new show on the dutchman

[chlsbrns]

CN,

Although you do your share of gainsaying, over the time I have watched you post, you add to the conversation. You make salient points. Whether I agree with them or not, that's not what matters. When a troll acts like a troll, one can only call them what they are. CHLSBRNS has added nothing except arguments to the conversations he has barged into. When proven wrong, he tries to ignore that and use some minutiae to move the conversation away from his ineptitude. When someone doesn't add anything to a discussion. They can't admit when they are wrong (or refuse to). Only argue with people, one can only call that a TROLL!

He stated unequivocally that "IT'S A FACT!" that Jacob Waltz married a Hopi Woman and he knows his great grandchild. I find official documented proof that Waltz was single till his death and that the person that claims to be an offshoot of his has told others that Waltz didn't get his gold from any mine. That he got his gold by trading it with the people that lived underground in tunnels underneath the Supers. He then got embarrassed and claimed that wasn't the guy. Yeah, there are a ton of people claiming to be descended from Jacob Waltz and a Hopi woman. HAHAHA

He stated unequivocally that New Spain was not the New World. I provide links to show where he is wrong and he tries to divert attention away from his ignorance to some minutiae. Sad. A troll is a troll is a troll.

I don't use that term very often. But in this case, "If the shoe fits......................."

Mike

I've added nothing but arguments? Posting links to history books that include credits and text from the books that prove what you "think" and "believe" is what you call arguments?

When proven wrong? You post laws that people are not allowedmto mine and somehow think that proves excessive mining? In arizona?

It is a fact that waltz fathered a child and I did not claim to know him I said that I was going to call. I called!

You found official docs that waltz was single? My bad! I was under the impression that single men could father children. It could be that he was no longer married when they did the census? Or that they never married? Or? Such a narrow mind! Do you ever think before making statements?

I said that his offshoot said waltz didnt get gold from a mine? I dont remember that and I wont hold my breath waiting for you to show me. Is a cavern a mine?

No you posted emails that said he traded goldmfor salt. Hahaha!

When was the term new world and new spain coined?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

I still think it is unbecomeing to call names.

CN,

Although you do your share of gainsaying,

gain·say
ˌɡānˈsā/
verb
formal
gerund or present participle: gainsaying

deny or contradict (a fact or statement).
"the impact of the railroads cannot be gainsaid"
synonyms: deny, dispute, disagree with, argue with, dissent from, contradict, repudiate, challenge, oppose, contest, counter, controvert, rebut
"it was difficult to gainsay his claim"
antonyms: confirm
speak against or oppose (someone).

Origin

Depending on precisely what your claim is about me, I'd have to wonder what the issue is?

over the time I have watched you post, you add to the conversation. You make salient points. Whether I agree with them or not, that's not what matters. When a troll acts like a troll, one can only call them what they are. CHLSBRNS has added nothing except arguments to the conversations he has barged into.

It is a forum, and everyone is allowed to speak in accordance with the forum rules.

When proven wrong, he tries to ignore that and use some minutiae to move the conversation away from his ineptitude. When someone doesn't add anything to a discussion. They can't admit when they are wrong (or refuse to). Only argue with people, one can only call that a TROLL!

As long as we are off topic and on to housekeeping, I don't think posts should be about other posters. It should be about the topic and others' post(s).

He stated unequivocally that "IT'S A FACT!" that Jacob Waltz married a Hopi Woman and he knows his great grandchild. I find official documented proof that Waltz was single till his death and that the person that claims to be an offshoot of his has told others that Waltz didn't get his gold from any mine. That he got his gold by trading it with the people that lived underground in tunnels underneath the Supers. He then got embarrassed and claimed that wasn't the guy. Yeah, there are a ton of people claiming to be descended from Jacob Waltz and a Hopi woman. HAHAHA

He stated unequivocally that New Spain was not the New World. I provide links to show where he is wrong and he tries to divert attention away from his ignorance to some minutiae. Sad. A troll is a troll is a troll.

I don't use that term very often. But in this case, "If the shoe fits......................."

Mike

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Aric,

I know beyond a doubt that Jacob Waltz did not have a wife or child. In the several years he was friends with Julia Thomas, he never spoke about them. In the eight months of 1891 that he lay bedridden in Julia Thomas' Place, he never mentioned to her about any wife or child. In the time he told his life story to Dick Holmes and Frank Alkire on his deathbed, he never mentioned to them anything about a wife or child. A search of census records regarding Jacob Waltz of Phoenix results in him being single in the local 1864 census and the Federal 1870 Census, and the Federal 1880 Census. No mention of wife nor child. Thats all I need to know.

What do you make of him being a farmer?

 

[chlsbrns]

Aric,

I know beyond a doubt that Jacob Waltz did not have a wife or child. In the several years he was friends with Julia Thomas, he never spoke about them. In the eight months of 1891 that he lay bedridden in Julia Thomas' Place, he never mentioned to her about any wife or child. In the time he told his life story to Dick Holmes and Frank Alkire on his deathbed, he never mentioned to them anything about a wife or child. A search of census records regarding Jacob Waltz of Phoenix results in him being single in the local 1864 census and the Federal 1870 Census, and the Federal 1880 Census. No mention of wife nor child. Thats all I need to know.

