The Brownie Holmes Manuscript

[markmar]

sdcfia

The LDM tale is the most informative ( with clues and maps ) than any other tale ever !!! Only the coordinates are missing in the LDM tale .

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[sdcfia]

sdcfia

The LDM tale is the most informative ( with clues and maps ) than any other tale ever !!! Only the coordinates are missing in the LDM tale .

Your Honor, I rest my case.

 

[nobodie]

Start another thread about who wrote what so we can go wild. I have a copy.

 

[azdave35]

i'll post a few pics of some ore in the morning and we'll see if you can guess where they come from

here ya go prospector77....what mine are these from?...you will have to save them to your pc and zoom in to see the gold better

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe; OK. We will wait and see what Tom has to say as to where he got his information for the quote in his book about Brownie. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

Greg,

I will not retract my statement concerning the quotes, and will stick with what my friend has told me.

Good luck to you in your search for the LDM,

Joe

 

[Matthew Roberts]

The ore analysis and Gassler's manuscript are separate topics, so as not to confuse and misdirect the Holmes Manuscript topic would members please start their own topic on those issues ? Thanks.

There has been a lot of confusion, misinformation, speculation and misdirection posted here and this short tape recording of Brownie talking should clarify, in some peoples mind, what actually occurred and the truth of the story.

In this tape recording Brownie clearly admits to his knowledge of the Holmes Manuscript. Tom Kollenborn is the person Brownie is talking to so it is also clear Tom Kollenborn knows Brownie did not deny or had never seen the Holmes Manuscript.

My question to cactusjumper is, which of Tom's versions are you sticking with ?

The date is July 23, 1979
About 4 minutes into the tape Tom Kollenborn is talking to Brownie:

Tom Kollenborn: That friend of mine Greg, did he bring you a copy of that manuscript that you wrote years ago?

Brownie: Oh yes, you mean Greg Davis ?

Tom Kollenborn: Yes, Greg Davis.

Brownie: You mean that manuscript that Higham put in the Historical records ?

Tom Kollenborn: Yes.

Brownie: Yes he brought that. Well, you know, he (Higham) wrote me a letter, Oh and he built himself up and wanted to collaborate with me and write a book on it and I turned him down on the idea and the first thing I know, well I know is my manuscript was missing.

I’d taken it with me out to First Water (ranch) I wasn’t quite satisfied with it and got into the room at the shack and turned it upside down on the table. When you’re out there like that you’re always short on paper to start fires with and we had a wood stove. Well, I never thought any more about it (the manuscript). That fellow that ran the riding stable (John DeGraffenreid) he read my manuscript and didn’t pay much attention to it. His partner, what was his name, he read it and suddenly it comes to me that the other fellows name Chuck Aylor then it come to me that he had read it, my manuscript.

I thought Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R’s (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript.

Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, Well then I wish you would forget what I’m going to tell you, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley) , well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor, she’s a little bit tricky. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham’s affadavit) he’s got in that Historical Society he said it, “mysteriously came to him”. Have you read it?

Tom Kollenborn: Yeah.

Brownie: He (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me, I’ve got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I got the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (the manuscript) back, so I have the original here now.

 

[cactusjumper]

The ore analysis and Gassler's manuscript are separate topics, so as not to confuse and misdirect the Holmes Manuscript topic would members please start their own topic on those issues ? Thanks.

There has been a lot of confusion, misinformation, speculation and misdirection posted here and this short tape recording of Brownie talking should clarify, in some peoples mind, what actually occurred and the truth of the story.

In this tape recording Brownie clearly admits to his knowledge of the Holmes Manuscript. Tom Kollenborn is the person Brownie is talking to so it is also clear Tom Kollenborn knows Brownie did not deny or had never seen the Holmes Manuscript.

My question to cactusjumper is, which of Tom's versions are you sticking with ?

The date is July 23, 1979
About 4 minutes into the tape Tom Kollenborn is talking to Brownie:

Tom Kollenborn: That friend of mine Greg, did he bring you a copy of that manuscript that you wrote years ago?

Brownie: Oh yes, you mean Greg Davis ?

Tom Kollenborn: Yes, Greg Davis.

Brownie: You mean that manuscript that Higham put in the Historical records ?

Tom Kollenborn: Yes.

Brownie: Yes he brought that. Well, you know, he (Higham) wrote me a letter, Oh and he built himself up and wanted to collaborate with me and write a book on it and I turned him down on the idea and the first thing I know, well I know is my manuscript was missing.

