Legend of the Stone Maps

[Azquester]

Bill what is your opinion about the revelations that Travis found treasure? Plus more buried out there. The Garman photos I have of Travis and Uncle Phil digging in a area Jr is not familiar with has me thinking. That and Garmans photo of the complete Peg Leg map.

If Travis found treasure, which I believe he probably bought trinkets in Mexico, he certainly never found the mother load. From what everyone's indicated early on Tnet Travis was fairly lazy and didn't go deep into the range. He's the one with a good story, but, never had the real gumption for the hard hike and digging holes for very long.

I don't blame him it's hard work!

Peg leg map? I don't know if I believe anything that comes from his family after learning more about Travis than I wanted to know. I'd be interested in seeing it and trailing after it like any Treasure Hunter would. Once I stop pulling stuff out of my backside!

Funny thing though, just today I was at a building and from a across the parking lot someone yelled "Boom Shacka Lacka!" I thought it was Dave or Carrol!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Azquester]

Bill, where do you come up with this stuff Is it decoded in the stone maps? or..................just curious!

I saw it in a cloud, you know, the Jesuit's made me do it, Travis shows a burial in the maps and the secret lies with the last rites...or does it?

He was obviously a very religious man...taking sermons from Bonnie and Clyde Barrow...that explains the bullet holes in near the cross in the maps!

Like Dave says it came from the thunder down under...Indian mountain Gods...or it came from gaseous explosion with a bilabial fricative...Travis the magnificent map maker! Believe it or not.

 

[wrmickel1]

Riley

Maybe there was no reason to, Travis wasn't looking for the mines in the region. He might of been looking for the R.
That's why I asked Frank how he came to Rogers.

The horse from Santa Fe was a Route in a supply chain and the product was brought out of the range and placed on a good route for pickup. Does not the map say 7 places to go.

Wrmickel1

 

[sgtfda]

If Travis found treasure, which I believe he probably bought trinkets in Mexico, he certainly never found the mother load. From what everyone's indicated early on Tnet Travis was fairly lazy and didn't go deep into the range. He's the one with a good story, but, never had the real gumption for the hard hike and digging holes for very long.

I don't blame him it's hard work!

Peg leg map? I don't know if I believe anything that comes from his family after learning more about Travis than I wanted to know. I'd be interested in seeing it and trailing after it like any Treasure Hunter would. Once I stop pulling stuff out of my backside!

Funny thing though, just today I was at a building and from a across the parking lot someone yelled "Boom Shacka Lacka!" I thought it was Dave or Carrol!

Bill. Travis and party traveled into some rough areas on the east side of the mountains . I know that from the slides. Pictures don't lie. I'm familiar with that area. He also stayed in a shack Garman owned. So I've been told.

 

[wrmickel1]

Yeah, I no your gonna say 18, but I only found 7 so far. That's why I asked carrol were his dad found his, I thought he would of said by a spring pond waterhole Cause the horse needs lots of water. Now if he said on a hill by a water source I would mark another off.

Babymick1

 

[Old]

To All,

Road makes some good points. Was I snarky in my post? Yes, I was. Am I the only party in the total conversation being snarky? Nope, don’t think so. Is Road correct that being snarky shouldn’t play a role? Yes he is. I apologize for that. It was wrong.

Most of the rest of the criticism ……I plead not guilty.

I think a re-read of what I actually wrote will show I dug up and posted lots of data that showed the color version of the Herman photo was well within parameters necessary to be authentic. Also that regardless of Garman’s camera type the type of film would be none other than Kodak Kodachrome. That has proven accurate. What I WAS questioning is if such expensive film with rare usage at the time period would have been also used on random hikers encountered along the trail. That’s the difference between discussing fact vs. theory.

The recent discussion, where I was indeed snarky, alludes to the anomalies within the photo that don’t fit the story line as presented. The truth or non truth of that is available to you to make your own decision. If that’s off limits I withdrawn my comments. Granted it was given in a heated moment and not presented in a kind way.

Mr. Garman and his books have much useful information. But; its not faultless. Its riddled with inaccuracies concerning Travis. Some of that discussion has taken place here and elsewhere. Again, if that’s off limits, I withdraw my comments.

Cubfan laments how he wishes these discoveries had taken a different path. Perhaps other researchers could have found the same and perhaps more, I won’t argue that. Regardless; we are where we are. From my selfish perspective I have found new friends and formed fast friendships. I adore the people I have come to know. Each and every one of them. And that relationship is my "treasure".

Is there any wonder of why it turned out this way? Travis has been one of the most maligned individuals in the stone saga. Is it wrong for his family to want to present their side of the story? From their perspective? It is THEIR story. Its THEIR documents. To do with as they see fit. Where those documents end up and how they are used is rightly up to them.

