THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Moderator: Jim_b

Post Reply
Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:42 am

revaeb wrote:Cool. Ill look for the other one that is a better representation as it was taken from the superstitions.
Another photo would be great revaeb,

But, just to clarify... The antler in the photo I posted did come from the Superstitions too. I picked it up myself out there about 10 years ago.
Maybe you have the other half that I couldn't find. :lol:


Jim

firstcoues2009
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:36 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by firstcoues2009 » Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:01 pm

revaeb wrote:Ashton,

When I saw the comment about the "dwarf deer" it immediately made me think of the deer that we have here in arizona. It is a subspecies of whitetail deer that is known to be considerably smaller than the whitetail deer that are found anywhere else. I hunt these deer and have pictures of them, and they are very abundant in the higher elevations of the superstitions. To me, and im not an animal bioligist or anything, but to me, the term "dwarf deer" is a pretty good representation of them. They are the coues whitetail deer. Some pronounce it "COOS" others "COWS" I can say that 18" tall might be a little bit of an exageration, but antlers no bigger than the palm of a mans hand can be accurate in some cases. The first one I shot was a young 3x3 buck that had some very tiny antlers that honestly were not much bigger than the palm of my hand. If I can figure out how to post pictures on here, I will upload some. I have one with me now here at work, which is of the larger of the 2 I have taken, but ill have to dig a little for the pics of the smaller one.


If you take in to account that there actually is a deer in the superstitions, that is smaller than any other species of deer that exists anywhere other than Arizona, New Mexico and Northern Mexico, then add the exaggerations of stories from around the campfire. All of a sudden Holmes's description of the jackrabbit with antlers, really isnt that far off.

I know when some of my friends that arent familiar with the deer saw my pictures and made fun of me for shooting a dog with antlers!! I can see how it could get exaggerated out to a jackrabbit, and would not necesarily to me, blow any crediblity of the story.

Im not saying I am of the Holmes school of thought. Or trying to convince anyone one way or the other. I really enjoy reading about the history of people searching for the mine, and all of the stories associated with them. I saw your comment about the dwarf deer and it just seemed like one of the few places I have seen where I can interject something of any kind of importance to the discussion. Ill see if I can figure out the pictures so you can see what I mean.

I thought the same thing when I read that quote about "dwarf deer". They really are half the size of a muley or whitetail form other parts. If his vision wasn't perfect his description could've been exagerated slightly also.

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:16 pm

revaeb,

The photos you are posting would be great for a Outdoor Sportsman or Hunting Website, but they are not really appropriate here.

I have nothing against Hunters or Hunting, But... I think we should move off the subject of "Dwarf Deer" and Hunting and get back to discussing the Holmes Manuscript. ;)

Best,

Jim

User avatar
Dirty Dutchman
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:22 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Arizona

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Dirty Dutchman » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:17 pm

Hello,

I believe there are so many "holes" in the manuscript. The following is just one example.(And only my opinion)

A big "tell" for me is the line about Waltz never filing a claim because he wasnt a citizen.
(Keep in mind, i DO believe Waltz told Dick Holmes real directions on his deathbed, just not the whole "murderer" version.)

I wont give away my own reasons for why i believe this, i will let you guys figure out your own reasons. (My reason is too "simple" and would probably start some arguements because i have never read anyone coming up with this as a possible answer to the whole "Holmes debate" :D )

I dont believe this statement came from Waltz at all. I believe it was made up by Dick because he probably "questioned" in his own mind why Waltz never claimed the mine and needed an answer because he had taken the gold. I think people would have questioned Dick as to why Waltz didnt claim and this was at least some kind of answer that Dick could come up with.

I believe the true reason to be one of two things. Waltz only had "temporary" ownership from Peralta, or Waltz didnt want people "claimjumping" out there and taking from him. I dont believe Dick would have known either of these things and came up with his own "reason".

