The Peralta Stones

[Springfield]

......See, when the Judge realized that both sides believed in the stones' authenticity, and he also likely heard the story of how they were found, he would have immediately thought of the Az. Antiquities Act. If the local or state authorities had the stones tested for age, and as a result, confiscated them, both the Cochranes and Mitchell would have screamed that the state had plotted to steal the stones from them.The logical thing to do (if you are a smart judge) would be to have an unbiased third party have the stones evaluated, which would cover his a$$. That was obviously done, and thanks to Bob Corbin, we know the outcome of whatever testing the FBI had done, and as a result of that unbiased third party evaluation, the court ordered both parties to donate the stones to a non-profit organization. If the stones were of modern origin, the court would have had absolutely no right nor reason to order any such donation. The ONLY way the court could have legally made such an order would be if the stones fell under the Antiquities Act. Hope that clears things up for ya.

Best-Mike

Not really. See post #1934 above. Summary: If the stones were discovered in 1947(9) as you claim is 'provable', then the Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960 does not apply. Since the stones were found at the Queen Creek crossing, as you claim is 'provable', then the Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 does not apply.

Sounds like some sort of legal chicanery to me. You may decide to hang your 'age of stones' hat on this and the 'FBI findings' (unsupported except by hearsay), but you haven't sold it. Sounds good till you look under the hood.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen: K, I will say one more thing about Tayopa since BB has located it in the superstitions?

I first started on the Tayopa trail in the late 1950's. and finally found it in the late 1900's.

It has been fun and a tremendous headache,but I would start on it again in the morning if I hadn't already found it.

Along the way I quickly found that one simply cannot make a shibboleth of any particular factor or author''s contributions. Most are built on quicksand, cross referencing, etc. and as progress is made, be ready to discard or file any questionable data, don't hang unto it as a life preserver for your ego. Don't go for broke on a single throw.

Mitchel was never at Tayopa nor was Dobie, but one of Dobies descriptions of camping on the El Toro grizzly bear area and the blowing of the cow horn was quite correct. He was camped at the entrance to the Paramo.

Nuggett Hunter, I know your neighbor Ron Eagle. We talked a few times after he learned that I have a bit of Mohican in me - it was a looong coold winter. sigh, they say that she was very cute.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. where is BB? I still want to see his Tayopa in the caves in the Superstitions.

 

[gollum]

If the stones were discovered in 1947(9) as you claim is 'provable', then the Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960 does not apply. Since the stones were found at the Queen Creek crossing, as you claim is 'provable',

Putting words in my mouth Spring? Please show me ONE TIME I ever said that either was 'provable'. What I HAVE stated several times is that "we only have Travis Tumlinson's word as to how he came to possess the stones." How does THAT equate to 'provable' to you? That's why I made such a big deal regarding him never being found to have lied about anything regarding the Stone Maps so I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you are going to 'quote' me, please quote me correctly.

Best-Mike

 

[Jim Hatt]

Roy,

In repeating something that someone told you, it is no great shakes to change one word, which can change the meaning of the entire exchange. For instance, if the FBI agent said I believe the stones are at least 100 years old, that is somewhat different than saying the FBI believes the stones are at least 100 years old.

The fact that the FBI Agent may have worked at the lab in DC, is somewhat differrent than saying the FBI had the stones and tested them there. It is more than possible that the one agent looked at them and offered his opinion based on what he observed.

Having the direct quote from the person involved, in this case Bob Corbin, makes all the difference in the world. Something may have gotten lost in transcribing what Greg read or heard, and it only takes one word.

I believe most of what is being quoted here, was made up after the fact, possibly due to one or two words being changed. In other words, people adding their own interpretation of events, based on an erroneous quote. The assumptions that have been made here are pure speculation, without a shred of documentation or evidence to support them.

This is just my opinion, based on what I believe to be the true facts.

Take care,

Joe

Still looking for a conspiracy aren't you Joe?

If you go back to 2005 when I first told the story about Bob Corbin and the FBI involvement with the stone maps, on the DUSA Website and look at it. I never quoted a single word Bob said. In fact I preceded the story with a statement that it had been 5 or more years since Bob told me the story, and I could not remember it word for word, and proceed to tell it as best I could remember it.

