Travis Tumlinson and the Stone Maps

[novice]

You guys are all too easily swayed.

We met Joe a couple of days later and away we went. We had been aware of the chimney site for a few years but the image that I had conjured up in my mind was a far cry from what we encountered. I had an image of a chimney that was cobble stone construction with lots of chinking. I believed we would find Travis’s carvings scratched in the chinking. I was way off base.

What we found was a vine covered chimney that had been made from fairly massive quarried sandstone blocks. The stones were about 8 inches thick, with varying widths and lengths. (My tape measure was on the other side of a barbed wire fence.) The carvings were actually on the face of the sandstone blocks themselves.

We could see carvings through the vines, so Joe and I began pulling the vines away to see everything clearly and take some pictures. We spent about 15 or 20 minutes trying to clear the large face of the chimney as high as we could reach.

There were a lot of miscellaneous names and dates on the chimney but all of the “images”, except one, appear to have been created by Travis. Someone had tried a small pistol and it was in among some other scratching and barely recognizable. There were two separate areas that Travis worked in. One where Travis’s name appears amid several figures tied together by arrows, and a second area, higher on the chimney face.

This photo is of the cabin in where Travis Tumlinson carved his name and added several figures. You can see the vines on the chimney and the log construction. There was a single carving on the right side of the chimney. It was a date of 1876. This may represent the date the chimney and cabin were built and it would fit within the time line for the settlement of the area. The carvings on the front face and left side were dated almost 50 years later. (Mostly 1923-1924)



This photo is an overview of the chimney after Joe and I had pulled the vines away to expose the carvings. You can begin to gain a sense of the chimney construction and the size of sandstone blocks. This is only a guesstimate but I would put the chimney at between 15 and 18 feet tall.



The area where Travis had carved at least some of his text and figures had survived unscathed. I will call it Travis’s “mural” for want of a better word. The arrows he added appear to tie all of the figures he drew in this “mural” together.

Travis also carved another image in the area above the “mural”.

I’m also going to post a cartoon I created that gives an overview and orientation of his carvings on the chimney.



I will add some of the photos of Travis’s chimney carvings in the next post.

Garry

[alan m]

Hello Joe
I read your post and must admit I am coffused.
It strikes me odd that with all the research you and others have done on the history and the stone tablets that you seem to be so easily convinced that the latest about Travis having carved the tablets is true.
Is there anything in your achives from your research that cast the slightest doubt?
As I have said in post before, I found a spanish base camp exactly where the tablets indicate that it should be. That along with a plethora of other information which I am not ready to divulge give cause for me to doubt the truth about Travis carving the stones.
Is it not possible that the Tumlinson Family have gotten sick and tired of being hounded by every treasure hunter from New York to California asking about Travis and the stone tablets?
Perhaps they just want the whole thing to go away and would like to enjoy a little peace and privacy.
Just my opinion
Best Regards
Alan

[Cubfan64]

Alan, I know your post was directed to Joe, but I wanted to toss my $0.02 into the mix.

I think the research Garry has done/is doing regarding tracing the history of the Stone Maps has a lot of merit. In my opinion, the more factual and documented the history of them becomes, the easier it is to try to make an educated opinion as to their true origins and thus, their true reason for existence.

I don't have a dog in this race mostly because I just haven't done anything to try to figure out "on the ground" where I think the Stone Maps could lead. The main reason is because I think it could very well be a lifelong endeavor, and I just have a hard time at this point putting all my eggs in that one basket and spending that kind of time running down something that there's just as much chance they are fraudulent as not. Perhaps if I lived in the area and had time to get out there every day or more often than a week a year, I might spend more time on them, but alas that's gonna have to wait awhile I'm afraid.

I don't doubt that you found a landmark that you believe is identified clearly on the Stone Maps, but just in the last few years alone I can come up with almost a dozen other people who are equally convinced they've found markings and locations that exactly match up with the Stone Maps also - and my guess is most if not all of you are in different locations. That certainly doesn't mean 1 of you can't be right, but it does mean you can't all, and yet each person has been firmly convinced they are on the right path.

Your theory that perhaps the Tumlinsons' just want the whole thing to go away could be spot on and has merit, unfortunatley it just proves my point that EVERY theory has some merit when it comes to the Stone Maps.

The one thing that always struck me from the moment I saw photographs of copies of the Stone Maps is that the Trail Stones and inserts had an "authentic" look to me - they weren't as finely or precisely done in my opinion, whereas the Priest/Horse Stone always had that cartoonish/finished look to it to suit my taste. Again, that's my opinion and likely not worth 2 bits since I have yet to look out there for signs that they may lead somewhere.

