Possible source of stone used in Peralta tablets

[PotBelly Jim]

What did Dr. Miksa ever write that is being contested here? She said that the big stone with the horse on it "appeared" to be Coconino sandstone. She never said that it WAS. She said the stone maps are "most likely" found on the Mogollon Rim or in northern Arizona. She never said she had proven any of that with specific scientific means. I don't think DAI ever intended their involvement with a magazine, owned by a gov't agency they contracted with, to be any more than a cool story by a sports-caster/rockhound. It was never intended to be a scientific investigation that proved or disproved anything.

Clay, you listed your many professional accomplishments, please accept my thanks for all that you've done. Not only for that but for the things you've made available, for free, in your pro-bono work. It's an impressive body of work and IMO a very patriotic thing to do for your fellow Americans. I've followed your personal website in the past and also Land Matters.

But it seems you want us to accept what you believe in regards to the stones based on your experience, credentials, and the credentials of others. That's OK, some folks may, some may not. What's the big deal who believes what?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[robertk]

What's the big deal who believes what?

It isn't a big deal. People can believe whatever they want. But sometimes if you see someone acting on a belief that you know is false, you can save them some trouble. I mean, if my buddy said he knew the moon was made of green cheese and he began building a rocket to go retrieve it and make a fortune ... I would be remiss if I didn't at least try to tell him it might not be the best idea, despite his earnest belief.

 

[Clay Diggins]

But it seems you want us to accept what you believe in regards to the stones based on your experience, credentials, and the credentials of others.

I don't want anybody to believe any particular thing. I clearly stated my motivations right up front in my previous post:

I am asking that treasure hunters as well as people interested in verifiable facts consider the physical knowledge as well as their experience in finding (or not finding as the case may be) "treasure" as you call it.

I just asked that people consider the physical knowledge available.

Then I went on to quantify the physical knowledge available that I know of.

I never asked anybody to believe anything. I never stated that I believed any particular thing. My assessment of peoples reactions to the science, that's an honest observation - not a belief. I just asked for consideration.

 

[Clay Diggins]

What did Dr. Miksa ever write that is being contested here?

More than one poster has implied and even stated her work was plagiarized from another scientist.

She said that the big stone with the horse on it "appeared" to be Coconino sandstone. She never said that it WAS. She said the stone maps are "most likely" found on the Mogollon Rim or in northern Arizona. She never said she had proven any of that with specific scientific means. I don't think DAI ever intended their involvement with a magazine, owned by a gov't agency they contracted with, to be any more than a cool story by a sports-caster/rockhound. It was never intended to be a scientific investigation that proved or disproved anything.

Jim, I've practiced animal husbandry. I've handled thousands of goats and sheep. If someone brings me a sheep and asks what animal it is I would say "in my opinion it appears to be a sheep".

I've got a feeling the next question a reasonable person would ask is NOT "how do you know that without a DNA test?"

I can assure you Dr Miksa has handled more Coconino sandstone than I have handled sheep and goats. The fact that she uses precise language in her response is a sign of professionalism - not of a lack of knowledge.

 

[markmar]

The " appears as " means not 100% certainty. It's an open window to save yourself in the case there would be another answer/result.

PS
Only if a specimen would been brought from another planet, a professional in that domain would say " it looks like " what is on the Earth. A real professional on the Earth will say with certainty what he knows from his experience, and only if will be proved otherwise, then the " appeared as " could be used as a defense, as then nobody could say nothing if there was a minimum of similarity.

 

[Clay Diggins]

The " appears as " means not 100% certainty. It's an open window to save yourself in the case there would be another answer/result.

Agreed

PS
Only if a specimen would been brought from another planet, a professional in that domain would say " it looks like " what is on the Earth. A real professional on the Earth will say with certainty what he knows from his experience, and only if will be proved otherwise, then the " appeared as " could be used as a defense, as then nobody could say nothing if there was a minimum of similarity.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as "Scientific proof" or scientific certainty. That's a bad TV show script that has no place in science.. Any scientist of any merit or honesty will tell you that science is about the discovery of the unknown. No real scientist would ever try to convince someone they have discovered all that is unknown or that they know the final answer to any question.

Maybe a better way to understand the concept of science is to envision a team of a thousand horses pulling a wagon that is constantly filling with knowledge. No one horse could every pull the full weight of the wagon nor does any single horse lead the progress of the whole team. If you conclude a thousand horses all pulling in different directions at the same time lends surety to the path of any single horse then you won't understand science or scientists.

 

[deducer]

Once again another member mischaracterize my writings. I have never asked much less demanded "scientific proof" of anything. I guess if all the believers make up enough stuff that I supposedly wrote but never wrote you can assassinate the character of another expert that might disagree with your conclusions. You picked the wrong guy to be playing those sort of high school games with.

I am asking that treasure hunters as well as people interested in verifiable facts consider the physical knowledge as well as their experience in finding (or not finding as the case may be) "treasure" as you call it. Yes I am an acknowledged expert in finding mineral deposits and creating great wealth from the mining of those natural treasures. Yeah science, testing and logic have produced billions in treasure every year of my and your life. Don't give me that hokum that "treasure hunting" is different or that real treasure hunters don't use science. I wasn't born yesterday.

You are enjoying my treasure hunting results every day, you use a computer made from the minerals I helped discover and recover. You drive or ride in cars that are made of the minerals I helped discover and recover. There would be no internet or computers if it weren't for the treasures I continue to discover. Your lifestyle and the living standards of your family friends and country rely on the science and skills involved in finding and recovering the most hidden treasures on earth. Without myself and other treasure hunter scientists you would still be looking for a bear to kill with your stick so you could keep warm in your mud hovel this winter.

I see here people trying to question the scholarship and scientific conclusions of DAI and Polzar's work as well as their personal character. I don't see anyone here actually questioning their results based on facts or science but instead with charges of plagiarism and incompetence - yet they provide no evidence.

You can find volumes of Beth Miksa's work in any university geology library as well as in the archaeology section (she has two doctorates in two scientific disciplines). Beth is respected worldwide for her work in the southwestern United States. She's also a very pleasant and honest woman. I have never seen any question about her work quality through the years, her research publications are highly regarded and often cited. Yet here I see personal slurs against her character as well as denigration of her abilities as a scientist. It seems you would like me to believe treasure hunters know more about Beth and her work than all those universities, corporations and science foundations who have relied on her work through the years. This is BS. Beth is a nice honest woman who has spent her life discovering the truth about past life in the southwest.

Here's what I see going on here. You have four Phd's highly trained and experienced in answering just the type of questions the Peralta stones elicit from treasure hunters. All four Phds investigate the actual stones in question. They form their answers to the questions independently at different times. They all agree on the answers to those questions. Treasure hunters scream it must be collusion! It's plagiarism! They are lying! They aren't real scientists! Treasure hunting doesn't involve facts or science!

Strangely the obvious conclusion is bypassed as if it's not even there - that if several scientists all independently, by their own methods, at different times, reach the same conclusion you have the extreme possibility of a real fact on your hands - unless you can refute that fact with other facts. No one has presented anything factual in this thread that in any way challenges those four scientists conclusion.

I smell sour grapes.

Get off your soapbox, Clay. You are flat out making stuff up here. Nobody is assassinating your character so put away your ad hominem card.

One more time, DAI was asked to do something pro-bono for a tourist magazine. They did not do a comprehensive scientific investigation which would have cost a serious amount of time and money, just two hours of non-invasive analysis.

And as Jim pointed out, Dr. Miksa was careful to characterize it as such, by using words like "appears" and "most likely." These terms would never be tolerated by a scientific journal.

And as stated, they gave their opinions on what they thought of the Stone Maps.

I reject their conclusions, regardless of their backgrounds.

 

[deducer]

Let's have a little fun.

The Stone Maps according to the individuals engaged by DAI for a pro-bono examination, are fake because:

1) There is no evidence these stones were buried. The stone material is very soft and would have suffered random abrasions.

2) The stones were mechanically sanded and drilled because of the existence of "start dimples."

3) The stone materials (appearing to be Coconino Sandstone, and iron-rich sandstone) is nowhere to be found in the Superstitions. ("Most likely found on the Mogollon Rim or in northern Arizona").

4) Poorly spelled Spanish.

5) Blocky, poor writing. Lettering is wrong for the Spanish language documents of the supposed time period.


Anything else? Or is that it?

