accounts and clues I have found on the ground, seem to support their words.

I like to think that I have done that in a logical manner, without making up my own facts to fit my theories. No one else needs to follow my theories, or accept them as "fact". It's true that I am convinced, but it was never Bark's or Ely's words alone that created that conviction. It was the weight of all the evidence I have gathered, found and read over the last 52 years.

Your vision of that collective accumulation is focused on small snippets of what I have posted and provided to you in private email's. While you think you have a pretty good grasp on where I am coming from, you have only received a small portion of the evidence that formed my conclusions.

I have stepped back and looked at my conclusions and the evidence that brought me there many, many times. Unless someone brings something better to the table, I won't be changing my mind anytime soon. As new evidence has come along, I have adjusted some of those conclusions to include new possibilities.

I have not discarded the old theories, just as I don't believe we should discard Bark or Ely, just because their works may have been "colored" a bit. There is no positive advantage to that.....IMHO. Let the evidence you find on your own dictate the road you finally take. Some of that evidence may very well match up to Bark and Ely, and some of it may not.

That got a bit long, but that's where I am coming from.

Take care,

Joe

Thanks for clarifying - I do understand where you're coming from.
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Gollum wrote
Quote from: Oroblanco on Yesterday at 09:34:07 PM
Santa Fe New Mexican, <John> - as much as I hate to use it, and try to avoid it, consider yourself on IGNORE. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Roy A Decker HAHAHA,

Congratulations! You have FINALLY done what every other rational poster at TNet has done; PUT KEMMY ON IGNORE!

Now, whatever you do, don't fall into the trap and peek at his ramblings, or you will get sucked back into his pot smoke induced vortex of ignorint ramblings.

Best-Mike
and Javaone wrote
Finnally! I can't understand why it took you so long Oro

Well first off, no one has ever accused me of being rational, so I don't mind giving a person some time/slack to get to know them and open up. I know something of what it feels like when you truly believe you have found a famous lost gold mine, a kind of excitement or bubbly exuberance so if someone starts posting on the forum kind of excitedly, in my opinion it is understandable. However after a full year of trying to get our friend to talk treasure with only the smallest results, along with the hostility he showed even to others when he was really angry with ME for being "too skeptical" for his tastes, that just went over the limit of patience for me.

Now to get back on-topic; why should anyone put so much importance on the first canyon that Julia and Reiney attempted? They went on to try several others, including from the north side of the mountain range, so clearly the route and/or landmarks they were seeking were NOT something that has to be in Hog canyon.

If we are to go by "first" then wouldn't the expedition taken after Herman Petrasch had arrived seem to be just as important? They had contacted him and when he arrived they went out to find the mine.

quote
"Early in August of 1892, shortly after Herman Petrash’s arrival in Phoenix, Julia Thomas, Rhinehart and Hermann Petrash began to organize their expedition to search for the Lost Dutchman Mine. Julia Thomas had purchased a team, wagon, and camping gear for their expedition into the Superstition Mountains. The group departed Phoenix before sunrise on August 11, 1892, with little fanfare. The party moved slowly along the old Tempe-Lehi Road. They spent their first night at Marysville Crossing. The next morning they turned southeastward toward Superstition Mountain and the desert flatland west of the mountains. The second day of travel eastward across the desert toward the western face of Superstition Mountain proved difficult until they found some wagons tracks. These wagon tracks lead northeast toward Superstition Mountain, but crossing washes became very difficult for their overloaded wagon.
Somewhere along this point the group realized they had to abandon the wagon.
They spent their next night under the cliffs of Superstition Mountain. At sunrise the next morning they were packing up their two horses and decided to walk toward the northwestern end of Superstition Mountain. Julia Thomas was searching for La Sombrero, the pointed peak she said Jacob Waltz had told her about.
The heat and humidity was stifling, but the three adventurers continued walking and leading their pack animals. According to Hermann Petrasch they camped the next evening in Needle Canyon, at least he thought it was. Years later Hermann said they might have camped in East Boulder Canyon on the western side of Black Top Mountain that third night. The next morning they were up at sunrise again and climbed a steep ridge to a pass and walked down into a deep canyon. They could see the pointed peak old Jacob had talked about. It was here they set camp for the next three weeks as they searched the area with their clues.
" end quoted extract
<extracts from Kollenborn's articles online at
http://www.superstitionmountain.info/chronicles/2008/09_22_08.html
http://www.superstitionmountain.info/chronicles/2008/09_29_08.html>

Wouldn't it make sense that with Hermann along, that Julia and Reiney would have tried to do their best to get the right route in to find the mine? This is just my opinion but I don't think Hog canyon is that important in the route to the mine, or it seems logical that they would have kept returning to the same canyon instead of trying different ways.
Oroblanco
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Oroblanco said:
I know something of what it feels like when you truly believe you have found a famous lost gold mine, a kind of excitement or bubbly exuberance

I really can't see you as "bubbly". :dontknow: just sayin... :laughing9:
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Roy,

"Now to get back on-topic; why should anyone put so much importance on the first canyon that Julia and Reiney attempted? They went on to try several others, including from the north side of the mountain range, so clearly the route and/or landmarks they were seeking were NOT something that has to be in Hog canyon.

