The Brownie Holmes Manuscript

[Matthew Roberts]

oroblanco,

I don't know how you came up with those conclusions but they are your opinion and you are certainly welcome to them.

Matthew

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[cactusjumper]

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

Matthew,

No problem at all. I do like to remind you of the past. Building the argument of "straw men" in ongoing discussions should require some history of what is or was being discussed. If someone has the ability and desire to delete their statements/history, it does make it difficult to carry on a continuing conversation. Without that history being available, it would be difficult to construct a straw man defense.

If you are unwilling to identify "....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....", we can only take the history that preceded your comments to figure out what you were saying, or who you were talking about when you stated "while they knew all along it wasn't true".

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

No problem at all. I do like to remind you of the past. Building the argument of "straw men" in ongoing discussions should require some history of what is or was being discussed. If someone has the ability and desire to delete their statements/history, it does make it difficult to carry on a continuing conversation. Without that history being available, it would be difficult to construct a straw man defense.

If you are unwilling to identify "....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....", we can only take the history that preceded your comments to figure out what you were saying, or who you were talking about when you stated "while they knew all along it wasn't true".

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,

I think you are missing a valuable point.

At this point of the discussion it doesn't make any difference whatsoever WHO said "Brownie denied (never saw) the manuscript to the day he died".

More than one person has echoed that falsehood including the original teller of the myth. Exactly who or how many people have said that over the years is not important here.

What is important is this : We now know the quote is completely false and if you see it again or hear anyone say it again, you can correct them.

A Lost Dutchman Mine myth has been corrected.

That seems to have been the end you have championed all along.

But for some strange reason it now seems to be a point of contention that causes you great concern ?

Once again, as always, you are free to believe and express whatever it is you choose to believe.

Matthew

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

I think you are missing a valuable point.

At this point of the discussion it doesn't make any difference whatsoever WHO said "Brownie denied (never saw) the manuscript to the day he died".

More than one person has echoed that falsehood including the original teller of the myth. Exactly who or how many people have said that over the years is not important here.

What is important is this : We now know the quote is completely false and if you see it again or hear anyone say it again, you can correct them.

A Lost Dutchman Mine myth has been corrected.

That seems to have been the end you have championed all along.

But for some strange reason it now seems to be a point of contention that causes you great concern ?

Once again, as always, you are free to believe and express whatever it is you choose to believe.

Matthew

Matthew,

You may be correct, but it seems to cause you just as much concern as myself. It seems to me that a serious effort is being made to discredit Tom Kollenborn on this site, as well as myself. I have been told many things by people who have professed to be my friends, which turned out to be lies. Tom knew Brownie Holmes personally. Who's to say what Brownie may have said to him face to face.

I assume, since you did not arrive in Arizona until, around 1980, the year of Brownie's death, that you didn't know him. If that's true, it means that other than the tapes, you are getting your information from someone else. I believe the tapes can be understood differently by different people. A common problem, I have noted over the years.

I believe that there could have been reasons for what Brownie stated in the tapes which may have been related to authenticating the tapes in hopes of monetary value for something he could leave to his family. Not saying that's exactly what happened, but it's not unreasonable.

I will stick with the story my friends have told me, and written in their books. I don't know the reasons behind trying to discredit Tom, but will leave that odious task to others.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

You may be correct, but it seems to cause you just as much concern as myself. It seems to me that a serious effort is being made to discredit Tom Kollenborn on this site, as well as myself. I have been told many things by people who have professed to be my friends, which turned out to be lies. Tom knew Brownie Holmes personally. Who's to say what Brownie may have said to him face to face.

I assume, since you did not arrive in Arizona until, around 1980, the year of Brownie's death, that you didn't know him. If that's true, it means that other than the tapes, you are getting your information from someone else. I believe the tapes can be understood differently by different people. A common problem, I have noted over the years.

I believe that there could have been reasons for what Brownie stated in the tapes which may have been related to authenticating the tapes in hopes of monetary value for something he could leave to his family. Not saying that's exactly what happened, but it's not unreasonable.

