Bob Corbin - The FBI - The Stone Maps

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
Post Reply
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Bob Corbin - The FBI - The Stone Maps

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Proof...

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

krf,

It's interesting to see what you are basing your proof for the age of the Stone Maps on. I don't see how anyone could question your evidence.

Please don't allow anyone to hinder your research. It would have been nice if I had seen this information forty years ago.

Joe Ribaudo
User avatar
djui5
Expert
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:33 pm
Location: AJ
Contact:

Post by djui5 »

watch that karma, it'll get at ya.


This is my last post here. Enjoy fellas. I'll be checking in from time to time to watch the car crash.
Randy Wright
Hobbiest LDM seeker
Mesa, AZ

"I don't care if it has electric windows. I don't care if the door gaps are straight, but when the driver steps on the gas I want him to piss his pants."
Enzo Ferrari
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Post by Mike McChesney »

What's the matter Randy? Don't give up yet. This is just starting to get really good!

I can tell that you believe the stones to be fakes, and this would be a big blow.

You seem to question the integrity of both Tom Kollenborn and Bob Corbin. I have spoken to many people regarding Tom K (mainly about the whole Walt Gassler story). I was trying to find out just what was in those manuscripts he was keeping for Walt, that his "SON" (fake one) took. Not ONE person I spoke to had anything but praise for Tom. When I have four or five people vouch for a person's integrity, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for Mr. Corbin; neither he nor his wife have ever profitted from his knowledge of the FBI Tests. If that were to have been the case, we would have seen that part of the story many years ago! I also haven't heard anything bad about the honesty of Mr. Corbin either. He is another person I will give the benefit of the doubt to.

Am I a believer now? Not quite yet. There is still the possibility of the Reavis Fraud Connection.

Likie I said......we'll see!

Best,

Mike
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
walker12
Part Timer
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by walker12 »

Why would the FBI have tested the stones? They don't just test things for the fun of it do they? Therefore there would have to have been a federal crime (clearly not a state crime or Corbin would have sent or at least known of the stone(s) being sent for analysis beforehand) being investigated. If so, what crime?

Who owned the stones during this period? If Marlowe wouldn't he have touted the fact that the FBI checked them and found them to be at least 100yrs old? Same for the museum if they were the owner at the time. If the latter there may be some paperwork showing the stones were sent to DC or at least "missing" long enough to have been sent for analysis.

Also, as noted already how do you check a stone for carving age without knowing its exposure history? To use an absurb example, a carving left in a running stream bed will erode different that one buried 10' under ground in dry soil. Same for surface growths in wet climates versus dry ones. Once you assume a set of "storage" conditions, you are in effect assuming the age. This is different than a typical pictograph where the analyst knows the carving is on a rock and that rock has been in the same place for perhaps millions of years (i.e. they know precisely what weathering and growths are to be expected over time in that area under those conditions).

While I believe the email exists, the fact remains it is one guy relating what some guy told him 40 years ago about what he heard the lab found. This is far from proof that the stone carvings are any age. In fact in my mind it tends to disprove this story as if true someone would have spilled the beans at the time about the stones being officially antique.

What is needed is an actual copy of the lab analysis and a critical review to see if they were using hard or soft science.

Just my skeptical $.02.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

I'm a little slow.....

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

krf,

"His last post in this thread showed me that if you present him with an indisputable fact, he will not dispute it."

I missed your "indisputable fact", as I am getting a little slow. I assume it had nothing to do with dating the Stone Maps.

The reason, assuming it's true that the FBI even considered looking at the Stone Maps, that they offered the opinion that "they believed the maps were at least a hundred years old." might have something to do with the 1847 dates on them. They might have considered that a clue.

Did you get all the "Jim Hatt" information from Greg's E-mail? I doubt Greg sat on this information because he felt it was "important", rather, I would assume he found the "letter" to be, less than convincing. That is my opinion of it.

Do you really feel that it is a "convincing" piece of evidence?

Walker12,

Looks like we were on the same trail at the same time. Your post put it much better than mine.

Joe Ribaudo
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Wrong Place

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Mike and krf,

As Mike has stated, it seems unlikely that the FBI would have accepted the Stone Maps in the first place. If you had those kinds of connections, you would have sent them to the Smithsonian Institution. If there were any way to date them, they would be the best place to find out.

There are other places, within the State of Arizona, that could also have done the work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My reasons for the opening post in this topic were two fold.

