Hi Travis,

As for Waltz not mentioning the “Old Military Trail” until he is at the mine: I’m convinced that Waltz traveled to the mine using the long way around - back roads, for lack of a better term. Because of that, he would not see the military trail (at all) until he crosses over the last ridge, just above the mine.

Thanks,
Ashton

Ashton,

You may be correct in "real life", but since we're discussing Conaster, I believe the book describes something else.

Page 31
"According to the Dutchman, to find the mine you MUST go to the head of a deep, narrow, North-South trending Canyon."

Now this would make it seem you CAN'T get there any other way, you MUST do this. So, according to Conaster, you were already on the Military Trail, when following her directions literally.

So she must be wrong somewhere. This is the main reason i'm against the North-South trending Canyon theory. I believe it's where you start (must), i dont think it's where you end, to make everything else make sense.

Thanks,
Travis

So much of what anything in print means depends upon how one reads it:

Page 31
“To FIND the mine…..”

Does she mean that her conditions apply only to FIND the mine? Meaning that because those seekers don’t know where to look -> therefore in order to see her landmarks they MUST follow her guide?
In other words, you MUST take her route because if you take any other route you will not see the landmarks therefore you will not FIND the mine.

Or, does she mean that to get there (which is what everybody is trying to do) that “you MUST go to the head of a deep, narrow, North-South trending canyon” . You MUST do this because there is no other route?

Or, is written language such that I have missed what you are trying to say in the first place?

I agree with you 100% that Conatser is wrong somewhere. Otherwise, she would have found it. Some of her information actually conflicts what she says in the very next sentence! “With this cave located you continue on down the canyon for a distance described as several miles, carefully observing the east side of the canyon. At an undetermined distance, you will see a rock formation…” (pg 31) Well, which is it? Several miles or an undetermined distance?

It’s not Conatser’s authorship that brings any real value, she’s no good with directions, she doesn’t give us any new clues per se’ - she tells us as much in the Preface “For those seeking new clues or virgin information, they will find very little of either in this book.”(iv).

In my opinion what Conatser brings to the table that has real value is the spatial relationship of the landmarks at the mine and (apparently) she does that from the original Barks Notes. I have found in Conatser what I complained was missing in Ely – the details.

Ashton

Sorry I haven't posted anything here recently. I'm finding time to read a little, but the last couple days have been VERY LONG ONES at work and I'm fading too fast to type anything .

One of the better discussions I've seen though in awhile!

Ashton,

If that was directed at me, then no, i dont think written language escapes you at all. It's most likely the way i type on here, not always being clear enough.

"According to the Dutchman...." Jim said he believes those words that follow, were a word for word account given to Conaster. Did she mess up some of the directions? Maybe, maybe it was her source? Were the clues/landmarks correct? Probably. Were they in the correct places in Conasters book? Maybe, maybe not.

What i was trying to get at was, I dont think the Military trail was in the Canyon below. And i was trying to explain my reasons why. In my mind, you would have started on the Military Trail, if you never left the Canyon. No where in her directions does it say you leave the Canyon, except we assume that you would, because the mine is in a Ravine. So you would always be on the Military Trail, according to Conaster. But she doesnt say it that way. She never mentions Military Trail, until youre at the Mine already.

My whole point was, she is missing a ton of information. That was all. Maybe i should have just said that.

Thanks again,
Travis

Hi Travis,

I’ve been mulling over what you said. There’s a lot of stuff there, so to start -> I want to ask everybody on the forum;

>>> My whole point was, she is missing a ton of information.

I’ve thought that as well – and not with just Conatser, but Sims et.al. But when I play the scenario out in my mind, I don’t know that I would have been able to add in a ton of stuff to what we have – even if I would have been Waltz himself or Reiney. I could be wrong about this and that’s why I’m placing the question.

