FIND THE STARTER DRILL HOLE ON THE STONE MAPS?

[gollum]

Okay,

So as not to hijack anybody else's thread with this very large picture montage, I have started this.

Background:

When Desert Archaeology Inc, examined the stone maps, one of the things they said they found in the resultant article in Arizona Highways Magazine was:

The use of an electric drill to create the drawings and symbols, as well as to create the shape of the stones, most likely dates their carving to sometime after 1940.

and in a subsequent email:

but in many places, there is a start dimple where the drill first touched the stone.

I can say that I have had just as close an examination of the stones as DAI, and I don't see what they are talking about. I have hundreds of hi resolution photographs of almost every detail, and I have yet to see any "start dimples". I also asked the nice folks at DAI just what would be the visible difference between an electric drill dimple and a hand drill dimple? No answer to this day (because there is no difference). I also asked them a simple question as to how a machine sanded surface would look different from a hand sanded one. Same result as my previous question.

While I don't see any "start dimples", I do see that most of the lines on the stones get shallower and shallower as they reach an endpoint. To me, it looks more like the lines were scratched into the surface with a knife blade or similar metal object. You can see in several places where the engraving tool came out of the groove and left a mark outside the line. Also in some spots, you can see where there two or three lines inside a single large groove. Does that sound like a drill or router? NO, it sounds more like someone going over and over the same groove with an engraving tool to widen and deepen it.

I don't question the examiners' credentials or their capabilities. I just needed some questions answered. If someone there had taken a moment to show me where I was mistaken, I would gladly have acknowledged their information and shared it. Remember, I don't REALLY have a horse in this race. I haven't spent a whole lot of time trying to work out the secrets of the stone maps. I live too far from the area to be of practical interest to me.

Here is a nice montage of some of the details of the stone maps to peruse:

Enjoy-Mike

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[natchitoches]

on the 3th picture down from top are these rase lines.?

 

[Blindbowman]

well mike this is a great topic ...i did not see where DAE took these stones the the therm plant in itheica ny ,, it has one of the only two image micro inspection equipment in the world . the other one is at the PA plant ... made and design to inspect the blade edge on jet blades is would be the only true test of these stone next to haveing some one who has ran the equipment like my self ...

i out right beleive these stones holes were made but the indain methed .. and i can show you a exsample .. of a hole created in this way ..

under micro imageing , a modern drill bit dose show treats but as i just stated there are other types of drilling that also produce drill like marks that look very close and to the untrained eye look to be made by a drill press , the indain were masters of hand tooling and in many cases their work is still better then our own even with modern tooling ...

i know thread is about the DAE and their concluessions .. but i disgree these stones were made by hand tooling ...

your lucky mike i think this is a worth while thread , this is the first or second time sence 1981 that this beed has been off my brave beeds ...

but i totally disgree with DAE findings . not only do i disgree i am willing to show tooling that will in time be match the the stone ..the jesuits were liveing in most cases with and in indain tribes and learn many indain tools and designs from them .. here is my chiffs beed you tell me where the diffrence is between it and the holes on the stones ..?

note the tooling marks on the beed , the small odd marks and scrashes on the edges the same type we see on the stones . and if you did side with Dae then why are some of the holes not look to be drill marks at all

, IMHO the holes do look to the untrained eye to be drill made . but not with a modern drill..if DAE is so good let them compair my beed with the holes on the stone ..if they come back and say this beed is drill made they are out right wrong it was given to me by one of the chiffs of the mohawk nation and it is most likely 1000 thousand years old or older ..he was my father's best friend and never lied a day in his life time ....

if DAE was talking about the circles that have small point tips in the center those are not drill marks and unless you translated the stones you would not know what those are .. they were made that way because they have a direct meaning ...and if DAE can show me a pointed dril cone at the bottom of any one of those holes IMHO they were wrong ...
ley me explain why

for one if the holes were drilled by a drill press most likely the holes would all be drilled to the same depth and it is clear they are not .. second the holes would have the cone shape of the drill tip at the bottom of the hole in a negitive design to the shape of the drill bit ..