A - To derail the trains of thought that Ted De Grazia or Chuck Aylor were instrumental in the fabrication of the stone maps."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that is very good reasoning, but only if you know who created the Stone Maps, or are actually that person. At this point in time, it seems to me, all options are open.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am sure it is not easy for him to let go of beliefs that took 47 years to become comfortable with, but he is making the effort and I believe that his logic and dedication may produce something of value if he can focus it farther back in time with the same enthusiasm he put into his Aylor theory."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know why people believe I am so closed minded, but I can assure you that, given facts, I will drop any theory no matter how long I have held it. The "facts" are what is difficult to come by. They do not come easy.

As for going "farther back in time", I have pursued this story as far back as Juan de Grijalva in 1518. If you, or anyone else, have gone farther than that......I tip my hat to you, Sir.

Working my way to the present, and through the history of Mexico, I came on this interesting passage:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On the eve of the expulsion of the Jesuits, Don Salvador Julián Moreno owned the Hacienda de Jamaica and let out some of the land to tenant families. Don Salvador and his wife, Doña Beatriz Vázquez, together held property in Tonibabi and Toiserobabi, a ranch in the vicinity of Oposura, in addition to the hacienda -- now christened San Joseph de Jamaica. In 1765, Moreno burdened his estate with a capellanía -- a lien that generated an annual interest payment of 5 percent -- to benefit his son Joseph Maria Buenaventura Moreno, who was studying for the priesthood at the Colegio de San Yldefonso in Mexico City. The principal totaled 4,000 pesos: half that amount came from the legacy (which Don Salvador and Doña Beatriz had matched) of Juan Joseph de Grijalba, a secular priest and family friend. Thirty years later, the capellanía remained in place, but the hacienda had deteriorated to the point that the annual payments of 200 pesos had lapsed.

Subsequently the Moreno family lost ownership of Jamaica, and the hacienda was split into several smaller properties. In 1773, Blas Peralta, a long-time resident of Jamaica, registered two contiguous pieces of land measuring approximately six-tenths of a sitio. One portion, named San Antonio de la Plateria, he had received in inheritance from his grandfather; the second portion he purchased as grazing land, a realengo referred to as "lo de Argüelles." Blas's mother and aunt had sold off sections of their joint inheritance, and Blas wanted to secure this part in which to run his livestock. Peralta's property bordered on Cumpas mission lands to the north; to the east and south it met the private holdings of Juan and Pedro Ballesteros; and to the west it abutted the hacienda. Juan Mazón, teniente de alcalde mayor y capitán a guerra, proprietor of the Hacienda de Jécori, approved Peralta's petition and forwarded it to Arizpe. It was not until 1789 that Licenciado Alonso Tresierra y Cano, teniente letrado y subdelegado, authorized Peralta's claim in the name of the intendant, avowing that it did not violate the property rights of the pueblo of Cumpas or of any individual Indian families. " (emphasis in bold by, Joe)

"Wandering Peoples:...." by, Cynthia Radding

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably does not trace back to Juan de Grijalva, but it's an interesting piece of history. :)

Most of the above is opinion so I could, of course, be wrong.

Joe Ribaudo
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: I'm a little slow.....

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

No Spin Please

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

krf,

No need to spin my comments to your conclusions, as to what I have said.
I will be happy to explain my own words.

"Thanks for enlightening me. I hadn't considered the thought that Mr. Davis' opinion (or yours) of Mr. Corbin's creditability would be so low."

My comments had nothing to do with the "creditability" of Mr Corbin, but had everything to do with the evidence presented in the letter. Mr. FBI man, said that he believed the Stone Maps were "at least 100 years old.", but said nothing else about them.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement for the age of the carvings. I can understand where some folks might take that as proof positive, but I would like to see a little more to hang my hat on. Some kind of report on the "scientific" dating methods used, and something a little more positive than "we believe".

I don't know the Corbins, and have been told by someone who does know them, that they are fine folks. I have also never met Clay Worst nor Al Reser, but also have heard good things about both men.

I should think that it would be pretty obvious, by now, that one of the men I was talking about was Ted De Grazia. I believe that anyone who knows, for a fact, that Ted was not one of the people involved in making the Stone Maps, knows why that could not be true.

I see no reason to have anyone "derail" that theory. It will stand or fall on it's own merits. Someone will feel that it is a theory that should be investigated, because of the evidence which will be found along the way.

Unless you have something more substantial than what has been presented, the best place to be.......would be somewhere off the tracks.

