FIND THE STARTER DRILL HOLE ON THE STONE MAPS?

[mrs.oroblanco]

I don't know about that EE ther,


There is a reason why they use a jeweler's loop for diamonds and precious stones instead of real good photographs.

Beth

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

EE THer wrote

Another problem I have with the drill or Dremel theory, is that lots of the line ends are tapered. To accomplish that, a person would need to go to a smaller diameter Dremel tip, and somehow make that a gradual line width and depth change. You can make a line or mark wider than the tip you are using, but not narrower! And to make a line or mark which is wider than the tip you are using, defeats the whole theory, because it puts you right back into the variances caused by using any other "by hand" method.

I have never carved stone, but have carved wood; there are a wide variety of bits available (and have been for quite some time now) that allow much freedom in what you carve.
Here is one example of a tapered Dremel bit

there are also round bits in various sizes

I don't see any carving on any of the stones that could not be done with a dremel.
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

I don't know about that EE ther,


There is a reason why they use a jeweler's loop for diamonds and precious stones instead of real good photographs.

Beth

I don't know Beth. I may not be an optician, but I think my Digital Microscope might be a little better than a loupe (which I also had by the way 5x and 10x). Remember, I was also looking for particulate metal in those grooves.

Example:

This is the "B" in COBOLLO on the horse side of the H/P Stone.

Mike

 

[EE THr]

Oro(s)---

I have carved turquoise before, and have several of those diamond bits. With (polished) turquoise or jade, you could see more with a loupe, but that's because the particles are so fine, that microscopic scratches can show up.

I can see the grain in the hi-res photos of the sandstone, so it is a much more course surface than, say plastic, or ivory, or turq or jade. Know what I mean?

And, with the pointed bit that you showed, imagine laying that down onto the surface of a sandstone slab, with the tip a little lower than the Dremel. You would make an indentation exactly the opposite shape of the tapered ends seen on the Stones. That is, the deep part would be thin, and the gradually exiting part would be wide. So that won't create the tapered endings.

 

[somehiker]

Is it the general consensus here, that those offering their opinions on this forum have done as precise an examination as the people at DA?

Joe Ribaudo

Joe:
Some of us who are questioning the precision of DA Inc's "pro bono" examination of the stones,have spent far more time examining the Stone Maps and the markings upon them than any of the experts so often quoted.We have also dug far deeper into their history, as well as the history of "hearts and witches".Perhaps we should go back through DA's report,item by item, as well as Polzer's written opinion...(if such actually exists)... and review just how "precise" their observations really are.Then we can talk about consensus.

I don't know about that EE ther,


There is a reason why they use a jeweler's loop for diamonds and precious stones instead of real good photographs.

Beth

Beth:

A jeweller uses a loupe to examine jemstones and settings that have been worked with jewellers' tooling.
Not with an electric drill or dremel tool,which leaves marks that can be easily seen with the naked eye.
Photo analysts,including those who study high resolution satellite (spy) photos also use loupes and magnifiers.
Stereoscopes are also magnifiers.

Regards:Wayne

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Now, Mike,

You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop - I'd like to see you get one of the stones under a microscope - not a picture of one - the real thing.


Somehiker and EE ther,

I, too, work stones - everything from turquoise to citrine, to amethyst, etc.

Wayne, I believe you have seen pictures of my "outfit" and some of my stones on DUSA.

A jeweler does not only use a loop to see grain and cuts - they look for the "C's" - any flaws etc., are seen through the loupe.


For the other statement - It does not matter how many people look at the stones, handle the stones, compare the stones, or whatever, IF you are a neophyte - its a little like going to the grocery store to diagnosis a brain tumor.

If you are not an expert, if you have not done it for some length of time - if you have nothing to compare it to, if you don't have some education (doesn't have to be formal) on all the different aspects of something - then, your opinion is worth just what someone would pay for it (nothing), and that is not meaning anyone in particular, here, just anyone in general.

There is a very specific reason why DA does what it does - it is filled with people who do this type of thing for a living. Heck, I've been working with my faceting machine etc for years - and I would hardly expect anyone to contact me if they had a question about faceting.

Of course, I know - people like us (and I'm talking about treasure hunters, prospectors and the like), are pretty much all students of geology, archeology and history - its part of what we enjoy.

But, it doesn't make us better than the folks who do it for a living, imo.

I firmly believe, if DA had said they were real ---- that everyone here who is putting them down, would all of a sudden - elevate their opinions to "cannot be denied".

Bottom line, they didn't say what some people wanted them to say. Frankly, I would think that them saying they were real would have been a real bonus to a lot of people.

One added thing - making up the history of an item, does not do anything for what it is - it is a far better thing to NOT have a bias on what we think something is (like witches and such), than being jaded by a "story". The DA did not need to know any information up front - in fact, I would question anyone who makes a comparison based on a pre-determined outcome.


Beth

 

[EE THr]

Beth---

I don't have any preference as to whether the "Peralta" Stones are "real" (whatever "real" would be) or not.

