FIND THE STARTER DRILL HOLE ON THE STONE MAPS?

[EE THr]

Before the orbital sanders came along, they had sanding disks, which spun around in a circle, and left identifying marks. The marks were in an arc, and parallel.

I don't know when belt sanders were first used, but they would leave straight parallel lines.

Hand sanding usually leaves straight lines, but not necessarily as parallel as a belt sander.

I think stones like these could be made flat simply by rubbing a flat stone on them, or rubbing two stones together. I believe that's how they did it before sandpaper or anything like that was invented.

So it would depend on what the "sanding" marks looked like. But certainly someone made them mostly flat, somehow, so some kind of marks of that type would be expected. But if they are circular and parallel, it would be an indication of power tool usage. But it would need to be more than just two or three arcing scratches which almost matched in curvature, because that could happen even with using a flat rock.

Orbital sanders make identifiable marks, too, but I think it would take a larger area than just the edges, to be able to say that's what it was.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

Joe,

Not blowing anything up, I was just answering the question as to why it seemed like she was inferring that.

I accept what she said about that not being her intent, and no apologies are necessary if that is the case.

Mike

 

[Cubfan64]

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

Mike - thanks for clarifying the facts.

Beth - from your statement, it appears that you misunderstood that Mike had actually used a small handheld digital microscope to examine the stones, and which in this case he took the photo of the "B" and other images.

From your comment, it sounds like you either thought a microscope of some kind was not used, or you thought the microscope was used on a "photo" of the stones and not the real stone at the museum.

Was that your interpretation, or am I misrepresenting that?

 

[EE THr]

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

Oro---

Yes, I know that it can be done, but a bit which would do that, would not make the nearly flat-bottomed grooves in those deep lines. So you would have to change bits to make those line endings which show V-grooves.

Try scratching some lines and curves into a similar stone with a chisel or screwdriver, then try it with a Dremel. Using the Dremel is not like using a router---the Dremel will try to take off in all directions if you hold it at a high angle, and at a low angle it will try to take of in one direction. You can hold the Dremel at a low angle, to accomplish the cut depth, by pushing or pulling it along the lines, with the bit shaft in line with the cut direction, but the bit will try to go sideways before depth is achieved, and after you work it deep enough, it will try to eat one side of the groove, according to the direction the bit is turning.

So, why do all that, just to imitate the use of a chisel? Again, I think it would be much easier and faster to simply use the chisel tools to begin with!

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Mike,

I see how you got that impression now. Let me re-phrase it: I, personally, would like to see you getting the stones under the microscope - rather than a picture of it. Does that clarify? I know digital microscopes take pictures of what you can see (and, of course, how well depends on the resolution).

I do stand by my statement of a microscope is different than a jeweler's loupe, but, I was agreeing with your statement "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). I guess I should have phrased that better, also. We all know that a loupe doesn't match a microscope. I thought you were trying to be funny. Hence my "Now, Mike,
You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop " (thought we all knew that).

Of course, there is something you are forgetting, I think - I already knew, before this discussion, of your opportunity with the stones. (think back), and I already knew you weren't lying, so I'm not sure why you would think that I thought you were lying. (eggs sept my lakk of good righting -

Ok, this is starting to sound like a comedy sketch - I didn't think you were lying - I still would like to actually be able to see a digital microscope picture - through it, not on a photo, and, by now, I have forgotten the point.

Beth

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

EE ther,

So, are you saying that it could STILL be a forgery, just done by hand - or a combination of tools - electric and hand?

Oh, also, there are tons of dremel bits that can "fake" stone hand carvings - have you never seen how some of the modern folks do the old looking headstones?

I gotta say - doing the main stones would be a whole lot easier than doing the actual heart - which is of a different stone.

Beth


http://www.stoneshaper.com/how.html

 

[Furness]

AH beth your post deleted mine hahaha,

it could have been done with a dremel using a slitting disc, which would give the type of groove mentioned, and the edges smoothed with the slim dremel burr that ORO showed,
or by hand with a riffler file,

the smoothing marks if visible would be across the stone with a dremel because of the rotation, and along the grooves if smoothed by hand,

John

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

furness,

It deleted yours?

