Dr. Glover,
I bought the second printing of your book. In it you indicate that there have been some technical corrections, plus some new material added.
I wonder if you might point me at some of these corrections/additions? I've only had the book a couple of days, but I see all the chapter page numbers are the same, as is the number of the last page. So I assume some stuff was deleted as well, to make room. All the random pages I've looked at are the same in both books, so I'm guessing the revisions are fairly minor. But I'd like to zero in on it, if you wouldn't mind directing me to it.
I would have made this a PM, but there are probably some others who would also like to know this.
Thanks!
2nd Printing of Dr. Glover's Book
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Changes
Thomas,
I can save you a little bit of time, with a few of the changes I noticed. No doubt there are more.
Page's 29/30 - Spangler notes. 66 - Additions to the Peralta information.
116 - Minor additions. 161 - Large addition. 167 - Aug. 8 Additional information. 267 - Changes in degrees, top of page. 287 - "in such fractured volcanic terrain", added. 290 - Added page as you have pointed out in an earlier post. 324 - Small addition to last paragraph.
Wiz,
Those are a few of the changes I noticed. That will give you something to look at while Dr. Glover gets to the rest.
Respectfully,
Joe
I can save you a little bit of time, with a few of the changes I noticed. No doubt there are more.
Page's 29/30 - Spangler notes. 66 - Additions to the Peralta information.
116 - Minor additions. 161 - Large addition. 167 - Aug. 8 Additional information. 267 - Changes in degrees, top of page. 287 - "in such fractured volcanic terrain", added. 290 - Added page as you have pointed out in an earlier post. 324 - Small addition to last paragraph.
Wiz,
Those are a few of the changes I noticed. That will give you something to look at while Dr. Glover gets to the rest.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
ILoveJoeRibaudo
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:13 pm
Thanks!
Great post Joe ! Even though it was not addressed to you and the original post was answered. It was really neat that you jumped right in there and answered all the questions we need to know. Thanks! You really are a big help !!!
ILoveJoeRibaudo
PS Hooray for Joe ! He's the forum smarty-pants ! Yay !!!!
ILoveJoeRibaudo
PS Hooray for Joe ! He's the forum smarty-pants ! Yay !!!!
Reply,s
Anybody is welcome to reply to any request or answer anything on this forum! If it,s not open to EVERYONE then that person should PM the question to the person to whom it is intended. This is the OPEN FORUM which means any and everyone is welcome to answer! SO the sicko who is trying to devil JOE should crawl back under his rock and stay silent on the subject. I hope the saner people here on the forum see it as the only way to do things? It may be a question directed to a certain person BUT anyone is welcome to answer the question. ARE we going to let a few sickos destroy the forum??? Thank,s Bill 8)
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Thanks
Bill,
I appreciate your condemnation of what is going on here. I don't believe it will make any difference but good people, like you, will always speak their mind.
The only ones who might have a right to complain are Wiz and Dr. Glover.
The timing here will drive some people crazy.
Take care,
Joe
I appreciate your condemnation of what is going on here. I don't believe it will make any difference but good people, like you, will always speak their mind.
The only ones who might have a right to complain are Wiz and Dr. Glover.
The timing here will drive some people crazy.
Take care,
Joe
-
ILoveJoeRibaudo
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:13 pm
What is going on here
You are right here Joe. You are a good person. I applaud you butting in on every post on the forum. It's great to have you do that! Please continue. I just love your posts alot ! Which is why
ILoveJoeRibaudo
ILoveJoeRibaudo
-
Thomas Glover
- Part Timer
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 7:33 pm
- Contact:
Wiz,
First, there is the question of credits. In the first printing due to a mix up Jack San Felice did not receive the proper photo credits. The photograph of Weaver’s Needle on the cover and the photographs of the Stone Maps (pgs 240 to 243) are Jack’s. I had originally understood the Stone Map photographs were taken by Richard Robinson, but I was in error. There were numerous minor editorial changes to make the book more readable and correct some grammatical errors – although I have no doubt that if I were to re-read it again I would find errors I have missed and other changes I would make. Jack Carlson warned me about this and he was so right.