the holes would be to prefect and be completely cylenderical in shape .

next the stones would have most likely been created at one shop if made in modern tooling ,, and if so the drill would have acted difrently between the difrent types of stone used ..

ok now look at the edge , they say the edge was made by a drill . how , let then explain this .. i can mic and take a surface to 1 /1000 of a inches , and i could not do this to those stones with a modern drill press ... even a horizonal milling machine computirzed could not do that ...IMHO ..

so why are some of the stones like that and other not ..i think i can tell you why because the idea the modern drill was used may be questionable on some places on the stones but over all , its ruled out because the modern drill was not used on the total tooling and thus is ruled out over all ...and the one thing that tells us this is the pin knife blade tip on the heart insert the cut goes from the center of the triangle down ward to a slow shalow point
but when closely inspected . it is not a pin knife mark .. the hole was made first and then the blade mark made by a hard pointed needle type and shap tool . most likely a navigation set of dividers ..and the fact two other place on the stone in translation do also show the dividers in simbolic nature to the coded data tells us the dividers are the tool that created the stones so unless DAE can show me a modern drill made in 1643-1645 they are in fact wrong IMHO and i am willing to show them they are wrong at the rendenour by showing them what these so called modern fake locate ...the proof is in the end resault ...

i out right disgree with DAE findings ..

good thread mike ..

 

[Blindbowman]

let me add one more thing to this debate .. look at the stones . we all see those faded scarches one the stones that looks like hen pecking , someone trying to figer out what marks to make next .. now there are a lot of them on these stones ,, and if they were fakes those would not be one the stones at all ...these stones were created over a long span of time by hand tools and IMHO a set of hard point dividers . by my opioion should not be the answer . the design and tool markings shouls speak for them self ...

and you can not judge the tool with out translateing the stone .. they were judgeing the stone with out knowing anything about them ..
is there other types of stone work that go far beyond the skills of modern tooling

out right yes ...and we have a good exsample right here ...

 

[Springfield]

....I can say that I have had just as close an examination of the stones as DAI, and I don't see what they are talking about. ....

Forgive me if this has been answered previously: are the stones that DAI examined the same stones that you handled and photographed? And, are any of them the 'originals'? This business about 'duplicate sets' of stones has always been troubling to me, and casts a shadow over the discussion.

 

[Cubfan64]

....I can say that I have had just as close an examination of the stones as DAI, and I don't see what they are talking about. ....

Forgive me if this has been answered previously: are the stones that DAI examined the same stones that you handled and photographed? And, are any of them the 'originals'? This business about 'duplicate sets' of stones has always been troubling to me, and casts a shadow over the discussion.

I doubt there is any way to know Springfield - I've wondered that a lot myself.

 

[gollum]

Springfield,

That is a damn good question. The stones I examined are the same ones DAI examined. THAT much I know. As far as are they the original stones that Travis Tumlinson claimed to have found, I can't say.

All the stories about exact copies of the stone maps being made is all hearsay, from what I have found. I know there have been many copies cast from molds (a good friend has a set).

While we have gotten to the absolute truth about certain aspects of the stone maps over the last four years or so, there are still many areas of the stone maps' history that needs to be filled in.

Mike

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

BB, what is this fixation on dividers? For the thin points to be used to make the engravings you would have gone through tons of them, plus mechanically they are not designed or stressed for this type of work.

As for drilling beads, that has been done since man first started wearing them. Most simply used the bow drill.

When I was living with the Yaquis, I found a simple stone gauge for their arrows. It had a hole in it for final shaft diameter, and a shallow groove which was used as a form of a sanding tool to fit the shafts to the sizing hole, and another 1/2 dia shaft grove for straightening the shafts.

However the ancients never could even begin to 'imagine' the precision of today's simple machine shops, let alone the ones that really specialize in precision work. In my old Trooper diesel, the injector pump works with 1.000,000 of an inch piston side clearance, show me any ancient workings that can approach that, or even 1/100 of an inch in measurements.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[somehiker]

The photo which accompanied the DAI article.
And the description.
Notice anything?

