Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Moderator: Jim_b

Jim Hatt

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon May 17, 2010 6:47 am

Mrs.Oroblanco wrote:First, let me say, up front - I've been reading Tom K's stuff for as long as I can remember (which gets shorter every year).

Secondly - I am a DEVIOUS person, in a sense. I have also, for as long as I can remember, been able to take both sides of a discussion. (I think they call that "split-brained"). I have been able to do that so well, I always got "stuck" in the un-conventional side of debates when I was in school. Some people can do that very well, others, not so well. It is a most difficult task when you have to argue the exact opposite of what you may personally believe.

However, our country depends on people being able to do that. We call it jury duty. You have to be able to hear the arguements made by both parties, and make a decision based on ONLY that - not what you have seen in other matters, or what you believed before you got there. It's an important quality - and terribly difficult.

However, it can also make it seem like you have two opposing views - when in fact, you are just taking the information available. I could argue the virtues of anything, pretty much - and I could also debate the other side, probably just as well.

A writer can either editoralize - or, they can write simply - events. I see nothing in Tom K's writing that does anything different than presenting two sides of a "story". I emphasize the word "story" only because each writing is a part - not the whole, therefore, there is always more to add - so, a continuing story.

There is absolutely no doubt that people have been swindled. Arizona is THE top state for swindling, when it comes to land ownership. But, even then, there are two sides (at least) to every story, and every event - usually there are many more sides to every story. Add to that, each individual has done their own homework, in most cases, and has drawn conclusions.

I am sure that there are people who have done many more investigations, and work, on the Peralta Stones - more than I, certainly, and definitely more than Tom K - and some folks who have spent year upon year, putting the pieces together.
They all have their reasons for what they believe - but that doesn't mean that some other people have not gone a different path - right or wrong - there are folks who will take your money and give you nothing in return, and there are people who will not. There are people who are misinformed - who think a check to someone will get them a goldmine - we call them victims. Geesh, I have a friend who loves a good treasurehunt - but his idea of a good treasure hunt is to read a little info, make a conclusion, and then wants to drive wherever, open the door to the SUV and pick it up --- in other words, very unrealistic - but, not unusual. There are so many scams out there for one reason, and one reason only - they work. Not just about the Stones - its the "you have won" scams, and the "partnership scams" and the "all I need is 2000 dollars" scams etc. They work because people fall prey to them. And there will always be people who fall victim to scams, so it will continue.

You can ask Roy about the scam that concerned us - one day someone came and put a sheriff's sale sign on our property.
We caught the woman before she left - to make a long story short, a bank had lent money on a piece of property, to a person who didn't own the property. The bank was from out of state, and, apparently, the scammers used a couple of pictures taken from the road, to give to the bank, as collateral, for their loan. Then they skipped town, of course. The bank foreclosed on them, and put the sheriff's sale up on the collateral - but - not the right person. It didn't take too long to figure it out, and find out who it was, but, the bank lost out to the scam. Identity theft is rampant - because there are people out there who prey on other people.

Everything in the world is subject to some kind of scam. That does not make the item "untrue" or "unreal", it just makes the item a tool for the scammer.

To write about these things is not a change in attitude or person ideas - it is simply a telling of an event.

Beth (Mrs.O)
Beth I appreciate you long definition of scams. But we all know that scams exist, and nobody is disputing that. What is being disputed is the way the author has worked the stone maps, into his story about scammer's, and the argument he presents for why the cannot be authentic. I could name probably a half dozen scams I have seen take place, just in the time I have been living in Apache Junction, and chasing the Legends of Superstition Mountain.

Fiction is what it is, and there are really not any ground rules for fiction writers to abide by. But... The Kollenborn Chronicles are presented as a well known "Historian's" account of the history he lived through, and observed himself. When that history is presented incorrectly, it needs to be challenged, and corrected, before it is repeated so many times that it actually becomes accepted as history.

From my point of view, and knowledge of the history, (part of which I lived through also) this "story" appears to lead the reader to form incorrect conclusions.