As far as content information is concerned, they include:
Pg. xiv, wedding photograph of Tex and Gertrude Barkley moved from end of Chapter 19. This was done to avoid any idea that their photograph had anything to do with Chapter 20!
Pgs. 29-30, as noted by Joe there is a little expansion of material on the Bark Notes. On page 30 is a statement that I feel is often overlooked by those closely reading Ely, and that is the information on John Willey of William Morrow and Co.
Pg. 66, there is a bit of speculation added, but not information, on the Peraltas.
Pg. 161, as noted by Joe there is another addition of material. This addition is on the value of the gold reported to have come from under Waltz’s bed and factors that may have affected the relationship between Waltz and Julia/Rhinehart.
Pgs. 164 to 168 contain some technical corrections to the official records and newspaper accounts concerning Waltz, such as spelling corrections, dates, and such.
Pg. 217 addition of Charles Ribaudo with a reference to The Cave of Gold Bars.
Pg. 227, the house in the photograph now confirmed as “The Board House”.
Pg. 228 now shows photographs of both sides of Ruth’s skull.
Pg. 268, I could now refer specifically to the Transmitting Draft on Accountable Warrant.
Pg. 275 endothermic to epithermal – perhaps a substantive change, but I have not yet confirmed its significance.
Pg. 290, Picture of the Transmitting Draft with information.
Pgs. 333 to 334, completely new information on the Johnson-Walker Map.
What one-person finds significant another may not. There were also some changes to the Notes at the end of the book.
To avoid having to re-index the book, and keep the total page count the same it was difficult to add blocks of information except at the end of a chapter if there was room. That is, if in the first printing the last page of a chapter had blank space. Here information could be added without causing the problem of subsequent material flowing on – which of course would have necessitated re-indexing. The only other place substantive material could be added is if it was on the same subject as in the first printing and used the same amount of space as the original material had – such as with the Johnson-Walker Map.
Hope this helps,
Thomas
First, there is the question of credits. In the first printing due to a mix up Jack San Felice did not receive the proper photo credits. The photograph of Weaver’s Needle on the cover and the photographs of the Stone Maps (pgs 240 to 243) are Jack’s. I had originally understood the Stone Map photographs were taken by Richard Robinson, but I was in error. There were numerous minor editorial changes to make the book more readable and correct some grammatical errors – although I have no doubt that if I were to re-read it again I would find errors I have missed and other changes I would make. Jack Carlson warned me about this and he was so right.
As far as content information is concerned, they include:
Pg. xiv, wedding photograph of Tex and Gertrude Barkley moved from end of Chapter 19. This was done to avoid any idea that their photograph had anything to do with Chapter 20!
Pgs. 29-30, as noted by Joe there is a little expansion of material on the Bark Notes. On page 30 is a statement that I feel is often overlooked by those closely reading Ely, and that is the information on John Willey of William Morrow and Co.
Pg. 66, there is a bit of speculation added, but not information, on the Peraltas.
Pg. 161, as noted by Joe there is another addition of material. This addition is on the value of the gold reported to have come from under Waltz’s bed and factors that may have affected the relationship between Waltz and Julia/Rhinehart.
Pgs. 164 to 168 contain some technical corrections to the official records and newspaper accounts concerning Waltz, such as spelling corrections, dates, and such.
Pg. 217 addition of Charles Ribaudo with a reference to The Cave of Gold Bars.
Pg. 227, the house in the photograph now confirmed as “The Board House”.
Pg. 228 now shows photographs of both sides of Ruth’s skull.
Pg. 268, I could now refer specifically to the Transmitting Draft on Accountable Warrant.
