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

Last edited by a moderator:
Cubfan64 said:
Completely tasteless, unnecessary, disgusting and not amusing. Show's a lot about a person's character when they post things like that!!
Click to expand...

Wrmickel is on timeout and unable to respond.. Rude, crude insults like that earn quick timeout....



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 

Not Peralta said:
to all, do you believe the stone tablets and the Tucson artifacts are an original idea? and have you ever entertained that they are good copies of another map?
why were these articles brought out to the public? I want to here your thoughts, what do you think the real message is hidden in these items,np
Click to expand...

now maybe we can get back on track with real discussions.np
 

Not Peralta said:
to all, do you believe the stone tablets and the Tucson artifacts are an original idea? and have you ever entertained that they are good copies of another map?
why were these articles brought out to the public? I want to here your thoughts, what do you think the real message is hidden in these items,np
Click to expand...

NP

I believe the stone tablets and the Tucson artifacts are genuine . Are both maps , but lead to different points . Also have with approximation the same start point . The Tucson artifacts trail starts from Dinosaur Mountain and the Stone tablets trail starts from Hieroglyphic Canyon . The end points are face to face , and maybe have a relation .
 

markmar,im curious as how you come up with this conclusion,and trails,thank you,np
 

Not Peralta said:
markmar,im curious as how you come up with this conclusion,and trails,thank you,np
Click to expand...

NP

I can not describe , for many reasons . Maybe you can understand . Just I gave stuff for thougts .
 

Not Peralta said:
matthew Roberts, I have been researching the mission sight for many years, I would not be surprised at anything,theres probably over three dozen old mines in this area,theres five I know of that are sealed,and I do mean sealed,theres some on burns ranch and also on the cattle lease,the old mission site is very interesting because of the different people's that visited there , and how far they traveled to get there,and why,if you make it to the rendezvous I will explain what Im talking about, and show you.its a real mystery that's been lurking for a long time.np:cat:
Click to expand...

Not Peralta,

Another question if you will indulge me. Robert Crandall was a friend with Glenn Magill and a lot of other old dutch hunters. Crandall had a copy of a map he told friends that depicted 18 missions, the northernmost was only a few miles from the Superstition Mountains. Magill told about this map and his conversations with Crandall in The Killer Mountains. I saw this map and it struck me that whoever drew it had extremely intimate knowledge of things an ordinary person would have not had access to or would have known in the 1960's. Could the northernmost mission on that map be the one you are refering to ? Bob Crandall died some years back, I was one of two men who took his remains back into the Superstitions and left them in a secluded spot which had great significance to him.

One more question, back in the 60's and early 70's Phillip Cassadore had a weekly radio program called Apache speaks. He would give information about the Apache tribe and it's people. His father was old Cassadore, chief of a clan of the San Carlos Apache. Cassadore would also broadcast Apache songs and was quite a singer himself. I have several recordings from that radio show. In the 1965-1966 time period, he broadcast some things about the first coming of the whites into Apacharia. He spoke first of religious groups who came early and tried to settle on his clans land. This would have been in the 1700's. Phillip's clan lived along the San Carlos river just east of the Superstition mountains. Do you believe the people Cassadore spoke of could have been connected with this mission ?

Matthew
 

matthew Roberts,crandall could have been talking about the same place, its a great possibility that he was,also the old timers were on to the ancient trail system but kept running into dead ends,I believe they new more about how the trails ran back then than people do today,now in the time period every thing is just about gone,because of people not knowing what they are doing,to much vandalism,either by choice or accidentally, right now there are still many clues that are left,(example)bits and pieces of information that people ignore because it does not fit in their thinking process of history,the stone tablets,which will neither give you a starting point or an ending,they also have in my opinion been manipulated,and copied,the same with the Tucson artifacts,I believe the Tucson artifacts are a good copy with disinformation added to them,to confuse people,I believe the originals are safe,they have a very good ancient map on them that leads you somewhere,
I talked about cassadore earlier in this thread,he was a good man ,I listened to a lot of his stories and found them very enlightening,religous groups,I personally believe they were more than that,some of the older petroglyphs that have been found even suggest this idea,a lot of the pottery shards show this as well,people should not expect to ever find anything unless their willing to open their minds to facts that exist all around them,people should not try to build on something that does not exist ,just to make it fit there way of thinking, thank you. ps,my opinion is the superstition mnts hides one of the greatest religious mysteries ever known to man.np
 

Not Peralta said:
:3some:somehiker,cactusjumper,vastterain, I guess we will all have to introduce our selves at the rendezvous,and by the way,bring two things plenty of film, and a new attitude,because Im bringing your crying towels,:laughing7::cat::cat::cat:np

OH...by the way,did I mention,Im very familiar with speaking at treasure shows from events in the past. Maybe I forgot to mention that.
Click to expand...
Film? ummmm...this is a different century and we don't use film these days!But i get what your saying. Certainly will be a different attitude from my online persona...as my post's is mainly to pull on your chain a bit not to upset anyone AT ALL!! Crying Towels? I sure hope you have something to show that i get to cry over!!! as of yet...still dry eyeballs. :occasion14:
 

Last edited:
vastterrain said:
Film? ummmm...this is a different century and we don't use film these days!But i get what your saying. Certainly will be a different attitude from my online persona...as my post's is mainly to pull on your chain a bit not to upset anyone AT ALL!! Crying Towels? I sure hope you have something to show that i get to cry over!!! as of yet...still dry eyeballs. :occasion14:
Click to expand...


