Cactusjumperwrote
All,
I have been accused of so many false practices on this, and other sites, that there is no way I can prove they are false. Some people will no longer reply to my posts because I have publicly posted true facts. They know they are true, but it does not fit their agenda.
I am up to my eyeballs in this crap and very tired of fighting the lies. One of the truths I have been speaking of was, I believe, recently confirmed by the Mod's, and one person was banned from this site, along with his other identity. This stuff has been going on for many, many years.
I do appreciate the words of encouragement and support that I have received from my friends and even from folks I have never met. It gives me hope that the truth still has some value to many people.
and
FEMF,
Sorry to say, anything that has touched Roberts as a possible source, IMHO is tainted. This "draft" is very suspicious in my opinion. Even though it does no harm to accept it at face value, it won't get anyone closer or farther away from the LDM. As a fan of history, I'm offended by such "in your face" fabrications. We see it daily from our politicians.
Joe, I have not attacked you over this. Not sure why you are interpreting the debate over a POSSIBLE piece of the puzzle (not proven, nor disproven) as an assault on
your character. As in, "in your face" and "I have been accused of so many false practices" .
I am not accusing you of false practices. You seem to agree that this bank draft really does not add nor subtract to anyone ever finding the Lost Dutchman's mine.
It is just not that big of a deal. It certainly won't make any difference in whether I will hunt for the mine or not, but that is just my opinion. Maybe Roberts fabricated it - maybe Laura Branstetter's family inherited it, I was not there when the document was being made, were you? I am leaning toward the document is genuine, on several factors
none of which involve Roberts. A side point here but if anything I said or posted has caused this interpretation as a personal attack, my sincere apologies, NO such offense was intended, and for that matter after this post I will happily
drop the subject rather than continue to offend a friend.
If the bank draft is genuine, does that rehabilitate Roberts as a truthful source? Not in my book; his information which served to virtually destroy the reputation of a great author on the Dutchman legend, weighs far too heavily. How was this person able to insinuate himself into the Dutch hunting community after all, and most effectively, but by mixing true history with falsehoods. Would that not be exactly the same case here? (A genuine bank draft, helping to make other information more acceptable) The genuine stuff tends to lend credence to a person like this, so we are less on guard against the false. I don't even credit him for bringing it forward, this I would say has to go to Laura Branstetter. Maybe Laura Branstetter made up the maps and bank draft? She was after all viewed as rather whacky by the news media, but based on her actions I have to think she believed her information was true and genuine. I suspect, but cannot prove, that Roberts obtained the draft or a copy of it, in the period when he was viewed as a highly respected authority on the LDM.
Heck even I have been privileged to see and hear some
very interesting tidbits over the years, shown to me by persons whom had some respect for me, and which was given in trust so cannot go into any details, and I am not even in the 'top ranks' of Dutch hunters at all. I know that Tom K , Clay Wurst and Robert Corbin have been shown things which were 'private' and some which they have made public (by permission of course) just as you have yourself Joe; have you not been privy to some very interesting information? I
suspect that was the case with the bank draft and Roberts.
If anyone wishes to launch a lawsuit against me for slander, rest assured that I have solid proof to back up my statements concerning the false information. In fact what made me accept the 'stuff' from that questionable source in the first place, was that some of what he had,
seemed to match what I had found myself, however he had introduced (or SOMEONE had)
subtle changes to that information, like adding Jacob Waltz to the Weaver party, which I hardly noticed until questions started to be raised. As I have copies of the original documents, and there is NO Waltz listed among the Weaver party, yet the version from this person has it, obviously
someone had altered the original. Hence I agree that anything originating or passing through the hands of this person deserves to be looked at harder than usual. Anyway if the moderators wish this post removed I will certainly do so, just wanted to clear the air.
Frankly I get tired of the constant naysaying,
overwhelming skepticism concerning the lost treasure topics; one would think this forum were for Skeptics magazine rather than where
treasure hunters meet online.
Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco
<Aren't we all? Seems to be a common aspect of most treasure hunters, which is a good thing - perseverance pays.>