Back in May of 2005 after reading the story I wrote on DUSA. Greg Davis wrote to Bob requesting the details concerning the FBI investigation of the stone maps in his own words.

Greg emailed me a copy of Bob's reply. I looked it up for you and will include it below:

These are Bob Corbin's words written by himself for anyone that is interested:

From: Greg DavisDate: Tuesday, May 03, 2005
To: j.hatt@XXXXXXX
Subject: Stone Maps/Corbin

"It was approximately in the late 1960's, I believe, that I was at the U.S. Attorneys office in Phoenix, when one of the Deputy U.S. Attorneys told me that an FBI agent from the FBI laboratory in Washington DC was in their office. Apparently, the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory to see if they were recent fakes. He asked if I would like to speak with the agent since I was interested in the Lost Dutchman Mine and I said I would. I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found in analyzing the stone maps. He told me that they believed the maps were at least a hundred years old. To my recollection that's all he said about the maps.

Bob Corbin."


(Jim , Bob was not the attorney general at the time but working for the state or county in some legal capacity, Greg)

I believe most of what is being quoted here, was made up after the fact, possibly due to one or two words being changed. In other words, people adding their own interpretation of events, based on an erroneous quote. The assumptions that have been made here are pure speculation, without a shred of documentation or evidence to support them.

What do you believe now Joe?

I'd say my recollection of what Bob told me 5 years earlier was pretty darn good! Wouldn't you?

Best,

Jim

 

[cactusjumper]

I have a novel idea...

How about someone(s) contact Bob Corbin and ask him directly exactly what he recalls from that conversation with the FBI, and ask him if he would mind having his comment posted on a LDM forum?

I know more than a couple of you know how to get ahold of him.

Would be very nice to put this whole FBI discussion to rest once and for all and Bob's alive to tell us what he remembers.

Paul,

I did that last night, and lets just say that Jim's statement is incorrect, as I have already posted.

Your first clue might be how much Helen Corbin wrote about the Stone Maps in her books. Much of what she wrote came through Bob. Your second clue might be that Bob believes the Stone Maps are
"fakes".

Many of us involved in this discussion are using what we believe happened between Bob and the FBI agent as a building block in our belief that the maps are authentic.

It's a beautiful day in Lake Havasu City. Hope everyone is the same.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Jim Hatt]

Paul,

I did that last night, and lets just say that Jim's statement is incorrect, as I have already posted.

Joe

What's up Joe?

You don't believe the copy of Bob's own written words from 2005 I already posted are good enough?
I am sure Greg could probably send you a copy of the email he sent me, it you think I rearranged, changed or omitted some words.

Best,

Jim

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI Gully, mi buddy: You posted -->RDT (Does that stand for Really Dirty Tramp?
*******
Ha, you should see me after riding a mule for weeks and climbing in the bottom of trackless, uninhabited Canyons perhaps 3-5000 ft deep, temp. hitting 130 F ,and no breeze, except for that stirred up by the millions of sweat flies that are covering me and the mule.

Not enough water to bathe or shave, just enough to drink, and that probably consisted mainly of disintegrating bugs, soaked in mule sweat, sigh and I wondered why I never made much of a hit with the occasional Indian gals that I met. Oh well, I was faithful to my lovely mule.

This is fun and adventure ?? YEP, after it was over, loved it. I am a masochist like you gully.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Oro will be skinny after we get through with him.

 

[cactusjumper]

I suppose my question would be, how did this:

"It was approximately in the late 1960's, I believe, that I was at the U.S. Attorneys office in Phoenix, when one of the Deputy U.S. Attorneys told me that an FBI agent from the FBI laboratory in Washington DC was in their office. Apparently, the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory to see if they were recent fakes. He asked if I would like to speak with the agent since I was interested in the Lost Dutchman Mine and I said I would. I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found in analyzing the stone maps. He told me that they believed the maps were at least a hundred years old. To my recollection that's all he said about the maps.

Bob Corbin."

turn into this:

[Another misconception is that Mitchell donated the stones to the Flagg Foundation for a tax write off. According to a conversation I had with Bob Corbin, that donation resulted from something more similar to a plea bargain.

ie: Although not word for word. This is basically what Bob told me....
A dispute arose between Mitchell and people that had invested in his efforts to solve where the maps lead to. When all efforts failed to find the treasure, one of the main investors wanted SOMETHING to show for the money they had invested in the project, and demanded that Mitchell give them the stone maps in return for their investment.

