Legend of the Stone Maps

[sgtfda]

Frank,
Perhaps you are correct and know something that everyone else doesn't. The stone maps that I photographed, on several occasions, were described to me as being the original stone maps, this coming from someone with impeccable credentials, George Johnston, President Emeritus, Superstition Mountain. I hope that you are wrong because visitors to the museum are paying money to see, among other things, the originals. If they are being misrepresented to the public, that constitutes fraud and casts a dark shadow over the museum and those running it. I honestly cant believe that anyone associated with museum would conceive such a scheme. For you to make such a claim, I am assuming that you have some form of proof? If so, please explain, not to me, because I think that you are mistaken, but to the people reading this.

Hal

View attachment 1171343

I am not mistaken.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hal Croves]

I am not mistaken.View attachment 1171404

Frank,
It seems that you are. Question is, how will you correct your mistake?
Like I said, "impeccable credentials". Unless you are describing some most recent event, a change in the display, which, I guess is not impossible.
Once you familiarize yourself with museum quality reproductions, the methods and materials used, these types of mistakes and the resulting inferences drawn hopefully are reduced.

The image you posted seems to have been taken in direct sunlight and this effect tends to make things "wash" out. A loss of shadow and detail.
My interior shot is shifting towards red due to the unfriendly lights.

Note staining, surface abrasions, and pitting, all identical. Even the same adhesive marks from what I am assuming to have been tape of some kind.
These two are the exact same stones.



View attachment 1171453View attachment 1171488

 

[Hal Croves]

I think that Mike C. has done some excellent photography work on the stone maps but conventional photography is limited as a tool in the study of old, inscribed stones. In this months issue of Current World Archeology, there is an article about a new imaging method that is producing some incredible results. This would be worth the investment.

Current World Archeology
May 2015

 

[Not Peralta]

Hal, It would be worth the Investment If someone had all the tablets, You or Frank,or anyone else can not solve a puzzle without the knowledge
given on all the tablets involved, there are still two missing. A picture of one of them has been posted and made known, has been for some years
now .NP

 

[sgtfda]

I repeat. The maps on display are copies. The originals are stored. At times in the past the originals were on display. The photo I posted was of the original brought out from the back room. As seen in photo two.

*How many years has it been since your last visit. My first visit five years ago they were on display. My last visit they were not.

 

[Hal Croves]

I repeat. The maps on display are copies. The originals are stored. At times in the past the originals were on display. The photo I posted was of the original brought out from the back room. As seen in photo two.

*How many years has it been since your last visit. My first visit five years ago they were on display. My last visit they were not.View attachment 1171556

Like I said, some recent change in the display is not impossible.
If that is indeed the situation, for clarity's sake I would have written, "the current maps on display are copies". Hopefully, if that is the case, the museum is representing them as copies.
I see no reason why they would not.

Seems you and I were fortunate enough to have seen and photographed the real thing, except I only paid the $5.00 entry fee (which explains my less-than impressive photographs). Do you mind me asking just how much they charged you?

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal, It would be worth the Investment If someone had all the tablets, You or Frank,or anyone else can not solve a puzzle without the knowledge
given on all the tablets involved, there are still two missing. A picture of one of them has been posted and made known, has been for some years
now .NP[/QUOTE
I would say that Frank and I are in good company.

 

[txtea]

Have to agree with Frank on this one.
I visited the museum in October of 2011, after I left the Dons camp. My 1st. impression of the stones were that they were too clean, the engravings too perfect and clean, and they didn't look like they were ever buried in the ground for any length of time.
I realize that the originals have been cleaned probably a few times, and lighting affects the appearance, but these just didn't look right.
As previously stated, Mike (Gollum) took some amazing photos of them under different lighting conditions, even blacklight, with a microscope attached to the camera. The ones he examined and photographed were the originals brought out of the back room, which they do on rare occasions for a fee.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Like I said, some recent change in the display is not impossible.
If that is indeed the situation, for clarity's sake I would have written, "the current maps on display are copies". Hopefully, if that is the case, the museum is representing them as copies.
I see no reason why they would not.

