Do the Stone Tablets lead to somewhere OTHER than the Superstition Mtns?

[Cubfan64]

cubfan64, yes,they are different , you be the judge,

In my judgement, the two buildings are identically the same - of course your photo is older and the other one posted by Somero and others is more recent, but without any doubt on my part at all, the two ruined building are identical as are the outlines of the mountains in the background. The building in the photos is NOT in or near the Superstition Mountains.

and like I said before, which you agreed with, theres more proof the mission existed than not

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did NOT agree with you that there was ANY proof that a mission existed near the Burns Ranch. All I said is that it would be an interesting discussion but that the photo you offered as evidence did more to harm your theory than promote it since it's not from that area.

Thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[cactusjumper]

Paul,

Can't imagine why anyone would try to convince someone that the two pictures are of two different buildings.



Looks to me like the same building.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Somero]

After 80+ years of wear and tear. Concrete seems to hold up better than adobe.


Church Ruins, Lower Eagle Creek by steve_keller, on Flickr

cubfan64, yes,they are different , you be the judge, the photo that was posted by someone else is recent , the photo I have was given to me in 1974, before that the photo hung in a frame on a wall for
40 to 50 years in a residence, which was viewed by many people over the years,and yes I have the negatives, the negatives also show other shots before and after all on burns ranch, so if you look at the
photo I have ,it was given to me in 1974 , so that time period to now is 40 years plus the 40 or 50 years before ,that makes the photo I have at least 80 to 90 years old. what do you think,,so yes I will stick with
my photo,and really don't care what any one thinks.they can be the judge, and like I said before, which you agreed with, theres more proof the mission existed than not. the proof of the mission does not
need the photo at this point to prove that there was a mission on burns ranch, there is also a lot more evidence in the burns ranch area to show there was a mission there. this is the last time im going to discuss the mission, form your own opinion that's why you have one. np ps. there are other markings and petroglyphs indicating the mission in the burns ranch area,all you have to do is spend a little time hiking and looking.np

33° 3.485'N 109° 26.264'W




For those "other people" using your ip address

de·ni·al
noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\

: a statement saying that something is not true or real : a statement in which someone denies something

psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real

: the act of not allowing someone to have something
Full Definition of DENIAL
1
: refusal to satisfy a request or desire
2
a (1) : refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge) (2) : assertion that an allegation is false
b : refusal to acknowledge a person or a thing : disavowal
3
: the opposing by the defendant of an allegation of the opposite party in a lawsuit
4
: self-denial
5
: negation in logic
6
: a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality
— in denial
: refusing to admit the truth or reality of something unpleasant <a patient in denial about his health problems>


Have a Nice Day

 

[sgtfda]

Come on guys. Just like prefab homes that are all alike. This was invented by Keno.

 

[Somero]

Come on guys. Just like prefab homes that are all alike. This was invented by Keno.

Even identical prefab homes next to each other still have the same view of the horizon.

 

[sgtfda]

Even identical prefab homes next to each other still have the same view of the horizon.

Eric im joking.

 

[Somero]

Eric im joking.

Sorry Sarge, I know you were joking I forgot the

 

[Somero]

I can understand NP sticking to his story, especially if the information came from family. Unfortunately since the photo turned out to be incorrect for the Burns Ranch area I would, if it were me, wonder if information provided on other matters concerning the photo were correct. It can be difficult to accept that family would give us incorrect information but it does happen for whatever reason. I feel for you NP I also understand about having questionable family, probably why I can't stand it when people lie or misrepresent themselves. Still looking forward to meeting you in person, maybe we could have a few good laughs or at the least understand each other a little better.

I am interested in the possibility of a mission somewhere in the Superstitions, however unlikely, and open to that discussion and any evidence that may prove or disprove such an idea.


Almost forgot, can somebody quote this in case I am still on NP's ignore list

 

[sgtfda]

Eric don't you know the Apache were lining up to be converted

 

[Somero]

Eric don't you know the Apache were lining up to be converted

Yep and they went back to raiding after the Mexican Government could not afford or would no longer support them.

 

[cactusjumper]

Yep and they went back to raiding after the Mexican Government could not afford or would no longer support them.

Guys,

To be fair, the Apache were being squeezed out by civilization. The world was their grocery store and the store was shrinking. They were being forced into smaller and smaller areas to survive in. Often those area were more hostile environments for survival.