Mitchell refused, and a legal dispute was filed with the State Attorney's Office where Bob Corbin was a Deputy Attorney. The stones were eventually confiscated, when someone in that office began to look at them as possibly being covered by the Antiquities Act because of where Mitchell claimed that Tumlinson had found them. (On Government land). The FBI was asked to examine the stones to determine if they were old enough to be covered by the Antiquities Act, giving the Government the right to claim ownership to them, ending the legal dispute over ownership.

The conclusion reached by the FBI was that (in their opinion) they were at least 100 years old (Back in the 1960's when the evaluation was made). Since this was only an OPINION and not a proven FACT the State Attorney's Office was weary of confiscating the stones under the Antiquities Act, because they were unsure if the FBI's OPINION would hold up in court if it came to that. Mitchell was facing the possibility of being prosecuted for violation of the Antiquities Act.

The State was faced with coming up with more evidence than just the FBI's “opinion” about the age of the stones, and was perusing that avenue in order to move in that direction, when everyone agreed that it would be simpler to just donate the stones to a non-profit organization, and avoid a lengthy and expensive court trial for both sides.

Mitchell may, or may not have received a tax deduction for the donation. In either case, that would not be relevant to the authenticity of the stone maps.

The bottom line is... Yes Mitchell donated the maps to the Flagg Foundation, but it was done under duress, to avoid the possibility of a lengthy court trial, and legal fees to defend himself against possible charges of violation of the Antiquities Act.

Since it was actually Tumlinson that was "supposed" to have found them and perhaps removed them illegally, the State's case would have been difficult to prove against Mitchell, but he was in possession of them, and therefore considered accountable.

It was a big mess with a number of possible outcomes in the end, and a lot of legal expenses on both sides if it went to trial. It should be easy for anyone to see why in the end, everyone agreed to the idea of donating the stones to the Flagg Foundation and avoiding litigation.

It is unfortunate for all of us that trial never took place. It would have included a lot of testimony made under oath, about who, what, when and where the stone maps were found, and the history about them from that point on, and prevented most of the speculation, and false information being circulated today.

Jim Hatt]
_____________________________________________

I don't believe any conspiracy took place......that's your characterization of what you believe about me. It has nothing to do with the facts, much like most of the quote above, it's all supposition.

Bob Corbin was closest to the "FBI" story. If the conversation you claim took place as you have stated it, wouldn't Bob believe what you believe? Bob is one of the most intelligent men we have ever met. His recall of past events in his life is amazing. What you have written above is almost pure fiction, dreamed up by Jim Hatt. For the most part, the events that took place after that meeting are your own "facts".

We all make mistakes. That would include Bob Corbin, Greg Davis, Joe Ribaudo and Jim Hatt. It happens.

There are some key words and phrases in Bob's statement: "I believe; Apparently; they believed and, To my recollection".

Somewhere in your long story of the events that took place, there has to be one piece of documentation. Show us any of that evidence.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

All,

One last thing. Bob Corbin is aware of the conversation that is taking place here. It's not my place, nor will I speak for Bob. If he decides he wants to get involved in these "facts", I believe he will do
it in his own time and in his own way.

That's my final word on the FBI thingie.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Jim Hatt]

Come'on Joe,

Bob and I sat beside the campfire for an hour or more talking about the stone maps. He told me the whole story that led up to the FBI investigation, and I repeated it as best I could remember it from 5 years earlier. (at that time)

Greg only asked Bob for the details about the FBI involvement with the maps, and that is what Bob replied to.

If you think I made any of the rest of it up. Send the whole story to Bob and ask him if any of it is wrong.

Your trying to nit-pick at single words in a statement that starts with "Although not word for word. This is basically what Bob told me...." about a conversation that took place "10 years" before that post was made, is rather childish don't you think?


The real question is... What did the FBI say to Bob in the late 60's? and I think that has been answered very clearly.