Garry's story and research is however interesting to me, and if it's like anything else Dutchman/Superstition Mountains, it will probably leave as many if not more questions to be asked than it does answer them - but then again it wouldn't be any fun if it didn't . I'm also looking forward to seeing how Garry's research eventually meshes with that of Azmula when/if his article makes the SMHS Journal one of these days.

Paul

[novice]

These photos are from different sections of the Chimney and you may want to refer back to the cartoon for orientation.

Travis was born in 1910 and he would have been about 13 or 14 when he dated the carvings.

This first photo is an overview of Travis's “mural”. You may have to download the photo and blow it up to see the details. It is difficult to pick out the bicycle and automobile.



The second photo is a clearer image of the bicycle and automobile. Although these images are not cut as deeply as the others they do reflect more intricate details.



The third photo is a carving above the “mural”. There is another head, similar to the head in the mural, along with a turtle.



Thinking out loud.

I can understand why a young boy might have a fascination with guns, cars and bicycles but why a turtle?

Travis Tumlinson’s grandfather was John “Pegleg” Tumlinson. Pegleg had died only 4 years before Travis made these carvings. In J Frank Dobies’ book, Coronado’s Children, he included two treasure stories involving Pegleg. It’s not a long stretch to believe that Travis was steeped in treasure stories from a young age.

Coronado’s Children has a section devoted to Spanish Treasure Symbols and one of those symbols was a turtle. While Travis certainly didn’t pick up the turtle from Dobie, who published his book in 1930, he may well have been aware of the turtle symbol.

I jumping ahead a bit here but in Travis’s manuscript, he devotes several pages to treasure symbols and he also includes a turtle.

If you do an internet search on (Spanish treasure symbols turtle), it appears that the turtle may have been a popular treasure symbol that has been in use for a long time.

While these carvings obviously have nothing to do with the stone maps, I believe they do add weight to the family story that Travis carved the Peralta Stone Maps.

We now know that when Travis was 14 years old he was carving images in sandstone surfaces that required a considerable amount of time, effort and skill.

He may have even added a Spanish Treasure Symbol?

Garry

[Mike McChesney]

Garry,

Your research is always above reproach, BUUUUUUT, as the President said to the General in the movie "The Fifth Element" : "I HAVE A DOUBT."

Janie was very young when her dad passed away in 1961. Even much younger when he was actively pursuing the stone maps.

I have a very good source that knew TT very well and has stated to me in no uncertain terms that Travis in no way hoaxed the stones. Because of things said to me in confidence, I can't say the name of the person, but when I get home tonight, I will include a few relevant quotes from this person that cause me to have doubts about what Janie told you 13 years ago.

There are only two possibilities for the truth here:

1. What Janie told you was not true for whatever reasons she might have had (I have to agree with alan's thoughts on the matter). If my source gives me permission to say who they are, everything will be very apparent.

2. What was told to me was not true (for whatever reasons this person might have had).

In the meantime, I will post the same questions here I posted on another forum regarding this subject:

I put it to you:

1. If TT carved the stone maps himself, then why did he take almost a dozen secret trips into the Supers trying to solve them?

2. Why did he NEVER attempt to sell them?

3. Why did he keep them (for the most part) a complete secret from 1949 until his death in 1961?

4. Since Robert Tumlinson was Travis' Uncle, then why would Travis have given him the stones and let him spend several years and much of his meager pension traveling to Arizona trying to solve them?

5. Since Clarence Mitchell was a family friend of the Tumlinsons, then why did he not know that Travis carved them?

6. Since Clarence Mitchell was a family friend, then why didn't Aileen tell him that Travis had carved the stones?

7. If Mitchell knew that Travis had carved the stones, then why did he keep their existence a secret from 1961 until the Life Magazine Article came out in 1964?

I have always said that in order to get a true and accurate picture of a person, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do! The actions of Travis Tumlinson are ABSOLUTELY not those of a man that had carved the stone maps himself.

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Okay,

Here are some excerpts from a conversation of about two months ago:

[You]
Report · 1:15am
Absolutely. There are a lot of people that claim that the stone maps are a hoax and Travis was part of it. I have always said that a person's actions speak volumes, and Travis' actions were not those of someone perpetrating a hoax, after all, he kept their existence mostly a secret from 1949 until he passed away in 1961.

