It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On The Mineral Deposits That Weren't Really An Issue In The Hammond Case-Or Were They?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The idea for this thread began as a reply to another poster asking me for a source to the claim I made in a post previous to that, that a big part of the underlying motive for the unjust re-sentencing of the Hammonds was to force them off of their ranch so that mineral resources in the area could be developed. There have been threads written on this topic, but they did not make this connection and were 'debunked' due to the red herring evidence that they used to support their claims.

The Hammonds are one of, if not the last private property owners in the area. Their presence in that region would likely prevent the area from being given over to large scale mining interests, most likely for the purpose of uranium mining. I will open the thread with my reply to that poster.

Please forgive my not adding much more at this time. Putting this together took a good many hours of research, and there are only so many hours in a day. More will follow, though the case is firmly laid out in this post. Below I lay out the obfuscation that has taken place surrounding this important aspect of the story of the Hammonds' plight and the reasons for the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative media has been complicit in this, whether intentionally or otherwise.


Source?

Interesting you should ask that. I find it highly intriguing how difficult it is to source this accurate claim. I always thought it seemed kind of odd how you and other posters kept shooting this claim down last year in the ensuing discussions on mineral content in the area, but didn't have time to look into it at the time. I decided to do a little more reading on the topic to see if I could provide that source when you requested it.

I can see why you and other posters so easily disputed this claim. It mostly appears in fairly crappy articles making the claim which usually reference "Mineral Resources of the Pueblo Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Harney County, Oregon, and Humboldt County, Nevada U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1740-B", which is available as a pdf on the web.
pubs.usgs.gov...
As far as I can tell, this report is mostly a red herring as it pertains to uranium on the Hammonds' land. It certainly figures in to the larger discussion about the Clinton Foundation's back room dealings with Uranium One, a Russian owned mining company. For the minerals detailed in Bulletin 1740-B to be extracted, it looks as though the Hammonds would need to be removed in order for the BLM's acquisition of the region to the public lands domain to be complete. The area detailed in 1740-B is in the south of Harney County though, many miles from the Hammonds' land holdings. The appendix of the report details a number of sampled areas, so the Hammonds' holdings may have been included in that appendix, but this is a difficult connection to make, and I'm doubtful that it is in that report anyhow.

The idea that the Hammonds need to lose their land for mineral development to occur in another part of the county miles away from the Hammonds' holdings is a heady argument that most people might not grasp anyway. Most of the articles I read on the subject did not make this connection, or did so poorly when they did.

This article, however, references an Oregon State Dept. Of Geology report from 1956, which does show significant uranium deposits on or very near the Hammonds' land:


And now the event at the Hammonds Ranch / BLM land just happens to be right next to “DIAMOND” Craters Volcanic field in Oregon.

All three above mentioned locations are known for minerals like GOLD + DIAMONDS + URANIUM.

Check out this government report from 1956 detailing Uranium and other natural resources in the Oregon locations.

freedomfromgovernment.org...
The geological report referred to in the article:
freedomfromgovernment.org...
Take a look at the map on page 5 of that report, and compare it to a map showing the range land in question. If it's not actually on the Hammonds' land, it's very close to it. This would naturally lead one to conclude that similar deposits are present on the Hammonds' land, even if these mineral prospects weren't performed there.

It looks like there's been some obfuscation going on about the resources in the area, even within the alternative media sources most closely covering the story. Not too surprising I suppose to learn that that is the case. There's a lot of money to be made in mineral development, especially uranium.

Links to articles that reference the easily dismissed 1740-B report:
www.newmediajournal.us...
www.infowars.com...
freedomoutpost.com...

Link to an article debunking the articles that reference 1740-B:
crooksandliars.com...

Links to reporting on the circumstantial, hard to follow connections between mineral development and the Hammonds' unjust re-sentencing:
www.nytimes.com...
farmwars.info...
themarshallreport.wordpress.com... ond-ranch-part-of-the-deal/




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Thanks! I'm marking this for further reading when time allows.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I made a thread on this a lil over a year ago.