I have pointed out, what I believe to be the most obvious errors in this story, and am still waiting for the author's response.
As most people who are familiar with the history of the stone maps already know. Contrary to what appears in the article. The stone maps WERE confiscated by the authorities, and taken away from Clarence Mitchell. That one fact alone is indisputable, and could have a major effect on the conclusions readers may come to if they had been told the truth.
Mrs.Oroblanco wrote: To write about these things is not a change in attitude or person ideas - it is simply a telling of an event.

Beth (Mrs.O)
Does this not automatically make the assumption that the story was told completely and correctly?

Jim Hatt

Jim Hatt

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon May 17, 2010 7:22 am

javaone wrote: In a forum such as this, it is not a requirement for folks to put forth their real names. If this is the case then it should be made clear when you first sign up. To force someone to do so in this particular topic is merely an unfair ploy to get them to “shut-up”.
Jerry Jester < (my real name)
Jerry,

The subject of this forum begins with TRUE STORIES". This forum is a part of the Limited Access Forums, and has a number of restrictions and additional requirements that do not exist on the other forums.

Due to the nature of this particular topic Cubfan (The forum Moderator) has made it clear that there will be no anonymous participation allowed. I fully support that, and confirm your belief that it will be THAT WAY or the HIGHWAY.

After reviewing your post again, I see that it adds very little if anything to the subject being discussed, and for the most part, just complains about the "Rules" set down by the moderators.

Let me remind you that you are a Guest in this forum, and that it is a "Privilege", not a "Right" to post here. Your opinions about the subject being discussed are welcome. Your complaints about how the form is moderated are not.

Jim Hatt

User avatar
silent hunter
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:27 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Apache Junction

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by silent hunter » Mon May 17, 2010 7:34 am

Again I dont see a text from Tom K. I wonder what his this week cronicles will read??? "The superstition mountains of arizona not really mountains"

chron·i·cle (krn-kl)
1. An extended account in prose or verse of historical events, sometimes including legendary material, presented in chronological order and without authorial interpretation or comment.

This is why I am holding you acountable for what your write in your weekly cronicle. All you are upset with the facts. Tom K has not presented us with a fact one. the above definition is a fact!!!!! So why would the author of this cronicle infuse his own Ideas.

Jim Hatt

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon May 17, 2010 7:51 am

silent hunter wrote:chron·i·cle (krn-kl)
1. An extended account in prose or verse of historical events, sometimes including legendary material, presented in chronological order and without authorial interpretation or comment.
Excellent Kurt!

I think the definition should also include the exclusion of inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information.

Jim Hatt

User avatar
cubfan64
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:00 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by cubfan64 » Mon May 17, 2010 8:48 am

Jerry, you said the following:
This particular topic, may I remind you all, is about the “Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions”. Discussion is the key word. I do not agree with Tom K’s last article, but even if I did, it should not make me an enemy. The gist I got out of Cubfan64, Roy, lonestar’s first posts in this topic was “can’t we all just get along”, not attacking the stones necessarily.
Correct that this thread needs to be a discussion about the "Kollenborn Chronicles" articles. The Stone Maps keep coming up because they were one of the subjects of a recent article, but they are not the sole subject. If it turns out, the Stone Maps are THE subject everyone wants to discuss, the topic needs to be changed and moved to a more appropriate forum. I'll give it until Friday to see what direction we're going.
What is the point of having a discussion without opposing views – one sided? How can anyone learn from that?
The problem right now is that one side (Tom K) is not actively participating, and since the topic is specifically about the Kollenborn Chronicles, it seems as though a discussion is going to be very difficult to have here. In this case I don't believe it's possible for anyone else to "take Tom's side" in the discussion because nobody but Tom can answer where the facts of his stories came from. It's simple to acknowledge that Tom's historical knowledge and credibility stand for themselves, but when it comes to specifics, he is the only one who I believe can respond and further the discussion.
In a forum such as this, it is not a requirement for folks to put forth their real names. If this is the case then it should be made clear when you first sign up. To force someone to do so in this particular topic is merely an unfair ploy to get them to “shut-up”.
Because of the potential "volatility" of this thread, I agreed with Jim that it would be appropriate to have real names assigned to posts. I had no intention whatsoever to force anyone to "shut up" - my goal was to cause people to think about what they were saying and how they were saying it before posting. If a person is unwilling to stand behind their words and be personally accountable for them, then I don't think what they have to say is very productive anyways - those are just my personal feelings.