I believe the "claimjumping" part personally. The reason is because it's a "simple" answer to a "simple" story. Waltz didnt want anyone to know about his mine so he didnt claim it. Simple. (Which is the easiest answer to why Waltz didnt mention it at all. It was simple and didnt matter to the overall "story". Waltz wasnt telling a "story", he was giving out "directions". Dick is the one who needed a "story")

I also believe this is the reason for all of the "Waltz was highgrading" stories that have popped up over the years. Waltz didnt file a claim, so he must have been stealing it? Again, people trying to make it "complicated" and "exciting". In my opinion it was neither. It was simple. I have this mine, i dont want anyone to know, so i wont file a claim. The end...Simple.

Jim, are you starting to see why my head doesnt "hurt"? :lol:

Thanks,
Travis

User avatar
cubfan64
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:00 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by cubfan64 » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:46 pm

Here's a question that always pops into my mind when the discussion gets around to Waltz not filing a claim and the whole Holmes story...

If Waltz truly felt that the gold in that vein was rich enough to be worth millions, why not file a claim?? He had filed on a number of claims with other partners in the past, so he must have trusted other people. He was supposedly friends with the Starrar's, Gideon Roberts, Julia, Rhiney and perhaps other neighbors - people he should have been able to trust right? Why not partner up with 4-6 or more of them, file a claim and then go out there right to the spot and work it with your "trusted" armed crew until all or at least a large portion of it had been worked out? Make yourself and your friends very rich in the process.

Supposedly Waltz noted that a couple times when he came back it was apparent someone else had been working it - wouldn't that just be another incentive to file a claim and get everything out of there legally?

Greed is one thing, but if you use the argument that Waltz wanted it all to himself, wouldn't you expect that he would have removed much more gold than he did? Especially if it was truly rich enough to be 1/3 gold?

Why would someone be greedy enough to have caught "gold fever" and want it all to himself, and yet he only takes out enough (and caches some) to last him for the last 20 or so years of his life living a very simple existence - that doesn't sound like greed to me. If you're greedy and you want it all to yourself, you want to look at it, touch it, feel it, dream of it - you wouldn't go out and take a little and then cover it all up would you?

I'm just doing some "free thinking" here, so I may not be coherently putting my thoughts together very well, but something just doesn't ring true here to me logically. On the one hand we have Waltz as the gold crazed prospector who would murder a number of men for the mine and want it all to himself - and on the other hand we have a Waltz who was willing to help Julia get out of debt, who only took enough gold to last him the rest of his life and never filed a claim.

I've heard some of the theories that explain all this way - that he was scared of being caught as a murderer, that he was scared of the indians, etc... but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me the way the Holmes story comes out.

Jim proposed a theory awhile back that for me seems like it has the potential to answer my questions above to my satisfaction and explain it away for a logical reason. Beyond his theory however, I just have a hard time reconciling alot of the other explanations.

User avatar
Dirty Dutchman
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:22 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Arizona

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Dirty Dutchman » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:05 pm

Hey Cub,

I dont know if anyone could ever answer any of those questions for sure. I thought too about why he didnt bring his friends out there. The only thing that made any sense to me was that he didnt offer to help Julia at all until her husband had left her. I personally dont think Waltz was as "close" to Julia and Rhiney until that happened. Remember Waltz supposedly looked at her "financials" after the husband left, then said "no one should have to work that hard just for a living". That is the point where he wanted them to have the mine, he just never could make the trip. I just dont think they were that good of friends until that "brought them together" so to speak.

The other side of that is that Waltz truly felt bad about losing his partner/friend and didnt really want to go back there. He might have even "hated" the mine. If he truly did have a friend (Wieser) and they had spent 30 years looking for gold together, Waltz could have very well been that upset that his friend had gotten killed right after they found it. In his mind, that mine cost him his friends life.

The last thing is that Waltz felt he only had "temporary" ownership of the mine. That would mean that Waltz was truly "honorable" and only took what he and his partner had "earned" from the Peralta agreement. Maybe when Waltz told Julia and Rhiney about the mine so much time had passed he figured a Peralta was never coming back so he gave away the "secret" to them?

