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

[coazon de oro]

I don't often agree with Joe, but on this occasion I do.

You may feel you have nothing to prove, but if you take that course, we have no other choice but to treat whatever you say, as pure speculation.

Joe asked you to give some form of reasoning or evidence for the below statement:



If you are unable to do so, or refuse to do so, then you can't get upset if some posters treat that as something you just made up.

Deducer?

Joe was accusing me of denigrating Garry's research, which is far from the truth, I only pointed out where Garry overlooked a very revealing fact.

"Seems to me that if you are going to denigrate someone else's work, you should at least provide something of equal value, or better."

I did provide the reason for why Travis was incapable of carving the P/H stone.

You should have made the observation, that my post was to Somehiker, not to Joe. Somehiker had posted to me that his Priest had something no other Priest had, that's why I posted back to him that there is also something under my Priest, that is not under any other Priest.

It was Joe who called it my "proof", and my "best" evidence to date. And why would you think I am upset? I am already used to Joe twisting things around, and I don't really care what others think, they are all free to make up their own minds.

And just why would you care to see what I have, when you have made it very clear that you brush aside anything coming from someone who has never wasted leather?

Homar

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[deducer]

Deducer?

Joe was accusing me of denigrating Garry's research, which is far from the truth, I only pointed out where Garry overlooked a very revealing fact.

"Seems to me that if you are going to denigrate someone else's work, you should at least provide something of equal value, or better."

I did provide the reason for why Travis was incapable of carving the P/H stone.

You should have made the observation, that my post was to Somehiker, not to Joe. Somehiker had posted to me that his Priest had something no other Priest had, that's why I posted back to him that there is also something under my Priest, that is not under any other Priest.

It was Joe who called it my "proof", and my "best" evidence to date. And why would you think I am upset? I am already used to Joe twisting things around, and I don't really care what others think, they are all free to make up their own minds.

And just why would you care to see what I have, when you have made it very clear that you brush aside anything coming from someone who has never wasted leather?

Homar

While I do pay more attention and put more value into the theories of someone who has actually put foot to ground, this doesn't mean that I automatically rule out other theories, especially if they are well thought out, or are based on actual research done.

You, on the other hand have declared that there is also something under your "priest" without offering any further explanation, proof, or pictures.

What kind of response did you think you would get?

 

[Cubfan64]

All,

The name of the claim is/was "Del Monte". It is Northwest of Weaver's Needle. it is located above a saddle that connects West and Little Boulder Canyons. The Stone Map trail goes right through that saddle. That trail ends dead center in my picture of the heart.

A number of years ago, Gene Reynolds asked me if I had a picture of the claim marker which included Weaver's Needle. He told me that he knew the view that Adolph Ruth was looking for. When I sent him the picture, he told me that was exactly the view of the needle that Ruth was looking for. From some accounts, Ely, this is where Ruth's body was actually found.

Page 8, "The Lost Dutchman Mine" by Sims Ely: "In the thick brush overlooking West Boulder Canyon, about one hundred feet above the canyon floor, one of the dogs came upon a skull...."

Just south across the saddle from the claim, there is a running spring. Brush and bees are very thick around that spring.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Joe,

Your quote from Ely's book is a little vague. Go back to the top of that page and you'll see the rest of the description - I've always had a difficult time trying to reconcile these directions with feet on the ground and looking at maps of the canyons he describes. Here is the full quote of what I'm talking about...

Weaver's Needle stands amid three canyons - namely, West Boulder on the west, East Boulder in the middle, and Needle Canyon on the east. The three converge some two miles northwest of the peak, and at that point there is a mile-long ridge covered with dense brush. This ridge runs northwestward and finally loses itself in a right-angle intersection with LeBarge Canyon, which itself flows northwest to it's junction with the Salt River. On this brushy ridge, the final scenes in the life of Adolph Ruth were enacted.

Now take a look at a topo map and try to connect up his directions. Needle, West Boulder and East Boulder do indeed converge from my read of it about 1/2 mile or so North of Caballo Camp as they converge and become Boulder Canyon. At that point if you follow his direction, there should be a ridge that runs for about a mile in a northwest direction and ends at LaBarge Canyon - can anyone explain to me how a ridge running northwest from this location can ever connect up with LaBarge since LaBarge is to the E and NE of that spot??

