THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Moderator: Jim_b

Post Reply
Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Good points Aston, and worthy of a lot of thought.

Something that always comes to my mind concerning Dr. Glover's book.

Tom Glover did know members of the Holmes family, (Brownie's Step children) and spent a lot of time interviewing them. Is it possible that they knew something about what Waltz actually said on his deathbed, and passed it on to him, or did they only know what was in the manuscript that we all are familiar with?

The whole Holmes version of how Waltz came to know where the mine was, (as told in the Holmes Manuscript) is so different than the version told by Ely, (which he claimed he got from Julia and Rhiney) that one of the versions has to be totally dismissed.

There is absolutely not a single word of concurrence between the two versions. Julia and Rhiney talked to Waltz for months during his sickness. Holmes only had minutes with him (while Julia went for the Doctor) right at the time of his death.

There are a lot of people who disagree with me, but I put my faith in the Ely version, and dismiss the Holmes version of the story.

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 »

Jim Hatt wrote:
Clay can never come up with a reasonable (in my opinion) explanation for how a newspaper man "Kennison" he calls him, could have written the manuscript, and it would contain so many grammatical and spelling errors. (Not to say that my own style is that much better)

The Holmes Manuscript (again in my opinion) was not written by someone that made his living as a writer. My common sense tells me that it was written by Brownie Holmes himself. Brownie told Clay otherwise, and Clay's loyalty to Brownie, will not let him accept the possibility, that Brownie ever told him anything but the absolute truth.

A professional writer worth his salt writing in the first person narrative of a cowboy would use the vernacular of a cowboy, bad grammar and all, in order to give the manuscript a flair of authenticity of the old-west.

Also, the manuscript tells of Brownie seeing “dwarf-deer” (Holmes pt 2, pg 119). Something that I believe Brownie would never have written because that statement blows all credibility, and the purpose of the manuscript (according to the manuscript) is to be believable enough so that other people would be inspired enough to go looking for the LDM.

All said and done, the Holmes manuscript is a puzzler. It is so different from every other account that there is no way of reconciling it. Yet Dick and Brownie Holmes spent their lives looking for the LDM. Certainly, they were not the only ones to have done so. But here is the kicker – I could hardly imagine a father lying to his own son about something he knew his son would spend the rest of his life pursuing.

Best to All,
Ashton

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

AshtonPage wrote:I could hardly imagine a father lying to his own son about something he knew his son would spend the rest of his life pursuing.

Best to All,
Ashton
Ashton,

That would be a hard one to swallow wouldn't it?

During the early years of my search for the LDM (Before I met Clay Worst), I believed the entire Holmes manuscript was just a bunch of baloney. After working with Clay for a few years, I began to back off of that idea more and more as time went on.

According to Clay... Dick always told Brownie that the "clues" he was giving him, were the closest thing to the truth that existed, and that Brownie should ignore everything else. Now that applies to "Clues", it does not necessarily apply to the part of the story about how Waltz came to find the mine. (Which is not really an important factor to be considered in anyone elses search for the mine).

In later years I came to totally accept the idea that Dick Holmes did get "some" clues about the location of the mine from Waltz while he was dying, but I believe that Waltz thought that he was talking to Rhiney at the time.

The question then becomes... What did Waltz actually say to Dick, and what information did Dick get from other sources, that appeared to concur with what Waltz had told him, and that in with what he told Brownie?

Dick continuously cautioned Brownie about mixing information from other sources, in with the info he got from Waltz... But did Dick live by that advice himself?

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 »

Jim Hatt wrote: In later years I came to totally accept the idea that Dick Holmes did get "some" clues about the location of the mine from Waltz while he was dying, but I believe that Waltz thought that he was talking to Rhiney at the time.
Hi Jim,

I’ve been wrestling with that one for a while and I see where it might be possible. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Jim. So I’m asking: do you believe that Waltz was delirious at that time, or that he was just so exhausted from pneumonia that his eyes were closed?

IF he was delirious, that would explain why there are things in his directions cannot possibly make sense. For example:

“You will see, over the point of a ridge, a rock standing in the brush” Glover Pt 2 - pg. 59

If that rock is OVER the point of a ridge (as in - on the far side of) then the only way you could see that rock would be if it were taller than “the point of the ridge”. That being the case, how can you distinguish if that particular rock is “in the brush” and not just the apex of another peak? You couldn’t, not without walking up to the top of every ridge that has a visible rock on the far side of it.

If the aforementioned ridge is only partway up the hill (meaning that you could see what was over it) then it wouldn’t be a ridge - it would be a ledge. Splitting hairs? I don’t think so because Waltz is describing how to find the mine. That’s not something one would be prone to be sloppy in the details about, unless he was delirious at the time.

And if that were the case, it would also explain why the description Waltz gave Holmes contradicts what he told Thomas \ Rhiney on earlier occasions. It would also explain why there are elements of truth in the Holmes Mss along with directions that cannot possibly make sense, and ultimately perhaps why Holmes himself never found the end of the rainbow.

Best,
Ashton

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Hello Ashton,
AshtonPage wrote:IF he was delirious, that would explain why there are things in his directions cannot possibly make sense. For example:
Yes, I believe "delirious" is the right word for this situation. Enough so that he knew someone was present, but not conscious enough to know who it was.