I’d taken it with me out to First Water (ranch) I wasn’t quite satisfied with it and got into the room at the shack and turned it upside down on the table. When you’re out there like that you’re always short on paper to start fires with and we had a wood stove. Well, I never thought any more about it (the manuscript). That fellow that ran the riding stable (John DeGraffenreid) he read my manuscript and didn’t pay much attention to it. His partner, what was his name, he read it and suddenly it comes to me that the other fellows name Chuck Aylor then it come to me that he had read it, my manuscript.

I thought Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R’s (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript.

Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, Well then I wish you would forget what I’m going to tell you, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley) , well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor, she’s a little bit tricky. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham’s affadavit) he’s got in that Historical Society he said it, “mysteriously came to him”. Have you read it?

Tom Kollenborn: Yeah.

Brownie: He (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me, I’ve got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I got the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (the manuscript) back, so I have the original here now.

Matthew,

I am not really comfortable talking about friendship or loyalty with you. You read Greg's tape anyway you like. I don't see it as being in any way inconsistent with Brownie originally saying he had never seen the manuscript. Just my personal opinion, others may see it as you and Greg are presenting it. Greg asked where I had heard or seen the statement, I provided the sources, it's up to you guys to debate it.

I find myself loosing all interest in the LDM legend. Too many lies and falsehoods to be trying to constantly field them all.
I believe I know what is going on with this particular event in LDM history, and don't have the energy to waste more time on it.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Brownie: He (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me, I’ve got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I got the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (the manuscript) back, so I have the original here now.

Well that statement by George 'Brownie' Holmes certainly makes it sound as if Kennison wrote the manuscript and not himself. Considering that we do not know the time line when Tom K. got the other statement in which Brownie denied having seen it, what is so controversial here? Do we need to establish a time line for when Brownie first saw that manuscript attributed to him? It does not sound like he was giving a ringing endorsement of the manuscript either.

Sorry to see you bow out of the discussion Joe, you are one of the most knowledgeable men here about the LDM and the legend. I hope you will change your mind.

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Thank you for the kind words, but I have always been amazed by the knowledge that has been posted on these forums. In truth, I consider myself a piker compared to many of those posters.

Take care, friend,

Joe

 

[Garry]

Good evening Gentlemen: There has been some considerable debate about Holmes "denying any knowledge about the "Holmes Manuscript." This comes from the statement in Tom Glover's book; "Part II: The Holmes Manuscript." On page viii. It is a direct quote taken from Tom Kollenborn's book: "A Ride Through Time", Page 121. Now where Tom Kollenborn got this information I do not know. I have found no such statement by Brownie Holmes as quoted by Tom in any of my research. In fact I have two tape interviews with Brownie Holmes in which he clearly states that he knows about the manuscript. The following is quoted from the interview done by Tom Kollenborn and Monte Edwards on July 23, 1979. This section of the tape is about 4 minutes. Friend: That friend of mine Greg, did he bring you a copy of that manuscript that you wrote years ago?, Brownie: Oh yes, you mean Greg Davis?, Friend: Yes, Greg Davis. Brownie: You mean that manuscript that Higham put in the Historical records. Friend: Yes. Brownie: Yes he brought that. Well, you know, he (Higham) wrote me a letter, Oh and he built himself up and wanted to collaborate with me and write a book on it and I turned him down on the idea and the first thing I know, well I know is my manuscript was missing. (Brownie means here his copy of the Manuscript). Brownie: I'd taken it with me out to First Water (ranch) I wasn't satisfied with it and got into the room at the shack and turned it upside down on the table. When you're out there like that you're always short on paper to start fires with and we had a wood stove. Well, I never though any more about it (the manuscript). That fellow that ran the riding stable (John DeGraffenried), he read my manuscript and did't pay much attention to it. His partner, what was his name, he read it and suddenly it comes to me that the other fellows name Chuch Aylor then it come to me that he had read it, my manuscript. I though Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R's (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript. Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley), well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham's affidavit) he's got in that Historical Society he said it, "mysteriously came to him.". Have you read it? Friend: Yeah. Brownie: he (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me. I've got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I go the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (The manuscript) back, so I have the original here now." As you can see from the interview that Brownie NEVER made the statement: "He had never seen it before." He did state that he did not write it but it was Kennison who did the writing for him. Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions being discussed on this thread. Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

Greg,

I just saw your post so I’m late in responding. It’s nice to see someone doing real research and then actually sharing their source. Nice job!

I don’t believe I have ever heard of Kenison being the author. If I did it must have gone right over my head. Brownie naming Kenison is a game changer in my interpretation of the manuscript.

I also found Brownie’s story of how the manuscript found its way into Higham’s hands very interesting.