Frankly I think he has his directions really messed up which makes it impossible to know exactly what direction he's talking about imho. You showed me once where the Del Monte claim marker is located, and following Ely's directions it just doesn't match up to the same location unless I'm completely reading or interpreting things wrong.

 

[markmar]

From what I have read in http://www.ajpl.org/aj/superstition/stories/legacy of adolph ruth.pdf , the Ruth's skull was found " north from Bluff Spring Mountain and south of the three Red Hills " and his body " in a small tributary on the east slope of Black Top Mesa " .

 

[markmar]

Anyone know the name of the claim, or the owners name?
I believe this claim is West of the needle.
Well just checked on a topo, maybe SW.

Matt

I agree , is SW from Weavers Needle . The picture don't fits with the Joe's region claim .

 

[gollum]

Joe,

Your quote from Ely's book is a little vague. Go back to the top of that page and you'll see the rest of the description - I've always had a difficult time trying to reconcile these directions with feet on the ground and looking at maps of the canyons he describes. Here is the full quote of what I'm talking about...



Now take a look at a topo map and try to connect up his directions. Needle, West Boulder and East Boulder do indeed converge from my read of it about 1/2 mile or so North of Caballo Camp as they converge and become Boulder Canyon. At that point if you follow his direction, there should be a ridge that runs for about a mile in a northwest direction and ends at LaBarge Canyon - can anyone explain to me how a ridge running northwest from this location can ever connect up with LaBarge since LaBarge is to the E and NE of that spot??

Frankly I think he has his directions really messed up which makes it impossible to know exactly what direction he's talking about imho. You showed me once where the Del Monte claim marker is located, and following Ely's directions it just doesn't match up to the same location unless I'm completely reading or interpreting things wrong.

Cubby,

The area he is talking about is:

Draw a straight line between Red Hills and Yellow Peak. Just below that line is where West Boulder, East Boulder, and Needle canyons converge. The ridge runs NW from the top of Red Hills:

33.4793 -111.3870

Mike

 

[markmar]

Joe

Do you think how the trail ( from stone trail map ) of our theories is not necessary to be the same shape with the trail in the map ?
I am asking you this because your trail is " little " different . A GE picture with the trail in your theory ( the white rectangle shows the margins of your topo map ) and beside the shape of the stone trail .



and your topo map

 

[Cubfan64]

Cubby,

The area he is talking about is:

Draw a straight line between Red Hills and Yellow Peak. Just below that line is where West Boulder, East Boulder, and Needle canyons converge. The ridge runs NW from the top of Red Hills:

33.4793 -111.3870

Mike

I must just suck at reading maps. I know the point where the 3 canyons converge and have been there a few times. The ridge you mention as being running NW is the Red Hills area as you mention, and I suppose I can see where a case could be made that it eventually drops down into LaBarge although personally I I wouldn't have worded it that way. What doesn't make sense to me and I should have been more clear is when he then states what Joe quoted shortly thereafter, "In the thick brush overlooking West Boulder Canyon, about one hundred feet above the canyon floor, one of the dogs came upon a skull to which particles of flesh still adhered." Unless he's confused Boulder Canyon with West Boulder Canyon which is a distinct possibility, I don't see how West Boulder is anywhere near that point. It certainly isn't anywhere near where Joe's Del Monte claim marker is located.

The traditional directions as to where Ruth's skull was found is around the junction of Bull Pass and Dutchman's Trail near White Rock Spring which is actually along that same Red Hills ridge, although it's to the SE, not the NW. What am I interpreting wrong??

Side question - Mike, recheck those coordinates you posted if you could as those don't look to be correct - you must have typed the numbers wrong.

 

[gollum]

I must just suck at reading maps. I know the point where the 3 canyons converge and have been there a few times. The ridge you mention as being running NW is the Red Hills area as you mention, and I suppose I can see where a case could be made that it eventually drops down into LaBarge although personally I I wouldn't have worded it that way. What doesn't make sense to me and I should have been more clear is when he then states what Joe quoted shortly thereafter, "In the thick brush overlooking West Boulder Canyon, about one hundred feet above the canyon floor, one of the dogs came upon a skull to which particles of flesh still adhered." Unless he's confused Boulder Canyon with West Boulder Canyon which is a distinct possibility, I don't see how West Boulder is anywhere near that point. It certainly isn't anywhere near where Joe's Del Monte claim marker is located.