I don't do stone, but I do a lot of glass with a dremel. I've done whole scenes on glass, glass-front gun cabinets, etc., I know there are thousands of ways to use dremel bits - and, I think dremel (or its counterparts), carry just about every size, shape etc., that you could ever want.

Beth

 

[EE THr]

EE ther,

So, are you saying that it could STILL be a forgery, just done by hand - or a combination of tools - electric and hand?

Oh, also, there are tons of dremel bits that can "fake" stone hand carvings - have you never seen how some of the modern folks do the old looking headstones?

I gotta say - doing the main stones would be a whole lot easier than doing the actual heart - which is of a different stone.

Beth


http://www.stoneshaper.com/how.html

Beth---

Of course the Stones could be forgeries, even the "original" ones. It depends on what they are supposed to be forgeries of, too. But nobody knows what they are actually supposed to be, because it doesn't say anything about that on the Stones, themselves.

No, I haven't seen the Dremel bits designed especially to make something look like a hand carved stone, if that's what you are saying. But I do know the basic limits of any rotating bit, and that is that it rotates. In other words, you can't use a rotating bit, by itself, to make a square hole (I know there is a device called a "square drill," but it has attachments which work like a chisel to make the corners, and it's usually used in a drill press).

There are some fancy shaped router bits, but using them requires the stability of a router, and preferable a routing table with a fence, and so forth.

I haven't seen how old looking headstones are made, either. I would assume that the headstones with the sharp V-grooves and straight lines and perfect curves, are made with some kind of a router set-up. If you happen to have a link to anything that shows the technique of making old looking stone carvings, I would be very appreciative if you could post.

I think you're saying that the Heart Stone is of harder rock? It does look like it is.

 

[EE THr]

AH beth your post deleted mine hahaha,

it could have been done with a dremel using a slitting disc, which would give the type of groove mentioned, and the edges smoothed with the slim dremel burr that ORO showed,
or by hand with a riffler file,

the smoothing marks if visible would be across the stone with a dremel because of the rotation, and along the grooves if smoothed by hand,

John

John---

The slitting discs, if I'm thinking correctly of what that is, which I have seen are made of what looks like fiberglass with abrasive on it. If that's what you are referring to, I don't think they would last long cutting into stone. (?)

 

[EE THr]

furness,

It deleted yours?

I don't do stone, but I do a lot of glass with a dremel. I've done whole scenes on glass, glass-front gun cabinets, etc., I know there are thousands of ways to use dremel bits - and, I think dremel (or its counterparts), carry just about every size, shape etc., that you could ever want.

Beth

At what angle to you hold the Dremel when working on glass? And (basically) what kind of bits do you use?

And I assume you are talking about freehand, not with some kind of machine holding the Dremel?

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

EE ther,

99% freehand. I do sometimes make my own designs (on paper), to use as stencils - plus some plywood - giving away some secrets here, but,
with a dremel, if you want to make certain types of curves, French curves, unusual lines, you cut it out of a plywood sheet, then use the dremel in that, (and, for glass, I sometimes use fluted bits, some diamond bits, and a bunch of others, depending on what I want it to look like), then use the plywood stencils - going back and forth, sometimes - again, depending on the design - so, it can either look like a straight cut, shaggy cuts, fuzzy cuts, etc.

Again, depending on the thing being done, sometimes the dremel is held straight up and down - and, the degree of pressure can give you a heavy or feathered appearance (like if you are doing snow on a Christmas tree, I would alternate on pressure and angle) If you use a lighter pressure, the dremel bounces just a tad, and makes it looked rough, or feathered. Push it harder, and it is a cleaner cut.

I also use fences (and I have a bunch of homemade fences), and I sometimes use an attachment that goes on the dremel that makes it work like a mini-router. (also lets you use 2 hands).

Beth

 

[EE THr]

Beth---

I didn't intend for you to give away any secrets! But the plywood stencils would be similar to a curved fence, allowing the Dremel to be held straight up. And that would allow for a sharp V-groove cut, with the right bit. The Stones don't look to me like they were made that way (but if someone ever discovered a set of stencils for the stones, in some old attic or garage, that would really be news!)