I will stick with the story my friends have told me, and written in their books. I don't know the reasons behind trying to discredit Tom, but will leave that odious task to others.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,

I don't know anything about any "serious effort to discredit Tom Kollenborn or yourself on this site", certainly not by myself, but do concede if anyone WOULD know anything about discrediting people on a site it would be you.

Oh and here's a photo of me at San Xavier at Tucson in 1966. Lots of earlier ones but this one was handy and I didn't have to dig out the old photo albums. And yes, I did know Brownie.



As always you are certainly entitled to your OPINIONS and the right to voice them.

Matthew

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

I think you are missing a valuable point.

At this point of the discussion it doesn't make any difference whatsoever WHO said "Brownie denied (never saw) the manuscript to the day he died".

More than one person has echoed that falsehood including the original teller of the myth. Exactly who or how many people have said that over the years is not important here.

What is important is this : We now know the quote is completely false and if you see it again or hear anyone say it again, you can correct them.

A Lost Dutchman Mine myth has been corrected.

That seems to have been the end you have championed all along.

But for some strange reason it now seems to be a point of contention that causes you great concern ?

Once again, as always, you are free to believe and express whatever it is you choose to believe.

Matthew

Matthew,

I will not be calling Tom a liar, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to correct him. Perhaps you should have done that at this years Rendezvous. Could have set Bob Corbin straight at the same time.

You are correct that correcting LDM myths has always been something I have always tried to do. Being honest is something that has always been important to me. I feel that liars are people to be avoided, even shunned.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[azdave35]

guys...i think you are beating a dead horse here...i dont think anyone will ever know for sure what the dutchman told dick..or what dick told brownie...but one thing is for sure...dick spent his entire life looking for the mine...then passed the torch to brownie and he spent his entire life doing the same...then brownie passed the torch to a local gentleman and that person spent his entire life looking...matter of fact he is still at it...that tells me the dutchman did tell dick something....whether it was the truth or a fabrication to lead dick on a goose chase we will never know...no use arguing about it..

 

[cactusjumper]

guys...i think you are beating a dead horse here...i dont think anyone will ever know for sure what the dutchman told dick..or what dick told brownie...but one thing is for sure...dick spent his entire life looking for the mine...then passed the torch to brownie and he spent his entire life doing the same...then brownie passed the torch to a local gentleman and that person spent his entire life looking...matter of fact he is still at it...that tells me the dutchman did tell dick something....whether it was the truth or a fabrication to lead dick on a goose chase we will never know...no use arguing about it..

Dave,

Have to agree. No one will ever know.

So is the "local gentleman" searching in the area that Dick told his son to search in. As I recall, his search area was at the north end of Needle Canyon.

Take care,

Joe

 

[azdave35]

joe..i never asked him where he was searching

 

[Matthew Roberts]

cactusjumper,

You asked why I didn't talk with Tom Kollenborn at the Dutch Hunter's Rendezvous in October ?

I did talk with Tom, I had a long conversation with him about an article he wrote in the AJ News and other issues he and I had.

I think the reason there is so much confusion and misinformation surrounding the Holmes Manuscript is because so few in the Dutch Hunter community have actually read it and rely solely on the rumors, misquotes, disinformation and outright lies that many authors and writers have told about it.

When someone comes along and tries to accurately portray the manuscript and the history surrounding it they are immediately suspect and set upon because it doesn't sound like what people have been fed over the years. The quote, " Brownie denied knowing anything about the manuscript until the day he died" is just one of the many falsehoods that Dutch Hunters have heard and blindly accepted as fact.

To read and understand the Holmes manuscript and it's origin and history you have to do it with an open mind, objectively. That is a problem for some in the Dutch Hunter community, an open mind and objectivity is not in the vocabulary. Subjectivity and taking sides in petty personal grudges are easier and more fun than actually trying to see things as they really are. If someone was to actually take the time to read and learn about why the manuscript was written, when it was written, by whom it was written and the manuscript's evolution and history they would be surprised and probably see it in a much different light.