The traditional directions as to where Ruth's skull was found is around the junction of Bull Pass and Dutchman's Trail near White Rock Spring which is actually along that same Red Hills ridge, although it's to the SE, not the NW. What am I interpreting wrong??

Side question - Mike, recheck those coordinates you posted if you could as those don't look to be correct - you must have typed the numbers wrong.

View attachment 1059236

Just copy and paste those coords in Google Earth, and it will take you right to the middle of your black line from Red Hills.



Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Joe,

Your quote from Ely's book is a little vague. Go back to the top of that page and you'll see the rest of the description - I've always had a difficult time trying to reconcile these directions with feet on the ground and looking at maps of the canyons he describes. Here is the full quote of what I'm talking about...



Now take a look at a topo map and try to connect up his directions. Needle, West Boulder and East Boulder do indeed converge from my read of it about 1/2 mile or so North of Caballo Camp as they converge and become Boulder Canyon. At that point if you follow his direction, there should be a ridge that runs for about a mile in a northwest direction and ends at LaBarge Canyon - can anyone explain to me how a ridge running northwest from this location can ever connect up with LaBarge since LaBarge is to the E and NE of that spot??

Frankly I think he has his directions really messed up which makes it impossible to know exactly what direction he's talking about imho. You showed me once where the Del Monte claim marker is located, and following Ely's directions it just doesn't match up to the same location unless I'm completely reading or interpreting things wrong.

Hi Paul,

I have been reading those passages for around fifty years or so. I am aware of the problems with Ely's statement. Ruth's skull was said to be found in Needle Canyon and the rest of his bones on the northern end of Black Top. Could Ruth have made that distance and climb with one, relatively small, thermos of water?

On page 9, Ely states ".....Tex Barkley did make a further search of that brushy ridge overlooking West Boulder Canyon for the body of Adolph Ruth." Same mistake twice?

If you consider the notes that Ruth made, I don't believe he was trying to get to the north end of Black Top Mesa. Too much deception after the facts for me to accept the accepted story.

I am convinced that Ruth was trying to get to the area of the Del Monte claim. I could, of course, be wrong.

Did you send me something? If so, I never received it.

Take care,

Joe

 

[sailaway]

I decided to take a closer look from last post at the area called the Hoyo to see what it was and thought I would share what it looks like from the pic of Fish Creek Canyon.
Now lets see what it is looking at.

somehiker posted:
I'm sure if I had the time and inclination to do so, I could find snow white and the seven dwarfs marching with their mining tools off to work in that modern topo.
And a hi ho or two as well.
Someone else might see a perfect replica of the sinking Titanic...., complete with the SOS and AULD LANG SYNE.
An iceberg would be really easy.

Look he is right the shadows marching down the hill side over the heart! It is them! The Dwarf's were mining the Sups! This pic proves it! Lol
No I did not photo shop that, it is exactly as I sniped it from Google.

 

[Cubfan64]

Mike, my apologies as I should have looked more closely. I'm not used to seeing the coordinates written in the way you did. I'm used to seeing them as degrees, minutes, seconds or for example...

N33 28.758 W111 23.22. My mistake.


Joe, it isn't a matter of whether I think Ruth's skull/body could have been found where "legend" has it they were found as that's not really my point. My only point was that Ely's directions in his book can't be used to indicate where Ruth's skull and body were found because they simply don't make sense. We can all surmise that he made a mistake, but none of us have any idea where exactly he was really referring to. If you want to use it as evidence that he was pointing out the Del Monte claim area, that's fine if it fits your theory, but it's not very convincing evidence. Sure he mentioned West Boulder Canyon twice, why couldn't he have made the same mistake twice if he was thinking Boulder Canyon was West Boulder? The directions are just too messed up imho to make sense of since all of us can interpret it differently if we wanted to.

I got Roy's package sent out, but I've been covered up with some things for the last few weeks and just haven't gotten any of the other packages put together and sent out yet. At this rate it might be Christmas sadly .

Paul

 

[cactusjumper]

Paul,

No problem, just wanted to make sure it was not sent....and lost.

Your reasoning is sound. Just too many other clues that point back to that area for me and away from where it's claimed the body was found. Where the head was found seems very unlikely as well.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Paul,

No problem, just wanted to make sure it was not sent....and lost.

Your reasoning is sound. Just too many other clues that point back to that area for me and away from where it's claimed the body was found. Where the head was found seems very unlikely as well.

Take care,

Joe

I've got no problem with that at all - when you add up all your evidence and it points to the same place, you can take certain liberties with some of the evidence like Ely's words. It's harder to do for those of us who don't have all those years of other evidence is the only thing I suppose I'm saying.

This isn't the thread to get back into the whole Ruth affair, so I'll bow out at this point.

 

[Oroblanco]

I've got no problem with that at all - when you add up all your evidence and it points to the same place, you can take certain liberties with some of the evidence like Ely's words. It's harder to do for those of us who don't have all those years of other evidence is the only thing I suppose I'm saying.

This isn't the thread to get back into the whole Ruth affair, so I'll bow out at this point.

Just realized I had clicked "like" but did not mean that I like your bowing out of the discussion, no reason for you to do that, please do continue.
Oroblanco

 

[somehiker]

Howdy Wayne,

I am not saying Travis was completely ignorant of the Spanish language, he may have known a few words to be able understand, or get his point across. The stone that he did carve for sure, and never claimed of finding, was the Treasure Chest stone. On this stone he used both Spanish, and English, and got the gender wrong. This proves he was not fluent in Spanish, and incapable of creating the Priest/Horse stone. Gary's comparison of letters only shows that he copied the letters form the P/H stone to create the T.C. stone. If Gary himself was fluent in Spanish he would have made that observation. I have nothing against the man, and only point out that he failed to notice that most revealing fact. It is the truth we are after is it not?

I don't remember is I discussed the same mistakes in gender on the Stone Crosses, or if it was with Gollom. I guess one really has to be fluent to see that they are fakes.

At least we agree on the PSM's not ever being on the floor of a church, and I understand Gollom feels the same way due to the absence of normal wear one would find from foot traffic. However in my opinion, the DON stone shows neither floor wear, or weathering. Weathering does not discriminate, it would have effected the whole exposed area. The spaces between the letters, and other parts of the stone, are not "weathered". It looks more like the letters were chipped with a chisel, or small hammer.

I can't seem to find the post I mentioned but it is where you made a short list of the things you did not see on the PSM's, that would make you think of them being Peralta made. I will PM you the thought provoking fact, this offer was for you anyway, and there seem to be to many who are unworthy of the truth.

Homar

Homar:

In my opinion, there is nothing on the ship/treasure chest stone which makes it a "map". It is similar in some ways however, to the more simplistic graffiti which Travis created on the chimney, these all being images of man-made things which he must have had some interest in at the time. The stone faces indicate an interest in collecting stone carvings, which along with his interest in arrowheads may have prompted his visit to the QC site. Especially if PegLeg's papers had made some mention of stone carvings and/or a historic site at that location. Last year, Archaeology Southwest declared the area a high priority for preservation/protection purposes, presumably due to recent surveys that have been done, but not published as yet.

I believe that Gary did an excellent job with his comparison of the carvings, even though I came to my own conclusions. Joe,Mike, and I have all complemented his efforts and contributions to the documented history of the stones. It was only a few years ago that some were claiming Clarence Mitchell had fabricated the stones as part of a stock scam, and that Travis T. as a real person did not exist. Gary's compilation of documents from Greg's collection has made it possible to dispel that myth as well as various other innuendos and campfire stories promoted by anonymous sources via their chosen "messengers".

As I have stated, it is my belief that the "errors" on the stones were deliberate and have no need at this point to argue further.
One can either take my opinion at face value and work with it, or reject it with the assumption the stones are therefore fake, and move on to some other area of research into the stones.