The conclusion I always come back to when wrestling with the question of whether or not Waltz knew he was talking to Holmes, is if Waltz knew it was Holmes he was talking to... Why not just say... "Dick, go to the place you fallowed me to and found me sitting on a rock with my shotgun on my lap..." ( although it would take a great leap of faith for me to believe there is a single word of truth in that part of the story too), and give him directions to the mine from that point, instead of going through all of the First Water to Second Water - Military Trail to San Carlos crap?

It is hard for me to imagine Waltz even knew First and Second Water by those names in 1891. Yet, they were well known to a lot of people by the time the Holmes Manuscript was written in the 40's. Waltz should have entered the Superstitions from either the Peralta Trailhead or Queen Valley past the old Milk Ranch, when he went in with the Peralta's coming up from Mexico.

If you believe Ely's version of the story... Waltz was only at the mine 3 times. That does not give him much time to learn too many ways into and out of the mtns by any other route than he was shown on that first trip, let alone learn the names of places that he was never anywhere near.

I struggle with the idea of him even knowing the route of the modern day Apache Trail that heads up to Canyon Lake from Apache Junction.

That is all based on the assumption that he never did any prospecting in the Superstitions prior to learning about the mines existence and it's location. Considering the situation with the Apaches back during Waltz's time. I find it highly unlikely that a lone Prospector would stand a chance wandering around out there by himself and Waltz should have been smart enough to know that.

Especially after his experiences with Apache problems at the claims he had up in the Bradshaw mtns. I believe that is why he never went back to the mine to retrieve the second small cache, until after he heard that Geronimo (The last renegade Apache) had surrendered and been shipped out of the state.

It could be that my assumptions are all wrong, and therefore my conclusions which are based on them are wrong also.

If I modify a couple of my assumptions and consider the possibility of Waltz knowing the route of the modern day Apache trail. Then I can easily imagine him taking it north from Apache Junction to where it intersects with the old trail at LaBarge Canyon (called Boulder canyon Trail today) or even the modern day Tortilla Trailhead and entering the mtns from the North via one of them. But that still would not have brought him anywhere near First Water.

All things considered... I believe he entered and came out of the mtns via a Southern route every time he went to the mine.

I am open to arguments to the contrary.

It is right about here, where I would like to get some input from someone like Kraig Roberts, and hear his thoughts about the most likely route Waltz would have taken into and out of the mtns back in the 1880 time period. I can't think of anyone else with a knowledge base that reaches back that far, but the last time I heard from him. His email had been hacked, and he was pretty disturbed about everything concerning email and any other form of Internet communications. Obviously, kraig is strongly biased towards the Holmes side of the legend, but I have known him to break free of that bias when logic dictates something may be incorrect in it.

Best,

Jim

revaeb
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:52 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by revaeb »

AshtonPage wrote:
Jim Hatt wrote:
Clay can never come up with a reasonable (in my opinion) explanation for how a newspaper man "Kennison" he calls him, could have written the manuscript, and it would contain so many grammatical and spelling errors. (Not to say that my own style is that much better)

The Holmes Manuscript (again in my opinion) was not written by someone that made his living as a writer. My common sense tells me that it was written by Brownie Holmes himself. Brownie told Clay otherwise, and Clay's loyalty to Brownie, will not let him accept the possibility, that Brownie ever told him anything but the absolute truth.

A professional writer worth his salt writing in the first person narrative of a cowboy would use the vernacular of a cowboy, bad grammar and all, in order to give the manuscript a flair of authenticity of the old-west.

Also, the manuscript tells of Brownie seeing “dwarf-deer” (Holmes pt 2, pg 119). Something that I believe Brownie would never have written because that statement blows all credibility, and the purpose of the manuscript (according to the manuscript) is to be believable enough so that other people would be inspired enough to go looking for the LDM.

All said and done, the Holmes manuscript is a puzzler. It is so different from every other account that there is no way of reconciling it. Yet Dick and Brownie Holmes spent their lives looking for the LDM. Certainly, they were not the only ones to have done so. But here is the kicker – I could hardly imagine a father lying to his own son about something he knew his son would spend the rest of his life pursuing.

Best to All,
Ashton


Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does the dwarf deer comment blow the credibility?

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 »

Hi Revaeb,

That's not a dumb question. I wondered about them myself when I first read it. Here's the quote from the Holmes Manuscript:

"Incidentally, while on one of these trips I caught my first glimpse of the dwarf deer. He resembled a jack rabbit with antlers no bigger than the palm of a man’s hand. He was not over 18 inches high and would have not have weighed over twenty pounds." - page 119

Interesting, huh? The problem is there’s no such animal. It was a bit of a joke in some tall tales told around the campfires.

Best,

Ashton

revaeb
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:52 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by revaeb »

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.

Jim Hatt

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by Jim Hatt »

Good Morning revaeb,

I have never seen a "Dwarf Deer" (on the hoof) in the Superstitions myself. But I sure have picked up a bunch of their antlers, so I know they are out there!

I am going to post a more appropriate photo (For DUSA) than the one you had up, as an example, to go along with your post.

Best,

Jim

Image

revaeb
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:52 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT

Post by revaeb »

Cool. Ill look for the other one that is a better representation as it was taken from the superstitions.

Post Reply