 

[somehiker]

Another photo.Taken while the stones were being held by law enforcement,pending disposition.
I think that this is when Bob Corbin first saw them.....as I recall.
Note the notch and the distance from the top of the notch to where the trail line begins.
Compare this with the stone at the museum.

 

[Blindbowman]

shhh i was not going to say anything ,. but i can tell wich are the real stones from the copies ...


and i can tell you have never used a set of hard point dividers before if you think they dull easy ...lol

they were not made of the cheap steal we have now days..lol

jet blades are grind to 1 tenth of one thousands .

and yes i do know what your talking about ..piston wall clearnece ...

those faded markings i was talking about are not on the copies ...

i once saw a blackfoot take a thorne and cover it in pine gum and then fine calzite and make a small bow and drill a hole very much like those in these stones , with a throne, so i hate to tell you this but if they wanted to make the holes they very well could have and they did not need a modern drill to do so .


the hole in the beed is smaller then 1 /16 .. closer to 1/32

what are the size of the holes in the stones .. anyone know ..?

besides that . i was a machine operator , i can run 29 machines everything from computerized milling to surface grinders to stock cutters and engine lath .. i can run the greman elb's half the size of a house .. i am tell you IMHO these stones were hand ade with hand tools from the 1600's,, no question about it at all... and it still comes back to what they say and why .. with out the translation they are useless ,and no one is going to risk there word on useless stones ... ..

if you want me to list everything i see about the machineing of the marks on the stones it would take pages of listings ...i would say well over 300 marks i can detail ...

let me give you just .. the trail stones both have something on the backs of them . how do you machine them and hold them in place with out showing marks ..? you tell me that and i may give it a second thaught ,, but i dout it ..

the force it would take to drill holes would leave marks from where the stones were being held . unless they were done by hand and held by hand .. i know a black foot that did stone work on blood stone and it was beyond perfect ...both side ..here you have flate slab .. whats that tell you ?they are saying the marks were done by modern tools , what about the slap work ...?

they never said anything about it .. only the edges were made by a modern drill . total BS . what drill what type . what type of bits were used , what speed were used for what holes
, how did the gage the distence and points for each level of the marks . because some of the marks use multiable tools if they were made by modern tools .. its out right imposable ...thats why i pointed out what i call the pin knife mark on the upper trail stone . that mark alone stands out as a multi tool mark , if it had been made by a pin knife the hole end would have been flate sided . it is not ...

the pointed side starts at a depth and runs shalower as it reaches the pointed end .. go ahead any one out there , tell me what auto feed can do that .. they done make one .. i fixed auto feeds before . there is no modern tool that can make that mark , none ..

you would have to have full 4 way auto feed tooling and be able to change tips with out it showing up in the stone .. thats imposable ..

these are hand made .. IMHO ...

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

My picture is from the stones in the museum. Do you think that type of lighting and direction of light source might change many details?

Joe

 

[Blindbowman]

joe you also bring up a nother good point ,, the lighting on the stones as the pictures were taken can change what is seen and how much is seen .... details can be light reflective ..angle of the cuts angle of the stone to the light sorce . angle of the light and intenisity of the light and range and bearing from the light sorce ..

you also mis one other interesting peice of data .. if the stones have this much detail on them they had to be made in the mts on location .. pictures would not cut it .. these were made by someone out there that took years to make them ..that subports my theories...look at the detail and tell me tumlinson went back to his shop and made these ,, thats out right foolish ...

 

[cactusjumper]

joe you also bring up a nother good point ,, the lighting on the stones as the pictures were taken can change what is seen and how much is seen .... details can be light reflective ..angle of the cuts angle of the stone to the light sorce . angle of the light and intenisity of the light and range and bearing from the light sorce ..

you also mis one other interesting peice of data .. if the stones have this much detail on them they had to be made in the mts on location .. pictures would not cut it .. these were made by someone out there that took years to make them ..that subports my theories...look at the detail and tell me tumlinson went back to his shop and made these ,, thats out right foolish ...

bb,

I have said all along that whoever made the maps did not create them in a short period of time. That being said, I don't believe that Travis made them at all........at least not by himself. He may have carved them, but someone else was guiding his hand. Either someone who was living in the mountains, or someone who had spent years exploring them.