As far as people getting "the axe" for disagreeing with Jim, the fact is he is empowered to "run/moderate" this part of DesertUSA forums and if the DesertUSA management doesn't have a problem with how it's being run, then as a participant you either deal with it, or you move on - it's that way with every forum I've ever been on. Contrary to what alot of people believe, it's not a "right" to be able to post opinions on a private forum but a priveledge. If you disagree with how it's being run, you either complain to the management and try to get it changed, you deal with it, or you go somewhere else - those are really the only choices. Everyone has to decide for themselves when the discussion warrants them to make their "stand."

I bet you guys are sick to death of having a moderator who talks too much :) It's a bad habit and I get harassed at work for it all the time, but I doubt I'll be able to change much.

I feel the need to try to put things on the right track here, so I'm going to ask a specific question of those of you who have issues with the last couple "Kollenborn's Chronicles" articles.

Be very specific and list the exact facts as noted by Mr. Kollenborn in his articles that you feel are incorrect. In addition, for each of those notations, include what proof you are aware of (or believe to be correct) that dispute those facts.

I'm hoping that by doing this, we can focus on facts rather than opinions and feelings
.

User avatar
silent hunter
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:27 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Apache Junction

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by silent hunter » Mon May 17, 2010 8:52 am

Paul do you understand now why I invited Tom K. Here. I think he has failed to comply with his obligation to the readers of his kollonborn chronicles. they are false and have been twisted with his own ideas. That is not a chronicle that is a fiction and should be told as fiction!!!!!

Kurt P.

Jim Hatt

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon May 17, 2010 9:24 am

Kurt/Paul,

It appears that we have all been typing and submitting posts at the same time. :lol: It is good to see that we all appear to be on the same track and pursuing he same goal.

In view of the recent posts and recommendation made by Paul. I will re-submit my last post edited and expanded, to comply with his request for "specifics".

silent hunter wrote:chron·i·cle (krn-kl)
1. An extended account in prose or verse of historical events, sometimes including legendary material, presented in chronological order and without authorial interpretation or comment.
Excellent Kurt!

I think the definition should also include the exclusion of inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information.

I could spend an entire day going through the article we are discussing, and find something to dispute the accuracy and intent of in almost every paragraph. Since the author would not grant permission to reproduce the article in it’s entirety here, we will have to work with short quotes from it.

I will present a few examples of why I challenge the accuracy, and intent of some of the statements made by the author.

In the statement below, (Quoted directly from the article) Mr Kollenborn is attempting to tie the stone maps in with some legal difficulties Mitchell had concerning some paperwork he failed to submit for a Corporation which he owned. I have read the documentation for this incident which anyone can find posted at 1oro1.com. As anyone can see. The stone maps were in no way shape or form, concerned with this issue. There was nothing “infamous” about the MOEL corporation. It was a simple paperwork problem that was corrected in the end, everyone went happily along their way afterward.

“According to those who claimed they could interpret these stone maps, the maps supposedly led to a bonanza of gold. These maps have since fueled many horrendously fraudulent claims that helped relieve many investors of their hard earned savings.
First, there was Clarence O. Mitchell, (Travis Marlowe) and his M.O.E.L. Corporation in the 1960’s. The infamous M.O.E.L. Corporation”



In the statement below, (Quoted directly from the article) Mr. Kollenborn appears to be either uninformed, or intentionally ignoring the fact, that the stones were confiscated (via a plea bargain using the Antiquities Act as leverage against Mitchell) and, as I have stated before, placed under the protections and care of the Flagg Foundation. I have been researching the history of he stone maps for nearly 20 years myself, and I never came up with a single instance I could verify, where anyone invested a nickel into Mitchell’s attempt to understand and pursue whatever it may be that the stone maps lead to, other than equal partners who believed in the maps just as much as he did himself. If there are any people investing money in the stone maps to this day, or even during the time I have been researching their history, I have never been able to locate any of them.

“To this day investors continue to invest money in the Stone Maps. Ironically if the stone maps were authentic the United States Government would have confiscated them years ago under the national antiquity act.”