No one, not even Brownie ever said every word of the manuscript is accurate or solid documented evidence. The collaboration between Brownie and Kennison produced a manuscript that was part history, part fact, part speculation and even some outright fanciful storytelling. It doesn't take a genius to read it and see which parts are which. I would urge everyone if you haven't read the manuscript to get in touch with the Superstition Mountain Museum and get a copy for yourself.

Since the thread topic was steered far off course I am reposting the top thread for those who are still interested.

Matthew


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.

Brownie was not a writer, author or typist so in 1944 he employed someone who was to help him put together a story of his life and his account of the Lost Dutchman Mine as told to his father by Jacob “Wolz”. That man was Charles Kennison a former Phoenix newspaper man and author of several articles.

Between Brownie and Kennison no fewer than 4 separate versions of the manuscript were compiled. Brownie liked none of them and their disagreements eventually ended the project.

According to John Higham, in the fall of 1948 Charles Kennison delivered to John Lindley Higham a copy of one of the versions of the Holmes manuscript. Higham was a local author also known as Charles Fredrick Higham who had in 1946 written his own Lost Dutchman Mine book entitled, The True Story Of Jacob Waltzer And His Famous Hidden Gold Mine, The Lost Dutchman.
There was a discrepancy between Kennison and Higham of when exactly Higham received the manuscript. Higham says it was 1948, Kennison said it was 1944 the year it was written. This is important because if Kennison is correct it seems Higham wrote his 1946 book based largely on the Holmes manuscript.

Other than Kennison, Brownie and John L. Higham, no one else knew anything of this Holmes manuscript until November 1, 1962 when John L. Higham donated it to the Arizona State Department of Library and Archives. It was soon after “discovered” by the general public and caused quite a sensation. Brownie Holmes was set upon and hounded by an army of lost mine seekers and questioned relentlessly concerning the “Wolz story and deathbed confession.” Finally in desperation Brownie withdrew and denied being the author of the work.

I have always wondered why Higham waited 14-16 years (depending on whose story you believe) to donate the manuscript to the Arizona Library and Archives and make it public? Higham and Kennison knew each other but were not particularly close or considered good friends. Hardly anyone was considered a friend of Highams, he had an extremely abrasive personality. Higham and Brownie Holmes were not friends by any stretch of the imagination. In fact Higham went out of his way to disparage Brownie and Dick Holmes every chance he got.

When Higham donated the manuscript to the Archives he inserted into the manuscript his own personal view of the work which was a scathing review. The amusing thing about Higham’s case against the Holmes manuscript was in trying to disprove Brownie’s “facts” he used “facts” of his own that were so outrageously ridiculous and false it made Brownie’s manuscript look positively scholarly.
Another thing I have always wondered about was the actual manuscript that is in the Archives. I have read that very work and there is something strange about it.

Both Higham and Kennison stated it was Kennison who gave Higham the manuscript. The manuscript Kennison gave Higham is typed with an old style typewriter. Higham added two separate pages of his own to the donation, both pages were typed overviews and his assessment of the manuscripts unworthiness. What I find strange is that all the donated work, Kennison’s and the pages Higham added were all typed on the same typewriter. At least two of the typewriter keys had defects and the same defects are on both Kennison’s copy and Higham’s additions.

Unless Higham used Kennison’s typewriter I don’t understand how this could have occurred. This raises a lot of interesting questions. Did Higham retype what Kennison gave him? That would seem unlikely because Brownies original signature is on the manuscript. And if Higham did retype it, did he type it faithfully or did he change and add his own version to things? After all, there was no love lost between Higham and Holmes. Could this be why Brownie denied the authorship of the manuscript until he died?
It’s interesting to speculate on the many paths this story could have gone down. Fortunately we don’t have to rely on the Holmes — Kennison manuscript for the story of Wolz-Walzer-Waltz and his deathbed confession. Brownie Holmes was taped in interviews by four separate people (David Russell, Monte Edwards, Tom Kollenborn and Greg Davis) between 1975 and 1979 giving specific details about the things the Dutchman told his father on his deathbed.

In addition, Clay Worst, a longtime friend and partner of Brownie Holmes was given a detailed firsthand account by Brownie. Clay uses Brownie’s account to make a “Dutchman” presentation each year to a crowd at the Superstition Mountain Museum in Apache Junction. Clay will give that presentation again on January 7, 2016 for anyone who wants to hear the story the way it was passed down from Jacob Waltz to Dick Holmes to Brownie and finally to Clay.

Personally I believe the Holmes account of Waltz’s deathbed confession. Not every word, word for word but the basic premise of it. I believe it as well as a story can survive given time and being passed down through three or four persons.
I believe the account also because of something Clay Worst told me once. I was staying with Clay at his house for a few days and one evening after dinner we were sitting outside on Clay’s back porch talking and watching the sunset reflecting off Superstition Mountain. Clay told me about Easter Sunday 1980 when Brownie had come out to have Easter dinner with Clay and his wife Muriel. Brownie Holmes was 87 years old and in failing health. After the dinner Clay and Brownie had gone out back on the porch and Brownie began to reminisce about the old days. Pausing as he gazed off at the mountain Brownie turned to Clay in all seriousness and spoke these words, …. “Clay, I don’t know if the Dutchman lied to my father or not, but I know my father never lied to me, and I know I never lied to you.”

Five days later, on Friday April 11, 1980, his 88th birthday, George Brownie Holmes passed into eternity.

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

You asked why I didn't talk with Tom Kollenborn at the Dutch Hunter's Rendezvous in October ?

I did talk with Tom, I had a long conversation with him about an article he wrote in the AJ News and other issues he and I had.

I think the reason there is so much confusion and misinformation surrounding the Holmes Manuscript is because so few in the Dutch Hunter community have actually read it and rely solely on the rumors, misquotes, disinformation and outright lies that many authors and writers have told about it.

When someone comes along and tries to accurately portray the manuscript and the history surrounding it they are immediately suspect and set upon because it doesn't sound like what people have been fed over the years. The quote, " Brownie denied knowing anything about the manuscript until the day he died" is just one of the many falsehoods that Dutch Hunters have heard and blindly accepted as fact.

To read and understand the Holmes manuscript and it's origin and history you have to do it with an open mind, objectively. That is a problem for some in the Dutch Hunter community, an open mind and objectivity is not in the vocabulary. Subjectivity and taking sides in petty personal grudges are easier and more fun than actually trying to see things as they really are. If someone was to actually take the time to read and learn about why the manuscript was written, when it was written, by whom it was written and the manuscript's evolution and history they would be surprised and probably see it in a much different light.

No one, not even Brownie ever said every word of the manuscript is accurate or solid documented evidence. The collaboration between Brownie and Kennison produced a manuscript that was part history, part fact, part speculation and even some outright fanciful storytelling. It doesn't take a genius to read it and see which parts are which. I would urge everyone if you haven't read the manuscript to get in touch with the Superstition Mountain Museum and get a copy for yourself.

Since the thread topic was steered far off course I am reposting the top thread for those who are still interested.

Matthew


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.

Brownie was not a writer, author or typist so in 1944 he employed someone who was to help him put together a story of his life and his account of the Lost Dutchman Mine as told to his father by Jacob “Wolz”. That man was Charles Kennison a former Phoenix newspaper man and author of several articles.

Between Brownie and Kennison no fewer than 4 separate versions of the manuscript were compiled. Brownie liked none of them and their disagreements eventually ended the project.

According to John Higham, in the fall of 1948 Charles Kennison delivered to John Lindley Higham a copy of one of the versions of the Holmes manuscript. Higham was a local author also known as Charles Fredrick Higham who had in 1946 written his own Lost Dutchman Mine book entitled, The True Story Of Jacob Waltzer And His Famous Hidden Gold Mine, The Lost Dutchman.
There was a discrepancy between Kennison and Higham of when exactly Higham received the manuscript. Higham says it was 1948, Kennison said it was 1944 the year it was written. This is important because if Kennison is correct it seems Higham wrote his 1946 book based largely on the Holmes manuscript.

Other than Kennison, Brownie and John L. Higham, no one else knew anything of this Holmes manuscript until November 1, 1962 when John L. Higham donated it to the Arizona State Department of Library and Archives. It was soon after “discovered” by the general public and caused quite a sensation. Brownie Holmes was set upon and hounded by an army of lost mine seekers and questioned relentlessly concerning the “Wolz story and deathbed confession.” Finally in desperation Brownie withdrew and denied being the author of the work.

I have always wondered why Higham waited 14-16 years (depending on whose story you believe) to donate the manuscript to the Arizona Library and Archives and make it public? Higham and Kennison knew each other but were not particularly close or considered good friends. Hardly anyone was considered a friend of Highams, he had an extremely abrasive personality. Higham and Brownie Holmes were not friends by any stretch of the imagination. In fact Higham went out of his way to disparage Brownie and Dick Holmes every chance he got.

When Higham donated the manuscript to the Archives he inserted into the manuscript his own personal view of the work which was a scathing review. The amusing thing about Higham’s case against the Holmes manuscript was in trying to disprove Brownie’s “facts” he used “facts” of his own that were so outrageously ridiculous and false it made Brownie’s manuscript look positively scholarly.
Another thing I have always wondered about was the actual manuscript that is in the Archives. I have read that very work and there is something strange about it.

Both Higham and Kennison stated it was Kennison who gave Higham the manuscript. The manuscript Kennison gave Higham is typed with an old style typewriter. Higham added two separate pages of his own to the donation, both pages were typed overviews and his assessment of the manuscripts unworthiness. What I find strange is that all the donated work, Kennison’s and the pages Higham added were all typed on the same typewriter. At least two of the typewriter keys had defects and the same defects are on both Kennison’s copy and Higham’s additions.

Unless Higham used Kennison’s typewriter I don’t understand how this could have occurred. This raises a lot of interesting questions. Did Higham retype what Kennison gave him? That would seem unlikely because Brownies original signature is on the manuscript. And if Higham did retype it, did he type it faithfully or did he change and add his own version to things? After all, there was no love lost between Higham and Holmes. Could this be why Brownie denied the authorship of the manuscript until he died?
It’s interesting to speculate on the many paths this story could have gone down. Fortunately we don’t have to rely on the Holmes — Kennison manuscript for the story of Wolz-Walzer-Waltz and his deathbed confession. Brownie Holmes was taped in interviews by four separate people (David Russell, Monte Edwards, Tom Kollenborn and Greg Davis) between 1975 and 1979 giving specific details about the things the Dutchman told his father on his deathbed.

In addition, Clay Worst, a longtime friend and partner of Brownie Holmes was given a detailed firsthand account by Brownie. Clay uses Brownie’s account to make a “Dutchman” presentation each year to a crowd at the Superstition Mountain Museum in Apache Junction. Clay will give that presentation again on January 7, 2016 for anyone who wants to hear the story the way it was passed down from Jacob Waltz to Dick Holmes to Brownie and finally to Clay.

Personally I believe the Holmes account of Waltz’s deathbed confession. Not every word, word for word but the basic premise of it. I believe it as well as a story can survive given time and being passed down through three or four persons.
I believe the account also because of something Clay Worst told me once. I was staying with Clay at his house for a few days and one evening after dinner we were sitting outside on Clay’s back porch talking and watching the sunset reflecting off Superstition Mountain. Clay told me about Easter Sunday 1980 when Brownie had come out to have Easter dinner with Clay and his wife Muriel. Brownie Holmes was 87 years old and in failing health. After the dinner Clay and Brownie had gone out back on the porch and Brownie began to reminisce about the old days. Pausing as he gazed off at the mountain Brownie turned to Clay in all seriousness and spoke these words, …. “Clay, I don’t know if the Dutchman lied to my father or not, but I know my father never lied to me, and I know I never lied to you.”

Five days later, on Friday April 11, 1980, his 88th birthday, George Brownie Holmes passed into eternity.

Matthew,

Since we were talking about the truthfulness of the Holmes quote from Tom's book, I was asking if you talked to him about your feelings that he was, and had been for years, spreading lies, and knew the truth. Are you saying that is what you discussed?

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

oroblanco,

I don't know how you came up with those conclusions but they are your opinion and you are certainly welcome to them.

Matthew

I don't know how I could have made it more plain, I posted your OWN WORDS, including that statement from Brownie in which he states that Kennison wrote it! How is that at variance with what Tom Kollenborn stated, or that Dr Glover also published? Were you there when Tom K was having that conversation with Brownie, that Tom quotes?

I have no doubt that SOME of what is in the Holmes manuscript, came from Brownie, and could very well be from Waltz on his deathbed. However when someone states that another man wrote a manuscript, why should I doubt it? Even your own posts include this.

I will try asking this again:

Are you now saying that George 'Brownie' Holmes is the author of the Holmes manuscript? Thanks in advance.

Oroblanco

 

[Matthew Roberts]

I don't know how I could have made it more plain, I posted your OWN WORDS, including that statement from Brownie in which he states that Kennison wrote it! How is that at variance with what Tom Kollenborn stated, or that Dr Glover also published? Were you there when Tom K was having that conversation with Brownie, that Tom quotes?

I have no doubt that SOME of what is in the Holmes manuscript, came from Brownie, and could very well be from Waltz on his deathbed. However when someone states that another man wrote a manuscript, why should I doubt it? Even your own posts include this.

I will try asking this again:

Are you now saying that George 'Brownie' Holmes is the author of the Holmes manuscript? Thanks in advance.

Oroblanco


Oroblanco,

I realize this is a complex concept, not a simple single statement like Dr. Spock wrote The Cat In The Hat.
But I'm going to try and explain it to you the best I can and you'll have to try and put the facts together the best you can.

The Holmes Manuscript was a collaboration (big word, it's in the dictionary) between Brownie Holmes and Charles Kennison.

Brownie supplied much of the Holmes family history, his personal experience in the mountains and his fathers account of Waltz's death.

Brownie hand wrote the basic parts of the manuscript, history, family and his fathers remembrance of Waltz.

Kennison added his own special "flair" to the manuscript as an experienced writer does to make the reading interesting, not so dull and dry. Some authors call this "fleshing out the story".

Kennison typed the manuscript into the form we see it because Brownie was not a typist.

There were at least 4 maybe 5 separate versions of the Holmes manuscript. This is because Brownie and Kennison disagreed on things and the changes reflected the evoloution of the manuscript.


Now I know this is not a simple one celled answer.

That is because no one can answer the question, "is Brownie Holmes the author" with a simple yes or no.

You have to put together all 5 of the above factors to answer the question correctly.

I know it's rough and you have to really put on your thinking cap but you can do it, I have faith in you.

Here's a hint, the correct answer is: Brownie Holmes AND Charles Kennison together wrote the Holmes Manuscript.

Matthew

 

[Matthew Roberts]

cactusjumper,

Your question is inappropriate and none of your business, but yes, that is exactly what we talked about.

Matthew

 

[cactusjumper]

cactusjumper,

Your question is inappropriate and none of your business, but yes, that is exactly what we talked about.

Matthew

Matthew,

since you answered the question, I must assume it was at least reasonable, if not appropriate.......in your mind.

I already knew the answer.

Your insults posted to Roy were out of line, in my estimation. First of all, he is an honest man. Second, he is more knowledgeable and intelligent then most people posting here. For you to imply that he needs to have your thoughts simplified so he can understand them, is ludicrous.

No one knows what took place between Brownie and his father and no one knows what took place between Brownie and Tom. I will take the word of one of those people who actually had conversations with Brownie, over someone who never met the man.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Grandmaw K.

Good to see you looking in on our conversations. Can Aurum be far behind? Maybe you can add something to the Holmes debate.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

I don't know how I could have made it more plain, I posted your OWN WORDS, including that statement from Brownie in which he states that Kennison wrote it! How is that at variance with what Tom Kollenborn stated, or that Dr Glover also published? Were you there when Tom K was having that conversation with Brownie, that Tom quotes?