In other words, you're not saying anything I haven't been saying......for years.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[somehiker]

Joe:
Of course it can.And I always consider whether or not it may be a factor.
I shot this view of the stone at the SSM last year,so I was aware of the notch visible at that time.
I was hoping that someone would reply with a better photo of the lower edge.Thus the leading question.
The black and white photo does seem to show a notch with sharper edges,though,but this could be a lighting issue as well.
Only one photo shows what appears to be a second large hole,however.It shows the notch as well.This is,of course the original Bumper Photo.
None of the photos have any "drill starter holes",or machine sanding marks visible.
Something else that I noticed in my photo was the proliferation of tiny white dots,but had thought that they were perhaps a reflection or spots on the glass case.
Evidently,and your photo makes this clear,they are on the stone itself.It might be interesting to find out if these white speck inclusions are common to cochino sandstone.
Another thing that bothers me,is the consistent shade of colour and grain structure with the two trail maps on display,vs what is visible in the Bumper Photo.Is this a characteristic of cochino sandstone?

Regards:Wayne

 

[natchitoches]

i been thinking that the rocks all all differn kinds of stone.
that maybe thay use the stone in the aea that it represents.
that as thay went alone the set trail.when it was time to make a new map.thay use the stone of that place. just a idel.

 

[Blindbowman]

joe you also bring up a nother good point ,, the lighting on the stones as the pictures were taken can change what is seen and how much is seen .... details can be light reflective ..angle of the cuts angle of the stone to the light sorce . angle of the light and intenisity of the light and range and bearing from the light sorce ..

you also mis one other interesting peice of data .. if the stones have this much detail on them they had to be made in the mts on location .. pictures would not cut it .. these were made by someone out there that took years to make them ..that subports my theories...look at the detail and tell me tumlinson went back to his shop and made these ,, thats out right foolish ...

bb,

I have said all along that whoever made the maps did not create them in a short period of time. That being said, I don't believe that Travis made them at all........at least not by himself. He may have carved them, but someone else was guiding his hand. Either someone who was living in the mountains, or someone who had spent years exploring them.

In other words, you're not saying anything I haven't been saying......for years.

Joe Ribaudo

but i know why joe ...and i know where tumlinson found the stones ...did you know i can prove where tumlinson got the stones with 3 difrent peices of evidence ...



sorry joe i just like seeing it drive you nuts ...let me enjoy it why i can .. so you and me will be drinking coffie lol and smileing about all this stuff and cub and roy and beth will be there lol with us ...

and then i will get up and leave and that will be the last you ever see or hear of me ...

and when someone ask you did you know the man that found the lost dutchman mine .. you can say did i know him ,i drink coffie one time with him ...

 

[wrmickel]

All the stone's in these pictures that you posted are all fake, Copies of the real one with alot of differs.

Babymick1

 

[EE THr]

All the stone's in these pictures that you posted are all fake, Copies of the real one with alot of differs.

Babymick1

OK. Then what do the real ones look like?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Golly, Ladies & Gentlemen: on your last picture, on your first post, just above the cross and crescent, on the right side, about 2 o'clock, on the outside of the curve, (top) it is very clear how it was made.

The same applies to the two slots on the lower left, you can clearly see the entry marks on both ends.

The work is obviously hand made.

However, on the other stones, the techniques are a bit different, leaving me to agree that they were made at different times, and possibly by different artists with different tools.

Not a single bit of evidence that 'dividers' were used, but on the contrary, evidence suggest something like a narrow bladed screwdriver and a hammer originally, then faced / bodied out with linear motions. No power tools.

Line forms on the right-->

Don Jose de La Mancha