I do want to touch on this fame and gain perspective. Contrary to what may be the general thought, these types of documentary efforts do NOT generate tons of cash to the people which are the subject of the filming. I believe Frank will attest to that from his experience. Its not a cash cow. In many ways these people spend more time and effort to get the film to the can than they receive in monetary reward. Its a long, hard and agonizing process. Unfortunate but true. If the theory of “treasure” to be retrieved plays out there is no monetary gain for the family. Its already been said that belongs to the Church.

Fame? I dunno. That’s in the eye of the beholder. Who would willing want to be run through the wringer that has already taken place and will likely continue? They are doing it to get their side of the story to you. You then can judge for yourself from Travis and his family’s viewpoint. Not the one filtered through other people’s agenda, but the truth as they know it and have documentation to prove.

 

[Oso]

Joe,
Yes Travis did try to sell a Set, The deal fell through.
So now Travis Had to Sets. He passed and his wife sells a set to Mitchell, a copy except the Heart got mixed up, So the real heart went to the Museum and the other set wound up in Montana. That's why all the experts come to the same
Conclusion, All the testing I believe was done after the switch and Travis had passed. He would have had no reason to test them he new where he found them. He new they were real. Well any way from Montana where my bro live's the maps traveled to North Dakota where I live so I hardly think Ryan can complete a show without this one little thing ME!

But I do believe before he deleted a lot of my posts he told me to team up with Frank. So Frank your covered. I'm on your team at Ryan's request. But I'm the lead investigator
On this one Frank. Tired of living in the shadows.

I tried to give him a Great Story but he settled for a fare Story! Oh Well. As Paul Harvey would say, There Great!
Misprint that was Tony The Tiger![emoji23]

And That's The Rest of The Story.

Wrmickel1

I’ve learned from our other exchanges to not read anything into your posts that isn’t actually stated…

So, I’m asking straight up… Do you possess, or have access to, a set of what you believe to be “real” stone maps? If so, do you believe they are the stones Travis purportedly found? Or, do you believe they are the first set Travis made? Why do you believe they are not one of the many copies out there? Do you know the provenance and/or have you (or others) done any testing? Do they appear to match the ones in the bumper photo or Life magazine spread? What, if anything, differentiates them from the museum stones?

We have discussed that like old campfire songs, where verses have been added or altered over the years, treasure legends have things added and/or altered over the years. What you appear to have stated in the above post definitely adds something new to the legend.

I don’t suppose you would be willing to share some pictures or other documentation?

In the meantime, we’ll be waiting for the rest of the rest of the story.

Thanks,

Oso

 

[azdave35]

I’ve learned from our other exchanges to not read anything into your posts that isn’t actually stated…

So, I’m asking straight up… Do you possess, or have access to, a set of what you believe to be “real” stone maps? If so, do you believe they are the stones Travis purportedly found? Or, do you believe they are the first set Travis made? Why do you believe they are not one of the many copies out there? Do you know the provenance and/or have you (or others) done any testing? Do they appear to match the ones in the bumper photo or Life magazine spread? What, if anything, differentiates them from the museum stones?

We have discussed that like old campfire songs, where verses have been added or altered over the years, treasure legends have things added and/or altered over the years. What you appear to have stated in the above post definitely adds something new to the legend.

I don’t suppose you would be willing to share some pictures or other documentation?

In the meantime, we’ll be waiting for the rest of the rest of the story.

Thanks,

Oso

 

[wrmickel1]

I’ve learned from our other exchanges to not read anything into your posts that isn’t actually stated…

So, I’m asking straight up… Do you possess, or have access to, a set of what you believe to be “real” stone maps? If so, do you believe they are the stones Travis purportedly found? Or, do you believe they are the first set Travis made? Why do you believe they are not one of the many copies out there? Do you know the provenance and/or have you (or others) done any testing? Do they appear to match the ones in the bumper photo or Life magazine spread? What, if anything, differentiates them from the museum stones?

We have discussed that like old campfire songs, where verses have been added or altered over the years, treasure legends have things added and/or altered over the years. What you appear to have stated in the above post definitely adds something new to the legend.

I don’t suppose you would be willing to share some pictures or other documentation?

In the meantime, we’ll be waiting for the rest of the rest of the story.

Thanks,

Oso

Oso

Other then Dave laughing, Yes, and no to the share, For Now.

Wrmickel1

 

[sgtfda]

As has been stated elsewhere there has been some confusion over various maps names. I've referred to several maps as Peg Leg and some as Garman. I did the same on the legends show. I never referred to them as Tumlinsons maps. It has been written that Peg Leg had a map collection would not maps from that collection belong to the family's of those that gave Peg Leg original or copies. I have a copy of Tom Ks map collection. Do these maps belong to Tom or the person who created each map. A original map drawn by Peg Leg Or Travis would be family property. A map drawn by others in the Peg Leg collection would be family property of those other family's . I'm not making a legal opinion here but asking for opinions on this issue.
In the future the slide map will be referred to as a Garman map. My mistake was assuming Garman photographed a map Travis had. Like Peg Leg Garman had a map collection also.