There are enough leads here to do a lot additional research that might allow us to paint a clearer picture. One of the primary things still missing for me is a coherent timeline of the events in Brownie’s account.

You said you hoped this post will clear up some misconceptions. Good Luck with that.

The initial post in this thread presented a completely different story of how the manuscript reached Higham. I can’t resolve how both stories could be correct but I personally don’t believe Brownie is lying in this instance.

There are several claims of existing sources in this thread related to the manuscript. I hope you can share images of the sources of some of these other claims. That would be great. Heck, maybe Brownie was lying.

I’m sure an old hand like yourself will recognize an unsourced claim when you see it.

Garry

 

[Matthew Roberts]

If you read Brownies account of how he thinks the manuscript got to Higham you will clearly see (most people will) that Brownie is not sure how it got to Higham.

Brownie says, " I always had a thought that MAYBE she turned it over to Aylor"

Brownie then says, " Then EVIDENTLY, it was taken from him.........

The key words that tip you off that Brownie did not himself know how the manuscript got to Higham are, MAYBE and EVIDENTLY.

Higham never mentioned when he gave the Library and Archives the manuscript how he got it saying it mysteriously came to him.
Kennison told at least three people that he had taken his copy of the manuscript and given it to Higham. Higham never denied it was Kennison that gave it to him. This was all done behind Brownies back and if you read Highams 1946 book he relied heavily on Brownies manuscript.

Here is Brownies account once again:


I thought Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R’s (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript.

Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, Well then I wish you would forget what I’m going to tell you, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley) , well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor, she’s a little bit tricky. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham’s affadavit) he’s got in that Historical Society he said it, “mysteriously came to him”.

 

[cactusjumper]

If you read Brownies account of how he thinks the manuscript got to Higham you will clearly see (most people will) that Brownie is not sure how it got to Higham.

Brownie says, " I always had a thought that MAYBE she turned it over to Aylor"

Brownie then says, " Then EVIDENTLY, it was taken from him.........

The key words that tip you off that Brownie did not himself know how the manuscript got to Higham are, MAYBE and EVIDENTLY.

Higham never mentioned when he gave the Library and Archives the manuscript how he got it saying it mysteriously came to him.
Kennison told at least three people that he had taken his copy of the manuscript and given it to Higham. Higham never denied it was Kennison that gave it to him. This was all done behind Brownies back and if you read Highams 1946 book he relied heavily on Brownies manuscript.

Here is Brownies account once again:


I thought Bill (Barkley) had burned it up to start fires in the stove. Well then, we moved on over to the 3R’s (ranch) and was rounding up and gone for a while and I never paid any more attention to that manuscript.

Then, here the thing (Higham and the manuscript) come, Well then I wish you would forget what I’m going to tell you, I always had an idea that Betty (Barkley) , well, I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor, she’s a little bit tricky. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham’s affadavit) he’s got in that Historical Society he said it, “mysteriously came to him”.

Matthew,

You are correct to surmise that some people will not accept Brownie's word as gospel. I would be one of those doubters.

As you know, for a number of years now, people we relied on to give us true facts have been peddling fabricated fiction. No doubt many probably believe I am one of those people. In a loose quote, someone once said that people who purposely give false or misleading information, get really angry at those who expose them.

It will be interesting to see where this topic goes. We are all lucky to have someone so steeped in history, such as you, to give us the truth. On the other hand, perhaps its not so important.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Garry]

I’m going to stick with Brownie’s account at least until I prove to myself otherwise. Brownie’s is a firsthand account and is an event in which he was intimately involved. Even it it turns out Brownie was "partially" speculating it is still a far better account in my eyes than anything else that has been offered.

If someone wants to write his words off as a confused old man and go with "at least three people said", good luck.

Garry

 

[cactusjumper]

I’m going to stick with Brownie’s account at least until I prove to myself otherwise. Brownie’s is a firsthand account and is an event in which he was intimately involved. Even it it turns out Brownie was "partially" speculating it is still a far better account in my eyes than anything else that has been offered.

If someone wants to write his words off as a confused old man and go with "at least three people said", good luck.

Garry

Garry,

Being a doubter does not mean I "write his words off", only that I have doubts. The only way I could have no doubts would require that the many things that are patently false in the manuscript, and the conflicting stories of it's origination, did not exist. Since you have written your post directly after mine, I assume you mean me with your last comment. That comment does not reflect my true opinion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

You are correct to surmise that some people will not accept Brownie's word as gospel. I would be one of those doubters.

