Almost forgot to add, YES, the FBI did have the stones for a short time in 1964.
Mike
Bob Corbin - The FBI - The Stone Maps
Joe,
Your way ahead of me. I haven’t even considered the information as being something that vouches for authenticity. My only interest at this time is whether such a meeting occurred. I don’t feel the Corbins have a vested interest in the story one way or the other. In fact, I doubt they have any interest in the stone maps at all and probably believe they are fake? Just my impression.
I just happen to believe there were some legal questions raised about this time and there was some federal involvement. The details of the encounter may be off, but I believe a chance encounter took place and Bob Corbin was involved but not terribly interested.
I will say that I believe there were other individuals involved besides Clarence Mitchell that were squabbling over the maps in this time period. Why do you think that the stone maps ended up in a museum? Doesn’t make much sense to me. Just some benevolent Dutch Hunters trying to do the right thing. Yeah, Right!
Garry
Your way ahead of me. I haven’t even considered the information as being something that vouches for authenticity. My only interest at this time is whether such a meeting occurred. I don’t feel the Corbins have a vested interest in the story one way or the other. In fact, I doubt they have any interest in the stone maps at all and probably believe they are fake? Just my impression.
I just happen to believe there were some legal questions raised about this time and there was some federal involvement. The details of the encounter may be off, but I believe a chance encounter took place and Bob Corbin was involved but not terribly interested.
I will say that I believe there were other individuals involved besides Clarence Mitchell that were squabbling over the maps in this time period. Why do you think that the stone maps ended up in a museum? Doesn’t make much sense to me. Just some benevolent Dutch Hunters trying to do the right thing. Yeah, Right!
Garry
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Maybe
Mike,
OK, where can we find the reports on their findings? Better yet, why can't we find those reports anywhere? Like I said, if they confirmed the age of the maps, it would be all over the place.
In this case, I believe no news is bad news.
Joe
OK, where can we find the reports on their findings? Better yet, why can't we find those reports anywhere? Like I said, if they confirmed the age of the maps, it would be all over the place.
In this case, I believe no news is bad news.
Joe
-
Mike McChesney
- Expert
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Arizona Vagrant
Oh, they are EASILY findable.
I am waiting on hard copies as we speak.
I know most of the details in them, but until I read them for myself, I won't post what I have been told. I will also make sure it is copascetic with my source. I know she's not writing a book or anything.
The files are in a particular Legal Library, and a person must have permission to access them. I was told that since 1964, only two people have signed for this particular file; Bob Corbin, and one other that she couldn't remember the name of.
Oh, and Joe. Check your History Hunters Message Box.
Best,
Mike
I am waiting on hard copies as we speak.
I know most of the details in them, but until I read them for myself, I won't post what I have been told. I will also make sure it is copascetic with my source. I know she's not writing a book or anything.
The files are in a particular Legal Library, and a person must have permission to access them. I was told that since 1964, only two people have signed for this particular file; Bob Corbin, and one other that she couldn't remember the name of.
Oh, and Joe. Check your History Hunters Message Box.
Best,
Mike
Biased opinions?
"Bob Corbin is simply pulling everyones leg?"
Greetings,
I have no desire to cast aspersions on Bob Corbin, however it must be noted that Mr Corbin was and is a member of the Phoenix Dons club, whose purpose is (quote from their website)
"For more than 65 years, the Dons' goal has been the study, preservation and public presentation of the history, legends and lore -- plus the cultures and grandiose scenery -- of Arizona and the Southwest."
So Bob Corbin may or may not have had a personal bias concerning the Peralta stones, and we might note some other past members of the Dons include Senator Barry Goldwater, who financed books for author Barry Storm......
Oroblanco
Greetings,
I have no desire to cast aspersions on Bob Corbin, however it must be noted that Mr Corbin was and is a member of the Phoenix Dons club, whose purpose is (quote from their website)
"For more than 65 years, the Dons' goal has been the study, preservation and public presentation of the history, legends and lore -- plus the cultures and grandiose scenery -- of Arizona and the Southwest."
So Bob Corbin may or may not have had a personal bias concerning the Peralta stones, and we might note some other past members of the Dons include Senator Barry Goldwater, who financed books for author Barry Storm......
Oroblanco
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
GO MIKE!