Here are two postings I've made on DUSA re: the stones as flooring.....both last year

"It has been suggested that the worn appearance of the surface is evidence for the origin and age of the two "trail" stones. At least one author of several articles (Azmula) has claimed the two Trail stones were once used in the floor of La Nuestra Sonora de la Asuncion de Arizpe, where they were discovered during renovations by the Franciscans some time after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767.
While I believe the Trail stones may originally have been used for flooring in the church, I consider it more likely that the two Trail Stones were carved after they they were removed from the floor during renovation and expansion of the church while Fr. Carlos Rojas was Father Visitor 1748-1767."

"I tend to agree, Homar.
That although I can admit Azmula's claim the stones may have been originally used as flooring in the church at Arispe may have some merit, he has never provided any documentation proving his theory that they were discovered by the Franciscans at Arispe, or that they were known to the Tumlinson family before 1948/49, when Travis first claimed to have found them. In fact, no one has so far presented anything to effectively counter the testimony obtained from Travis' Uncle Robert, and friends Bob Bair, Bob Shultz, and Ken and Pat Hainer regarding Travis' discovery of the original Stones. I consider their accounts to be far more accurate and closer to the truth than the more recent stories told by family members to today's researchers.

As I pointed out, the two Trail stones, although a reasonable size for flooring stone, have edges with large bevels, not the slight beveling common to flooring, which suggests an intention at least, to set them in a vertical position somewhere. If not in the sanctity of a church, where those in the know could keep an eye on them, perhaps in some location at or near the site where the cache was hidden. I've suggested this in the past, where I've included the account of Fr. Keller's aborted expedition as a clue to how the stones may have themselves been hurriedly cached at Queen Creek. The Apache attack on Keller's party was important enough to have been shown in pictorial form on at least one old map, dated 1756.

The lettering on the DON stone looks to me to have been created by abrading the stone around the perimeter of, and inside of the letters. I don't think it was much more visible or better defined when it was new, or that it was worn by traffic. The pitting is almost absent in the areas where the stone has been ground down to form the letters as well, which seems to indicate the stone was already pitted before the carving was done. I've looked into what causes such pitting in soft stone, and salt is a common cause. Salt was and is still used as an amalgam in the production of gold, dating back to Egyptian times. It is also found in deposits near Phoenix and elsewhere in the SW.

The Cross I think, is a tad overdone for what might be used to mark an altar or below-floor grave IMO. Looks to me that whoever carved it wanted to leave the impression that he was in the process of carving a cross FROM the slab, rather than only into the surface. Could this have been a hint/instruction to "look for a cross made of stone" at a certain place/places on the maps ?
Or maybe even to refer to a cross made of stone for further information ?"

You may notice the last paragraph, where I mention the relationship I could see between the cross on the back of the trail stone, and the stone crosses. Others did

As for the stones not having a Peralta link, I have pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in several post over the past few years.
But that's something else I've gone beyond.

Regards:Wayne

ps: got your P/M and will reply asap.

 

[sailaway]

I thought it was strange that the priest that is where the Ruth map says Hoyo is carrying a skeleton key. Is there any reference to this anywhere?

 

[sailaway]

Wanted to know if anyone else sees the Cobollo de Sante Fe here in this Picture, junction of Rogers Canyon and Fish Creek Canyon picture taken from standing on the Golden Heart above the Cliff Dwellings. Second pic is from the valley floor and croped from a low pixel camera.

 

[roadrunner]

What does the Cobollo de Sante Fe look like so I can tell if I see it?
The second pic is to blurry, and the first is from GE.

 

[deducer]

This thread has an incredible amount of ideas and information. No doubt about it. I just want to thank you all.

But I also just want to remind you, you can't take it with you. It's a great past time and perhaps can even reward you greatly. It's very addictive. Just don't let it walk you off the edge, or sink your ship. The Jesuits apparently knew that. Many other Spanish did not. Something I have learned. I won't say how or why.

Not all of us are after gold, especially in that a big find these days only leads to a lot of trouble and legal tussling, unless you have shady connections like Mike does!

Some of us just love the stories themselves, as they spark the imagination, and some of us, like myself, are history detectives trying to reconstruct what really happened, and that's a lot more interesting and intriguing.