But when I see something lacking in an explanation, if I'm interested, I'll question it if I can.

For example, if you have ever used a small round diamond bit in a Dremel, to carve anything hard, you must have noticed that it tends to go in all directions if you hold the tool straight up and down, at a 90 degree angle to the piece. It works much better if you hold the tool at a low angle, so the tip works more like a grinding wheel, than like a spinning top as it does when held straight up.

Well, in order to achieve the depth of most of the cuts in the Stones, how could you hold the Dremel at a low angle, without the shaft of the bit contacting the sides of the groove? The smaller the tip, the more this effect would come into play.

It's nearly impossible to cut a straight line, or have good control, when the tool is held at a high angle to the work.

So that is one reason I don't see a Dremel being used on the Stones. All in all, I think it would be much easier to use a simple chisel or something to make the cuts. And this type of tool would account for the narrowing of the cuts as depth is reduced, at the ends of most of the lines on the Stones.

It's just that that's what I see. And that would make the "dimples" imaginary. And that's not good.

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THer, ever see someone carve a log with a chainsaw? It is amazing in the hands of an expert, the fine details possible with such a blunt and relatively crude instrument. Tapered grooves are not a big problem, it is simply a matter of raising the cutting bit gradually as you move it against the object you are working on. Also, the two examples of bits I posted are only two of many, many different sizes and shapes. If you take a look at the various shapes and sizes of bits and cutters available, you would see there is a great variety to work with. It is not a case of the work had to be done with a single size, single shaped bit.

http://www.usahobby.com/tools/drebits.php/1

How do we know that DAI and father Polzer did not examine the "original" stones, and what everyone is judging their work by, are the copies?

I can't see any logic behind accusing DAI of making false statements about drill start dimples. If anything, it would have benefited the owners of the stones, and the museum as well, if DAI had made the contrary conclusions and said they were the genuine article.

Oroblanco

 

[somehiker]

Roy:
How many sizes and shapes of dremel cutters were available in 1949?
Even 1964,when the Life magazine article was published ?....and were carbide cutters for dremel tools or hand held electric drills available in that time frame?

Regards:Wayne

 

[EE THr]

EE THer, ever see someone carve a log with a chainsaw? It is amazing in the hands of an expert, the fine details possible with such a blunt and relatively crude instrument. Tapered grooves are not a big problem, it is simply a matter of raising the cutting bit gradually as you move it against the object you are working on. Also, the two examples of bits I posted are only two of many, many different sizes and shapes. If you take a look at the various shapes and sizes of bits and cutters available, you would see there is a great variety to work with. It is not a case of the work had to be done with a single size, single shaped bit.

http://www.usahobby.com/tools/drebits.php/1

How do we know that DAI and father Polzer did not examine the "original" stones, and what everyone is judging their work by, are the copies?

I can't see any logic behind accusing DAI of making false statements about drill start dimples. If anything, it would have benefited the owners of the stones, and the museum as well, if DAI had made the contrary conclusions and said they were the genuine article.

Oroblanco

Hi, Oro---

I know that raising the bit slowly will result in a gradually shallowing cut. I see what you are saying, but I thought of that, too, and have problems with it, as follows.

First, it would take a very steady hand to make a straight bottomed, gradually shallowing cut, with a Dremel. I think it would actually be easier with a chisel.

Second, if you use the same size bit, the resultant end of the line won't have a "V" effect, which is seen on the Stones.

Third, if you change bits midway within the gradually shallowing, there would be a noticeable step at each bit change, unless you did a lot of tedious, time consuming, freehand work. Again, it would be much easier to simply use a chisel.

Although there are many different shapes of bits available, just like there is no way for a drill bit alone to make a square hole, there is no Dremel bit that will make a V-grooved line. And the endings of most of the lines appear to be V-grooved, rather than round-bottomed.

I look at the Stones, all over, and I just don't see a drill or Dremel having made them.

I certainly don't know what Stones the DAI and Polzer examined.

It's not a matter of accusing anybody of anything, but I just gotta say what I see.

As for the logic of things in this matter, I don't know that, either. But, like I said before, it appears to me that "officials," at all levels, have been denying anything which would either contradict, or infer that data is missing from, Bibical "history." If that has any relation to the Stones, then maybe I am making an accusation, but I don't know if it has or not. Not only do I not know who made the Stones, in the case that they are "fake," I don't even know who is supposed to have made them! And I don't know that anyone else does, either! So I don't know if DAI or Polzer would have any reason to falsify their examinations. Maybe they just goofed. Or maybe they just didn't "believe" that they were "real" (whatever "real" might mean to them). And, even if they were made chisels, that still doesn't indicate who really made them, or why.

The only thing the "dimples" would indicate, if found throughout the Stones, is that probably an electric tool was used, and thus set some limits to the date range in which they were made. I can't see using some kind of bow drill to cut lines, that is.

