The Brownie Holmes Manuscript

[captain1965]

If you would like absolutes regarding this then I am not "clear"
Sifting through circumstantial, historical and reported hearsay it is hard to be clear any one point.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Not Peralta]

Why would you need help remembering what you supposedly know.np

 

[Grandma Kochera]

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


Mr. Joe Ribaudo

Why the need to address me in this thread that I have not posted on is beyond my comprehension. There are many people who follow these post without posting (several remain hidden). Would you prefer that I do that..log out and read as a guest? Your need to try to bait me into this conversation seems paranoid to me, but then that is just my opinion. I have nothing to add to the conversation about "The Holmes Manuscript" except that it is an interesting part of the LDM legend. I will only post when I feel I can add something or to ask a question.. I thought that is what these forums were for. Also, I have no idea who the heck Aurum is. So, Kindly do not try to inject me into any disagreement you seem to have with others.

Grandma K

 

[Matthew Roberts]

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?

Thirsty44,

Yes they are the same although the Museums copy is exactly as written by Holmes and Kennison and gives a little more of the "flavor" of the manuscript. Dr. Glover's book breaks the manuscript down and explains key parts of it.

Matthew

 

[Matthew Roberts]

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

captain1965,

You are correct, in my top post of this thread I clearly showed both Brownie and Kennison compiled the manuscript together.

oroblanco knew that, he just worded his question to try and trap me into saying something I had not said in the top post so he could attack and twist things even further. That's his purpose for being here, not to seriously discuss anything.

Brownie was not himself a writer so he needed someone who was to help him compile something that would be readable and interesting. The "author" or "who wrote the Holmes manuscript" is however you phrase it. You could say Brownie wrote it because it was about him and his story, or you could say Brownie and Kennison collaborated to write it. It makes no difference, most people get this right off the bat.

Matthew

 

[Matthew Roberts]

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


Mr. Joe Ribaudo

Why the need to address me in this thread that I have not posted on is beyond my comprehension. There are many people who follow these post without posting (several remain hidden). Would you prefer that I do that..log out and read as a guest? Your need to try to bait me into this conversation seems paranoid to me, but then that is just my opinion. I have nothing to add to the conversation about "The Holmes Manuscript" except that it is an interesting part of the LDM legend. I will only post when I feel I can add something or to ask a question.. I thought that is what these forums were for. Also, I have no idea who the heck Aurum is. So, Kindly do not try to inject me into any disagreement you seem to have with others.

Grandma K

Grandma K,

You did nothing wrong. cactusjumper's post to you is not only out of line it is a violation of the Forum rules about harassing other members for no reason.

It does no good to ask the moderators for help with this ongoing problem because the 1,526th warning to "please" not to do that again has no meaning anymore to the violators.

Just put it in the proper context, it's no reflection on you, fighting, trolling, baiting, hijacking threads and misinforming people is what some people do here.

Matthew

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'd morning Matt: You posted -- oroblanco knew that, he just worded his question to try and trap me into saying something I had not said in the top post so he could attack and twist things even further. That's his purpose for being here, not to seriously discuss anything.


On this I disagreee, he most definitely is a serious poster. Trap ? we are all guilty of that.

 

[Thirsty44]

Thirsty44,

Yes they are the same although the Museums copy is exactly as written by Holmes and Kennison and gives a little more of the "flavor" of the manuscript. Dr. Glover's book breaks the manuscript down and explains key parts of it.

Matthew

Thanks for the helpful response!

 

[gollum]

Everybody,

I don't know why all the animosity here? This is actually a very simple issue to resolve. I read the transcript as posted by Matthew. Here are the key points FOR ME:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. (John DeGraffenreid) he read my manuscript and didn’t pay much attention to it

4. 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.

5. 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?

.....and the grand finale that ties everything together is:

6. 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.