Thanks for the lesson on glass work, and also for the link to that stone carving site.

 

[Furness]

Hi EE

yes the discs do wear out but are not expensive,(if they were used that way) they are good enough to cut steel rail or the head off a bolt,
but i am not sure if they were available then,

Beth,

yes if two people try posting at the same time only one actually posts, the other disappears for some reason,
a bug in the software ?,

John

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Furness,

Man, that explains a lot. It must be something new, because I had something similar happen a couple of days ago, though it never happened before.

Usually, by the time I finish writing something, and hit "post", it will say that others have posted, and I might want to read them before I complete my post.

But, the other day, a post I was making just "disappeared". But there was another post (new) one. I'll bet that's what happened.

I should know better anyway, most of the time, unless it is a real short post, I write it on Wordpad, and then copy and paste, because sometimes, since Roy and I use the same internet connection, we have to have a certain amount of time between each others posts before they will "take" (even if we are on completely different threads), and then when we try to repost, it will say that we already posted it, but, of course, it has gone into the fleeting world of cyber-trash.

Beth

 

[EE THr]

Here is what the real trail map looks like you find this you got the real one

Babymick1

I'll bite...

What makes you believe this is what the "real" trail map looks like? There must be some evidence to back up your belief?

There is I,m looking at it giving to me by grampa mitch

Babymick1

Babymick---

Since you have the original Stone, can you post a picture of it?

 

[gollum]

Mike,

I see how you got that impression now. Let me re-phrase it: I, personally, would like to see you getting the stones under the microscope - rather than a picture of it. Does that clarify? I know digital microscopes take pictures of what you can see (and, of course, how well depends on the resolution).

I do stand by my statement of a microscope is different than a jeweler's loupe, but, I was agreeing with your statement "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). I guess I should have phrased that better, also. We all know that a loupe doesn't match a microscope. I thought you were trying to be funny. Hence my "Now, Mike,
You know a microscope is not a jeweler's loop " (thought we all knew that).

Of course, there is something you are forgetting, I think - I already knew, before this discussion, of your opportunity with the stones. (think back), and I already knew you weren't lying, so I'm not sure why you would think that I thought you were lying. (eggs sept my lakk of good righting -

Ok, this is starting to sound like a comedy sketch - I didn't think you were lying - I still would like to actually be able to see a digital microscope picture - through it, not on a photo, and, by now, I have forgotten the point.

Beth

Did you say that your eggs were interfering with your spelling? That time of the month?

Mike

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Ah - that's the one thing that I don't have to worry about when I got old - that went bye, bye YEARS ago! The silver lining - well, that and the silver lining that is now my hair

I know I don't always 'splain things too good, Lucy!!

Actually, that's the one bad thing about forums over talking face to face - cannot get a "tone of voice" in the written word. (and I am definitely NOT the best writer in this family). Sometimes I end up writing something 2 or 3 times before it sounds like I think I want it to sound. Don't know if anyone else does that, but, I try to read back what I've written to try to make sure it is taken like I mean it, but, alas, that doesn't always happen.

Beth

 

[somehiker]

Two sample links featuring replicas of the Stone Maps



Bob's take on the maps is very interesting.

http://www.thelostdutchmangoldmine....nters-Rendezvous/Joe_With_Stone_Maps.jpg.html

Joe:
Are these the same replicas as the ones in the video?
Is Glover's negative damaged? Or only the print he used in the book?

Regards:Wayne

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

[Joe:
Are these the same replicas as the ones in the video?
Is Glover's negative damaged? Or only the print he used in the book?]
_____________________________________

I doubt it very much. The ones that were brought to the Rendezvous belonged to Brad Cooper. I believe he bought them from whoever was doing the selling at the time.

As I understood/remember, Dr. Glover did not have the original picture, although I believe he did see it. That picture had been folded and damaged as you see it in the copy. Either he took a picture of the original, or the owner's did.

He does not give out much detail as to the events that surrounded his getting the picture. I believe you can make some guesses by reading his chapter on the Stone Maps.

I asked, but he was constrained from telling me too much, by promises that he made. I respect that, and won't ask again. Thomas will try to make this Rendezvous, and you can ask him who, what, when and why.

Take care,

Joe