Question about Barks Notes

Hmm - how do you define "obsession"? If Reiney were not obsessed to some degree, why would he continue to go back out searching at all? Surely he would give it up, rather than return over and over right? I think we could probably agree to disagree on what this means.

Hey at least any political discussions at the rendezvous won't have to be concerned about offending any "liberals". :thumbsup: I hope you have the best rendezvous ever, wish we could be there.
Roy

Roy,

I would go with any of the accepted definitions. That being the case, I don't see Rhiney fitting the mold. What's your definition?

Take care,

Joe
 

Roy,

I would go with any of the accepted definitions. That being the case, I don't see Rhiney fitting the mold. What's your definition?

Take care,

Joe

Hi Joe - I believe that the term "obsessed" is very subjective, what one person might consider to be an obsession, might not be to another. I would say that a person whom, after failing to locate a lost mine in several tries, and then continued to return and keep hunting for that lost mine in the same mountain range over a period of years or decades, would fit the dictionary definition of being obsessed. Not the utterly single-minded type of obsession, but the lasting, clinging type of obsession that won't let go of your heart.

That said, I would not say that Reiney was as obsessed as Pete or Herman, and several others come to mind. Reiney committed suicide, which may well have been due to his own failure to locate Waltz's mine. In fact what other thing do we know of, that we could say was the reason for his suicide? I would count that as fairly positive proof that he was obsessed, even if he did not spend his every moment in the Superstitions hunting for it. Most treasure hunters as you know well, are often forced to work at some totally unrelated kind of employment if only to earn enough to stay alive.

Let me turn this question around for you Joe, would you say that Reiney was totally NOT obsessed with the Lost Dutchman, that <in your opinion> he could "take it or leave it", so to speak? Thank you in advance.

Good luck and good hunting to all reading our discussion, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Roy ~ Oroblanco
 

The SPANGLER COPY:
2. Probert Version (Annotated) Book formatted ‘demo’ SAME COPY
3. Aylor Version Partial Hand by John DeGraffenreid copied the notes; copied ¾ only BUT SAME COPY
4. Al Reser Version GOT from James Spangler, Barks Nephew / heir
5. SAME COPY Clay Worst
6. Richard Peck SAME COPY

7. VERSION The OTHER “Bark Notes” given to James Spangler, Barks Nephew / heir
The real notes Bark took down and keep for his reference; the source material for the Bark Notes. Include the 40 Questions and Answers Bark asked of Rhiney AND clues galore from Thomas and Petrasch.

Just to keep it going...
 

Joe,

Actually, Ashton is somewhat correct.

In the Forward of Glover's "Part II: The Holmes Manuscript" page X he states:



Looks as though Dr. Glover indeed is a believer in the authenticity of the Holmes Manuscript.

Best-Mike

Mike,

Looking back over past threads, I noticed that I didn't reply to this post.

I believe, at some point, Brownie did add some personal history to the manuscript. In that respect, at least, I suppose you could make some claim that he was the author of the final version of the Holmes Manuscript.The most likely "author" of the original manuscript, would be Charles F. Higham.

As stated before, Brownie denied that he wrote the manuscript, right up to the time of his death. The source for that, IMHO, is above reproach. This was not something that someone told him that Brownie said, but was directly told to him by Brownie Holmes.

Just my opinion, so it's a guess at best.

Take care,

Joe
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top