Best,

Jim

 

[Jim Hatt]

All,

One last thing. Bob Corbin is aware of the conversation that is taking place here. It's not my place, nor will I speak for Bob. If he decides he wants to get involved in these "facts", I believe he will do
it in his own time and in his own way.

That's my final word on the FBI thingie.

Joe Ribaudo

Thank you Joe,

And... I might add that he has been aware of the story I told on DUSA since I posted it in 2005 also. If he had any problem with the way I told the story. Don't you think he would have spoken up (to someone) long before now, or mentioned it in his letter to Greg back then?

Bob Corbin was closest to the "FBI" story. If the conversation you claim took place as you have stated it, wouldn't Bob believe what you believe?

If you are talking about the authenticity of the stone maps. Why should Bob believe what I believe? I have already stated in another post, either here or in the DUSA forums. That Bob told me, that when he heard what the FBI had to say about the age of the maps. He did the math and came to the conclusion that they were probably somehow linked to the Reavis Land Grant Fraud of that period, (100 years prior to the late 60's) and never gave the stone maps any more thought.

That was back in the late 60's. I have no idea what Bob thinks of them today, I haven't asked him.

Sheeeeeeeeese! Give me a break!

Best,

Jim

 

[Cubfan64]

Good to know Bob's aware of the discussion here since his name is being used quite a bit

I wouldn't blame him a bit if he chose to avoid the discussion at this point, but if he does, it would be good to hear him sum things up.

 

[gollum]

Personally,

I would LOVE to have Bob Corbin chime in and state definitively what he said and didn't say. I would value his opinion and memory over most anybody alive that had anything to do with the Stone Maps (although that is a rather small group currently).

I base a lot of what I believe about the authenticity of the Stone Maps on his story. If he came out and stated that the story was different, or that the FBI Agent didn't say that, then I would have to reevaluate my beliefs about the stones.

Remember, I am not locked into anything. I just go where logic and the evidence takes me. I take everything in, look for corroborating evidence, and work from there. I'm a pretty sharp guy, and intellectually honest. If I find something that runs against what I currently believe, I don't ignore it. I take it in, and based on how conclusive it is, add weight to either the "authentic" or "fake" side of the scale.

If he is reading this and doesn't want to enter the fray (so to speak), please feel free to email or PM me any time. If you wish, I will keep anything you say or feel in the strictest confidence. I can provide character witnesses! HAHAHA

Best-Mike

 

[Jim Hatt]

Paul,

There isn't much that get's past Bob!

If he did happen to miss something, you can bet that either Tom K. or Greg D. would catch it and bring it to his attention!

I doubt that Bob will ever make a post in the T-Net forums, but you never know

As far as his name being mentioned goes... I have never seen anything posted anywhere on the Internet about him, that he might be offended by. If it ever happened. I am positive that you would see a multitude of responses in his defense!!!!!!

Best,

Jim

 

[Jim Hatt]

Personally,

I would LOVE to have Bob Corbin chime in and state definitively what he said and didn't say.......

If he came out and stated that the story was different, or that the FBI Agent didn't say that, then I would have to reevaluate my beliefs about the stones.

Best-Mike

Good morning Mike,

You might have missed it above, but these are Bob's "exact words" about what an "FBI agent from the FBI laboratory in Washington DC" told him, taken from a letter he wrote to Greg Davis back in May of 2005, and Greg sent me a copy of.

"It was approximately in the late 1960's, I believe, that I was at the U.S. Attorneys office in Phoenix, when one of the Deputy U.S. Attorneys told me that an FBI agent from the FBI laboratory in Washington DC was in their office. Apparently, the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory to see if they were recent fakes. He asked if I would like to speak with the agent since I was interested in the Lost Dutchman Mine and I said I would. I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found in analyzing the stone maps. He told me that they believed the maps were at least a hundred years old. To my recollection that's all he said about the maps.

Bob Corbin."

It should put to rest for all time, what the FBI told him, but I suspect that the debate will still go on and on, for all time, because it ruins some people's theories, or conflicts with their personal agenda.

