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.
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
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.
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
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.
The geological report referred to in the article:
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
Links to articles that reference the easily dismissed 1740-B report:
Link to an article debunking the articles that reference 1740-B:
Links to reporting on the circumstantial, hard to follow connections between mineral development and the Hammonds' unjust re-sentencing: