Lost Dutchman Mine vs. Hidden Caches

somehiker · Jul 3, 2011

Beth:
You quoted from Mel Brower's letter to Richard Peck of Apr.2/1965.......

"In a letter, from Mel Brower (an associate who was involved with the stones), to Peck, spoke specifically, about Travis Tumlinson altering the stones.
A short quote from that letter:

>"Bob Bair at this point stated: - there is something I think you should know. The zeros cut across the back side of the heart were carved there by Travis Tumlinson himself after he found the stones. He stated that Travis did this to throw any one off guard who might see or steal the stones. (I rather suspect he did this to further entice financial assistance)" unquote.<

Note that while Bair claims that T.T. altered the Heart insert by carving the zeros across one face of the heart,he also states that Tumlinson found the stones.Would one part be true,but not the other?
Bair also mentioned another stone found by Tumlinson,with an Indian head carved upon it (with two lines across the mouth) which was later said by Bob Schultz (to Elbert Love) to have been found north of the Columbia River.Could this be one of the stone carvings in Janie Tumlinson's possession?

Regards:SH.

gollum · Jul 3, 2011

SH,

Janie does not have any stone carvings. That's all I will say on that matter.

Spring,

Kenworthy was definitely not a DISinformationist. Through his books, he shared a lot of information that he had in his possession. He did not share all of it by any means though. His information can put you very near a hidden mine or vault, but not on top of it. There are certain things he shared with very few people. A good friend of mine got a lot of his original research materials (which is why I have access to it). He was also supposed to get the hundred and some-odd pages of maps and drawings that CK wrote about receiving from various archivists. At the last minute Chuck N. (Tiger) stepped in a threw a monkey wrench in the deal, keeping the papers for himself.

Regarding the other treasure authors, I can't say. I didn't know them, nor do I know anyone that knew them well.

Best-Mike

Springfield · Jul 3, 2011

gollum said:
Spring,

Kenworthy was definitely not a DISinformationist. Through his books, he shared a lot of information that he had in his possession. He did not share all of it by any means though. His information can put you very near a hidden mine or vault, but not on top of it. There are certain things he shared with very few people. A good friend of mine got a lot of his original research materials (which is why I have access to it). He was also supposed to get the hundred and some-odd pages of maps and drawings that CK wrote about receiving from various archivists. At the last minute Chuck N. (Tiger) stepped in a threw a monkey wrench in the deal, keeping the papers for himself.

Regarding the other treasure authors, I can't say. I didn't know them, nor do I know anyone that knew them well.

Best-Mike

I respect your beliefs and will accept our differences of opinion here. I caution everyone to consider the concept of 'degrees of separation' when you establish your baselines.

somehiker · Jul 3, 2011

Mike:
Thanks for the correction.I re-read Garry's post and it was "Joe" and his mother who have the Tablet,Manuscript, and other carvings.
Janie Tumlinson has photos of the tablet and a copy of the manuscript.
My mistake.

Regards:SH.

gollum · Jul 4, 2011

Well,

since I have already posted this on the LDM Forums in Garry's Thread, I will repeat it here:

My source is/was Janie Tumlinson. What she told me was in direct contradiction to what she told Garry. Do I have any doubts that Garry was telling the truth about Janie telling him that her dad carved the stone maps? None whatsoever. My only question was why did she tell him one thing, and me something completely different? I sent her a message to that effect, and have not heard back from her yet.

Best-Mike

cactusjumper · Jul 4, 2011

Mike,

Somehow I have my doubts that she will give you an answer.

I hope you and everyone else has a wonderful 4th.

Take care,

Joe

somehiker · Jul 4, 2011

It does beg the question,Mike.The hows and whys for so much conflicting evidence and testimony regarding the Stones,all of them,will be a topic worthy of discussion for some time to come,I would surmise.Personally,I would think it likely that the history of the stones has been shared by most,if not all of the Tumlinson family for some time.Certainly much,if not most of what has been written about Travis and the Stones has been shared and discussed amongst family members as well.Given the fact that both Pegleg and Travis have been featured in books written about their treasure hunting activities,let alone what their descendents may have observed (as mentioned by Janie) during internet searches,I see no reason to think otherwise.
It is possible that with such sharing of family memories and experiences,beliefs and publicly expressed opinions may change over time.
It is also possible that questions of Law and Legal Rights have arisen or resurfaced.

Regards:SH.

gollum · Jul 4, 2011

cactusjumper said:
Mike,

Somehow I have my doubts that she will give you an answer.

I hope you and everyone else has a wonderful 4th.

Take care,

Joe

Joe,

I don't doubt that Garry will also try and contact her regarding this. Maybe she will answer him or me or both of us.

I only want to get at the truth of the matter, one way or the other.

Mike

cactusjumper · Jul 4, 2011

Mike,

I know that's what you're after. The truth is what we're all after. That's why we dig so hard to find it. I look forward to seeing if Janie clears it up. In the end, I believe that you and Garry were the recipients of two opposing messages. Neither of you should be attacked for what you were told, believed and passed along in good faith to the rest of us.