Seems you and I were fortunate enough to have seen and photographed the real thing, except I only paid the $5.00 entry fee (which explains my less-than impressive photographs). Do you mind me asking just how much they charged you?

Not unknown to have copies of paintings on display at museums and not told. When Dec of independence, bill of rights and constitution has work done copies are on display while preservation work is done and there are no signs.

 

[Hal Croves]

I repeat. The maps on display are copies. The originals are stored. At times in the past the originals were on display. The photo I posted was of the original brought out from the back room. As seen in photo two.

*How many years has it been since your last visit. My first visit five years ago they were on display. My last visit they were not.View attachment 1171556

Frank, I am not sure what to make of your post. Living so close, it would seem reasonable that you have access to the museum and are familiar with the current exhibits. So, if you say the stones on display are copies, and the museum now charging for a look at the originals which are locked away, then, there should be no reason to doubt you.

But, and there is always a big but, I have doubt.

I just phoned the museum and asked these three questions and received the following response. If you need the name of the gentleman that I spoke with on the phone I will PM it.

Are the current stone maps on display the originals or, copies?
"They are the originals."

How long have the originals been on display?
"Oh, well, for quite a few years now."

So, to be clear, the originals are not locked away from public view and the museum is not charging a fee to privately access them?

"Laughter... Noooo, why do you ask?"

------------


For the past five years I have photographed the same set of stones with each visit to the museum so, the response makes complete sense to me. Now, I did not speak with Mr. Johnston directly today. But, the kind gentleman with whom I spoke seemed to have a firm grasp on things and I see no reason to doubt him.

Anyone who doubts me can call the museum and ask the same questions. Not too hard a thing to check.

That brings us back to your post.

Before you respond, you should take a ride to the museum and ask the same questions. For the life of me I don't understand the disconnect. You made the claim and I don't think you were Hassayampa-ing us. So, where is the disconnect?

Hal

 

[sgtfda]

What makes think I'm responding further on the subject. I do not appreciate your suggesting I'm a liar. At times I cannot post further details. Take it or leave it. My posts are not intended for you and any of your comments will be ignored in the future.

 

[Hal Croves]

What makes think I'm responding further on the subject. I do not appreciate your suggesting I'm a liar. At times I cannot post further details. Take it or leave it. My posts are not intended for you and any of your comments will be ignored in the future.

Wow. You post a statement that is not very flattering about the museum, then when someone calls to confirm your statement, and is told by museum staff that what you have posted is not accurate, you turn on that person.

That is simply amazing.

Why bother to post? I never suggested that you were a liar Frank. I don't agree with many of your ideas or some of your comments that I find distasteful, but I don't consider you to be a liar.
Your statement about the stones just didn't make sense. It contradicts my own first hand experience and now the words of museum staff. I said there was a disconnect and asked you to explain it. You can't for some "confidential" reason. That's fine, but expecting anyone to understand it is not very realistic.

I think that in this case, it's best to leave it, until you can explain it. I hope that you will, one day, because there is always another side to the story.

Frank, I think that this is the third time that you have stated that you are going to ignore me. I find it silly, but that is your right. It will not stop me from commenting on anything you post that I agree or disagree with. That's why we are here.

 

[RG1976]

Have to agree with Frank on this one.
I visited the museum in October of 2011, after I left the Dons camp. My 1st. impression of the stones were that they were too clean, the engravings too perfect and clean, and they didn't look like they were ever buried in the ground for any length of time.
I realize that the originals have been cleaned probably a few times, and lighting affects the appearance, but these just didn't look right.
As previously stated, Mike (Gollum) took some amazing photos of them under different lighting conditions, even blacklight, with a microscope attached to the camera. The ones he examined and photographed were the originals brought out of the back room, which they do on rare occasions for a fee.

That's been my experience as well - and if I can get the timing and permissions right - will be part of video 6.

Let's see what I can do. *fingers crossed*

 

[i am the horse]

Wow. You post a statement that is not very flattering about the museum, then when someone calls to confirm your statement, and is told by museum staff that what you have posted is not accurate, you turn on that person.

That is simply amazing.