Pg. 275 endothermic to epithermal – perhaps a substantive change, but I have not yet confirmed its significance.
Pg. 290, Picture of the Transmitting Draft with information.
Pgs. 333 to 334, completely new information on the Johnson-Walker Map.
What one-person finds significant another may not. There were also some changes to the Notes at the end of the book.
To avoid having to re-index the book, and keep the total page count the same it was difficult to add blocks of information except at the end of a chapter if there was room. That is, if in the first printing the last page of a chapter had blank space. Here information could be added without causing the problem of subsequent material flowing on – which of course would have necessitated re-indexing. The only other place substantive material could be added is if it was on the same subject as in the first printing and used the same amount of space as the original material had – such as with the Johnson-Walker Map.
Hope this helps,
Thomas
Last edited by Thomas Glover on Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Butting-in
Thomas,
I trust you were not offended by my butting-in with Wiz. Seemed like a nice peace offering, but no telling how some people might take it. I have ruffled a lot of feathers here and need to do what I can to smooth things out.
An occassional retort does not seem unreasonable, but I am trying to limit my quota, and not call anyone an asshole.
Hope you had a good getaway.
Take care,
Joe
I trust you were not offended by my butting-in with Wiz. Seemed like a nice peace offering, but no telling how some people might take it. I have ruffled a lot of feathers here and need to do what I can to smooth things out.
An occassional retort does not seem unreasonable, but I am trying to limit my quota, and not call anyone an asshole.
Hope you had a good getaway.
Take care,
Joe
-
ILoveJoeRibaudo
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:13 pm
Profanity?
That was another excellent post Joe, of course. However, please refrain from using bad words. I still like you. Don't worry. You are nice.
ILoveJoeRibaudo
ILoveJoeRibaudo
Dr. Glover
I also have the second printing of your book and have enjoyed it thoroughly, thank you!
I was pleased to see a picture of the Transmitting Draft document, but I have some questions about the document. There has been much discussion in this forum about this kind of document, how it works, who would use it and how, and what other forms may be needed with it. My question is about the appearance of this picture of the document. It appears that the lined area where the $7000 is notated has been pasted over and does not match the rest of the form. There are also areas on the form where the paper appears to be wrinkled and or ripped but the text is straight and very well defined, whereas in other areas the text is wavy and bent following the deteriorating paper. I don't know the origin of this document, but on the surface it appears that it may have been falsified or at least added to.
Maybe this has been addressed before if so forgive me. Any Thoughts?
I also have the second printing of your book and have enjoyed it thoroughly, thank you!
I was pleased to see a picture of the Transmitting Draft document, but I have some questions about the document. There has been much discussion in this forum about this kind of document, how it works, who would use it and how, and what other forms may be needed with it. My question is about the appearance of this picture of the document. It appears that the lined area where the $7000 is notated has been pasted over and does not match the rest of the form. There are also areas on the form where the paper appears to be wrinkled and or ripped but the text is straight and very well defined, whereas in other areas the text is wavy and bent following the deteriorating paper. I don't know the origin of this document, but on the surface it appears that it may have been falsified or at least added to.
Maybe this has been addressed before if so forgive me. Any Thoughts?
murphy
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Good Call
Murphy,
Good call. The draft does seem to raise some questions. Without the original, I doubt there will be any good answers.
Respectfully,
Joe
Good call. The draft does seem to raise some questions. Without the original, I doubt there will be any good answers.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
What S.C. Said
Murphy,
If you do a search for "draft", with S.C. as the author, you will find a very informative post on your question.
Respectfully,
Joe
If you do a search for "draft", with S.C. as the author, you will find a very informative post on your question.
Respectfully,
Joe
-
ILoveJoeRibaudo
- Greenhorn
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:13 pm
Very Good
Good, Joe, good. The second post by Murphy was addressed to anyone, so you were good to answer that. The first post was addressed to Dr Glover, but you answered that one too ! Oh Joe, I like it when you know all the answers. I like it when you make posts addressed to others. Very good. I like you. Yes ! Very good Joe. very good.