You know waltz did not father a child? Is that really a i think or an i believe?

You know what waltz said to julia? Is that from the sworn affidavit that proves nothing? Do you have a time machine? In reality you know zero of what waltz said to julia nor do you know that they even spoke.

 

[txtea]

Yeah, we all know how factual the history books are.....lol.

The law that Mike quoted mentions nothing of quicksilver. The other laws from that page mention quicksilver mining and the laws pertaining to it...but not this one. You're grabbing at straws now...hang it up.

 

[chlsbrns]

Yeah, we all know how factual the history books are.....lol.

The law that Mike quoted mentions nothing of quicksilver. The other laws from that page mention quicksilver mining and the laws pertaining to it...but not this one. You're grabbing at straws now...hang it up.

FYI:


COLLECTION
OF
MINING LAWS
OF
SPAIN AND MEXICO.
COMPILED AND TRANSLATED
BY H. W. HALLECK, A. M.
COUNSELLOR AT LAW.
SAN FRANCISCO:
O'MEARA & PAINTER, PRINTERS, 132 CLAY STREET.
1859.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859, by
H. W. HALLEOK, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Northern District of California

The Appendix contains the Spanish Mining Law and Regulation of 1849, and the Mining Ordinances of Peru, published in 1785-6. The former has no application to Mexican territory, but is interesting, as showing the changes which have taken place in the Spanish Mining code since the independence of Mexico. Nor have the Peruvian Mining Ordinances of 1785-6 ever been in force in Mexican territory, but they are of particular interest, as showing the interpretation given to certain articles of the Ordinances of New Spain. The old Mining Ordinances of Peru are frequently referred to by Gamboa, in his commentaries on the Mining of New Spain, for the purpose of explaining the laws and usages in the latter country. The compiler has been unable to obtain a copy of the old code.

From the book that you linked to:

"This, it is believed, is the first attempt to compile and translate"

"To express in English the precise meaning of technical words and phrases used in the Spanish Mining laws, is, in many cases, very difficult, and, in some, impossible. In such instances the words of the original are inserted in italics, and are explained in a Glossary which will be found at the end of the book"

https://books.google.com/books?id=yLAiXg-23FYC&printsec=frontcover&output=html_text

I think it best to believe what I read in history books!

 

[chlsbrns]

chlsbrns,

Like I said, you quoted from an old out of date history book, and I quoted the King of Spain as dictated in his edict. I would believe a first hand source rather than what some historian that came along 200 years later THOUGHT.

You have neither the intelligence to know when you are wrong, nor the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Mike

The history book that I linked to and quoted from was published in the 1890's. Your laws book was interperited by a lawyer in 1859.

 

[johnmark29020]

The history book that I linked to and quoted from was published in the 1890's. Your laws book was interperited by a lawyer in 1859.

The biggest problem with those old history books is that a lot was learned through reseach,accidental finds,and leg work.
Its no different than everyone believing the world was flat. It was taught studies and proven, until it was proven that all the historical info up to that point was wrong.
The world was indeed round. The book you keep referring to was written and printed in good faith. As with most text it was updated and changed at different points as time passed or they just wrote other books.
Basically its a good starting point,but you need more to prove jesuit never mind.
These guys on here are somtimes so rude. It make people want to leave,but they have read those book,hiked the hill.
Fought to preserve as much as they could for future generations. In short they are smarter than you think. If you show the the proof of what you are saying. They will listen,but they have experienced to much hands on learning to simple trust a old book and your word. Im not saying your wrong. Im just saying instead of going head to head like fighting bulls.
You should see if you can get your info across another way.

 

[chlsbrns]

The biggest problem with those old history books is that a lot was learned through reseach,accidental finds,and leg work.
Its no different than everyone believing the world was flat. It was taught studies and proven, until it was proven that all the historical info up to that point was wrong.
The world was indeed round. The book you keep referring to was written and printed in good faith. As with most text it was updated and changed at different points as time passed or they just wrote other books.
Basically its a good starting point,but you need more to prove jesuit never mind.
These guys on here are somtimes so rude. It make people want to leave,but they have read those book,hiked the hill.
Fought to preserve as much as they could for future generations. In short they are smarter than you think. If you show the the proof of what you are saying. They will listen,but they have experienced to much hands on learning to simple trust a old book and your word. Im not saying your wrong. Im just saying instead of going head to head like fighting bulls.
You should see if you can get your info across another way.

Their rudeness doesnt bother me I see it as ignorance.

I have asked for proof of anything related to the ldm, peralta stones, jesuits, ect. All I get is I think, i believe but never anything that can be verified.

The few quotes from the one book that I linked to is just that, a few quotes. There is so much more than the few quotes. The book is full of history!

Very few want facts that disprove what they think or believe.