Why bother to post? I never suggested that you were a liar Frank. I don't agree with many of your ideas or some of your comments that I find distasteful, but I don't consider you to be a liar.
Your statement about the stones just didn't make sense. It contradicts my own first hand experience and now the words of museum staff. I said there was a disconnect and asked you to explain it. You can't for some "confidential" reason. That's fine, but expecting anyone to understand it is not very realistic.

I think that in this case, it's best to leave it, until you can explain it. I hope that you will, one day, because there is always another side to the story.

Frank, I think that this is the third time that you have stated that you are going to ignore me. I find it silly, but that is your right. It will not stop me from commenting on anything you post that I agree or disagree with. That's why we are here.

you probably believe every word that rolls off a politicians tongue also. pfft

 

[Hal Croves]

you probably believe every word that rolls off a politicians tongue also. pfft

I don't follow politics.

 

[DiggerGal]

Frank, I am not sure what to make of your post. Living so close, it would seem reasonable that you have access to the museum and are familiar with the current exhibits. So, if you say the stones on display are copies, and the museum now charging for a look at the originals which are locked away, then, there should be no reason to doubt you.

But, and there is always a big but, I have doubt.

I just phoned the museum and asked these three questions and received the following response. If you need the name of the gentleman that I spoke with on the phone I will PM it.

Are the current stone maps on display the originals or, copies?
"They are the originals."

How long have the originals been on display?
"Oh, well, for quite a few years now."

So, to be clear, the originals are not locked away from public view and the museum is not charging a fee to privately access them?

"Laughter... Noooo, why do you ask?"

------------


For the past five years I have photographed the same set of stones with each visit to the museum so, the response makes complete sense to me. Now, I did not speak with Mr. Johnston directly today. But, the kind gentleman with whom I spoke seemed to have a firm grasp on things and I see no reason to doubt him.

Anyone who doubts me can call the museum and ask the same questions. Not too hard a thing to check.

That brings us back to your post.

Before you respond, you should take a ride to the museum and ask the same questions. For the life of me I don't understand the disconnect. You made the claim and I don't think you were Hassayampa-ing us. So, where is the disconnect?

Hal

Hal,

It seems as though with most of your posts it is not to offer information on the subject being discussed, it is to challenge the information given by the person posting.
You have a consistent habit of asking for "proof" of ones statement so you can research or complete the research that you are doing.
Rather than challenge everyone in an area or topic that interests you, why is it that you do not invest the time to research it yourself? Step away from the Internet and into a local library where you reside and do the research that will give you the "proof" that you are consistently asking for?
If you are a treasure hunter, you can do the research first and then put your boots on the ground to commence your research...if treasure hunting is something that interests you, or the Legends and Lore, the same steps would apply.
Your arguments, challenges and tactics are not in any way compelling. They come across as narcissistic while condemning others on their accomplishments.
Your pattern and practice of bifurcating responses to mean something other than what was experienced by the poster along with challenging those that are speaking of real life experiences, are becoming quite tiring and quite frankly, a distraction for those of us that are interested in what the OP's experiences are.
Try researching something so you have something to offer rather than an argument, or, don't offer anything at all...just read, and take it all in......

 

[Billy Sastard]

Hal,

It seems as though with most of your posts it is not to offer information on the subject being discussed, it is to challenge the information given by the person posting.
You have a consistent habit of asking for "proof" of ones statement so you can research or complete the research that you are doing.
Rather than challenge everyone in an area or topic that interests you, why is it that you do not invest the time to research it yourself? Step away from the Internet and into a local library where you reside and do the research that will give you the "proof" that you are consistently asking for?
If you are a treasure hunter, you can do the research first and then put your boots on the ground to commence your research...if treasure hunting is something that interests you, or the Legends and Lore, the same steps would apply.
Your arguments, challenges and tactics are not in any way compelling. They come across as narcissistic while condemning others on their accomplishments.
Your pattern and practice of bifurcating responses to mean something other than what was experienced by the poster along with challenging those that are speaking of real life experiences, are becoming quite tiring and quite frankly, a distraction for those of us that are interested in what the OP's experiences are.
Try researching something so you have something to offer rather than an argument, or, don't offer anything at all...just read, and take it all in......