You have certainly piqued my interest with the promise of primary documents regarding the MOEL trial. I have been in contact with the SEC trying to determine if the investigation file has survived and it has been extremely slow going. I don’t know whether it would contain the same information that you have uncovered but I will keep trying.
I suspect you are not at the end of your research but you certainly have made an excellent start. I don’t want to get ahead of myself but it appears that the stone maps and MOEL may have been associated much earlier than I believed?
Garry
You have certainly piqued my interest with the promise of primary documents regarding the MOEL trial. I have been in contact with the SEC trying to determine if the investigation file has survived and it has been extremely slow going. I don’t know whether it would contain the same information that you have uncovered but I will keep trying.
I suspect you are not at the end of your research but you certainly have made an excellent start. I don’t want to get ahead of myself but it appears that the stone maps and MOEL may have been associated much earlier than I believed?
Garry
-
Mike McChesney
- Expert
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Arizona Vagrant
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Doubtful
Garry,
[In Bob’s note, he stated “it was approximate in the late 1960’s, I believe, that I was at the US 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.”…….”I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found 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.”]
I will be looking forward to Mike's letting us in on the information he has gathered.
As I have said before, I seriously doubt those stones ever saw the
"FBI laboratory" in "Washington DC". The only way, I believe, they could have been "dated", is by experts in specific fields. Such experts finally did examine the Stone Maps in 2005, and they each, independently, came to the conclusion that they were not authentic to the period attributed to them.
They attached their names and reputations to a public airing of their professional opinions, and did not seem to have any fear of peer review.
They each gave the reasoning behind their opinions. They have repeated those reasons in private.
There are many things about this story this seem "out of place".
Joe
[In Bob’s note, he stated “it was approximate in the late 1960’s, I believe, that I was at the US 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.”…….”I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found 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.”]
I will be looking forward to Mike's letting us in on the information he has gathered.
As I have said before, I seriously doubt those stones ever saw the
"FBI laboratory" in "Washington DC". The only way, I believe, they could have been "dated", is by experts in specific fields. Such experts finally did examine the Stone Maps in 2005, and they each, independently, came to the conclusion that they were not authentic to the period attributed to them.
They attached their names and reputations to a public airing of their professional opinions, and did not seem to have any fear of peer review.
They each gave the reasoning behind their opinions. They have repeated those reasons in private.
There are many things about this story this seem "out of place".
Joe
-
Mike McChesney
- Expert
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Arizona Vagrant
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Timing is everything
Mike,
In those days, it was in Washington DC.....only.
Joe
In those days, it was in Washington DC.....only.
Joe
When Corbin met the FBI?
Mike,
In answer to your question, I suspected that Clarence Mitchell received the stone maps from Alleen Tumlinson around Memorial Day of 1962. I was basing that on the trip she made back to Texas to decorate Travis’s grave. I thought perhaps it was on this trip that she turned the maps over. A much better feeling for the time frame would be the date on the famous letter from Alleen to Clarence. Alleen returned to Oregon and cleaned up some of the remaining affairs for her move back to Texas. She and her daughter returned to Texas several months later. Alleen died of cancer a few months after that.
I also believed that Clarence obtained the maps privately and they were not associated with MOEL until much later (Sometime after the 1964 trial). Your preliminary research seems to call that into question?
Also, I don’t believe Bob Corbin ever said the maps were sent to the FBI laboratory in DC. He said an FBI agent “from” the laboratory was in Phoenix. The FBI simply sent some guy out to take a look at them. The only thing I find in Corbin’s note that seems to be in question is his use of the late 60’s. He certainly left a lot of wiggle room by the use of the word “approximate” and “I believe. I think that he may have been off 3 or 4 years but I don’t find that terribly unusual.
This is all predicated on what you have tentatively shared about the file you are obtaining. We should all wait and then see how everything marries together. I suspect Bob’s note will fit just fine! No conspiracy, no hidden agenda.
Can’t you speed up the mail?
Garry
In answer to your question, I suspected that Clarence Mitchell received the stone maps from Alleen Tumlinson around Memorial Day of 1962. I was basing that on the trip she made back to Texas to decorate Travis’s grave. I thought perhaps it was on this trip that she turned the maps over. A much better feeling for the time frame would be the date on the famous letter from Alleen to Clarence. Alleen returned to Oregon and cleaned up some of the remaining affairs for her move back to Texas. She and her daughter returned to Texas several months later. Alleen died of cancer a few months after that.