Okay, here is what I take from all those statements:

Brownie was writing his manuscript (he mentions "not being satisfied with it"). He was not an author, so he found one in Dennison (he even states "and that fellow Kennison that wrote it"). They collaborated on a new manuscript, but he kept control of his original manuscript, which was "lost" at First Water Ranch. Eventually, Higham showed up with his new manuscript, and Brownie never saw it in person until Greg gave him a copy in 1979. He said so in his interview.

I also believe he may have said at some point that he had never seen that manuscript for a very good reason. Did Brownie see any money from Higham's Manuscript? Did Higham keep the money from the book sales? If Brownie didn't get money from Higham's Manuscript, then OF COURSE he would do everything in his power to discredit the work of a man that was making money off of his name, up to and including saying that he had never seen it. That way, Higham looks like a liar and his book is BS.

The only question (to me) that needs to be answered is "Did Higham give Holmes any of the profits from his book sales?" The answer to that question will either prove my idea or make me re-evaluate! HAHAHA

Mike

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Everybody,

I don't know why all the animosity here? This is actually a very simple issue to resolve. I read the transcript as posted by Matthew. Here are the key points FOR ME:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. (John DeGraffenreid) he read my manuscript and didn’t pay much attention to it

4. 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.

5. 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?

.....and the grand finale that ties everything together is:

6. 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.


Okay, here is what I take from all those statements:

Brownie was writing his manuscript (he mentions "not being satisfied with it"). He was not an author, so he found one in Dennison (he even states "and that fellow Kennison that wrote it"). They collaborated on a new manuscript, but he kept control of his original manuscript, which was "lost" at First Water Ranch. Eventually, Higham showed up with his new manuscript, and Brownie never saw it in person until Greg gave him a copy in 1979. He said so in his interview.

I also believe he may have said at some point that he had never seen that manuscript for a very good reason. Did Brownie see any money from Higham's Manuscript? Did Higham keep the money from the book sales? If Brownie didn't get money from Higham's Manuscript, then OF COURSE he would do everything in his power to discredit the work of a man that was making money off of his name, up to and including saying that he had never seen it. That way, Higham looks like a liar and his book is BS.

The only question (to me) that needs to be answered is "Did Higham give Holmes any of the profits from his book sales?" The answer to that question will either prove my idea or make me re-evaluate! HAHAHA

Mike

Gollum,

Good summation of what actually occurred.

Brownie never profited from the manuscript in any way.
Higham and Brownie were bitter enemies. When Higham donated the manuscript to the Library and Archives along with it he inserted a letter and affidavit. The letter was a scathing critique of Brownies manuscript and Higham disparaged Brownie and his father in that letter. Higham did all he could to discredit the manuscript as far as "facts" went. Higham had his own Dutchman story which differed from Holmes account and Higham wanted to cast a dark shadow over Brownies work to make his work (Higham's) look superior.

Matthew

 

[Oroblanco]

captain1965,

You are correct, in my top post of this thread I clearly showed both Brownie and Kennison compiled the manuscript together.

oroblanco knew that, he just worded his question to try and trap me into saying something I had not said in the top post so he could attack and twist things even further. That's his purpose for being here, not to seriously discuss anything.

Brownie was not himself a writer so he needed someone who was to help him compile something that would be readable and interesting. The "author" or "who wrote the Holmes manuscript" is however you phrase it. You could say Brownie wrote it because it was about him and his story, or you could say Brownie and Kennison collaborated to write it. It makes no difference, most people get this right off the bat.

Matthew

Matthew you can not speak for me nor have any idea what my motives are. You are quite wrong, in case you could not tell I was attempting to get you to state your theory on the authorship of the Holmes manuscript, which FINALLY you did, although in a most condescending manner. I do not care for games and prefer when people speak plainly so all can understand.

