Re: THE HOLMES MANUSCRIPT
Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:06 pm
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.”
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.
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
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.”
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.
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