Circa 1890 (when Waltz is talking to Reiney about the mine) without a topographic map (probably without ANY map) and without USFS trail markers – describe in words how to get to your own favorite area of the mountains.

When I did that myself, talking out the directions to my own favorite location, I was surprised at how short my directions were – just a couple paragraphs, not too different from the account in The Sterling Legend…. which is amazing because when I sit down at the computer I can go on, and on, and on, and….

I believe the lack of information issue gets compounded when Reiney tries to remember everything Waltz told him. After all, if we follow the story it’s Waltz -> Petrasch -> Bark (who writes it down) and so on to Conatser. In other words, everything in this version comes through Reiney.

So my first question is:
Although it appears that she is missing a boatload of information – is this really the case? I believe this can be tested by reciting the directions to your own location without trail names (yes, some trails did have names in the 1800’s BUT Reiney wouldn’t know what they were and he can’t buy a topo map at REI). Do you come up with more than a couple paragraphs or are your directins similar to what we find in The Sterling legend?

Thanks in Advance,
Ashton

I should have include this in my previous post – sorry.

Where I’m going with this “are we missing a boatload of information?” BECAUSE if we are missing a lot of information, then that merits the investigation of: what info are we missing and can we piece together the rest of the story from (critical analysis of) what we have or do we need alternative sources.

If we are not missing a lot of information, then we should take a closer look at what we have in order to determine why is it that we’re not seeing what we are supposed to.

The bottom line is: how we proceed with and how we interpret what information we have could be determined, in large part by whether or not we have the bulk of the story.

This may not be applicable to everyone. I know some believe that more is better – and that’s fine. They may be farther along than I am. Maybe I’m one of the few who believe in Sims supplemented by Conatser is all that is required. And that’s fine too.

Best
Ashton

Morning Ashton,


re: are we missing a boatload of information?

I don't think we are missing a "boatload" of information, but it sure seem obvious that we do not have it all! Many times I have considered the thought that Julia & Rhiney withheld information from Bark & Ely, giving them just enough information to locate the area the mine is in, but not enough to actually locate the mine itself without additional help from them in the field.

If that were the case... Then we are down to looking for alternative sources.

According Waltz... Per Ely, The LDM (or the ravine it is in) was worked by the Peralta family for 3 generations. If there are any alternative sources they would almost have to be old Mexican stories. Stories that come from a fairly reliable source, who was in a position at one time or another to have been in contact with decedents of the Peralta family or their relatives.

Those sources (in my opinion) would be people like Frank Fish (Who brought the Peralta/Fish Map out of Mexico), Erwin Ruth (who brought the Peralta/Ruth map out of Mexico, and Sina Lewis who brought old Mexican stories out of Mexico.

The Fish & Ruth info has been pretty well picked to the bone over the decades, but the Sina Lewis info (presented in Oren Arnold and Doc Rosecrans books) has gone pretty much ignored, because most people didn't know the history of the source (Sina Lewis).

I think we need to take a breather from Conatser for a while, and take a hard look at the Arnold and Rosecrans books for anything that might parallel with what Julia & Rhiney told Bark & Ely.

If you guys do not have those books, I can dig them out of storage and scan some pages and post them in the thread at: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2465 to help get the discussion started.

Best,

Jim




.

Hi Jim,
I don’t have anything from Arnold or Rosecrans and would appreciate seeing a scan of some pages.


Hi All,
I want to mention that it seems like I frequently take the “opposite opinion”. I’m NOT doing that for the sake of being argumentative or for the purpose of trying to disprove everyone else’s theories. Just because I don’t agree with someone does not mean I don’t respect them. I’m sure y’all understand that, but I wanted to say it anyway because I was reading some of the stuff I had posted (way back when) and in reading it, it seems like I’m always on the other side of the fence. If it wasn’t for people disagreeing with me, I would still be at First Water.

Thanks,
Ashton

No problem Ashton,

If we all thought alike... All but one of us would be redundant!


Best,

Jim