As you know, for a number of years now, people we relied on to give us true facts have been peddling fabricated fiction. No doubt many probably believe I am one of those people. In a loose quote, someone once said that people who purposely give false or misleading information, get really angry at those who expose them.
It will be interesting to see where this topic goes. We are all lucky to have someone so steeped in history, such as you, to give us the truth. On the other hand, perhaps its not so important.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more, the recent revelation that the person(s) who for years have been spreading the fabrication that Brownie, "never saw the Holmes manuscript" and ""denied it until the day he died" while they knew all along it wasn't true, indeed do get angry when they are exposed. That's just human nature I guess.

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. Even if they have to twist other peoples words and keep moving the goal posts to try and validate their beliefs.

I always tell people that what I post is my own personal opinion, not fact, unless I have some sort of iron clad evidence. The reader always is free to choose if they believe it or not, it makes no difference one way or the other to me.

There's way too much personal hatred that gets injected into these threads. Objectivity is not a consideration for some. I've never understood why that is. I guess it's just a sad fact that some people cant post something and let the reader decide for themselves what they care to believe and not believe.

Matthew

 

[Oroblanco]

Garry,

Being a doubter does not mean I "write his words off", only that I have doubts. The only way I could have no doubts would require that the many things that are patently false in the manuscript, and the conflicting stories of it's origination, did not exist. Since you have written your post directly after mine, I assume you mean me with your last comment. That comment does not reflect my true opinion.

Take care,

Joe

Amen - I would add that actions speak louder than words too. Dick Holmes did not follow the directions given in the Holmes manuscript on his first search for the mine after Waltz was dead. If those directions are correct, why then didn't Dick go right to it, with the directions fresh in his mind?

Also we now have another source that states Waltz was "babbling" on his death bed, and Holmes apparently "discarded" or disregarded some of what Waltz said because it did not make sense. How much trust do you want to place in the words of a dying, fevered mind, probably suffering from hypoxia? (lack of oxygen) I have seen a man dying with very much the same symptoms, and he became confused about his surroundings, even thought he was back in WW2 and had been captured by the Gestapo, thinking the nurses were trying to torture him to get information. If Waltz was in a similar state, it is quite possible he was not even aware of where he was, or what was going on.

I don't discount every word either, and the fact that Dick and Brownie Holmes and Clay Wurst all spent many years searching for the mine, at least supports that they were convinced that Waltz indeed had a rich gold mine. But they also did not stick only to those deathbed directions either.

I still contend that the LDM legend as we have it today, at least the two most commonly accepted versions (Julia/Reiney+Ely & Bark, Holmes) are in fact the garbled mix of several unrelated lost mine stories that were in circulation in the late 1880s and early 1890s. A key hint that this is the case is that in a number of instances, our sources did not seem to notice important differences like placer vs lode, the type of quartz etc and freely mixed together the clues in the belief that they MUST all be talking about the same mine.

Please do continue;
Oroblanco

 

[Matthew Roberts]

I’m going to stick with Brownie’s account at least until I prove to myself otherwise. Brownie’s is a firsthand account and is an event in which he was intimately involved. Even it it turns out Brownie was "partially" speculating it is still a far better account in my eyes than anything else that has been offered.

If someone wants to write his words off as a confused old man and go with "at least three people said", good luck.

Garry

Garry,

If you think about what Brownie actually says, he has no idea who gave the manuscript to Higham. He says "maybe" Betty Barkley took it and turned it over to Chuck Aylor. Then Brownie says, "evidently it was TAKEN from Aylor.
That's where Brownie's story stops. Brownie leaves us hanging after he tells us it was taken from Aylor.

Taken by whom ?

We don't know, Brownie doesn't say who took it.

Since you say you believe Brownies story, Brownies story could easily include the fact Kennison took it. Unless YOU know who it was who took it from Aylor.

And that's what I say, that it was Kennison who gave it to Higham.

Anyone could have taken it from Aylor and given it to Higham and anyone includes Kennison.

In that context we are actually agreeing on Brownies story.

Did you think this all the way through Garry or just shoot from the hip on this one ?

Here is Brownies quote again:

I always had a thought that maybe she turned it over to Aylor, she’s a little bit tricky. Then evidently it was taken from him (Aylor) because in that affidavit (Higham’s affadavit) he’s got in that Historical Society he said it, “mysteriously came to him”.

Matthew

 

[Oroblanco]

cactusjumper,

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more, the recent revelation that the person(s) who for years have been spreading the fabrication that Brownie, "never saw the Holmes manuscript" and ""denied it until the day he died" while they knew all along it wasn't true, indeed do get angry when they are exposed. That's just human nature I guess.

