gollum
Gold Member
- Jan 2, 2006
- 6,770
- 7,719
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab SD2200D (Modded)/ Whites GMT 24k / Fisher FX-3 / Fisher Gold Bug II / Fisher Gemini / Schiebel MIMID / Falcon MD-20
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- Thread starter
- #3,301
CJ,
Fair enough. You are correct in that you came off as attacking Tumlinson's character. You wouldn't have been the first. It happens quite often that someone comes up with some scenario that requires Tumlinson to have been a huge liar or worse. If the man and his wife dealt honestly with all his friends, neighbors, and business acquaintances (as evidenced by their testimonies), and we have absolutely ZERO hard evidence to prove that his story as told is not true, then who are you (or anyone else who didn't know the man) to question his integrity and veracity? I'm not saying the story is true or not. I'm just saying that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Another problem we have is that we have ZERO first hand accounts of exactly what Tumlinson said regarding finding the stones. We have two third hand stories:
1. Robert Tumlinson (Travis' Uncle and some time partner)
2. We have Clarence O Mitchell who bought the stones from Travis' Widow Aileen after his death in 1961, telling us what Aileen told him.
So, the Holy Grail for that part of the story is a manuscript that Tumlinson had supposedly written in which he details his finding of the stones as well as his many years of searching the Supers trying to unlock their secrets. That manuscript has, to the best of my knowledge, never been found. Mitchell knew about it, and MIGHT have gotten it from Tumlinson's Daughter Janey. It MIGHT have been the source of information he used to write his book, but we don't know for certain.
Best-Mike
Fair enough. You are correct in that you came off as attacking Tumlinson's character. You wouldn't have been the first. It happens quite often that someone comes up with some scenario that requires Tumlinson to have been a huge liar or worse. If the man and his wife dealt honestly with all his friends, neighbors, and business acquaintances (as evidenced by their testimonies), and we have absolutely ZERO hard evidence to prove that his story as told is not true, then who are you (or anyone else who didn't know the man) to question his integrity and veracity? I'm not saying the story is true or not. I'm just saying that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Another problem we have is that we have ZERO first hand accounts of exactly what Tumlinson said regarding finding the stones. We have two third hand stories:
1. Robert Tumlinson (Travis' Uncle and some time partner)
2. We have Clarence O Mitchell who bought the stones from Travis' Widow Aileen after his death in 1961, telling us what Aileen told him.
So, the Holy Grail for that part of the story is a manuscript that Tumlinson had supposedly written in which he details his finding of the stones as well as his many years of searching the Supers trying to unlock their secrets. That manuscript has, to the best of my knowledge, never been found. Mitchell knew about it, and MIGHT have gotten it from Tumlinson's Daughter Janey. It MIGHT have been the source of information he used to write his book, but we don't know for certain.
Best-Mike