There's still some old timers out there who use film - one of them will be at the Rendezvous and he's not THAT much of an oldtimer actually. One of his arguments is that he doesn't have to rely on a battery to operate his camera, and when he comes across a photo he wants to blow up to a larger size, he doesn't lose much visually in the process.

It's tough to argue with his success
 

Cubfan64 said:
There's still some old timers out there who use film - one of them will be at the Rendezvous and he's not THAT much of an oldtimer actually. One of his arguments is that he doesn't have to rely on a battery to operate his camera, and when he comes across a photo he wants to blow up to a larger size, he doesn't lose much visually in the process.

It's tough to argue with his success
Click to expand...

32GB card will hold 9999+ 2816 X 2112 size photos, water/dust/shock proof Nikon....can blow those up as big as a billboard! I'll carry extra battery or two for that trade off, plus my solar charger..couldn't imagine carrying rolls of film to match that capacity.
 

vatterrain, im just an old fashioned type of guy,i just learned how to use a computer about three years ago,please don't make me get a new camera,i have enough problems,np:cat:
 

Lads,

Not wanting to start a war here, but I speak from experience. First of all, digital vs. film is a decade old debate (usually a heated debate) and there’s a lot of scientifically verified data available to do the comparison if you want to.

Here’s the info straight up: > 35mm film (ASA 100) has the equivalent of 50 megapixels, which is several times the resolution of most digital cameras. When you get into the range of medium format film (my favourite) the equivalent resolution is literally hundreds of megapixels. Just for grins, I took a roll of 120 film out of the refrigerator and it weighs 0.8oz – just over ¾ of an ounce.

In addition to film, I also have and use digital cams and DSLR’s – they are snappy and convenient BUT the enlargement limitations of digital are still measured in inches, not feet. When you watch a motion picture, it is projected from 35mm film, the same 35mm film used in SLR cameras. That gives you an idea how large you can blow up a film image and still have it look good. And remember that a motion picture film is a copy of a copy of a copy and it still looks good on a 30 x 70 foot screen (woah!)


Also worth noting is that film has considerably more exposure latitude than digital. That means that a film exposure will ‘see into the shadows’ where (on the same picture) a digital camera will just show black.

So the argument is not whether film or digital has more detail because film has measurably more detail. The real question is; do you want to carry a film camera into the hills in order to get that extra clarity? If your digital snapshots are clear enough for you then great. If you want every ounce of performance possible, then use film.

Best,

Some Dude
 

G'd afternoon Dude. coffee ?? :coffee2::coffee2: I am of the old school of the quality over quantity. On snapshots digi is king for capacity, 'B U T' if you need to blow up a small area 'in' that snapshot, say in research or distant shots, film has no comparison. Also remember all film use designation is in the distance that you will view the prints. So I compromise, digi for lots of snapshots, Film for critical or diffcullt areas-> 8 x 10 prints. I once used a Minox. C I quickly learned what was critical.

Pros are starting to use top quality digis, in the thousands of dollars range but if you notice on the space travels they use 2 1/4 x 3 /1/4 3x 4 range Hasselblad type film cameras, not digi cameras.. Never the less, I love my digi for use in the computer and general use. I use an old Pentax single lens reflex for critical data.

Don Jose de La Mancha
 

Last edited:
It's interesting to note that goldbugpr, on the "Peralta Stone Maps" thread comments that he has been to the site on Burns Ranch. He metal detected around the old foundation with Rick Gwynne. He says that he didn't know what the foundation was for. I'm glad that someone else has been to the site of the old mission. They just didn't know what they were looking at. To really know what was there, here's the picture of the mission. img112.jpg You wouldn't find anything with a metal detector, especially since people had been hunting and digging there from the early 1900's to the 70's. Mostly, there was just pottery shards. All these years people didn't know what they were seeing. The proof is in the picture.
He also mentions a treasure cave nearby with recent activity. I have mentioned this cave as well.np
 

Not Peralta said:
It's interesting to note that goldbugpr, on the "Peralta Stone Maps" thread comments that he has been to the site on Burns Ranch. He metal detected around the old foundation with Rick Gwynne. He says that he didn't know what the foundation was for. I'm glad that someone else has been to the site of the old mission. They just didn't know what they were looking at. To really know what was there, here's the picture of the mission.View attachment 863559 You wouldn't find anything with a metal detector, especially since people had been hunting and digging there from the early 1900's to the 70's. Mostly, there was just pottery shards. All these years people didn't know what they were seeing. The proof is in the picture.
He also mentions a treasure cave nearby with recent activity. I have mentioned this cave as well.np
Click to expand...

NP - what other history can you provide related to the photo above? I believe you said you got it from Robert Garman (I may be wrong on that) - any idea where he got it? When it might have been taken? etc...?

Depending on when the photo was taken, I'm struck by the fact that lots of activity was taking place in that area in the 1870+ timeframe with ranching taking place, and yet I haven't seen any reference to a "mission," church or other place of worship being located in that area. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but there must be some explanation no?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

But it appears the Lost Dutchman Mine never existed....

⬅️ Previous Thread

Things Found Over the Years!

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Steve's Detector Rods

Latest Discussions

Back
Top