Increasing of late, there has been a conspicuous absence of many knowledgable and senior posters in this and other threads in this forum. Its a real shame.

 

[Garry]

That's been my experience as well - and if I can get the timing and permissions right - will be part of video 6.

Let's see what I can do. *fingers crossed*

Ryan,

I look forward to what you are able to come up with regarding copies of the stone maps at the SSM. Hopefully you can at least put this story to rest one way or the other. I do feel the truth is important here!

Stories of duplicates, replicas, etc. of the stone maps have been around as long as I have been involved. Some people even claim that the "original" stones in the so called "back room" are duplicates. The foundation had a "back room and now the SSM has the proverbial "back room".

Of course the people making these claims never provide sources. It's a case of, "trust me".

I am particularly interested in photos of the "copies".

I am aware of cast copies of the stone maps created while they were in possession of the old Flagg Foundation (1980's). Richard Robinson signed an "exclusive" contract with (document exits) the foundation, took the maps and spent considerable effort in creating the replicas. I contacted Richard a few years ago and over a couple of weeks he shared the story and process in great detail.

Richard cast 25 copies of the maps and during the last manufacturing cycle a release agent was applied to the latex mold which ruined the patterns. A lot of detail that I won't go into now but Richard's copies should be easy to identify. They are "ONE" sided molds. [For example, there are two different pieces being fabricated to represent the horse-witch stone.] The only "TWO" sided mold was for the heart inlay. 7 Molds were required to create the so called replicas. Richard had a set of the seven pieces mounted on his wall for many years.

The reason for the one sided molds is the difficulty and cost of fabricating a multi piece die. Irregularities in the shape can lock your piece ("plaster") on the die. I have seen the pattern making process and it is possible to make an exact shape but I have seen dies that required numerous sections and it was like a jig saw puzzle assembling and disassembling the dies. Some very complex shapes can be cast.

Richard also caught wind, sometime later, that someone else was allegedly fabricating "replicas".

The foundation was not involved with anyone and I think both Richard and I felt that these new "replicas" were being created using a pattern derived from one of the copies that he had sold. This would seemingly require 7 dies also unless someone jumped through some more hoops with their fabrication process.

I'm sure I have seen photos of replicas posted on the forums but I would love to see a copy photographed from different angles

I hope you can find out where the SSM got their copies (assuming that is what's on display?) what company made them, etc?

Are they plaster casts or a machined sandstone fabricated using some sort of tracer mill, etc?

Thanks,

Garry

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

It seems as though with most of your posts it is not to offer information on the subject being discussed, it is to challenge the information given by the person posting.
You have a consistent habit of asking for "proof" of ones statement so you can research or complete the research that you are doing.
Rather than challenge everyone in an area or topic that interests you, why is it that you do not invest the time to research it yourself? Step away from the Internet and into a local library where you reside and do the research that will give you the "proof" that you are consistently asking for?
If you are a treasure hunter, you can do the research first and then put your boots on the ground to commence your research...if treasure hunting is something that interests you, or the Legends and Lore, the same steps would apply.
Your arguments, challenges and tactics are not in any way compelling. They come across as narcissistic while condemning others on their accomplishments.
Your pattern and practice of bifurcating responses to mean something other than what was experienced by the poster along with challenging those that are speaking of real life experiences, are becoming quite tiring and quite frankly, a distraction for those of us that are interested in what the OP's experiences are.
Try researching something so you have something to offer rather than an argument, or, don't offer anything at all...just read, and take it all in......

Fair enough. I think that you touched on something important here. While you may not see it, researching statements and claims are an important form of research. It doesn't matter who is posting, if it sounds off, and in this example, it sounded way off, then it needs to be challenged.
I don't give a pass to friends, those in the spotlight, or those looking to find favor with those in the spotlight. If you post something, you post for review and hopefully your thick skinned enough to take the criticism. Some clearly aren't. Those are the ones that turn things personal.