[NAME DELETED]
Report · 1:17am
you're right he wasn't perpetrating a hoax and he did keep their existence pretty much a secret all that time.

First, I have to say that I had to change a few words of the quote to obfuscate my source, but the main theme of the text is complete and true.

There are some other quotes I wanted to include, but it would be impossible to do without either changing too much of the correspondence or giving up the name or relationship to Travis T. If I get permission to do so, I will gladly post it. Until then;

Enjoy-Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

Garry has no dog in this fight. He is only interested in the accuracy of the information and history that is being presented. He does the best research that is possible and available to him. That means that he may not be able to interview all of the sources available to the world at large. That would be especially true when the source is held in secret, such as yours.

With Garry, whatever he learns, he shares. He only holds back what he is told in confidence. He is not looking for any hidden treasure, only hidden history. I have never met anyone who digs into his history as thoroughly as Garry, along with his wife, and Larry.

It may be that you are just as good but, like many things in the treasure hunting game, many of us will be long dead before the facts are known. I understand how and why that is so but with Garry, we won't get the perpetual manana.......

Garry is presenting the evidence that he has found. It's up to each one of us how much faith we put in his research. After working with him for a number of years now, I no longer doubt anything he tells me. He remains the best, IMHO, at what he does, and I know some pretty good researchers.

Take care,

Joe

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

I have still never put any real effort into solving the stone maps. If I lived closer, then maybe I would have, but there are a lot of deserts and mountains between here and there. LOL

I didn't really need the speech because I have absolute faith in that if Garry says it was said to him, then it was so. I have absolutely zero reasons to doubt anything he says. I only doubt that the information given to him was accurate and true.

I am only waiting on a return email giving me permission to use my source's true identity. It should not take longer than 24 hours. I don't know their holiday schedule, or when they will next check their email.

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Also,

I am glad that you support Garry's Research as much as I do, but you did not address any of the questions I asked. If a person is to believe that Travis Tumlinson hoaxed the stone maps, then those questions need to answered. Wouldn't you agree?

Mike

[novice]

I had kind of hoped to finish relating the account of our tour with Joe on February 16, 2011, but I also want to try and address some of the questions raised by Alan and Mike. I don’t want anyone to believe I’m ignoring their concerns. While I doubt that my thoughts will move anyone much, I will offer them anyway.

Alan wrote: Is it not possible that the Tumlinson Family have gotten sick and tired of being hounded by every treasure hunter from New York to California asking about Travis and the stone tablets?

That was certainly not my sense from Larry’s initial and subsequent contacts. Larry did ask Janie if she had been in contact with anyone in the LDM community previously and her answer was no. Janie was extremely candid about the family, warts and all. If she felt she was being hounded, she had a strange way of expressing those feelings.

I will offer another personal observation about treasure hunters. Show them a map and their immediate reaction is where does it lead and away they go. They spend little if any time researching the provenance of the map. This may explain why Larry was apparently the first person to approach Janie about the stone maps.

Mike, it wasn’t 13 years ago that we visited with Janie it was 2008 and about 2 1/2 years ago. I had never heard of the Peralta Stone Maps until 2005.

Mike makes a great point when he talks about the age of Janie when her father died. He mother would die a couple of years later. I doubt that Travis ever sat Janie down and said. “I carved the Stone Maps”. I also expect that many of the stories that Janie passed on came to her via and older generation of family members. She lived in that general area with Travis’s sister’s family when growing up.

I will also offer some thoughts on Mike's questions and I don’t want to come across as being flippant by asking questions to questions but until we are able to view the evidence that Mike’s statements are based on, it’s hard to address them in detail.

Mike wrote: I put it to you:

1. If TT carved the stone maps himself, then why did he take almost a dozen secret trips into the Supers trying to solve them?

Why do you suggest that Travis took “secret” trips to the Superstitions? It seems to me there were people aware of his trips very early on.

2. Why did he NEVER attempt to sell them?

Didn’t Uncle Bob tell Love in the Peck letters that Travis was crazy to sell the stones?

3. Why did he keep them (for the most part) a complete secret from 1949 until his death in 1961?

I have seen nothing that would indicate to me that Travis did try to keep the maps a secret.

4. Since Robert Tumlinson was Travis' Uncle, then why would Travis have given him the stones and let him spend several years and much of his meager pension traveling to Arizona trying to solve them?