I also believed that Clarence obtained the maps privately and they were not associated with MOEL until much later (Sometime after the 1964 trial). Your preliminary research seems to call that into question?
Also, I don’t believe Bob Corbin ever said the maps were sent to the FBI laboratory in DC. He said an FBI agent “from” the laboratory was in Phoenix. The FBI simply sent some guy out to take a look at them. The only thing I find in Corbin’s note that seems to be in question is his use of the late 60’s. He certainly left a lot of wiggle room by the use of the word “approximate” and “I believe. I think that he may have been off 3 or 4 years but I don’t find that terribly unusual.
This is all predicated on what you have tentatively shared about the file you are obtaining. We should all wait and then see how everything marries together. I suspect Bob’s note will fit just fine! No conspiracy, no hidden agenda.
Can’t you speed up the mail?
Garry
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Expectations
Garry,
You need to reread that letter. While Corbin says "Apparently", the obvious implication in the letter is that the FBI laboratory in Washington did the examination.
What you are thinking is possible, but wouldn't Corbin know if the statement he makes in his letter is true or not? What happened in that office did not take place in a vacuume. Corbin was a player there and knew all of the details behind his question.
"I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found analyzing the stone maps."
Knowing what I know......there is something about that letter that does not smell right.
Good hunting,
Joe
You need to reread that letter. While Corbin says "Apparently", the obvious implication in the letter is that the FBI laboratory in Washington did the examination.
What you are thinking is possible, but wouldn't Corbin know if the statement he makes in his letter is true or not? What happened in that office did not take place in a vacuume. Corbin was a player there and knew all of the details behind his question.
"I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found analyzing the stone maps."
Knowing what I know......there is something about that letter that does not smell right.
Good hunting,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
And another thing......
Garry,
Two other points about the letter:
Corbin did not ask the agent what he had found, but what "they had found".
"Apparently the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory".
The clear implication is that the "laboratory" did the analysis and not this "agent". Had he been the only one responsible for determining the "at least" age of the stones, I would think the conversation would have gone a bit farther.
Joe
Two other points about the letter:
Corbin did not ask the agent what he had found, but what "they had found".
"Apparently the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory".
The clear implication is that the "laboratory" did the analysis and not this "agent". Had he been the only one responsible for determining the "at least" age of the stones, I would think the conversation would have gone a bit farther.
Joe
Did they or didn't they?
Joe,
I’m not sure how I got sidetracked on the FBI Lab issue. My interest in the note was the time frame (late 60s). Since I believed the maps were not involved in the 1964 episode and I also believed Corbin had an encounter with the FBI regarding the stone maps, I was traveling down a road that there was a later FBI involvement with Mitchell. Apparently this may be incorrect?
The 1965 to 1970 time frame is still very murky in my eyes! Also the 1962 to 1965 time frame is confusing but maybe we will get some clarification from Mike's documents soon.
As far as Corbin saying the FBI Laboratory in DC analyzed the maps, the implication is not obvious to me. Perhaps we’re both taking his words subconsciously in the direction we want them to go.
"Apparently the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory". To me, this just doesn’t constitute any hard evidence that Corbin is saying they were sent to Washington for the analysis? Maybe someone had suggested that this would be a good idea and that might have been the initial intention, but I just don’t sense any follow through. Also the proverbial “they,” we all use is not something I would try to build a case around.
Having said all of that, I am left with trying to figure out where you want to go. There must be more than just interpreting the meaning of the words and actions of Corbin 40 years ago. You suggested that Corbin may have stood to gain someway in how this part of the story came down and was less than forth coming. Trying to answer one of your previous questions, I don’t believe there is even a whisper of the stone maps in either of Helen’s books. To me it indicates a lack of interest or the firm conviction that they are fakes and simply didn’t belong. To you it seems to indicate something totally different?
I won’t speculate but will wait for you to expand upon your take on the “why” of Corbin's words.
Garry
I’m not sure how I got sidetracked on the FBI Lab issue. My interest in the note was the time frame (late 60s). Since I believed the maps were not involved in the 1964 episode and I also believed Corbin had an encounter with the FBI regarding the stone maps, I was traveling down a road that there was a later FBI involvement with Mitchell. Apparently this may be incorrect?
The 1965 to 1970 time frame is still very murky in my eyes! Also the 1962 to 1965 time frame is confusing but maybe we will get some clarification from Mike's documents soon.