Many thanks,

Joe

Marc · Jul 4, 2011

[admin]Reminder: Denigrating other members will not be tolerated.[/admin]

mrs.oroblanco · Jul 5, 2011

It's actually making this particular subject a catch-22.

Obviously, it is being said that one thing was told to one person, something else was told to someone else (and, as I note, I believe both people, both Garry and Mike) - so, what you end up with is the fact that, if that occurred - somebody was lied to.

How do you really decide who has the false information? Do you decide that the truth came out over the course of a 5 year investigation (Garry Cundiff), or do you decide that what she told Mike was correct.

I agree with Gollum (Mike), that - the big question is "why" - why did she say one thing to one person, and something to someone else?

But - there you have the crux of almost everything that has to do with the stones. Conflicting evidence and stories.

And, really - all anyone wants is the truth.

Beth

PS: Hey, Somehiker - haven't seen you post in awhile - good to see ya!

Blindbowman · Jul 5, 2011

the truth wont matter . you wont beleive the truth when you see it ..

"the Blindbownman found the Lost Dutchman mine on Jauary 5th 2006 "

see what mean ... :thumbsup:

Springfield · Jul 5, 2011

mrs.oroblanco said:
It's actually making this particular subject a catch-22.

Obviously, it is being said that one thing was told to one person, something else was told to someone else (and, as I note, I believe both people, both Garry and Mike) - so, what you end up with is the fact that, if that occurred - somebody was lied to.

How do you really decide who has the false information? Do you decide that the truth came out over the course of a 5 year investigation (Garry Cundiff), or do you decide that what she told Mike was correct.

I agree with Gollum (Mike), that - the big question is "why" - why did she say one thing to one person, and something to someone else?

But - there you have the crux of almost everything that has to do with the stones. Conflicting evidence and stories.

And, really - all anyone wants is the truth.

Beth

You're right - this only throws more uncertainty on the subject. Interestingly, the information Janie gave Mike was certainly expected, given the lore that has built up around the stones. What she told Garry was unexpected and conflicting. We may never know the truth, but one thing remains clear - the provenance of the stones, accepted at face value by many for years, is now a small notch more uncertain. As I've so many times observed, things are seldom as they seem.

gollum · Jul 5, 2011

Well,

Like I said on the LDM Forum, I would almost bet my shirt (and its a nice shirt) that we have what we in the car business call a "second baseman" involved.

To both Garry and myself, Janie seemed very pleasant and happy to discuss what she could, then BAM. She just clammed up for no apparent reason.

Mike

cactusjumper · Jul 5, 2011

Mike,

Having been a Fleet Sales Manager for Don Kott in Carson for many years, second baseman was my first thought as well. Can't imagine Janie will get back in contact with either of you again. Once again, I believe the book is the reason for the change of story.

Take care,

Joe

mrs.oroblanco · Jul 5, 2011

Controversy is great for book sales.

I'm willing to bet that most folks who have an interest in the stones - no matter which camp you are in - will want to read it. That includes me.

BB,

While I'm pretty sure that there will always be someone who doesn't believe things, I think if and when the history of the stones is solved and there is an end to the rainbow of stories, there would be an undeniable truth, apparent to at least a majority of folks.

The truth is not proven by talk, nearly as much as it is by evidence.

Beth

Blindbowman · Jul 5, 2011

mrs.oroblanco said:
Controversy is great for book sales.

I'm willing to bet that most folks who have an interest in the stones - no matter which camp you are in - will want to read it. That includes me.

BB,

While I'm pretty sure that there will always be someone who doesn't believe things, I think if and when the history of the stones is solved and there is an end to the rainbow of stories, there would be an undeniable truth, apparent to at least a majority of folks.

The truth is not proven by talk, nearly as much as it is by evidence.

Beth

no one wants to watch someone else find it ...

i will have no problem what so ever proveing the mine i have found is in fact known as the real Lost dutchman mine ...even in a cort of law ...!

somehiker · Jul 5, 2011

Blindbowman said:
mrs.oroblanco said:

Controversy is great for book sales.

I'm willing to bet that most folks who have an interest in the stones - no matter which camp you are in - will want to read it. That includes me.

BB,

While I'm pretty sure that there will always be someone who doesn't believe things, I think if and when the history of the stones is solved and there is an end to the rainbow of stories, there would be an undeniable truth, apparent to at least a majority of folks.

The truth is not proven by talk, nearly as much as it is by evidence.

Beth

Click to expand...

no one wants to watch someone else find it ...

i will have no problem what so ever proveing the mine i have found is in fact known as the real Lost dutchman mine ...even in a cort of law ...!

For a few BB,any time spent in front of the bench may only result in even more time spent on a couch somewhere else. :tongue3:

Lost Dutchman Mine vs. Hidden Caches

Silver Member

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Gold Member

Silver Member

Silver Member

Gold Member

Gold Member

Silver Member

Gold Member

Gold Member

Silver Member

Silver Member

Bronze Member

Silver Member

Gold Member

Gold Member

Silver Member

Bronze Member

Silver Member

Debunking My LDM Discovery

Lost Dutchman

Users who are viewing this thread