 

[deducer]

Let’s address these points one by one:


1) There is no evidence these stones were buried. The stone material is very soft and would have suffered random abrasions (assuming she is talking about the trail stones).

Assuming that Dr. Adams is talking about the two trail stones (because the H/P stone is pretty banged up and has plenty of abrasions, gouges, and scratches), the good doctor absolutely whiffed on this one. If she had done a tiny teensy bit of homework, she would have come across Travis Tumlinson’s account that he had found the trail stones buried face to face. This would account for the fact that the flat and critical sides of the trail maps remained relatively unscathed while the reverse side of these trail stones are pretty eroded and have suffered more than just a few random abrasions, especially the back of the lower map (see below). I am using Marlow’s image because the contrast in his picture is much better.

2) The stones were mechanically sanded and drilled because of the existence of "start dimples."

Dr. Adams also believes that the presence of “start dimples” on the Stone Maps is proof of the presence of a drill. It is not clear if she also suggests that an electric drill was at work, or if these are author Anne Montgomery’s words. Anyway these observations are erroneously used to interpret these Stone Maps as fakes.

Here, the doctor whiffs again. She may be very knowledgeable about geological matters, but if she bothered to learn a little bit about stone carvings, she might realize that start dimples are indispensable for stone carvings and are used all the time in sculptures. done mostly with drills, but also with punch and point chisels. See below, two pictures containing non-electric drills, the cord and strap drill, similar ones of which date to the Roman era, and much earlier. These types of tools were widespread.

Poor grounds on which to dismiss the Stone Maps as a hoax.

3) The stone materials (appearing to be Coconino Sandstone, and iron-rich sandstone) is nowhere to be found in the Superstitions. ("Most likely found on the Mogollon Rim or in northern Arizona").

Here we come to Clay’s favorite doctor, Dr. Elizabeth “Beth” Miksa and her remarks explaining that the “Peralta Stones originated far from where they were supposedly found.” How on earth does this mean that these Stone Maps are a hoax? First we start with the notion that they are “Peralta Stones.” Where does that idea come from? There is nothing on any of the stones that indicate any sort of relationship with the Peraltas, Jacob Waltz, or anyone else. There are a few words such as “Miguel,” “Pedro,” and “Sonora, Mex” but that’s still not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. But the real issue is that there’s nothing on these Stone Maps that indicate that they are from the Superstitions, or that they even relate to anything in the Superstitions. The only thing remotely relevant is Travis Tumlinson’s uncorroborated claims that he found these stones in the Superstitions.

Again, poor grounds on which to dismiss these Stone Maps as a hoax.

4) Poorly spelled Spanish.

Not much I can say at this point other than to say that these misspellings are intentional. I have several other documents and maps that contain the same kind of “misspellings.” One example is posted below on a treasure map given to me by someone on the condition that I never reveal the entire map as it is a project he is currently working on (no, not in the Superstitions, not even in Arizona).

However, to dismiss something as a hoax simply based on poor spelling is neither sound reasoning or science. It is pretty dumb to consider literacy a requirement for mining, burying treasure, or similar activities. During the time period concerned, very few people were literate.

5) Blocky, poor writing. Lettering is wrong for the Spanish language documents of the supposed time period.

Archaeologist Homer Theil does his share of whiffing. Really? The lettering is wrong? See below, an example of very similar script as found on the Stone Maps (provided by Azmula, a poster from another site) clearly in Spanish. This came from a church graveyard in Arizpe, Mexico, and while I wish he had photographed a gravestone earlier than 1939, there are many other gravestones with similar script that date much earlier.

Arizpe is also home to- wait for it- iron-rich sandstone cliffs!

 

[Clay Diggins]

I love to watch people playing scientist. It's like watching children play war. They don't have a clue how the tools and the strategy work but they have a great time imagining wonderful battles and grand victories.

Maybe pay more attention to the precision of the language used in science and less time trying to "interpret" what you think the science says? What you present here is a rebuttal to statements and ideas that were not presented by DAI. Your paraphrasing changed the meaning and intent of the DAI report.

Here a good place to start -

Naw - I was going to direct you to some material to help you understand how to determine the difference between an electric powered drill and a mechanical drill in rock carving. - never mind, I can see the more education you are exposed to the more alternate histories you will postulate.