Again, just my opinion.

Thanks,
Travis

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:59 pm

Dirty Dutchman wrote:
Jim, are you starting to see why my head doesnt "hurt"? :lol:

Thanks,
Travis
Travis...

I don't even want to go "there". There are only 2 people I have ever known who do not get a headache from thinking about some of these questions. John Kemm and BB... (Maybe 3 if I include the Tropical Tramp).

Image


re: Why Waltz never filed a claim on his mine?

Did you ever consider the possibility that he may have had good reason to believe, that someone else may have already held ownership papers on it?

Image

(The hook is baited Paul) :D

Best,

Jim

User avatar
Dirty Dutchman
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:22 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Arizona

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Dirty Dutchman » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:13 pm

Jim,

I can't believe you just compared me to that "Dink"!! John Kemm i can deal with....but BB? :x

:D

Ok, i'll "bite"....I have never read anything that suggests someone else may have claimed it so this must be your idea?

Unless your talking about Waltz taking it from someone elses mine outside of the Superstitions? This i have heard of.

Im interested so i will take whatever you would like to "divulge", if anything.

thanks,
Travis

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:19 pm

Travis,

Yes it is just a theory, and it is all mine, so you can take it or leave it as you wish.

I will start at the beginning just the way I explained it to Paul in another discussion, and you will see how my theory developed. When I first came to AZ and started getting into heavy research. I spent a lot of time in the Historical Library at the State Capitol, and the main Phoenix library searching for anything I could find that pertained to the 1880's time period. Eventually I worked my way into the old newspaper archives. The stories that kept showing up that caught my interest, as something that Waltz would have been very interested in, were stories about renegade Apache attacks in the outlaying areas (All attributed to Geronimo... who made his final surrender in 1886) and the stories about the Reavis - Peralta Land Grant Fraud.

Even if Waltz had filed a claim on his mine, he would have still had to cut a deal with Reavis, just like the railroad and large mining companies did to feel comfortable that it would not be taken away from him.

Also... In Waltz's mind at the time, would have been the idea that if Reavis was truly involved with the Peralta's, he may have had specific information about that mine, and just waiting for his claim to be validated before beginning to work it. If Reavis didn't already know about the mine, and Waltz filed a claim on it. Reavis would surely know about it then, and could refuse to give him clear title to it, and claim ownership of it under the Peralta Land Grant.

All Waltz could do is keep it as quiet as possible, and hope that Reavis didn't already know about it. I have also thought a lot about the idea that it was headlines about Reavis' claim, that inspired Peralta to want to make one last trip to the mine (When he took Waltz and Weiser with him) before Reavis became Lord and Master of the whole area???

This would also explain why Waltz and Weiser were in such a hurry to get as much gold out of the mine as quickly as possible, and get it cached somewhere away from the mine itself.

The Reavis case was not finally settled until about 5 years (1896) after Waltz's death in 1891, leaving Waltz between a rock and a hard place right up until the day he died. Maybe this is why he told Julia and Rhiney that they could not do anything with the mine itself (without explaining exactly why) and Ely just made the assumption, that it was because they were not miners?

You can get some background on the Reavis time line right in the DUSA forums at:

http://www.desertusa.com/mb3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1979

Best,

Jim

User avatar
Dirty Dutchman
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:22 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Arizona

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Dirty Dutchman » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:33 pm

Jim,

Have you been reading my notes?? :o

I actually put up an arguement on another site that i no longer frequent about the same thing. I started to research the Reavis fiasco and realized that he didnt have to fraud anyone. He had a claim to a fortune and never knew it.

I have also read that "local burocracy" was famous at that time for not "honoring" real Church Grants which could have been the reason Peralta "gave it away".

I only said it in "passing" before as to not pull the post off of the topic. My personal notes have a couple pages devoted to this subject with some of the same reasoning behind them.

I too believe this could very well be the reason why Waltz never claimed it. Who knows??

Travis

Post Reply