If anyone is trying to BAIT someone into saying something wrong, it is clearly you baiting me with your insulting posts. That is a shame because this is really a fascinating topic, and you are one of the most knowledgeable people on AZ and southwestern history, if we can induce you to share some of that knowledge. This petty and incessant tendency of yours to make nasty comments is not helping. Thank you for posting your theory on the authorship of the Holmes manuscript however, although the case is far from iron-clad. We might wonder why Brownie would have stated that Kennison wrote it, if he himself had the major part, and why he would need to read it? Wouldn't he already know the whole thing? I would also like an answer to my previous question, which was:

Matthew are you now confident that Higham had no part in writing, editing or otherwise compiling or altering the Holmes manuscript? Thanks in advance.

Thank you to Real de Tayopa for the kind words.
Oroblanco

 

[captain1965]

He would need to read it if he was a co-author and was not present during the writing of any collaborative additions.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

oroblanco,

You are free to believe what you want and express your opinions as long as they stay on the threads topic.

Life is too short to play the games with you. I'd rather discuss the issues intelligently with those who seriously want to share their ideas and thoughts.

You are on my ignore list from now on.

Matthew

 

[Oroblanco]

oroblanco,

You are free to believe what you want and express your opinions as long as they stay on the threads topic.

Life is too short to play the games with you. I'd rather discuss the issues intelligently with those who seriously want to share their ideas and thoughts.

You are on my ignore list from now on.

Matthew

Thank you for your permission to my own opinions and posting, however I never needed it.

You are the only one here playing games, posting insults and baiting.

Are you afraid to answer that simple question -

Matthew Roberts are you now confident that Higham had no part in writing, editing, compiling, or otherwise altering the Holmes manuscript?

No trick or trap just a simple question, after all you posted earlier about Higham perhaps being involved, and Higham is the one that donated it - this act alone implies he had some kind of rights in it.

 

[Loke]

oroblanco knew that, he just worded his question to try and trap me into saying something I had not said in the top post so he could attack and twist things even further. That's his purpose for being here, not to seriously discuss anything.
Matthew

oroblanco,
You are free to believe what you want and express your opinions as long as they stay on the threads topic.
Life is too short to play the games with you. I'd rather discuss the issues intelligently with those who seriously want to share their ideas and thoughts.
You are on my ignore list from now on.
Matthew

Wow - what a lot of vitrol! Did you get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?
Oro is one of the most serious and objective posters on here - obviously, the same does not seem to apply to you.
You may also save yourself to put me on ignore because I will not see it - you are on _my_ (very short) ignore list.

Per

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Matt, Gentlemen, Gentlemen Relax. <- genuine sock coffee.

Do you think for one moment that if I didn't think (know ) that Oro was a serious researcher and honorable, that I would have made him a confident of the critical details of Tayopa or that he could write the story of Tayopa, if he so wished

Incidentally, most have found that they have lost valuable information by placingg someone on Ignore ??


P.S. You should have seen how he put me through the wringer when I first posted on Tayopa , that is until he was satisfied that I was telling the truth.

 

[Not Peralta]

Amigo's, I agree 100%, Relax, have some burro juice chill out, enjoy the day, lifes too short,NP

 

[cactusjumper]

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.

View attachment 1236983

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

Matthew

Matthew,

Nice picture! Are you saying that you were living in Arizona in 1966?

Thanks,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Grandma K,

You did nothing wrong. cactusjumper's post to you is not only out of line it is a violation of the Forum rules about harassing other members for no reason.

It does no good to ask the moderators for help with this ongoing problem because the 1,526th warning to "please" not to do that again has no meaning anymore to the violators.

Just put it in the proper context, it's no reflection on you, fighting, trolling, baiting, hijacking threads and misinforming people is what some people do here.

Matthew

FYI CJs post is not out of line nor does it qualify as harassing a member... His post was polite, GK has posted on several threads on this topic already.

1,526th warning? If you have an issue with moderation then address it via pm, not on the forum which DOES violate our rules...

Please lower the animosity between members...

 

[txtea]

I think the problem here is.....you guys drink too much dadgummed coffee!