The reason the Hammond Ranch is under siege?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Thanks for the link, and I hope you understand that I'm not trying to hijack your topic. As you can see, however, my OP references aspects of this case that were not covered by your thread. I know there were other discussions here in addition to your thread about these claims of mineral resources being a stake in this dirty game, and they always seemed to hang up on 1740-B being the proof of those claims.

That was always debunked because 1740-B references an area that is many miles from the Hammonds' ranch. The OR Dept. Of Geology report refers to an area on or very near the Hammonds' land, but it never got brought up as far as I can remember. Just 1740-B, which was the report referenced by most articles making the claim but was weak evidence. Disinformation, intentional or otherwise, was brought into play regarding this claim. I thought it was important enough then to make a thread highlighting this funky evidence which was referenced by so many articles to support the minerals motive, but wasn't really very strong supporting evidence.

Also this thread covers a good deal of information that yours does not address. I will be sure to add to and support your thread as well though.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Word on the street here in Nevada is the Hammond ranch sits in an area butting up to lake mead National park in which a sizable deposit of gold and Platinum were in that area, Also I remembering some scuddle butt about Harry Reid and his son rorry setting up a deal to sell off federal land to solar or private mining rights with the defense of protecting desert turtles or something to that effect.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I've been comparing maps to see how accurate my suppositions here might be. The more I study the geography of the area, the more convinced I become that some of the uranium prospects are very close to if not on the Hammond land.
The Oregon Dept. Of Geology report:
freedomfromgovernment.org...
A High Country News article that pinpoints the location of the Hammond ranch:
www.hcn.org...
A topographic map utility:
www.mytopo.com...
If you compare the locations of the prospects with the location for the Hammond ranch given by High Country News on the three maps, you'll see what I mean.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raven1354
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Word on the street here in Nevada is the Hammond ranch sits in an area butting up to lake mead National park in which a sizable deposit of gold and Platinum were in that area, Also I remembering some scuddle butt about Harry Reid and his son rorry setting up a deal to sell off federal land to solar or private mining rights with the defense of protecting desert turtles or something to that effect.

Are you sure you don't mean the Bundy ranch? It does appear as though Mr. Reid had his sights on the Gold Butte region, the area of where the Bundy ranch is located. Why would you bulldoze a butte simply to build a solar farm in a state where there are miles and miles of government owned land that is already flat? It sure seemed like there was something fishy going on there. I read about it in passing while studying this Oregon issue. It seems the scuttle butt you heard was on to something.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Just a small question for you. If they are taking the land off the Hammond s for mining why don't the Hammond s mine the land themselves?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I wasn't implying that, was more so providing it to you to include some of the stuff I dug up as well



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Just a small question for you. If they are taking the land off the Hammond s for mining why don't the Hammond s mine the land themselves?

I think uranium mining is a rather involved and expensive affair, not for amateurs I'd guess. As for gold, perhaps they are doing a little panning on the side. I wouldn't know. Of course to file a mining claim they would be applying through the Bureau Of Land Management if I'm not mistaken, which would be the same government agency that has unjustly initiated their prosecution under an anti-terrorism law for offenses that they should have never been charged with in the first place. Even were they so inclined, they would probably conclude it unlikely that the BLM would grant their claim.



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yes you are correct the Bundy ranch...typo by me! good catch! I prospect for minerals however not in that area, yet i am kinda familiar with the area. I just had a thought, with the economic collapse looming and the manipulation of precious metal prices, could the gov or elements within the gov be posturing to capitalize on mining? There are a lot of abandoned mines that used to be profitable until the decision was made at the gov level around ww1/ww2 to shut down gold mining and start mining other metals, etc. I feel like opportunist (in or connected to gov) are telling everyone to do as I say not as I do.....

