PotBelly Jim
Hero Member
How was it you were able to dismiss in the other thread, and without reservation I might add, overwhelming evidence presented by thousands of scientists that climate change is real- and of who backed up their claim with solid evidence, thorough chemical and physical testings, deriving results ranging from ice core drilling to tree rings, to the spiking acidity of the oceans, but take umbrage when I reject the conclusions of four "scientists" who were proven to have not done any homework, never mind any physical or chemical tests, on the Stone Maps, and forming conclusions all in the space of the two hours that they had the Stone Maps with, one of who examined it with what appears to be a loupe, about a foot away from the stone.
Especially when they were quickly proven wrong on several counts, including on iconography which clearly existed long before the 18th century.
And if I'm not wrong, Wayne (somehiker) has found a match for the type of stone that composes the heart stone, in the Superstitions. There is a picture of that somewhere- I'll see if I can locate it.
If I were a reputable, respectable scientist, I would absolutely not be forming a scientific conclusion in the space of two hours without the benefit of chemical and physical tests and thorough research which they obviously had not done.
I am not sure how you are conflating this with "dutch hunters."
Additionally, DAI wasn't around for a long time at the time they examined the Stone Maps. The organization was founded in 1982, and only established the Tucson office in 1995.
Those are all fair criticisms, Deducer. But, you're perception of what I dismiss without reservation is inaccurate. Not your fault, just that I refuse to go any further into it on this forum. And, I don't think DAI was quickly proven wrong on anything. Quite the opposite.
And I don't think 2 hours examination of the stones is out of the question, or out of line, with what they reported. It probably took them less than 2 hours. So why infer that a reputable, respectable scientist MUST come to a different conclusion? Can't they be reputable scientists and have a different conclusion from you, or anyone else? Why not just say you disagree with their findings, and state your evidence, while not attacking their motives or expertise? I don't get it.
The reason I'm conflating this with "dutch hunters" is because this is the Lost Dutchman Forum. And, for better (and probably worse) the Tumlinson stones, the Bilbrey Crosses, the un-pedigreed Latin Heart, and so on, have been entangled with the LDM lore by other people. Not me.
DAI has been around long enough, and has developed their professional reputation quite nicely, to never have needed the publicity of debunking a set of stone maps. That argument, that they needed the publicity, is absurd IMO. It seems you have a different opinion, which is OK and is predictable given a world of 8 billion or so sentient beings

And I do recall that SH has found a match for the stones in the Supes. Or near there.
Take care, Jim