Why do you believe Travis “gave” Robert the stones? The Davis brothers suggest that Robert took the stones. We also know from the Peck letters that Robert and Travis had a serious falling out at some point. Janie told a story that might be related involving Travis and Robert and a shot being fired.

5. Since Clarence Mitchell was a family friend of the Tumlinsons, then why did he not know that Travis carved them?

6. Since Clarence Mitchell was a family friend, then why didn't Aileen tell him that Travis had carved the stones?

Why are we to “assume” that Clarence Mitchell and Travis Tumlinson were family friends? Janie had a different “story”.

7. If Mitchell knew that Travis had carved the stones, then why did he keep their existence a secret from 1961 until the Life Magazine Article came out in 1964?

Again I see no evidence that Clarence Mitchell made any conscious effort to keep the stone maps a “secret”. The more people aware of them the better. The first chance Mitchell had to spread the word in a national magazine article, he jumped on it.

Garry

[Mike McChesney]

Garry,

Going back through my correspondences, my source just asked that I not reveal her contact information, or how I found her, so that I will not do, but I will say now that my source is/was Janie Tumlinson. Our conversation happened about two months ago. That is how I found out about what type of car that is in the picture with the stones on its bumper and more.

Here are most of our texts from first contact:

[You]
Report · 1:02am
Thanks. No, you don't know me. One of my interests is researching the engraved stones your father found in 1949.

[Janie Tumlinson ******]
Report · 1:03am
I remember them well

[You]
Report · 1:04am
So little is known about your parents. Only second hand information from friends and Clarence Mitchell. A lot of crazy stories

[Janie Tumlinson *********]
Report · 1:04am
yes I agree

[You]
Report · 1:05am
The only reason anybody knows you exist is as a result of a letter written by a Richard Peck in 1965

[Janie Tumlinson ********]
Report · 1:06am
Never heard of him but I seem to be in quite a few places on the internet. Who was Richard Peck

[You]
Report · 1:07am
He was trying to enter a partnership with Clarence Mitchell (he had money), and he sent private investigators to Hood River to find out what they could about your parents.

[Janie Tumlinson *********]
Report · 1:09am
Arre you related to Mr Peck?

[You]
Report · 1:09am
If you go to http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... eralta.htm scroll down to the "Richard Peck Story". You will see the letters from he and his investigators.
No relation at all. I have just been trying to run down as much history on the Stone Maps as I could for the last 10 or so years.

[Janie Tumlinson ********]
Report · 1:12am
history?

[You]
Report · 1:15am
Absolutely. There are a lot of people that claim that the stone maps are a hoax and your father was part of it. I have always said that a person's actions speak volumes, and your father's actions were not those of someone perpetrating a hoax, after all, he kept their existence mostly a secret from 1949 until he passed away in 1961.

[Janie Tumlinson *********]
Report · 1:17am
you're right he wasn't perpetrating a hoax and he did keep their existence pretty much a secret all that time.

[You]
Report · 1:18am
See, I live in Los Angeles. I am a little far from Apache Junction, Arizona to spend much time in the Superstitions trying to run down theories on solutions to the stones. What I have been doing for several years is to try and separate the wheat from the chaff (so to speak) when it comes to the stories regarding your father, Clarence Mitchell, MOEL Inc, and all the different stories.

[Janie Tumlinson ************]
Report · 1:19am
i/m so glad you found me. I am writing a book about my life, including all the past history of my family.
I am continually gathering information about forefathers, their lives and the stones

[You]
Report · 1:21am
Anything I can do to help, just let me know. I personally believe that the stone maps are authentic (Jesuit from the 1700s or Mexican from the 1800s I don't know). In the Peck Letters, he mentions two things 1. Another stone that had an Indian Face on it 2. A manuscript your father wrote regarding his adventures with the stone maps. Do you know anything about either of those? Peck seems to think you took the manuscript to Texas and your Great Uncle Robert T. told one of his investigators about the other stone

[Janie Tumlinson ********]
Report · 1:23am
Yes, I have the manuscript he wrote and remember him sitting at the typewriter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Janie Tumlinson **********]
Report · 1:38am
Ok, that would be great. I would appreciate it if you keep my [personal contact information] as quiet as you can. I have had others in the past find me but I haven't welcomed it. I [more personal information]

As you can see from the bold red texts that she specifically said her dad did not hoax the stone maps. She also agreed that he kept them pretty much a secret while he had them.