Re: The statement below. (Quoted directly from the article) If the stone maps had been discovered during an official Archeological Expedition with professional documentation of their discovery, every step of the way, I believe the Smithsonian Museum would probably be where they would be on display today. However, in consideration of the lack of professional documentation of their discovery. It is understandable why the Smithsonian Museum has no interest in them.

“If they were authentic we would be looking at them in the Smithsonian Museum under early American history. “


Re: The statement below. (Quoted directly from the article) I do not have the documentation in front of me at the moment, but if challenged, I can, and will produce evidence, that the statement below and is not true. There were a number of Treasure Trove Permits issued for the Wilderness Area prior to Ron Feldman’s. His was just the latest. This can also be verified in a Post made by Mr. Scott Woods, Archeologist for the U.S. Forest Service. (In a TreasureNet forum about "Treasure Trove Permits" if I remember correctly)

“As far as the record shows the only Trove Treasure permit ever issued for the wilderness area was to Ronald Feldman of the O.K. Corral in 2004 for a dig near Iron Mountain.”

As shown above, the Kollenborn “Chronicle” Article in question contains inaccurate, incomplete and misleading information, and a whole lot of “authorial interpretation and comment”. Again, this is not a personal attack on Mr. Kollenborn. It is simply a rebuttal to some of the incorrect information presented in his chronicles.

Jim Hatt

User avatar
silent hunter
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:27 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: Apache Junction

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by silent hunter » Mon May 17, 2010 10:05 am

Ok now we are back on the topic. Again I invite mr Kollonborn to answer the questions. Are you staying true to the definition of chronicles?????

Searching for treasure is a gift, not a science. Only he who finds the treasure can ever verify it is real. Anyone who claims that it is not real either found it, lost it or is lying

Kurt p.

LDMGOLD
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:30 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by LDMGOLD » Mon May 17, 2010 10:27 am

TERRY and others:

I was quite sure somebody would know how to find the articles. They are no secret. I will continue to write about those who misrepresent the legends or stories of these mountains to generate funds or money for their own use and purpose. Over the past fifty years I have seen many people lose a lot of money by investing in the many tall tales told by people who claim they have found the gold of Superstition Mountain or know where it is located. A small percentage of them are now serving time or have served time. I have no plans on getting into those stories. Also I am on this site to enjoy the desert Southwest, not lost gold mines and stories.

Thanks again for the fantastic desert site.

Tom Kollenborn

Jim Hatt

Re: Kollenborn Chronicles Discussions

Post by Jim Hatt » Mon May 17, 2010 10:38 am

cubfan64 wrote:The problem right now is that one side (Tom K) is not actively participating, and since the topic is specifically about the Kollenborn Chronicles, it seems as though a discussion is going to be very difficult to have here.

Paul,

I don't really see why Tom's participation is required in order to discuss he article that was published, and widely circulated.

As long as we restrict our comments to what is contained in the article itself, we should be able to consider that as Tom's input to the discussion.

Of course... He is free to voice any objection to the rebuttals presented in this forum any time he wishes to.

Any disagreements to that?

From my perspective it appears that the beginning of the article discussing Frauds, Scams, and the individuals behind them, was a slow build up, for the purpose of launching an assault on the authenticity of the stone maps. (Guilt by association) Which appears to be general consensus of those participating in this discussion.

It is pretty easy to see how the focus of this discussion would then be centered on the stone maps.

I have mixed feelings also about which forum this discussion should be in. I moved it to this particular discussion in the first place, because you were the first Moderator in the Treasure Hunting forums, (who has not expressed any preconceived conclusions about the authenticity stone maps), to accept the position of moderating the discussion. It is difficult to imagine Roy or Mike (like myself) remaining impartial, and moderating from an objective point of view.

The only way I will interact as any kind of moderator in this discussion, is to do whatever is necessary, to see that you have the last word about how the discussion is moderated. (by removing the access to this forum, of anyone challenging your decisions about how it is going to be moderated)

(I can just imagine some of the e-mail you will be getting. I know mine has been HOT! HOT! HOT! on both sides of the issue lately) :lol:

Jim

Post Reply