Joe Ribaudo
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Insane Theories?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

krf,

"No doubt you will grasp at any straw you can to hang on to your insane theories."

It seems reasonable to want to know what they base their conclusions on.
Is it "insane" to doubt the FBI would become involved in something like this?

Your reaction seems out of proportion to what is being said here. Do you have some kind of personal risk involved in this matter? I don't really expect an answer to that, but your responses seem overly emotional.

This story was born to be questioned. If the Stone Maps were "dated", in some manner, how was it done? Where are the documents which would be generated by such tests? This is not "Top Seceret" nor does it involve "National Security".......Why is there only, "someone said"?

Joe Ribaudo
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Post by Mike McChesney »

OKAY YOU TWO! STOP IT! :D :D :D

I believe this aspect of the story.

Walker12,

I will tell you why they would have been sent to the FBI rather than somewhere in Arizona:

I believe this was all part of the MOEL Inc deal. MOEL Inc bought the stones from T Tumlinson's widow for $1200. For whatever reason, they didn't have the funds to properly investigate the stones. They were actively looking for investors. They gave the article out to Life Magazine in 1964. that was the first public knowledge of the existence of the stones. Sounds like great free advertising to me!

After the article came out, they began selling shares for the adventure. When the state got wind of this, they went after MOEL for selling stock shares without having a license to do so. As a result of that lawsuit, MOEL repaid about $80,000 to investors. They were also forced to give up the stones to the state!

I believe that the State had the stones analyzed because they were trying to put together a fraud case against MOEL, and if they could have proven the stones were fakes, it would have gone a long way towards proving fraud. This would have been done as an easier way to get MOEL to plead out, as the penalties for fraud would have been much stiffer than those for selling stock without a license!

The state also knew that if the stones were authentic, then they would fall under the Arizona Antiquities Act, and not be open to private ownership. They sent the stones to the FBI so there wouldn't be any possible chance for a successful appeal on the grounds of "conflict of interest" by sending them to a state facility. They would have been sent to the FBI rather than the Smithsonian, because the state was trying to put together a fraud case against MOEL (there's your crime). The Smithsonian would not have been the proper facility for the tests.

Best,

Mike
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Still No Document?

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Mike,

So who dated the maps? What methods were used? Where is the documentation? Have you ever seen our government involved in anything that did not generate boxs, sometimes rooms full of documents?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"OKAY YOU TWO! STOP IT!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to clarify things here, what part of my participation in this conversation should I "stop"? I believe I have remained focused on the topic, and have not called anyone names or said their part of the conversation was.....whatever.

If the Stone Maps were "dated" by any government entity, there would be a number of documents which would be open to the public. They may very well exist. I am asking if anyone has seen them.

For there to have been a "fraud" commited, wouldn't MOEL have had to know that the Stone Maps were fakes? How would they know that, for a fact?

This seems to be the place to ask these questions, because there are members here who seem to have done a great deal of research into the matter.

Azmula has been watching these conversations closely. I doubt anyone has looked into the Stone Maps more thoroughly than he has. If anyone could say where those documents are, or if they even exist, it would be Azmula.

Joe Ribaudo
novice
Expert
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Facts?

Post by novice »

The following may not be absolute "facts" but it may shed some light on the "speculation" in this thread surrounding the Stone Maps? If someone has documents, they apparently aren't going to share them, so we are stuck with opinions.

http://www.azminfun.com/sundog1/flagg/museum.htm

The Arizona Mineral and Mining Museum Foundation, once known as the Flagg Foundation, is an organization formed to support the Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum by providing specimens and exhibits. We also have a respectable collection of our own, which is on display at the Museum. Over the years, many Arizona Rockhounds have donated cherished collections to us, and though all donations are greatly appreciated, they can not all be displayed and given proper care. We preserve what we can, and hold sales to allow others to add some of these treasures to their personal collections. The funds from these sales are held in Trust and the interest earned used to acquire specimens and fund the projects of the Museum. Some of these gifts have been traded to enhance The Foundation collection. An advantage of Membership in the Foundation is an opportunity to have first pick of the minerals that are to be offered to the public.

What I gather from the above is that the Foundation is a private enterprise which accepts donations and has the authority to buy and sell within their collection to fund other purchases or endeavors as they see fit. They are not directly associated with the State of Arizona but simply have the A. L. Flagg Memorial Gallery within the Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum.

To me this means that if the Foundation so desired the could sell the Stone Maps any time they wanted. It also indicates that they received the maps as a donation from private individuals. The donation phase is another part of the story that can probably be run to ground.