On the other hand, they were a warrior society......from the start.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Not Peralta]

to all, I had to take a long look into what I think was right concerning the mission photo. I do not believe this group of relatives would have lied to me about anything,with that said , I do believe its
very possible that some other relative lied to them about the photo. the relatives that left me the photo were not treasure hunters or had anything to do with prospecting,we did not have conversations
concerning anything to do with those subjects, only what they were told about the photo. I believe that the photo's are the same, but for me its hard to accept because of the circumstances behind it,
but, with that said, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is proof that there was a mission on burns ranch, and that's what needs to be focused on and talked about. now that we accept that we do
not have a photo of the mission itself , takes nothing away from the evidence that there was a mission there. I personally have been were the mission was supposed to be located, the first time I was there
it had about two foot of wall almost all the way around it,and the center of the building was completely dug up with a thirty or forty foot hole in the center, I have already given its location, its hard on me
the way I feel towards family but this is part of history that needs to be examined . hope this posting helps . np

 

[Somero]

to all, I had to take a long look into what I think was right concerning the mission photo. I do not believe this group of relatives would have lied to me about anything,with that said , I do believe its
very possible that some other relative lied to them about the photo. the relatives that left me the photo were not treasure hunters or had anything to do with prospecting,we did not have conversations
concerning anything to do with those subjects, only what they were told about the photo. I believe that the photo's are the same, but for me its hard to accept because of the circumstances behind it,
but, with that said, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is proof that there was a mission on burns ranch, and that's what needs to be focused on and talked about. now that we accept that we do
not have a photo of the mission itself , takes nothing away from the evidence that there was a mission there. I personally have been were the mission was supposed to be located, the first time I was there
it had about two foot of wall almost all the way around it,and the center of the building was completely dug up with a thirty or forty foot hole in the center, I have already given its location, its hard on me
the way I feel towards family but this is part of history that needs to be examined . hope this posting helps . np

Hats off to you NP, I hope we can move forward as friends, at the least in a friendly manner, after all I'm not a complete A$$ as some would think, just an unfortunate byproduct of upbringing

 

[cactusjumper]

to all, I had to take a long look into what I think was right concerning the mission photo. I do not believe this group of relatives would have lied to me about anything,with that said , I do believe its
very possible that some other relative lied to them about the photo. the relatives that left me the photo were not treasure hunters or had anything to do with prospecting,we did not have conversations
concerning anything to do with those subjects, only what they were told about the photo. I believe that the photo's are the same, but for me its hard to accept because of the circumstances behind it,
but, with that said, it doesn't take away from the fact that there is proof that there was a mission on burns ranch, and that's what needs to be focused on and talked about. now that we accept that we do
not have a photo of the mission itself , takes nothing away from the evidence that there was a mission there. I personally have been were the mission was supposed to be located, the first time I was there
it had about two foot of wall almost all the way around it,and the center of the building was completely dug up with a thirty or forty foot hole in the center, I have already given its location, its hard on me
the way I feel towards family but this is part of history that needs to be examined . hope this posting helps . np

NP,

Can you tell us what the "proof" and "evidence" is for a mission on Burns Ranch? I understand there is a story, but that's pretty slim proof/evidence.

Thanks,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Cubfan64]

Moving past the photo is fine with me - tip of the hat to you for acknowledging the mistake

 

[Somero]

Yep and they went back to raiding after the Mexican Government could not afford or would no longer support them.

I don't have the information in front of me, but if memory serves the Spanish changed their policy in regards to the Apache. The defensive sometimes offensive tactics just were not working so they opted for the food for peace approach which worked for a few years, after Mexico attained independence the government felt that supporting the Apaches was not cost effective. Turned out to be a huge mistake and since the region had seen recovery of ranches and such it was easy pickin's for the Apache who again laid waste to attempts of settlement.

Maybe it was possible for some type of "outpost" to be established in the Superstition area during the relative peaceful period.

 

[Not Peralta]

So bob ward gave ya the picture of the mission?is he family?

bob ward was not family, and did not give me the picture. why do you ask. np










































BOB WARD WAS NOT FAMILY, AND BOB WARD DID NOT GIVE ME THE MAP. np

 

[Not Peralta]

I am the horse, do you have any idea what you are talking about? np do you need some

 

[Not Peralta]

cactusjumper, I have already listed this several times. np

 

[Not Peralta]

I am the horse, sounds like you need to get things straight, bob ward never give me the photo, never give me a map ,please get your facts correct.np YA ALL COME BACK SOON.