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. Even if they have to twist other peoples words and keep moving the goal posts to try and validate their beliefs.

I always tell people that what I post is my own personal opinion, not fact, unless I have some sort of iron clad evidence. The reader always is free to choose if they believe it or not, it makes no difference one way or the other to me.

There's way too much personal hatred that gets injected into these threads. Objectivity is not a consideration for some. I've never understood why that is. I guess it's just a sad fact that some people cant post something and let the reader decide for themselves what they care to believe and not believe.

Matthew

I am one of the persons you refer to in that statement, and already provided my sources - Dr Glover and Tom Kollenborn. Considering that you yourself have posted that Kennison wrote the manuscript, and posted a transcript of a taped interview in which Brownie states that Kennison wrote it, and that Higham was somehow involved, your own posts are SUPPORTING the contention that Brownie Holmes denied being the author of that Holmes manuscript. Remember your own posts?

Brownie: He (Higham) mysteriously got it. I read the whole thing, Greg Davis gave it to me, I’ve got it right here. You people have wanted to read it and that fellow Kennison that wrote it, when he died I got the other copies and I just told people that my copy disappeared. I just never told anybody that I had it (the manuscript) back, so I have the original here now

.

The Holmes manuscript has been the focus of many spirited discussions, disagreements and misconceptions over the years since it first surfaced in the early 1960’s. Allegedly written by George “Brownie” Holmes, Holmes denied being the actual author but did admit that he furnished a lot of the information that the manuscript contained.

The Holmes manuscript is 41 typed pages, a Forward, 12 chapters, and a 9 page Dutchman story addition entitled, The True Story Of The Lost Dutchman Of The Superstitions As Told To Me By My Father Dick Holmes, By Jacob Wolz On His Deathbed.
It is clear to anyone reading the manuscript that the 9 page Dutchman story addition was written in a much different style than the rest of the manuscript which deals mostly with Brownie’s life and stories of his experience with his father and other lost mine hunters. This 9 page Dutchman story addition is oddly sandwiched in between chapters 2 and 3 almost as if it were inserted after the rest of the manuscript had been finished.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/l...03-brownie-holmes-manuscript.html#post4739888

So are you now claiming that George 'Brownie' Holmes DID personally write that manuscript? Otherwise your own words are agreeing with and confirming what I have been saying for years, and what Cactusjumper and others likewise.

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more, the recent revelation that the person(s) who for years have been spreading the fabrication that Brownie, "never saw the Holmes manuscript" and ""denied it until the day he died" while they knew all along it wasn't true, indeed do get angry when they are exposed. That's just human nature I guess.

Everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. Even if they have to twist other peoples words and keep moving the goal posts to try and validate their beliefs.

I always tell people that what I post is my own personal opinion, not fact, unless I have some sort of iron clad evidence. The reader always is free to choose if they believe it or not, it makes no difference one way or the other to me.

There's way too much personal hatred that gets injected into these threads. Objectivity is not a consideration for some. I've never understood why that is. I guess it's just a sad fact that some people cant post something and let the reader decide for themselves what they care to believe and not believe.

Matthew

Matthew,

My quote originally came from Tom Kollenborn's book, and I do not believe he fabricated the quote that Brownie originally stated that he had "never seen" the manuscript.

Tom knew Brownie personally, for many years. I have little doubt that there were many private conversations that passed between the two men. What Brownie remembered late in his life and tapped may be something altogether different from what he said twenty years earlier. It may be that you can convince others that what Tom has stated is a fabrication, and not directly from Brownie, but that will never be the case with me.

I don't see any hatred being "injected into these threads". On the other hand, I do see healthy skepticism being expressed. Considering recent history, that seems more than reasonable. Are you trying to close any debate on this topic? there does seem to be some good give and take in it.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

My quote originally came from Tom Kollenborn's book, and I do not believe he fabricated the quote that Brownie originally stated that he had "never seen" the manuscript.

Tom knew Brownie personally, for many years. I have little doubt that there were many private conversations that passed between the two men. What Brownie remembered late in his life and tapped may be something altogether different from what he said twenty years earlier. It may be that you can convince others that what Tom has stated is a fabrication, and not directly from Brownie, but that will never be the case with me.

I don't see any hatred being "injected into these threads". On the other hand, I do see healthy skepticism being expressed. Considering recent history, that seems more than reasonable. Are you trying to close any debate on this topic? there does seem to be some good give and take in it.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,

Along with the hatred I mentioned earlier I forgot to say about people who put words into other peoples mouths that they never said and the building of straw men to help validate their argument.
Thanks for reminding me .

Matthew