I have not seen the violation of the Arizona Antiquities Act suggested before. Below is a link to the current Arizona Statutes relating to artifacts.

http://www.keytlaw.com/az/ars/arstitle41.htm

The Arizona Antiquities Act applies to Items on lands owned or controlled by Arizona. Certainly not U. S. Forest Service controlled land. If we were to accept Travis Tumlinson account of where the maps were found, what type of land are we talking about? Federal, State or Private? Even if we answer that question, we would still have to prove where they were found. We only have a second or third hand story from a man who had been dead several years.

The crime, as I understand it, was a Federal Crime for selling unregistered stock. Apparently the only tangible asset of the corporation remaining was the Stone Maps. If they had had a street value of $1,000,000, I suspect the investors would have been repaid. I had never heard any investors were repaid except in this thread.

Garry
walker12
Part Timer
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:19 pm

Post by walker12 »

Mike McChesney, thanks for the response. For the record I didn't wonder why the stone maps weren't analyzed in AZ. Instead I wanted to know why they were analyzed at all. Your response about the antiquity and fraud cases has gone a long way towards filling in the great gaps in my knowledge.

Like I already noted it seemed very odd to me that the Attorney General/Dutchman hunter extraordinaire didn't know that the stones had been sent for analysis in a State case. Now you add in the information that the results of the analysis were indeed USED by the State. How Corbin would have missed this information seems even odder. But facts are facts. So unless someone has conflicting information I will have to accept that Corbin was for years way out of the loop when it came to knowing about the analysis of the stone maps. Then again based on this series of posts it seems that very, very few people were aware of the FBI tests until now.

As for the Life magazine being "great free advertising", didn't the article include pictures of the maps? If so, what was left to sell?

Again, thanks for the information.
novice
Expert
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

State or Federal Case?

Post by novice »

Walker12,

I really don't see any evidence that the state was involved at all. MOEL was a corporation which filed their papers in Nevada and I suspect it was a federal case from beginning to end. Other that some of the investors being from Arizona, I just don't see any connection at all. This might explain why Corbin indicates he was a casual observer?

I guess the question is, "What was the resolution of the federal case?" I have never heard of anyone going to jail or even a trial. It sounds like small potatoes and it was possibly settled out of court?

Garry
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Nice Post

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Garry,

Nice post. I believe you said everything I was thinking I should have said. :lol:

It seems to get more difficult every year. I have a message into Steve Decker and believe he would know the answers to our questions, assuming there are any answers.

As I recall, I asked some of those questions when I was at the museum. Don't believe I received much of an answer then, but maybe I asked the worng questions.

Take care,

Joe
JIM HAMRICK
Part Timer
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:46 am
Location: phoenix
Contact:

Bob corbin-The FBI-The Stone Maps

Post by JIM HAMRICK »

Wwhat I have believed for years is that the stone maps were found in the fifties and were not found on Forest Service land but on State land with the possibility of being on private property.

In the early sixties an article published in the Frontier Times (I believe) showing that the priest map as probably a hoax. I do not know what to make of the other stones but would not be suprised if they were to be part of the Baron of Arizona claim.

Someday I would like to have a believer in the stone maps explain how to read them through the eyes of a person who has never been to or seen the Superstitions.

Jim Hamrick
krf
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by krf »

DELETED
Last edited by krf on Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Post by Mike McChesney »

Yall forget the reply to Greg Davis from Bob Corbin himself. He said he worked at the US ATTORNEYs OFFICE IN PHOENIX! He didn't work for the state! That's why he wouldn't have known about the case. The state probably sent the stones for testing as part of an investigation. An investigation is pretty secret.

It is a fact that in order to stay out of jail, MOEL agreed to repay the investors money (about $80,000), and the state took possession of the stones. It sounds like the state forced MOEL to plead out to the selling stock without a license charge, when they couldn't prove fraud.

Best,

Mike
novice
Expert
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Post by novice »

One of the things I found interesting about the Arizona Mineral and Mining Museum Foundation web site was the absence of any reference to the "stone maps". It's almost like they are ashamed of being associated with them, but they seem to have used them freely as a drawing card regarding the Gem Show.

They have cataloged and credited many of their holdings on the web site, so it would be reasonable that they would also have records of their taking possession of the stone maps. Good Luck with Steve Decker. I would just settle for a date that they received the maps and who they came from. Perhaps Mike already knows?