In Garry's post he states that she told him he was the first to contact her, then in our conversation she said she had been found previously "but did not welcome it." So, since Garry was the first to find her, she must have been speaking about him when she sad that to me. This may be why she said what she did about her dad carving the stones. Likely she figured that if everybody thought her dad hoaxed the stones, then they would lose interest and she could use her maiden name and write her book in peace.

My general impression is that she is very frustrated at not being able to use her maiden name without people running her down and asking a million questions about her dad and the stone maps.

So there you have it. My secret source! LOL

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Garry,

I hope you noticed that I referred her to your website! HAHAHA

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Garry,
In response to your quote from Elbert Love's Letter concerning Bob Tumlinson's statement that "Travis was crazy to sell the stones", I think you should reread the entire letter.

First; Love states that Bob did not know Travis was dead. He only knew that Mitchell had bought the stones. Bob must have wrongly assumed that Travis sold them. Not one person has ever made the pronouncement that Travis had ever attempted to sell the stones.

When I say he kept them mostly a secret while he had them, that does not mean he didn't show them to some close friends and make plans with them to try and recover any treasure. I have a few sites here in California that I have been working on for many years. Even though I may have shown them to a couple of people I know, does not mean that I have not kept them mostly a secret. There are two that are so obvious I could get an article in National Geographic if I wanted to publish the site. Travis could have easily gotten the Life Magazine Article himself if he had wanted.

Mikle

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

Let me see if I have this correct......

Larry Webb contacted Janie back in 2007. She told him that Travis had carved the Stone Maps himself.

In 2008, 2010 and 2011, Garry and Carol visited Janie and her family in person. Her story never changed, and they were welcomed into her home, as well as being introduced to other members of the family and welcomed into their homes.* In most of that time, Garry maintained contact with the family.

That's five years of personal contact where their stories never changed. There is no mention of Janie writing a book. In addition to that, additional informatio was given to Garry which helped to support Janie's original story.

Now, two months ago, the story changes and Janie is writing a book. At this time, you have not mentioned a face to face contact with your source (Janie), nor told us how long you have been in contact.

Is that a correct summation of what has taken place?

Take care,

Joe

*It may be that I read that into Garry's posts, and it's not a fact.

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

That about sums it up.

Your post seems quite accusatory towards me. Is my feeling in error, because that is how it comes across? Have you ever known me to lie or distort the truth in any matter or on any subject? I have to tell you that the more I reread your post, the more offensive it seems to me.

I don't personally know Garry or Larry Web. I only know what was told to me through conversations I had. As I stated previously, only two possibilities exist for the truth:

1. Janie didn't tell Garry the truth for whatever reasons she may have had.

2. Janie didn't tell me the truth for whatever her reasons.

There is a third possibility, but it is VERY remote:

3. The person I got the information from was not Janie Tumlinson. Since I haven't met her face-to-face, I have to admit the possibility, but for other reasons that I can't disclose, I personally don't consider this plausible.

I have not had any face to face discussions with her. I promised her that I wouldn't disclose our method of contact or any of her contact information. If Garry wishes to contact me directly via email or PM I will be more than happy to provide him with her city of residence, married name, and her husbands name.

I have to say again Joe, that frankly I am somewhat shocked and offended that you would be so quick to jump on me in such an accusatory manner. I have never lied to you, nor exaggerated the truth of anything I have ever posted. I sincerely hope this is not a true indication of yourself. I have always thought better of you than that (even though we haven't always agreed on ever subject).

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

If Janie had told me the same thing she told Garry, I would have gladly backed up his post with one of my own.

I have always said that although I believe the stone maps to be authentic, I am not such a kool-aid drinker that I would ignore absolute evidence proving they were hoaxes. If hard evidence was shown to me, I would be the very first in line to admit I was mistaken.

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

I consider myself to be on equal with Garry when it comes to honesty and integrity. If he tells me something, I work on the assumption that what he told me was gospel. Someone would have to prove to me that Garry was being less than honest in any situation.

It's funny that when Garry posts information that supports your belief, he gets nothing but praise and admiration from your every post. Then I post something contradictory and I am greeted with accusatory disbelief. HHHHHMMMMMMMMM

True colors seem to be peeking out!

Mike

[Mike McChesney]

To continue my previous:

When Garry posted the information he was given, my first thought was "Why would Janie have told Garry that and me something completely different?" The thought that Garry was lying never entered my mind. I started trying to imagine why her stories would have been so different.