If we are to go by "first" then wouldn't the expedition taken after Herman Petrasch had arrived seem to be just as important? They had contacted him and when he arrived they went out to find the mine."

Somewhere between the time Waltz spoke his last words to Julia and Rhiney, they lost the importance of his description of how he was going to show them the trail over the mountain to his mine. They would not be able to ride in a wagon, which was what they wanted to do.

Once Herman arrived, he took over the search. Why he did not go back to the beginning, is anyone's guess. We will never know the answer. It remains obvious, at least to me, that he was searching for the drawing that ended up in his belonging after his death.

On the other hand, he may very well have found that drawing, which is one answer as to why he ended up searching where he did. It just seems unlikely that they started out so far west from where they should have entered the mountains.

It's a pick your poison kind of thing. :dontknow:

See post #54 here:

http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,281441.msg2493270.html#msg2493270

Take care,

Joe
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

I saw your post earlier, and the beautiful photo of Weaver's Needle; however I still don't think Hog canyon was of extreme importance, rather they were to find a key landmark, and thus tried several ways to get in to find that landmark. The fact that Hog canyon is the first you come to, may simply be that they chose to try the very first canyon they saw to get to Weaver's Needle, if in fact Weavers Needle is the correct "pointed peak" that Waltz referred to in the first place. I even wonder about that. As you have said, 'quien sabe'? :dontknow:

Javaone wrote
I really can't see you as "bubbly". just sayin

It only takes some gold to get those bubbles perkin', and I would bet that the same could be true for you! ;D
Roy
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Roy,

"I saw your post earlier, and the beautiful photo of Weaver's Needle; however I still don't think Hog canyon was of extreme importance, rather they were to find a key landmark, and thus tried several ways to get in to find that landmark. The fact that Hog canyon is the first you come to, may simply be that they chose to try the very first canyon they saw to get to Weaver's Needle, if in fact Weavers Needle is the correct "pointed peak" that Waltz referred to in the first place. I even wonder about that. As you have said, 'quien sabe'?"

Hog Canyon would be important if Waltz told them to take that first canyon to the top of the ridge and then look for the Needle framed in the saddle, just as he drew it. The directions might be to go to the canyon directly below the saddle, turn south and take the first canyon/steep ravine coming in on the east side of the canyon. Go up that canyon and my mine will be at the top.

Not saying that's what anyone said, just saying......what if? There is a sealed mine at that location.

Take care,

Joe
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Joe,

Look carefully at the little hand drawn map that Waltz supposedly gave to Rhiney about a month before he died (from Helen Corbin's Book).

Look carefully at the shape of Weaver's Needle. The Needle has very different looks depending on the direction you are viewing it from.

Think they might have been trying to recreate that view of the Needle where they went in?

Best-Miike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Here is an example:

If Jacob Waltz handed you the map (first pic), what view would you want to see of Weaver's Needle would you want to have when you went into the mountains?

Best-Mike
 

Attachments

  • WaltzPetrasch1.webp
    WaltzPetrasch1.webp
    31.2 KB · Views: 692
  • WeaversNeedle.webp
    WeaversNeedle.webp
    62.1 KB · Views: 663
  • weaver-needle400.webp
    weaver-needle400.webp
    29.4 KB · Views: 654
  • weaversneedle1.webp
    weaversneedle1.webp
    38 KB · Views: 638
  • weaver\'s_needle691.webp
    weaver\'s_needle691.webp
    39.5 KB · Views: 621
  • weaversneedle2.webp
    weaversneedle2.webp
    77.7 KB · Views: 641
Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Mike,

No. Waltz drew that picture from memory and while in the process of dying.

My guess is that it may not be totally accurate, but then again, it might. I am aware that it does not match exactly, but it's probably close enough to get them to the mine.

Problem is, once they started from the wrong place, they never found the correct view.

It's a theory based on facts and a good deal of circumstantial evidence.

Take care,

Joe
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

Joe,

You may be correct, but I think that even though it was a month before Waltz died, he had seen the same view of the Needle from his mine many times over about a twenty year period.

I think that is why he drew the picture like that. How many times had he looked up in the past and seen that same picture?

Notice on the map there is no indication of a mine. Maybe that is just supposed to show where to enter the mountains. Something like "When you come up the canyon and over the first pass, the Needle should look like this." If I'm not mistaken, that last picture was taken from the area of Superstition Mountain.

Best-Mike
 

Re: Lost Dutchman in the Superstitions? What is wrong with this 'picture'?

joe .. mike .. please no more today .. i can not take it any more .. your killing me ...lol


please i will pay you to stop my guts are ready to brust ......lol

your trying to make logic wisdom from a scribles of a dieing old man in his 80's...you guys know better then this ... :notworthy:
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom