THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Moderator: Jim_b

Post Reply
User avatar
AshtonPage
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:37 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Sunny Portland, Oregon

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by AshtonPage »

Contradictions in the Holmes Manuscript.

I’ll tell you up front that in several places I am making assumptions. Without all the facts, it’s the best I can do. Agree or disagree, here are a couple things that might be worth thinking about. I’m not here to start arguments, these are just my opinions based on observations and I’m willing to share (up to a point). I only hope that some of this is brings a new perspective and not just the same old – same old.

Some of the things that Brownie wrote in his manuscript were crafted, quite cleverly, to be deliberately misleading. I can understand why he would do this. As long as I’m guessing, I will agree with Dr. Glover that Brownie had come to the realization that, just like his father, he would never find the LDM unless he had some help. Now the question arises, how do you spill the beans without spilling the beans?

One answer would be to give out some truth (just enough to find the canyon), some half-truths (so that it’s an enticing story) and some deliberately misleading info (so that if someone does locate the canyon with the stone house in it, they will end up looking in the wrong location for the mine itself).
In fact, I would write the manuscript so that whoever found the canyon would also be mislead into completely believing that he had “solved the secret riddle” and therefore he would be absolutely convinced that the mine had to be down in the canyon, when in fact the mine is really above the canyon (just an example).

One of the more clever misdirection clues was when Brownie made it LOOK like he slipped up unintentionally and gave away a valuable clue as to where the mine really was located.
(I’ll have to go from memory because my son asked to borrow my books. So this will not be exact, but you’ll get the point). In the directions Waltz gave to Dick Holmes:
“In the canyon below is my hidden camp. But you can’t get down there from here because it’s too steep. So go around to the mouth of the canyon and then come back in. You can find my stone house (or hidden camp) but you won’t see it until you are right on it. After finding my stone house, come back out of the canyon and…. (here Waltz gave directions to the mine).”

Very clever - this makes it appear that the LDM not in the canyon. IF the author is trying to conceal the location of the mine outright, then there is no earthly reason to include the line “After finding my stone house come back out of the canyon” just before the line “here Waltz gave directions to the mine.” The part about coming back out of the canyon was intentionally inserted into the Holmes manuscript to create an “a-ha” moment for the reader later on in the Holmes mss.

Because later on in the Holmes Manuscript Brownie says he is talking to his father who tells him (again paraphrased) “Son, if you do find the rock house, just leave the area and we will file a claim first. Do not pace it off to the mine like we talked about.” :o
Brownie even reaffirms that it needs to be “paced off from the stone house” because he adds in the line “like we talked about” (can I get a witness?).

This makes it appear to the reader that Brownie slipped up and gave away that the “secret” that the LDM needs to be paced off from the stone house. Therefore the mine would, of necessity, be down in the canyon. He reaffirms this a couple times in the manuscript by saying “no one will find the mine unless they find my stone house FIRST.” Why all the emphasis on finding the stone house? Face it, if you’re at the correct canyon, then you’re at the correct canyon – stone house or no stone house…… can you see where Brownie is going with all this?

I believe that Brownie deliberately used clever contradictions so that the unwary DH’er would have an a-ha moment and think “Brownie slipped up, and now I just figured out that the mine is really down in the canyon ” And of course, that unsuspecting DH’er will waste his time pacing off from the stone house down in the canyon - when the real mine is up on the hill above….. or ledge… or whatever.
Very clever on his part. Understanding that Brownie admittedly admired Tex Barkley because of Tex’s ability to “spin yarn” gives us some insight to Brownie’s way of thinking.

I would find it hard to believe that Brownie never proofread his manuscript. If I am not mistaken, he agonized about what to say and how to say it as he dictated it to family members, who typed it for him. If he was agonizing over what to say, then you can bet he proofread what his family had typed. Brownie would have caught these contradictions during the proofreading - unless of course, they were intentional. I think they were – my theory.

Brownie also used half-truths to change some of the features about the mine, making it impossible to find following the Holmes manuscript: Waltz supposedly said (again paraphrased) “The gold runs the mountain side 400 feet where it crops out in the bottom of a wash”. From the other things Waltz said (I went down the ladder, the shaft is completely covered) I conclude that it is most probably a vertical shaft. Some have said a chimney shoot. This leads to the conclusion that that the entrance to the mine needs to be about 400 feet above the canyon floor (or arroyo, or wash). Another a-ha moment.

I fell for that one when I first started looking. I’m sure that many others fell for this as well. I thought the mine would be 400 feet above a wash and 40 feet short of the hilltop (JW –“ I have to climb above the mine 40 feet to see Weaver’s Needle”). That made it obvious (too obvious, in retrospect) that I should start by looking for a peak that rises 440 feet (give or take) above a wash and also be within sight of Weavers Needle.

