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