Joe's first thought seems to have been that I was not telling the truth. Joe, I will never forget your reaction in this. When you questioned some things in the past, I have never had any qualms about emailing you and privately telling you names or circumstances in confidence. There were only two people that knew I was in contact with Janie T.

I knew that when I posted my conversation with her that it would be controversial, but I never expected my honesty to be questioned! I won't forget it, I promise!

Best-Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

Sorry you feel that way. You seem rather quick to jump on my motives for that post. I don't question your honesty at all. Because I also know Garry, and much better than I know you, I trust his truthfulness. Garry has backed up his statements each and every time with hard evidence.

I trust you as well but, most of the time, I think you will agree, you depend on the trustworthiness of your word to establish the truth of your statements. That has always been good enough for me, and it is now.

That being the case, it seems to me that the situation is this: Garry has been told one thing about the facts, you have been told something directly opposite by the same source. The only thing that has changed, other than the passage of a few years, is that the source has decided to write a book.

You might question if that book had anything to do with the changing of the story. Garry met with Janie in the company of his wife, on a number of occasions. In that kind of situation, I believe most women would feel more at ease than meeting a strange man, by himself. I have met with them on two occasions, and know just how easy they are to like.

You have yet to make that personal contact with Janie. When I compare the two, Garry and his wife come up with a decided edge. Don't you agree?

My post listed things as I saw them coming down. Let's get back to examining the evidence instead of questioning the messengers.

Take care,

Joe

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

Questioning the evidence is what I expected from you previously.

Actually, no I don't give any edge to Garry over me. MOST of the time, my assertions are backed up with evidence. SOMETIMES because of confidences my word has to do. In all my years of posting on the few forums I follow, I have never been shown to be anything but honest. No one has ever shown me to have lied about any subject.

Maybe she just decided to write that book a year or so ago. I can't assign any motives to anything anyone else does. While I can imagine several reasons why she might say one thing to me and another to someone else, but not personally knowing her, I can't say for certain. I had thought about her story changing coinciding with her writing a book, but "quien sabe?" Maybe she just told me what she thought I wanted to hear, and told Garry the truth.

It IS possible that she didn't like being found by Larry and Garry. Even though she said different, I think she didn't really like being found by me. Being from the South, I know a bit more about Southern Hospitality than most. Even if you aren't particularly pleased about the reason for a person showing up at your doorstep, if they are polite and don't offend, then you play the polite host, tell them what you want (not necessarily what they want), tell them it was a pleasure meeting them, and wave goodbye.

Like I said, I can't say for certain why people do what they do, I only repeat what was said to me.


Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

[Joe,

Questioning the evidence is what I expected from you previously.]

OK, so why did you read into my questioning, that I was calling you a liar? The book seemed to be the important new detail to me.

When I consider your truth, Garry's truth and my truth, the book seems to be an important factor in the equation. Who got the truth from her? Did the truth change after she decided to write about her families history?

You may think you are on equal footing with Garry, as to if the woman is telling the truth, but he has met her face to face on more than one occasion. I will give him the edge on judging the woman's honesty.

Take care,

Joe

[Mike McChesney]

Joe,

I'm not an idiot. If the book was what was important to you, then why did you have to do the whole "summing up" all the points? If the book was what was important to you, that should have been the first words off your fingertips. The throwing all of Garry's experience with Janie and then showing how little interaction I have had was completely unnecessary if not to show that Garry's information was superior to mine.

That is water under the bridge though.

I sent a message to Janie asking about the difference in what she said, but have yet to hear from her.

Best-Mike

[Mike McChesney]

Maybe in your eyes Garry's information is better because he has had several, personal interactions with Janie Tumlinson. That is not true.

The ONLY thing that matters is that she told differing stories to both of us. Not just differing, but VASTLY differing.

Now, Garry is like myself in that we both took her at her word as to the truth of what she told us. You know, she may have told both of us what she thought we wanted to hear based on our conversations, and the truth could be a third and completely different thing!

Like I said before, I can ascribe no motives to anybody would do anything. I can only repeat what was told to me. I provided the transcript of our conversations pertinent back-and-forths. Whether anybody chooses to believe Garry, believe me, or believe both of us, is entirely up to them.

Best-Mike

[Joe Ribaudo]

Mike,

We have gone way too far with this back and forth. This is Garry's thread and I will leave it to him. I for one, want to see what else he has to add.

Take care my friend,

Joe

[Mrs. Oroblanco]

Mike,

I believe, at this point, it is not necessarily a case of believing Garry or believing you, but rather - believing the source.

Beth