Best,

Jim

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS

I find it interesting that while so much importance is given to his opinion regarding the Govt Agent's opinion, none is given to HIS on REAVIS

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[somehiker]

REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS REAVIS

I find it interesting that while so much importance is given to his opinion regarding the Govt Agent's opinion, none is given to HIS on REAVIS

Don Jose de La Mancha

Hi Don:
Jim said:"If you are talking about the authenticity of the stone maps. Why should Bob believe what I believe? I have already stated in another post, either here or in the DUSA forums. That Bob told me, that when he heard what the FBI had to say about the age of the maps. He did the math and came to the conclusion that they were probably somehow linked to the Reavis Land Grant Fraud of that period, (100 years prior to the late 60's) and never gave the stone maps any more thought."
If the extent of Mr. Corbin's interest in the stone maps was limited to the FBI agent's statement and the results of the Moel case,it is not surprising that a bit of mental math,by itself , would bring to mind the Reavis legal case.Especially for a lawyer familiar with the legal history of Arizona.
I suspect that if he were to develop an interest in the Stone Maps ,the weight of evidence would lead to a different view.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

All,

I received Bob's permission to post our exchanges from last night and today at 12:16 this afternoon. I have included my email to him that prompted his reply. This is that email:

From: Robert Corbin
Date: 06/18/10 18:58:59
To: Joe Ribaudo
Subject: Re: FBI Stuff.......

Joe I don't know anything about what is in your e-mail other than what I have previously said and that was I was visiting a friend in the US Attorneys office and he said that an FBI agent was in the office who had investigated the stone maps to see if they were a fraud and who worked in their lab in DC. I asked him what he had found and he to;d me that in his opinion that they were at least 100 years old. That is it,the rest of the statements in your e-mail I never said nor do I know anything about them. I don't know how the US Attorneys office in Phoenix got the stones nor why they were investigating them. I do not know a Mitchell or anything about him. The Antiquities Act is a federal act and is enforced by the federal government and not the state. I was never a Deputy US Attorney, I was a Deputy County Attorney and a County Attorney. To my knowledge we never confiscated the stone maps so we could have never made any deals with anyone. If there was any deals made I sure wasn't involved and I never knew anything about them. If they were made it would have been with the US Attorneys office. In other words Jim is sure putting a lot of words in my mouth which I never said. Hope this answers your e-mail but if it hasn't let me know. By the way, Tom Kollenborn. told me about Jim and what he was saying I said but not in detail. I told Tom that every thing I have ever said about the maps was what the FBI agent told me that day and that was it. In fact I think the stone maps are fake anyway. Bob

On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Joe Ribaudo wrote:


Hi Bob,

Hope all is well up there and you are enjoying the warmer weather. We are both doing fine.

Been following a conversation about the Stone Maps that has morphed into quotes from you. Jim Hatt has made most of the claims, so I have my doubts as to their veracity. Here is the gist of it:
_________________________________________________________________

[Another misconception is that Mitchell donated the stones to the Flagg Foundation for a tax write off. According to a conversation I had with Bob Corbin, that donation resulted from something more similar to a plea bargain.

I.e.: Although not word for word. This is basically what Bob told me....
A dispute arose between Mitchell and people that had invested in his efforts to solve where the maps lead to. When all efforts failed to find the treasure, one of the main investors wanted SOMETHING to show for the money they had invested in the project, and demanded that Mitchell give them the stone maps in return for their investment.

Mitchell refused, and a legal dispute was filed with the State Attorney's Office where Bob Corbin was a Deputy Attorney. The stones were eventually confiscated, when someone in that office began to look at them as possibly being covered by the Antiquities Act because of where Mitchell claimed that Tumlinson had found them. (On Government land). The FBI was asked to examine the stones to determine if they were old enough to be covered by the Antiquities Act, giving the Government the right to claim ownership to them, ending the legal dispute over ownership.

(I assume this means that someone in your office made the request of the FBI.)

The conclusion reached by the FBI was that (in their opinion) they were at least 100 years old (Back in the 1960's when the evaluation was made). Since this was only an OPINION and not a proven FACT the State Attorney's Office was weary of confiscating the stones under the Antiquities Act, because they were unsure if the FBI's OPINION would hold up in court if it came to that. Mitchell was facing the possibility of being prosecuted for violation of the Antiquities Act.

The State was faced with coming up with more evidence than just the FBI's “opinion” about the age of the stones, and was perusing that avenue in order to move in that direction, when everyone agreed that it would be simpler to just donate the stones to a non-profit organization, and avoid a lengthy and expensive court trial for both sides.