ILoveJoeRibaudo
He's a good poster. He answers everyones posts. Yipee!
ILoveJoeRibaudo
He's a good poster. He answers everyones posts. Yipee!
WARRANT
The Warrant is a rather well worn subject in the "Once Upon a Time in Arizona" posts, but!
Murphy
I applaud you for your question about the draft appearance. I don't think a lot of time was spent addressing the physical appearance of the draft. Handwriting comparisons, straightness of lines and text, the folds in the paper, the wrinkles, tears?, discolorations, the punch hole in the upper left had corner, etc. This may seem like a rather mundane subject but sometimes a nugget can be found.
You wrote
Also in the area your speaking to, I swear there are some letters (Vertical) along the lower right hand edge. I can't figure out what they are or what they could be doing there?
Another strange thing to me are the two closely spaced parallel lines at the top and the bottom on the area you are talking about. Particularly those at the bottom. They are of differing lengths and they run together on the left end? Not something that would likely appear on a government form?
One comment I would make is the necessity of pasting in the 7,000 portion. It would seem much more likely that the 50 pounds of gold ore would have to be pasted in if a forgery was being created?
We may be splitting frog hairs and there could be easy explanations but I see no harm in questioning.
I personally believe that this is probably a copy of an authentic Treasury Form 102 from the 1880 time period. I'm not so sure about whether some of the hand entries may have been altered? I'm sure the entries were in ink so it wouldn't be easy unless it was whited out, pasted over, etc.
I also believe some of the hand entries are authentic to the document.
I would be interested on anyone elses take on the handwriting and identifying any other questionable area. I would be even more interested in possible answers to some of the noted questionable areas.
Garry Cundiff
Murphy
I applaud you for your question about the draft appearance. I don't think a lot of time was spent addressing the physical appearance of the draft. Handwriting comparisons, straightness of lines and text, the folds in the paper, the wrinkles, tears?, discolorations, the punch hole in the upper left had corner, etc. This may seem like a rather mundane subject but sometimes a nugget can be found.
You wrote
I agree, something looks strange here. I have a scanned copy that I can blow up and most of the horizontal lines don't appear perfectly straight. I'm wondering if some of this could not have been caused in the duplication process over the years. (Aurum noted that copies of documents were made using cameras in the early days) I'm wondering if camera focus along with the document not lying perfectly flat when being photographed could have caused the distortion."It appears that the lined area where the $7000 is notated has been pasted over and does not match the rest of the form."
Also in the area your speaking to, I swear there are some letters (Vertical) along the lower right hand edge. I can't figure out what they are or what they could be doing there?
Another strange thing to me are the two closely spaced parallel lines at the top and the bottom on the area you are talking about. Particularly those at the bottom. They are of differing lengths and they run together on the left end? Not something that would likely appear on a government form?
One comment I would make is the necessity of pasting in the 7,000 portion. It would seem much more likely that the 50 pounds of gold ore would have to be pasted in if a forgery was being created?
We may be splitting frog hairs and there could be easy explanations but I see no harm in questioning.
I personally believe that this is probably a copy of an authentic Treasury Form 102 from the 1880 time period. I'm not so sure about whether some of the hand entries may have been altered? I'm sure the entries were in ink so it wouldn't be easy unless it was whited out, pasted over, etc.
I also believe some of the hand entries are authentic to the document.
I would be interested on anyone elses take on the handwriting and identifying any other questionable area. I would be even more interested in possible answers to some of the noted questionable areas.
Garry Cundiff
Last edited by novice on Tue Aug 16, 2005 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dr Glovers 2nd print
TO ALL; I have found that when one page has been layed with another page for a long time that the lines and some of the print will transform to the opposing page! This is especially true when it,s fresh print! Bill 8)