As far as Corbin saying the FBI Laboratory in DC analyzed the maps, the implication is not obvious to me. Perhaps we’re both taking his words subconsciously in the direction we want them to go.
"Apparently the Phoenix office had obtained the stone maps to have them analyzed by the FBI laboratory". To me, this just doesn’t constitute any hard evidence that Corbin is saying they were sent to Washington for the analysis? Maybe someone had suggested that this would be a good idea and that might have been the initial intention, but I just don’t sense any follow through. Also the proverbial “they,” we all use is not something I would try to build a case around.
Having said all of that, I am left with trying to figure out where you want to go. There must be more than just interpreting the meaning of the words and actions of Corbin 40 years ago. You suggested that Corbin may have stood to gain someway in how this part of the story came down and was less than forth coming. Trying to answer one of your previous questions, I don’t believe there is even a whisper of the stone maps in either of Helen’s books. To me it indicates a lack of interest or the firm conviction that they are fakes and simply didn’t belong. To you it seems to indicate something totally different?
I won’t speculate but will wait for you to expand upon your take on the “why” of Corbin's words.
Garry
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Corbin's Convictions
Garry,
The Stone Maps have become THE story. Bob Corbin had the "inside" scoop on the efforts to authenticate them. He obviously had some interest and "hands on" dealings with them.
There is a good deal said by the Corbin's silence on the subject. I believe Bob is Tom Kollenborn's source for his article in "Kollenborn's Chronicles" pertaining to the Stone Maps. They are, or were, friends.
I am not trying to nudge this conversation in any direction. I am offering my opinion on a subject I have been close to for around 35 years. If you or Mike come up with something that is contrary to my opinions, I will be the first congratulate you.
I believe the Stone Maps are a hoax and were created by Ted De Grazia, Chuck Aylor and (likely) Tom Kollenborn. That is an opinion and thus could be completely wrong. How the stones were "found" and by who, is another story.
You guys are doing a great job of "detecting" here. It will not be appreciated by everyone.
Take care,
Joe
The Stone Maps have become THE story. Bob Corbin had the "inside" scoop on the efforts to authenticate them. He obviously had some interest and "hands on" dealings with them.
There is a good deal said by the Corbin's silence on the subject. I believe Bob is Tom Kollenborn's source for his article in "Kollenborn's Chronicles" pertaining to the Stone Maps. They are, or were, friends.
I am not trying to nudge this conversation in any direction. I am offering my opinion on a subject I have been close to for around 35 years. If you or Mike come up with something that is contrary to my opinions, I will be the first congratulate you.
I believe the Stone Maps are a hoax and were created by Ted De Grazia, Chuck Aylor and (likely) Tom Kollenborn. That is an opinion and thus could be completely wrong. How the stones were "found" and by who, is another story.
You guys are doing a great job of "detecting" here. It will not be appreciated by everyone.
Take care,
Joe
Kollenborn Article
Joe,
I just finished reading the Kollenborn articles in the Apache Junction Newspaper November 13 and November 20, 2006. I am disappointed at times with Tom repeating some pretty well documented errors but otherwise pretty interesting stuff. Also very timely with what has been happening on the forums.
http://www.ajnews.com/archives/ (Pages A-4 and A-5)
I certainly have not dismissed your theory concerning Aylor and De Grazia but Damn, now you have added Kollenborn to the mix!
Just a question. If the stone maps showed up around 1950, does the time line work well for Aylor and De Grazia. I guess you now have to throw Kollenborn into that timeline. 1950 seems kind of early to me?
I would be interested in anyone’s thoughts regarding the Kollenborn articles. Quite different takes from what has been bandied around here.
Garry
I just finished reading the Kollenborn articles in the Apache Junction Newspaper November 13 and November 20, 2006. I am disappointed at times with Tom repeating some pretty well documented errors but otherwise pretty interesting stuff. Also very timely with what has been happening on the forums.
http://www.ajnews.com/archives/ (Pages A-4 and A-5)
I certainly have not dismissed your theory concerning Aylor and De Grazia but Damn, now you have added Kollenborn to the mix!
Just a question. If the stone maps showed up around 1950, does the time line work well for Aylor and De Grazia. I guess you now have to throw Kollenborn into that timeline. 1950 seems kind of early to me?
I would be interested in anyone’s thoughts regarding the Kollenborn articles. Quite different takes from what has been bandied around here.