 

[sgtfda]

Now following this train of thought. If Travis found the stones do they belong to others. Same with the other maps. If Travis made the stones and maps such as the ground map there is no question they belong to the family. Now can someone come along and start copywriting all this stuff and claim it's their property. Some of these questions were raised elsewhere. Next time I talk to my cousin who was a state Supreme Court Chief Justice I'll get his opinion. What do you guys think?

 

[sgtfda]

I had decided to move on to my own projects and not post further comment. But these issues keep coming up elsewhere. I prefer to let sleeping dogs lay. As they say.

 

[sgtfda]

If it is proven Travis carved the stone maps would not all the copies belong to his family. Other than what the family sold. If the maps in the museum are copies of what was sold to Mitchell I would think the family has a legal claim.

 

[Old]

(<snipped post.......In the future the slide map will be referred to as a Garman map. My mistake was assuming Garman photographed a map Travis had. Like Peg Leg Garman had a map collection also.

Thank you for clarifying and admitting your mistake. I made mistakes in this exchange also. I can easily believe Garman had many maps that had nothing to do with the Tumlinson family.

I truly wish you and yours the very best.

Lynda

 

[sgtfda]

Old what part of let sleeping dogs lay don't you understand

 

[markmar]

Lynda

You wrote how your new friends are your ' treasure " .
Of course they are . And they will remain the only treasure that would be obtained on this movie project .
But , even without a treasure for the SoJ " laundry " , I wish you good luck and many happy moments .

 

[EarnieP]

Not sure if you're still asking or not--- “What do you guys think?” Sgt

I’m not a lawyer and would not offer a legal opinion on an open forum, thanks to litigious (there's a word I never use) types here or you know ‘elsewhere’

But, I will direct you to that great arbitrator of Universal Law; ...Wikipedia.

Under the heading; ‘Possession is 9/10th of the Law’

You will find such quotes as;

"In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to them; if taken or used. The shirt or blouse you are currently wearing is presumed to be yours, unless someone can prove that it is not." Wiki

"in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary" the operative phrase.

and;

"Murray Rothbard noted that libertarians "conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor." Wiki

and;

"This concept has been applied to both tangible and intangible products. In particular, "knowledge management" presents problems with regard to this principle." (9/10th thingy) Wiki
---------------------------------------------------

"Knowledge management" is an odd concept.
Does a physical map contain knowledge management?
Could a person who memorized a map have knowledge management 'possessed' within his head, km that does not belong to him?
Could get sticky prying that out in court.
------------------

If this is waking up any dogs, disregard (or howl).

 

[wrmickel1]

Old, Ernie p,and Dirt

Please report to the RUBBER ROOM.

Your so mixed up, Proof of ownership wins every time. And the SOJ could not claim any of it. No one is rewarded in a settlement for I'll gotten gains, such as murder, inslavement or trickery, Other wise every crook would have rights to property they stoled.

Sheeeee! Weeeee!

Wrmickel1

 

[EarnieP]

Ah, 'proof of ownership', I should have thought of that.
You mean something like a "clear and compelling testimony or documentation" (of that ownership).
I think I'm getting it now, thanks.

 

[lgadbois]

Not sure if you're still asking or not--- “What do you guys think?” Sgt

I’m not a lawyer and would not offer a legal opinion on an open forum, thanks to litigious (there's a word I never use) types here or you know ‘elsewhere’

But, I will direct you to that great arbitrator of Universal Law; ...Wikipedia.

Under the heading; ‘Possession is 9/10th of the Law’

The saying “possession is nine points of the law” is an old common law precept that means one who has physical control or possession over the property is clearly at an advantage or is in a better possession than a person who has no possession over the property.

In re Garza, 984 S.W.2d 344, 347 (Tex. App. 1998), Texas court has held that “Despite the old saying that "possession is 9/10ths of the law," mere possession and whatever right to the property that comes with mere possession does not grant the possessor rights in the property superior to those of the actual owner. J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 12-13 (1962); R. BOYER, SURVEY OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 679-80 (1981). In other words, there is a hierarchy of ownership, as reflected both in the common law and § 1.07(35)(a) of the Penal Code. One in possession of chattel has a greater right to it than one who lacks both possession and title. Yet, one who has title maintains a greater right over the chattel than 1) one who simply has possession and 2) one who has neither possession nor claim of ownership. Id. Indeed, it can be said that the title owner has the greatest rights to the property. With that greatest right comes the power to negate the authority of those with lesser right. Similarly, those who stand in the lesser position lack the power to override or negate the rights of the title owner.”