If anyone is interested in facts:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ari...rceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8#q=arizona mining history&sboxchip=Books&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899&tbm=bks&start=10&norc=1&zx=1425187754751

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

The biggest problem with those old history books is that a lot was learned through reseach,accidental finds,and leg work.
Its no different than everyone believing the world was flat. It was taught studies and proven, until it was proven that all the historical info up to that point was wrong.
The world was indeed round. The book you keep referring to was written and printed in good faith. As with most text it was updated and changed at different points as time passed or they just wrote other books.
Basically its a good starting point,but you need more to prove jesuit never mind.

Actually, there is no burden of proof to prove a negative. If someone claims something occurred it is on them to prove it. Questioning an assertion does not impute any burden on the questioner. I trust you agree?

These guys on here are somtimes so rude. It make people want to leave,but they have read those book,hiked the hill.
Fought to preserve as much as they could for future generations. In short they are smarter than you think. If you show the the proof of what you are saying. They will listen,but they have experienced to much hands on learning to simple trust a old book and your word. Im not saying your wrong. Im just saying instead of going head to head like fighting bulls.
You should see if you can get your info across another way.

 

[johnmark29020]

Actually, there is no burden of proof to prove a negative. If someone claims something occurred it is on them to prove it. Questioning an assertion does not impute any burden on the questioner. I trust you agree?

Yes I agree. I was just trying to encourage him to try a different approach. His was getting him no where. I see his point in some of what he wrote.
Like there being no record of waltz being married or having a child. I forget where I read it,but I read that waltz lived with a indian woman for awhile. If true then he could have had a kid. Also if he was married to her by indian law. White law may not have recognized it. So even though history books are good up to a point. It best to try and find more proof.
I wasnt trying to put him or his position down. Just encouraging a shift in strategy.

 

[johnmark29020]

I forget who posted that waltzs mine was in side of a stone house. He/she said where I come from they say it was inside of a stone house, or somthing to that affect.
I was giving what you said and I was wondering if they specifically say inside of the house, the place I believe is the dutchman there is a stone house in sight of the mine. The roof is clearly from the forties or later. I assumed the roof had be replaced by someone. I thought it may have been added and may be your stone house.
It kinda fit somting watz said. To cant get to his house from the mine. You have to go back to the head of the canon. Then to his house.

Thats is what you would have to do to get from the mine I found to the house.
Its kinda cool. I can clearly see the house from the mine,but from the house you cant see the mine.
Anyway I was wondering if the version you head could have been trying to say in sight of, not inside of.
Being originally from the south and hearing german english spoke. They often they in sight of.

Im not trying to argue with your theory.
Just a question.

 

[johnmark29020]

Their rudeness doesnt bother me I see it as ignorance.

I have asked for proof of anything related to the ldm, peralta stones, jesuits, ect. All I get is I think, i believe but never anything that can be verified.

The few quotes from the one book that I linked to is just that, a few quotes. There is so much more than the few quotes. The book is full of history!

Very few want facts that disprove what they think or believe.

If anyone is interested in facts:

https://www.google.com/search?q=arizona+history&oq=arizona+history&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j69i60l3.9194j0j4&client=tablet-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8#q=arizona mining history&sboxchip=Books&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899&tbm=bks&start=10&norc=1&zx=1425187754751

I clicked on you link. I got a map and a bunch of choices. I would like to read whatever you are wanting us to see,but Im unaware just where to go.
Can you be a little more specific please.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

I clicked on you link. I got a map and a bunch of choices. I would like to read whatever you are wanting us to see,but Im unaware just where to go.
Can you be a little more specific please.

Some of the links in these threads lately have not been going where I expected also. This is why I haven't dug into the various quotes discussions. When the links don't work I don't bother tracking things down to see what the real story is. Call me lazy

 

[chlsbrns]

I clicked on you link. I got a map and a bunch of choices. I would like to read whatever you are wanting us to see,but Im unaware just where to go.
Can you be a little more specific please.

Im on my phone right now. Its hard to type. I think the link to the book is on page 38, 39 or 40 But an Of the books from the recent link will be loaded with info.

My phone conversation saturday verified a stone house and other info. I havent posted what was said because i obviously cant prove it. They want proof from me even though they provide none and dispute posted history.

Is your stone house near water?

Can you see the mine entrance from the stone house?

 

[chlsbrns]

Copy/paste the link and it should work

 

[chlsbrns]

Ill reply when I get home. Its to hard to type on this phone

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

My fav kind of pirate by the way

(heavily snipped)

CHLSBRNS ...

He stated unequivocally...

He stated unequivocally .... where he is wrong and he tries ...

Mike

I don't know CHLSBRNS But the avatar is definitely female?

I wouldn't expect a dude to have a lady avatar?

Know something I don't?

 

[johnmark29020]

Oops wrong place.

 

[chlsbrns]

I don't know CHLSBRNS But the avatar is definitely female?

I wouldn't expect a dude to have a lady avatar?

Know something I don't

I guess he needs to see the boobs? It wouldnt surprise me if he still doesnt get it. Lol!