Searching for a location that fit that description cost me a ton of time and I no longer believe that those criteria are valid. Now, I could easily have missed something but I am no longer looking for a location with those specifics.

There are more examples of half-truths and outright deception (in the other direction is a peak, where the 4 peaks line up, etc.) but you get the point.

Some of the things in the Holmes mss. Brownie simply had no clue (like Waltz writing to his sister in Germany) and he just took his best guess or used local legend in order to fill in the blanks. If he had known the facts, then he would not have missed them by as far as he did, even in the places where he is “spinning yarn”.

There are however, a couple places in his manuscript where Holmes missed an opportunity to use misdirection e.g. “that’s where I leave the* trail”. Pay attention, IT IS NOT “that’s where I take another trail” IT IS NOT even “that’s where I cross over to a different trail” - he said “that’s where I LEAVE the trail.”
This contradicts the old “from the mine I can see the trail but from the trail I can’t see the mine.” I doubt Waltz ever said that. Who did? I dunno. But if you LEAVE the trail and head East, then you’re not going to see the trail that you just left (which continues South).

_ * I am dismissing the argument that Waltz said “the” trail as opposed to “a” trail – that argument would go on to the assumption that Waltz left “the” trail to go to “a” trail. I’ve lived in foreign countries and I know from experience that when you are not fluent in a foreign language then you will take great care NOT to use subtleties like that because it is all too easy to get them wrong and be misunderstood. Waltz was not fluent in English.

Lastly – Understand that the Holmes Manuscript was written to attempt to direct other people to the canyon – so that they would (hopefully) share the location with Brownie. Waltz would have never said to Holmes “Go to First Water” because Holmes would have already KNOWN that. However, a manuscript trying to tell others how to find the canyon would of necessity need to start with “Go to first water”.

Now – If Waltz was talking to Holmes and he did not begin with “go to first water” then it follows that Waltz did know who he was talking to. OK?

Jim Hatt points out something quite curious:
>> Now... Here's the glitch! If you follow Holmes directions to a certain area of the mountains. Once you are in that area, you can find certain things that Julia described as landmarks, that were supposed to be in the area of the mine. :o

That’s an intriguing point Jim brings up. This means that Holmes is not entirely without merit. I am equally persuaded that if you use Holmes as your only guide then you will never get any closer than Holmes himself did. Meaning that the “magic clue” is not in the Holmes manuscript.


Best Regards,
Ashton

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Kinda makes your head spin doesn't it Ashton?

One of my main goals for this forum is to sort out the facts from the fiction.

It is almost an impossible task.

The best I can do is to try to minimize, the stuff I know for is B.S. (Barnyard Spread).

ie: Google Earth Theorists, Day Dreamers, and Flat Out "Story Tellers". :lol: Hopefully what remains posted here for future generations, will be somewhere close to the truth, and they won't have to wade through page after page of B.S. to try to find it.

Best,

Jim

zhaira931
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:26 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by zhaira931 »

I have already read this manuscript on our literature class. This is a very readable journal of the Holmes' family hunt for this famous lost mine. This manuscript is their story.

User avatar
AshtonPage
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:37 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Sunny Portland, Oregon

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by AshtonPage »

Until recently, I had only read Golver's books. Basically written from the Holmes perspective.
At Jim Hatts recommendation I got a copy of Sim Ely's book.
Thank you, Jim.

Sims book is a breath of fresh air.

There are huge credibility gaps with Holmes, unbelievable exaggerations regarding the nature of the mine itself, and the wealth of the mine is overstated in the Holmes mss. quite literally to the point of being ridiculous (its discovery could upset the entire world market for gold). Holmes left me with more questions than answers - not about the mine, about the credibility of the story.

I have been told that Holmes personally denies writing the Holmes Manuscript. Even Glover makes that assertion. When reading Holmes I was left with the impression of an arrogant (I couldn't care less if the mine upsets the entire world's gold market. Just so long as my parents get the money) and pompous individual. Yet those who personally knew Holmes had only good things to say about him. Which brings me to the point; is the Holmes Manuscript even legitimate at all?

On the other hand, Ely left me with no questions regarding the integrity of his story. From cover to cover, Sims is simply believable where (to me anyway) The Holmes Manuscript, for the reasons stated above, is simply not a credible witness. Just my opinion.

In reading the two accounts Holmes and Ely - they are not even talking about the same mine. Holmes lists a shaft that is now covered with 12 feet of timber :o all set in place by a single senior citizen :shock: . While Ely describes the mine as an open pit, like a funnel with shelves cut into the wall...ect.

Irreconcilable differences to say the least.

It has been remarked that "many DH'ers have moved on past Ely". I feel those that have may have overshot the mark. Again, just my opinion.

Will Sims get me any closer then Holmes did? Probably not. While I've always believed in what I was looking for, now I can believe in where I am going.

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

You are a bit of fresh air yourself Ashton.