Garry
Rather than fly about the forum for the proper topic for this, I will just include it here as we wait on the postal service to do their job.
Why were the Stone Maps found as they were? In one story we have Travis digging up the whole lot and in another finding one map that later leads to the others. Why even design them in 2 parts if you are going to bury them together? Why not just one tablet? Why bury them so shallow that they pop up on the surface? Not to mention the half dozen people who claim to have sold them to Travis.
Why were the Stone Maps found as they were? In one story we have Travis digging up the whole lot and in another finding one map that later leads to the others. Why even design them in 2 parts if you are going to bury them together? Why not just one tablet? Why bury them so shallow that they pop up on the surface? Not to mention the half dozen people who claim to have sold them to Travis.
"Be Careful of What You Do Before A Lie Becomes The Truth"
I would think the question to some degree really precedes their involvement though. Is there any other account of such stones being unearthed(or discovered for that matter) in separate parts but together?
If they are that unique in their make up it would seem to discount in their placement?
I think they seem to have been placed for discovery rather than concealed if I am to buy into any of those stories.
If they are that unique in their make up it would seem to discount in their placement?
I think they seem to have been placed for discovery rather than concealed if I am to buy into any of those stories.
"Be Careful of What You Do Before A Lie Becomes The Truth"
Zentell,
Guess you have not been paying close attention lately.
Azmula stated that during his research, he discovered that the maps were found buried in the floor under the priests bed at Arizpe. This was after the time the Franciscan Order had replaced the Jesuits. I would have to go along with that information because it seems more reasonable.
Guess you have not been paying close attention lately.
Azmula stated that during his research, he discovered that the maps were found buried in the floor under the priests bed at Arizpe. This was after the time the Franciscan Order had replaced the Jesuits. I would have to go along with that information because it seems more reasonable.
-
Mike McChesney
- Expert
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Arizona Vagrant
Hey Zentull,
The account of how the stones were found that came from Travis Tumlinson's mouth, was the one he told his brother Robert. He also drew Robert a map that showed where he found them (Queen Creek along Highway 60). His account said that he found the first stone, took it back to the car to show his wife, got a shovel out of the trunk, went back and started digging up that same area and found the remaining stones. The version where he finds the stones over a two year period is total BS, and not based on any facts or accounts from the finder. If that would have been the story told by Travis T, I would have never believed it for a second.
As I have stated elsewhere, IF (and that's a BIG IF), the stone maps were found all in the same hole, that would say to me that whatever they guided the way to is no longer there. I say that, because the KEY to the end of the trail is the heart stone. Why in God's name would you throw the key to the maps in the same hole as the maps themselves, unless there was nothing left at the end of the trail (otherwise, they would have taken the heart stone with them). I mean, that's why you make the heart stone in the first place, so you can take the key with you, and can safely leave the rest of the maps behind. Otherwise, you would have just engraved the information on the Trail Stone, and not made a separate stone.
That said, I think that Azmula's idea about the stones being stolen from the Mission at Arizpe, is a very good one. It also explains why the Heart Stone was found with the Trail Stone it fits in.
Best,
Mike
The account of how the stones were found that came from Travis Tumlinson's mouth, was the one he told his brother Robert. He also drew Robert a map that showed where he found them (Queen Creek along Highway 60). His account said that he found the first stone, took it back to the car to show his wife, got a shovel out of the trunk, went back and started digging up that same area and found the remaining stones. The version where he finds the stones over a two year period is total BS, and not based on any facts or accounts from the finder. If that would have been the story told by Travis T, I would have never believed it for a second.
As I have stated elsewhere, IF (and that's a BIG IF), the stone maps were found all in the same hole, that would say to me that whatever they guided the way to is no longer there. I say that, because the KEY to the end of the trail is the heart stone. Why in God's name would you throw the key to the maps in the same hole as the maps themselves, unless there was nothing left at the end of the trail (otherwise, they would have taken the heart stone with them). I mean, that's why you make the heart stone in the first place, so you can take the key with you, and can safely leave the rest of the maps behind. Otherwise, you would have just engraved the information on the Trail Stone, and not made a separate stone.
That said, I think that Azmula's idea about the stones being stolen from the Mission at Arizpe, is a very good one. It also explains why the Heart Stone was found with the Trail Stone it fits in.
Best,
Mike