I have no doubt that SOME of what is in the Holmes manuscript, came from Brownie, and could very well be from Waltz on his deathbed. However when someone states that another man wrote a manuscript, why should I doubt it? Even your own posts include this.

I will try asking this again:

Are you now saying that George 'Brownie' Holmes is the author of the Holmes manuscript? Thanks in advance.

Oroblanco

Oroblanco,

I realize this is a complex concept, not a simple single statement like Dr. Spock wrote The Cat In The Hat.
But I'm going to try and explain it to you the best I can and you'll have to try and put the facts together the best you can.

The Holmes Manuscript was a collaboration (big word, it's in the dictionary) between Brownie Holmes and Charles Kennison.

Brownie supplied much of the Holmes family history, his personal experience in the mountains and his fathers account of Waltz's death.

Brownie hand wrote the basic parts of the manuscript, history, family and his fathers remembrance of Waltz.

Kennison added his own special "flair" to the manuscript as an experienced writer does to make the reading interesting, not so dull and dry. Some authors call this "fleshing out the story".

Kennison typed the manuscript into the form we see it because Brownie was not a typist.

There were at least 4 maybe 5 separate versions of the Holmes manuscript. This is because Brownie and Kennison disagreed on things and the changes reflected the evoloution of the manuscript.


Now I know this is not a simple one celled answer.

That is because no one can answer the question, "is Brownie Holmes the author" with a simple yes or no.

You have to put together all 5 of the above factors to answer the question correctly.

I know it's rough and you have to really put on your thinking cap but you can do it, I have faith in you.

Here's a hint, the correct answer is: Brownie Holmes AND Charles Kennison together wrote the Holmes Manuscript.

Matthew

Thank you for finally saying your theory on the authorship of the Holmes manuscript in plain English, although your insults tend to mar your reply. It is nice to finally quit beating around the bush.

You implied that Higham MAY have authored or edited SOME part of the Holmes manuscript as well as you pointed out in your first post on this topic. Are you now confident that Higham had NO hand in writing, editing or composing (or otherwise altering) the Holmes manuscript as is now publicly available? Thanks in advance.

Joe - thank you for the very kind words. Isn't it odd how some people will complain of the "hatred" and "venom" in our discussions, and the same people are the first to start slinging insults? How appropriate that we are discussing questionable authorship of a MSS.

Side thing to our readers whom are not posting (yet) and especially to newbies, it is good policy to not put too much faith in any treasure story as you may find it published. There is a reason why these lost mines and treasures are lost, and faulty information is universally a major problem. People mix in erroneous information by mistake (believing it to be true) and mis-identification, and some even mix in false information deliberately to mislead any potential competition. Keep this in mind when reading any treasure story - and do your own research to verify as much as you can. Of course in many cases it is not possible to verify or disprove some key piece of information, in that case you have to judge for yourself whether to trust in it or not.

Considering that none of us were present when the Holmes manuscript was being written or edited, and also as Cactusjumper pointed out correctly, we can not know what passed between Dick and Brownie Holmes nor Brownie and Tom Kollenborn, I am not going to start calling Tom K or Dr Glover a liar either. In fact I consider both to be friends and I will continue to put my trust with them.

Oroblanco

 

[Thirsty44]

Is the version of the Holmes Manuscript at the Superstition Mountain Museum the same as the one published by Thomas Glover in The Lost Dutchman Mine of Jacob Waltz, Part 2?

 

[captain1965]

IMHO Matthews post was fair and his simplified reply seemed to be needed. Sounds clear that Holmes needed assistance in writing his manuscript.
Mabe we should agree on the terminology.


Writer
Author
Co-author

 

[cactusjumper]

IMHO Matthews post was fair and his simplified reply seemed to be needed. Sounds clear that Holmes needed assistance in writing his manuscript.
Mabe we should agree on the terminology.


Writer
Author
Co-author

captain,

Since it is clear to you that Brownie Holmes needed help in writing the manuscript, would you mind telling us why it is "clear"?

Thank you,

Joe Ribaudo