I do quite a bit of research and spend quite a bit of time in some incredible library's. If you were truly an impartial person, and spent time reading, back posts, you would almost certainly come to that same conclusion. That's time consuming and I understand that sometimes, its just easier to march along with the band.

A modest dose of narcissism is healthy. You, yourself wouldn't have found the strength to chastise me without it, correct?

You seem to think that I am splitting hairs again. In this case, I challenge you to do some of your own research this time, to call the museum yourself, and to ask the same relevant questions. No bifurcating, just show us that you are capable of impartial and critical review.

Post your findings. Keep it respectful and accurate like I try to do.

I understand if you pass because the responses to your questions will cast skepticism on Frank's post. You don't want to hurt or embarrass the man and are trying stay in good graces with him and his circle of friends. That's admirable. A true friend would forgive another for challenging them respectfully. In fact, a true friend, the truest of friends, might even thank you for taking the time to correct them.

If my posts are a distraction, why not skip over them and stay focused on the band?

Thank you for taking the time to post your feelings. I appreciate the honesty even when it's meant to sting.

 

[Hal Croves]

Ryan,

I look forward to what you are able to come up with regarding copies of the stone maps at the SSM. Hopefully you can at least put this story to rest one way or the other. I do feel the truth is important here!

Stories of duplicates, replicas, etc. of the stone maps have been around as long as I have been involved. Some people even claim that the "original" stones in the so called "back room" are duplicates. The foundation had a "back room and now the SSM has the proverbial "back room".

Of course the people making these claims never provide sources. It's a case of, "trust me".

I am particularly interested in photos of the "copies".

I am aware of cast copies of the stone maps created while they were in possession of the old Flagg Foundation (1980's). Richard Robinson signed an "exclusive" contract with (document exits) the foundation, took the maps and spent considerable effort in creating the replicas. I contacted Richard a few years ago and over a couple of weeks he shared the story and process in great detail.

Richard cast 25 copies of the maps and during the last manufacturing cycle a release agent was applied to the latex mold which ruined the patterns. A lot of detail that I won't go into now but Richard's copies should be easy to identify. They are "ONE" sided molds. [For example, there are two different pieces being fabricated to represent the horse-witch stone.] The only "TWO" sided mold was for the heart inlay. 7 Molds were required to create the so called replicas. Richard had a set of the seven pieces mounted on his wall for many years.

The reason for the one sided molds is the difficulty and cost of fabricating a multi piece die. Irregularities in the shape can lock your piece ("plaster") on the die. I have seen the pattern making process and it is possible to make an exact shape but I have seen dies that required numerous sections and it was like a jig saw puzzle assembling and disassembling the dies. Some very complex shapes can be cast.

Richard also caught wind, sometime later, that someone else was allegedly fabricating "replicas".

The foundation was not involved with anyone and I think both Richard and I felt that these new "replicas" were being created using a pattern derived from one of the copies that he had sold. This would seemingly require 7 dies also unless someone jumped through some more hoops with their fabrication process.

I'm sure I have seen photos of replicas posted on the forums but I would love to see a copy photographed from different angles

I hope you can find out where the SSM got their copies (assuming that is what's on display?) what company made them, etc?

Are they plaster casts or a machined sandstone fabricated using some sort of tracer mill, etc?

Thanks,

Garry

Gary,
You are 100% correct. It's an important thing and the story should be put to rest once and for all. Anyone (stone mappers) worth their salt should be able to tell the difference between a cast object and one that has been carved from stone. Its research 101 but, unfortunately, very few here have invested the time and energy to learn the difference.

Where it gets murky is with an object that has been "duplicated" in the same original material. Only a master artist could reproduce something close. And then, there are only a handful of people in the states that could even come close. Surface abrasion, pitting, staining, cracks... All very difficult things to duplicate. It would take a master.

But, even the masters duplicate would be worthless unless he or she knew which original to copy. I think that the stones on display, the ones that I have looked at time and time again, are the real thing. But, only because I asked and was told that they are. At some point you have to hang your coat on the strongest peg available. The staff at the museum I think is about as strong as it gets.

"trust me" test me, trust me.