….. In one of your earlier posts in this thread you mentioned "those that argued that P.C. Bicknell didn't actually speak to Julia". I challenge you to find anywhere in the article where it mentions Julia by name, says that Julia was the only hearer, P.C. says that he got his information directly from Julia or anything else that validates what he wrote as coming from Julia. If you believe the story as it is traditionally known from the Bark Notes or Sims Ely, then by putting so much credit into P.C.'s story you are discrediting that Rhiney was also there. Was he not also a "hearer"? Yes, it has been said that Waltz admonished Rhiney for not listening, but he was there. ……..
Hinterlander,
Since this post, I shared some of my beliefs …. In particular, potential time lines of sorts for when Waltz gave info, and who might have been present, during the different discussions with Waltz.
I think it important to stick to the clues we have, and try not to read anything into them, that are not actually factual, but from our own mind.
I am not as sticky about the phrase “the woman” and who Bick was referring to. To me, all current evidence points to Julia.
Bicknell states only hearer, If we are to go by the clues, then that’s how the pieces should be able to be fitted, if the clues used are accurate.
You and I were not present for the months leading up to Waltz’ death. It seems to me though, that Rhiney never seemed to mention anything about the Monumented trail, and if I am remembering correctly, not much, if anything about Waltz getting the mine…….
Occam’s razor would say simple answer…. Rhiney not present for that portion = Julia as only hearer for that portion of How Waltz got the mine… the backstory and path.
That seems to fit just fine, no discrepancies ….. unless we try to say that Rhiney had to be present for all of the LDM talks with Waltz….. which is not the case. Just had to be there enough to hear about the rest of it. No alterations are needed at all for that to fit that way 👍
You seem curios as to my fondness of Bick’s 1895 SF article …..
it was what I went by for the directional clues. That, and I was taught at very young age … almost 50 years ago, that the clue …. If you pass the little red hills, you’ve gone too far.
With that I eventually ended up ready to investigate the last of the potential spots that I marked on a topo map, of the places that were candidates for the LDM., in my mind. Life then got busy.
It wasn’t until much later, after seeing the directional clues from the Holmes Manuscript, that I looked to see if those directions were able to get to the same spot as the last unexplored spot from my search, many years earlier.
I was able to see potential alignment between the 2 sets of clues. Also, Holmes clues, gives a real good confirmation clue to make sure you’re at the right spot.
The 4 peaks clue.
For me, it was worth a special trip to see if I was on target. We made the trip, and confirmed the view and the spot, with that clue.
So yeah, now I have very little doubt about accuracy of that article of Bicknell. But I also have a fondness for the directional clues from Holmes now too. 👍
How about you Hinterlander, are you actively searching ?