Hey Frank,
IMO, Garman was a very smart guy and a good one to follow....within his realm. I think you are right in that aspect.
However; saying (or implying) he was a "partner" in any way, shape or form with Travis is a real stretch. Time line and known dates just don't match. Nor do they match with Robert for that matter. We know Garman met Robert in Millsite Canyon, had some conversation with him which I'm sure included discussions of the PSM. Robert's letter to him eludes to all that.
Garman may have seen Travis once. Even that is dubious. At least that's what can be concluded from Garman's own writing. But its obvious there wasn't any meaningful partnership or long term arrangements. You and I both know Robert spent far more time in AJ hustling beers from the locals then he did hunting anything. Robert is as much responsible for the misinformation concerning the stones as anyone. Robert was pretty much just useless baggage. I think Travis realized that early on.
Garman told several versions of his understanding of the finding of the maps. All of which were a mixed up garbled hodgepodge. He mangled the relationship between Travis and Robert, and when his meetings with them took place. In fact, Garman didn't even know them well enough to properly identify the difference between Robert and Travis as pictured in his book. And now they are supposed to be best buddies

I dunno about that. That's a hard one to get one's arms around. My guess is Garman's knowledge of anything Tumlinson was from one chance meeting in Millsite Canyon, a single letter from a destitute Robert, and a lot of local chit-chat....post Clarence Mitchell.
You indicated the slides were from the 1940/1950's era. Doesn't that conflict with Robert's letter to Garman? Dated 1962

If Robert allowed Garman to photograph something as sensitive as the ground map 10 plus years earlier are we to believe he would include a PS in his letter in 1962 that he (Robert) could send photographs ......just doesn't make sense. Robert's letter is giving a brief description of what is depicted on the stones. Wouldn't that be a tad bit anti-climatic to what's depicted on the Ground Map? We can't be certain Robert ever laid eyes on the ground map. If Robert and Garman had met after the 1962 letter, then Garman would have had a far better understanding of who, what and where than what he wrote about in his book. It just doesn't add up.
View attachment 1387245