Mitchell may, or may not have received a tax deduction for the donation. In either case, that would not be relevant to the authenticity of the stone maps.

The bottom line is... Yes Mitchell donated the maps to the Flagg Foundation, but it was done under duress, to avoid the possibility of a lengthy court trial, and legal fees to defend himself against possible charges of violation of the Antiquities Act.

Since it was actually Tumlinson that was "supposed" to have found them and perhaps removed them illegally, the State's case would have been difficult to prove against Mitchell, but he was in possession of them, and therefore considered accountable.

It was a big mess with a number of possible outcomes in the end, and a lot of legal expenses on both sides if it went to trial. It should be easy for anyone to see why in the end, everyone agreed to the idea of donating the stones to the Flagg Foundation and avoiding litigation.

It is unfortunate for all of us that trial never took place. It would have included a lot of testimony made under oath, about who, what, when and where the stone maps were found, and the history about them from that point on, and prevented most of the speculation, and false information being circulated today.

Jim Hatt]
_____________________________________________________

I received Bob's permission to post his email, after I sent him a link to this site so he could read the comments for himself. It's better to let Bob speak for himself: "Joe you can use the above and the previous e-mail any way you want and if I can be of any further help let me know because I would like to see what I have actually said regarding the stone maps straightened out. Bob Corbin".

So there you have it.

Concerning the Stone Maps, I have no "agenda" other than trying to find the truth. As for a theory, of course I have one, just as all of you do. Mine has evolved over 35 years of research and searching the Stone Map Trail.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Springfield]

If the stones were discovered in 1947(9) as you claim is 'provable', then the Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960 does not apply. Since the stones were found at the Queen Creek crossing, as you claim is 'provable',

Putting words in my mouth Spring? Please show me ONE TIME I ever said that either was 'provable'. What I HAVE stated several times is that "we only have Travis Tumlinson's word as to how he came to possess the stones." How does THAT equate to 'provable' to you? That's why I made such a big deal regarding him never being found to have lied about anything regarding the Stone Maps so I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you are going to 'quote' me, please quote me correctly.

Best-Mike

Sorry, Mike, I was was wrong. You are, of course, correct - we only have Tumlinson's word for the provenance of the stones. Most 'treasure' legends require a leap of faith at some point for the pilgrim to proceed. In this case, as in most, it occurs at the very beginning. A building is only as strong as it's foundation.

 

[Jim Hatt]

Thanks for posting that Joe,

A careful reading of it leaves a lot of room for possible misunderstandings, about what I remembered concerning which Attorney's office (U.S. or State) was involved in each phase of the process. It appears that Bob thinks I said that he was personally involved with the investigation beginning to end, which I never did say. I related Bob's personal involvement with the case only to his conversation with the FBI, what they told him, and his explanation to me about why they were confiscated in the first place. I did not place those first two paragraphs in quotes, because as I stated before beginning "I.e.: Although not word for word. This is basically what Bob told me...."


The rest (beginning with "The conclusion reached by the FBI") is just a recap of the know history of the case, In MY words, and I never attributed them to Bob, or mentioned his name again.

If there was any deals made I sure wasn't involved and I never knew anything about them. If they were made it would have been with the US Attorneys office. In other words Jim is sure putting a lot of words in my mouth which I never said.

It appears to me that the only thing Bob is taking exception to, is who was involved with the deal that was made, and incorrectly assuming that my story puts him chin deep in the case from beginning to end. In which case, I would fully understand his confusion over what "I" said "he said". I believe a short discussion between him and I could clear that up without any problem.

Now that we know he is following the discussion, we can only wait to see if he feels things need to be clarified any further or not.


Other than that... The "meat" of the matter remains the same, and pretty solidly confirmed. The FBI Labs in Washington D.C. concluded that in their opinion the stone maps were at least 100 years old when they examined them in the late 60's. The rest is nit-picking at things that have no bearing on the matter. It is all just Mitchell and stone map history that can be verified from a number of different sources and Bob never researched, because as He and I have both already stated. He didn't think they were worth his time to look into.

If Bob decides to join the discussion, I will return to it too. Otherwise, I have nothing further to add to it.

Best,

Jim