Now that you have read Ely's book, you might want to review the discussion about it at:

http://www.desertusa.com/mb3/viewtopic. ... 234#p19234

I am curious about your gut feelings about whether or not, you think Ely was pressured to leave anything out of his book by Jim Bark's descendants.

Most of the people who believe that. Also believe in the Bark Notes (that are in circulation) and that Ely used those notes for reference when he wrote is book. Even though there are as many discrepancies between Ely's book and the Bark Notes, as there between his book and the Holmes Manuscript.

I have never been able to understand where the logic is, in that train of thought?

Best,

Jim

Moderator Note: Replies to this post moved to the discussion about Ely's book at:
http://www.desertusa.com/mb3/viewtopic. ... 234#p19234

User avatar
AshtonPage
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:37 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Sunny Portland, Oregon

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by AshtonPage »

In my mind, Holmes and Ely are irreconcilable accounts. I’ve been going over this for the past few days and something struck me as a possibility.

I think we all agree that before the death bed confession, Waltz had already told Thomas and Petrasch the location of the LDM. So then, what did Waltz tell Richard Holmes? I will skip over the previously mentioned possibilities and ask:

Could it be possible that Waltz gave Holmes directions to a different Peralta mine from the one we refer to as the LDM?

Thanks,

Ashton

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Sure it's possible Ashton,

But I wouldn't be able to defend the theory with facts very long if it was challenged. :lol:

Jim

patricia39
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:20 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by patricia39 »

Actually I eventually read The Holmes Manuscript by Thomas E. Glover. This is a very readable journal of the Holmes’ family hunt for this famous lost mine. This journal is their story that all people should read for.

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Hello Patricia and welcome to the DUSA forums.

Although I have some reservations about the accuracy of some things in his book (Due to lack of verification of what some of his sources told him). I fully agree with you that Dr. Glover's book is "a readable journal of the Holmes’ family hunt for this famous lost mine".

It is pretty well known what my feelings are about the "Holmes Manuscript" itself are, but Dr. Glover's first book THE GOLDEN DREAM goes way beyond what the manuscript contains.

Anyone interested in the Lost Dutchman Mine would be making a huge mistake (in my opinion) if they totally dismissed the Holmes side of the legend. It was after-all... Dick Holmes that ended up with the 48 pounds of raw ore from under Waltz's deathbed. Not even Julia Thomas or Rhiney Petrasch, denied the fact that Holmes was present when Waltz died.

The big questions in my mind are... Was Waltz aware of the fact that he was talking to Dick Holmes (and not Rhiney) when he was dying, and what did he actually tell him?

Leading up to the last big question... Did anyone in the Holmes family ever disclose to anyone else what Waltz actually said?

The fact that Brownie Holmes spent his entire life searching for the mine, is enough for me to believe that Waltz did attempt to give directions to the mine as he was dying. Whether or not any of those directions ever made it into print... We may never know.

I believe that Brownie Holmes did write the "Holmes manuscript" which is in circulation today, with his name on it as the author, and it is my opinion that it was put into circulation, with the intent to mislead and confuse everyone searching for the mine, (Where directions, landmarks and clues are concerned) in the same manner that the "Bark Notes" which are in circulation today do.

Best,

Jim

User avatar
AshtonPage
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:37 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Sunny Portland, Oregon

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by AshtonPage »

The Holmes Manuscript reveals some interesting things that I haven’t heard others talk about – but then, there’s a lot of things I haven’t heard.

Holmes Pt 2 (Glover) pg. 57
Waltz talking: “I enlarged the shaft about 2 and ½ feet all around and left a ledge about 6 feet below the surface. Then I went UP on the ledge…” Did Waltz go up on the ledge he had made in the mine OR did he go up on the ledge where the mine is located?

This is a twice told story (at least), but it’s interesting that it COULD be the ledge the mine is on; if so then the mine is on a ledge - subject to interpretation.

Ibid pg 48: Waltz tells that he is travelling on the “Government Trail” that was used by the soldiers at Ft McDowell. pg 49: Waltz states “I had gotten off the trail considerably”

If he is “off the trail considerably” (assuming this is the infamous ‘Military Trail’) One wonders how he could see the Military Trail from the mine :o unless he walked “considerably” towards the trail on that fateful morning. Waltz describes how he had no grub and his feet were getting sore, which leads me to believe considerable walking was probably not the case.

Also pg 49: he spends the night in a “cave in the side of a hill” that is full of bats. Next morning he starts out again. He doesn’t say how far he walks (my opinion based on what Waltz tells us physical condition was, is that he has not gone very far) until he “just crossed a wash and got up on the other side when I (Waltz) saw human footprints….. (that were going) in the general direction of Fort McDowell…. Followed the trail for about ½ mile when I came upon a camp.”

For me, those clues are more relevant than locating the Military Trail. Agree or disagree, it could be a perspective worth thinking about.

Cheers,

Ashton

Post Reply