P.S. BTW Gold Butte is an area where quite a few gold prospecting clubs have claims (AZ side of colorado river, Meadview) they always drive home the point of dont get caught with even just a plastic gold pan anywhere in the Lake Mead National Rec property....they dont like people snooping for gold, supposedly its like poaching when you get caught they confiscate everything with you....
edit on 16-3-2017 by Raven1354 because: added some text, spelling corrections



posted on Mar, 16 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Raven1354

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this one of those things where essentially the people are getting screwed and they don't even know it? I guess what I'm trying to ask is from your perspective as a prospector, has there been a tightening of the regulations in the past few years or decades to exclude individuals from being able to legally prospect in favor of allowing larger operations instead? Or am I wrong to suspect this and the bureaucracies are still fairly individual friendly?



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

From what I understand is the EPA says hey we did a study and by people digging and not be respective of nature we don't want these (insert a random species of animal) to go extinct so no mining, yet then the gov turns around and allows a special permit to happen where a big company then can mine and whomever was able to get that deal thru gets a kick back. From my experience is most small scale miners clean up the environment from the weekend warrior tourist. In California a lot of miners are cleaning up the mercury that the gold rush of the 1800's left behind in rivers which is affecting the fish and other wildlife. I believe that there is a mining act of the late 1800's that is the biggest protection to small scale miners that the BLM don't like you quoting when they try to harass you from just looking for a little gold or minerals. Since mining took to the wayside of gold and silver from the world wars and switching to other minerals, people have lost or just don't know the history of why we mine, now with the scuttle butt of possibly gold and silver increasing in value due to increased demand from new technologies, there is posturing happening to find the ore deposits that are still easy to find or new satellite observations have found previously hidden deposits.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
This may clear some things up, Their are two types of mining claims, Patented and Un-patented. Patented means you own the land, minerals and water. Un-patented means its public domain (BLM) so you can claim mineral rights via paperwork through BLM and Yearly fee to continue exclusive mineral rights to dig up to 14 feet I believe. I don't know much about grazing rights but I think they are covered somewhere in the mining act of the late 1880's. So the question is Does Bundy own his ranch outright? If so does he own the adjoining pasture/desert land next to his property?; Does he pay a yearly fee for grazing rights on Public Domain? If he has a property surrounded by BLM and he is the only other land owner could it be the case of the last rancher standing in the way of a wholesale lease of mineral or land use rights that's very lucrative to a few? I don't know pure speculation, however seeing the stunts some of these politicians I wouldn't be surprised. I was raised to be a conservationist, you know have fun but be a good steward to the earth and sometimes it just blows my mind about how they want you to go and spend time at national and state parks because we pay for them and its one of our great treasures, however you cant do this or you cant do this because of the ecosystem. That good and all to an extent but way out of control especially when they make an excuse why they swallowed up a piece of land to then turn around and make a profit from some sort of development.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Raven1354

Thanks, Raven. It sounds like you're pretty much confirming my suspicions. The little guy getting squeezed in favor of letting the big boys come in instead. If you're just an average guy stay out, but if you're a big company and you slip the right legislator a few hundred thou under the table you are free to rape the land as you wish. Sound about right? I wouldn't be too surprised to learn it's true, sadly.

Also, with the case of the Bundy's, as I understand it they started refusing to pay for grazing rights, which is what started the trouble. I could be missing something there though, because I haven't researched the Bundy standoff as deeply as I did the Oregon standoff. They may have done it as an act of protest, then.

As to the Hammonds, they were vocal critics of the BLM, and practices of the BLM that they thought were unjust. There was various drama prior to the fires that they got railroaded over, but as far as I know they had always paid their grazing fees. They got screwed pretty bad by the BLM many times from their perspective, but they did pay their grazing fees. Here's a page about it from the Bundy ranch's blog, which of course is pretty one sided in favor of the Hammonds. Like I said, they were vocal critics of the BLM, and there was various drama over the years aside from the fires they were imprisoned over.

bundyranch.blogspot.com...







 
5

log in

join