Mike, you wrote;

It is a fact that in order to stay out of jail, MOEL agreed to repay the investors money (about $80,000), and the state took possession of the stones.

It's obvious that you have access to documents that most of us have not seen? Are you at a point in your research where you can share those documents?

Also,

He (Robert Corbin) said he worked at the US ATTORNEYs OFFICE IN PHOENIX!

The text says he "was at" the U.S. Attorneys office in Phoenix. I didn't interpret it to mean he was employed there but was perhaps there on other business. Your version could be correct depending on how you read it but it seems as though we would be putting words in his mouth if we use the term "worked at" instead of "was at"?

Garry
User avatar
Mike McChesney
Expert
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
Location: Arizona Vagrant

Post by Mike McChesney »

Some of my information comes from TE Glover's Book "The Lost Dutchman Mine of jacob Waltz". Other information comes from several sources that I have PM'ed, emailed, and telephoned. A couple were personally involved with the court case, one source was one of the investors, and so on and so forth. I am still waiting on a couple of my possibly most valuable sources (the main one being the head librarian at the U of A Rogers College of Law). Any state charges would be a matter of public record. Those records should include any FBI Test Results, names, dates, amounts, etc. If he can come through, THAT would be my Holy Grail for the stones.

Some of the information I have gotten runs a little contrary to the book, but that is to be expected.

I read Corbin's reply to Greg Davis as he was working for the US ATTYs Office because in all my many years in the military, whenever someone talked about where they were staitioned, they always used the term "I was at such and such" or "I was with such and such". I also ASSUMED he worked for the US ATTYs Office, because if he would have worked at the state Atty's Office he would have to have already known about the case.

However, when rereading the book, it is possible that he worked for the state, and the US Atty's Office is the one that filed the charges, on behalf of the SEC (Securitues and Exchange Commission).

A small detail that in no way changes the gist of the story. It actually works out better along with the information in the book (Glover's). I quote:
MOEL Inc. lasted for four years. In Sept of 1964, the SEC (San Francisco Regional, and L.A. branch office) issued litigation release #3040 which stated that Judge Craig in the United States District Court at Phoenix, AZ signed a temporary restraining order in teh sale of MOEL Inc. stock. The order soon became a permanent injunction. MOEL Inc had been selling unregistered stock-some 588,000 shares were sold in the amount of $60,000 to people in six states. Without the cash flow from stock sales, the company went bankrupt the following year. Thirty diehard investors who had lost money held on and took the stone maps for their debts-after all, these were all that was left, the money was gone. In 1964 with the crumbling of MOEL inc and their exclusive control over the Stone Maps broken, the Stone Maps existence was made public in a Life Magazine Article.

Through the efforts of the group of survivng investors, the stone maps passed to the Flagg Foundation
Read that passage carefully! Glover's dates don't add up correctly! I'll break it down for you:
1. Sep 1964= Temp Restraining Order signed and actions started against MOEL Inc. Anybody who has ever followed a Federal Trial can attest to the fact that they don't move THAT fast, and there were only three months left in the year 1964!

2.
In 1964 with the crumbling of MOEL inc and their exclusive control over the Stone Maps broken, the Stone Maps existence was made public in a Life Magazine Article.
The Life article came out in June of 1964! Usually, that means it had to have been written about three
(3) months before that (March 1964, long before any legal proceedings had begun against MOEL Inc).

3.
the company went bankrupt the following year
That means in 1965 not 1964

3. It states that thirty die hard investors took the stones in lieu of their debts. But then instead of selling them to recoup their money, they "passed" them to the Flagg Foundation? That doesn't make much sense to me.

So, here I have shown that Glover's book, while one of the best there is on LDM, doesn't quite meet the standards on some points! Private info I have gotten, contradict some of the book, but reinforce much of what Glover wrote.

Best,

Mike
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Errors

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Mike,

"I have tried in good faith to repressent this material as accurately as possible, and I should like to believe that neither errors of omission or commission occur. However, this is most unlikely. Should you find such an error please let me know so that it can be corrected in the future......"

The above quote is from page xiii of Dr. Glover's first book on the subject.

Just as the information on this Forum, is sometimes erroneous, any book will have some factual mistakes. A book as wide in scope and as ambitious as Dr. Glover's, will always have it's share of errors.

In your opinion, do the dates change the materiality of the evidence he was presenting or are they mistakes of little consequence, in a story of small importance?

We will all be interested in seeing, and hearing, where your research leads you. Good luck.

Joe Ribaudo
Post Reply