 

[EE THr]

Roy:
How many sizes and shapes of dremel cutters were available in 1949?
Even 1964,when the Life magazine article was published ?....and were carbide cutters for dremel tools or hand held electric drills available in that time frame?

Regards:Wayne

I'm not sure when Dremels were first used, but I remember that a long time ago they were called "Moto-Tool," and were made by Dremel Company.

I know they had them around '64, and I think several years befor that, but I don't know exactly.

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy:
How many sizes and shapes of dremel cutters were available in 1949?
Even 1964,when the Life magazine article was published ?....and were carbide cutters for dremel tools or hand held electric drills available in that time frame?

Regards:Wayne

Here is an ad for a Dremel, listing some of the various cutters available - from 1947

EE THer, I do not KNOW how the various engravings were done on the Peralta stones, but with a cylindrical cutter bit, you can make a tapered V-groove, which I have done on wood carvings. A person making such engravings would probably use another tool to smooth out the cuts, such as a chisel (simply running it down the grooves) or screwdriver etc; in wood you can 'cheat' by using checkering tools and needle files; on stone I would imagine that a needle file would do a fair job but am not going to chance wrecking one of my own to find out.
Oroblanco

 

[Cubfan64]

Beth said...

Now, Mike,

You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop - I'd like to see you get one of the stones under a microscope - not a picture of one - the real thing.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, Mike's digital microscope can be (and was) used to examine the stone up close and in person. The enlarged photo of the B he showed above was taken in that manner - he didn't just use a microscope to enlarge another photo.

Maybe I'm confused and not understanding your comment Beth

 

[gollum]

Now, Mike,

You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop - I'd like to see you get one of the stones under a microscope - not a picture of one - the real thing.

Beth,

Are you calling me a liar? Please answer that before I respond again.

Mike

 

[Blindbowman]

i agree with CUB here on this one , a micro scope is not the piece of equipment needed to test the stone , a imaging Electra scan er is , it is used to test the statures of metal , but it can be used on stone , it can see hair line cracks in metal the human eye can not see and it can go way beyond any jewelers loope ,

and you can read it that way mike but i dont think thats what she was trying to say ,,

if beth was trying to say siomething like that she would out right say it ,, IMHO

if your thinking burning on a steak i will get the A1...lol

 

[cactusjumper]

Now, Mike,

You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop - I'd like to see you get one of the stones under a microscope - not a picture of one - the real thing.

Beth,

Are you calling me a liar? Please answer that before I respond again.

Mike

Mike,

I don't believe that Beth was calling you anything. On the other hand, I agree with everything else she posted.

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Mike,

Of course I was not calling you a liar - not sure how you got that from the statement, but, if you did, I apologize if it sounded that way.

Beth

 

[Cubfan64]

*scratches his head* there seems to be some confusion/miscommunication here. I just took a conflict resolution class, so let me try my new skills in person starting with getting Mike, Beth and Joe on the same page so we're all coming from the same basis of facts...

Mike - Could you specify exactly how you obtained the photograph of the "B" on the stone which you posted recently? What magnification was that and what instrument did you use? Was that done by you in person when you examined the stones at the museum (last year?).

 

[gollum]

I think I have made the statement several times that Greg D, was kind enough to let me spend some time with the stones before the display was open to everybody else. I also stated that he was kind enough to let me use my digital microscope on the stones.

So, there we have me stating that GREG D. LET ME USE MY DIGITAL MICROSCOPE ON THE STONES.

We also have Beth saying:

Now, Mike,

You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop - I'd like to see you get one of the stones under a microscope - not a picture of one - the real thing.

That is telling me that she does not believe what I have stated many times on the subject, and since I have stated that as a fact, she is saying that I am not being truthful.

There are also many types of digital microscopes that would be easy to use on the stone maps.

Also, maybe you missed the part where I said I also had a jewelers loupe. I carry one almost everywhere.

My handheld digital microscope has 10X - 40X zoom and 150X fixed magnification. The "B" I believe is at 30X-40X. At 150X all you can see are the individual grains that make up the rock. If I am still in doubt, maybe someone would like to ask Greg D. or Phil R. They both watched while I ran the thing over the stones and displayed it on my laptop. I can also take 5mp digital stills with it.

So, I say again, that what I used to examine the stones was better than what DAI used. I also say again, that I had the article in Arizona Highways to guide me in my examinations. They say they found drill starter points at the beginnings of many of the lines and symbols. They say they found the edges to be machine sanded. I could see the sanding, but am at a loss to distinguish the difference between machine and hand sanding.

That day I also photographed the stones inside under black light and under controlled white light which allowed me to move the shadows in any direction to photograph them.

Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

That's exactly how I remember you posting the facts of your examination of the Stone Maps.

Beth has specifically denied having the intent of calling you a liar, and further apologized if that's how it sounded.

Don't see any value in blowing it up to something that was never intended in the first place.

You did a fine job with your picture.

Take care,

Joe