I wish we could stay on subject here. Trying to present arguments about why every expert that has studied the stones came to the same wrong conclusion isn't really addressing the subject "Possible source of stone used in Peralta tablets".

I'll ask again - does anyone have any actual knowledge of the source of the stone other than the 4 independent published assessments by experts?

 

[deducer]

I love to watch people playing scientist. It's like watching children play war. They don't have a clue how the tools and the strategy work but they have a great time imagining wonderful battles and grand victories.

Maybe pay more attention to the precision of the language used in science and less time trying to "interpret" what you think the science says? What you present here is a rebuttal to statements and ideas that were not presented by DAI. Your paraphrasing changed the meaning and intent of the DAI report.

Here a good place to start -

Naw - I was going to direct you to some material to help you understand how to determine the difference between an electric powered drill and a mechanical drill in rock carving. - never mind, I can see the more education you are exposed to the more alternate histories you will postulate.

I wish we could stay on subject here. Trying to present arguments about why every expert that has studied the stones came to the same wrong conclusion isn't really addressing the subject "Possible source of stone used in Peralta tablets".

I'll ask again - does anyone have any actual knowledge of the source of the stone other than the 4 independent published assessments by experts?

I am directly rebutting the points raised in the article in support of the hypothesis that the Stone Maps were not authentic, that should be pretty obvious to you. The article chose to highlight these particular points as the basis for the argument that we're dealing with a hoax here. No other points from the "DAI report(s)" you claim to have, were raised in the article, and the scientists were not quoted further, or additionally, and whether that is because of the preference of the writer, or a desire on the part of the editor of AH to be succinct, is not my problem.

And it isn't my problem either, if the article fails to address how to determine when carving is caused by a mechanical drill vs. when it is caused by an electric drill (which is what I assume you meant to say; your language is confusing). Since that issue wasn't raised in the article, I did not address it.

But you have just done exactly what I expected you to do, which is to move the goalposts as you often do, and backpedal into the ambiguity of rhetoric rather than directly rebut any of my points.

You can either do that, or if you want to put aside the article and address the "DAI report(s)" directly, then let's do that. Lay out the facts.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

I can assure you Dr Miksa has handled more Coconino sandstone than I have handled sheep and goats. The fact that she uses precise language in her response is a sign of professionalism - not of a lack of knowledge.

Clay, everyone here knows me and that I'm not a "stoner" as Frank calls it. I have no problem with any of Dr. Miksa's opinions on where this stone comes from. But what I won't do is make a leap of logic and say that there's no other possible explanation for the source of these stones. I don't even care where the stone originated and don't think it has any bearing on explaining what these stones are.

If we're to believe the article, they seem to be operating under the assumption that the story was these stones were created with stone local to the Superstition Mts. So the considered opinion that the stone originated elsewhere somehow proves the story to be untrue. Now, I've never heard that story myself (that the raw stones were obtained in the Supes by whoever carved them), so not sure where that came from or why it was important. I would say the story that they started with in the article is mostly LDM legend, and most of that legend appears to be untrue based on modern research into these legends. But that's just my opinion.

What's apparent to me, looking at both sides, is there's really no way to prove either position - that the stones are modern creations, or that the stones were made some time in the past. So IMO it's useless to take either side and I'll continue to keep an open mind about it. To date, I've not heard a sufficient explanation proving what these stones represent, or what the source of the information contained on them is.

PS - Pretty much everyone here also knows that I'm not a treasure hunter, I just like reading about old AZ treasure tales and researching them. I also like to do a little recreational prospecting and rockhounding. Any opinion I had about what the symbols on the stones represent would be ignorant so I generally don't offer any opinions there

 

[Clay Diggins]

I don't have a position. There isn't enough verifiable information to reach a conclusion or even an educated opinion in relation to the many stories told about the history of these stones. I'm still waiting for the facts. If you don't start from the facts you are pursuing a fantasy. I don't pursue fantasies.

So far the best information available about the source of the stone is the DAI report. I generally discount Polzers account because although he was a many things and had Doctorates in Anthropology, History and Philosophy as well as a Masters degree in government he was not a geologist. He also had a perspective on the stones that was tainted by publicity and his beliefs. His information and opinion is valuable but not dispositive.

The DAI report isn't dispositive either. I'm not here to promote the DAI work but I see no reason not to regard it as the most complete and professional examination yet. Again - if anyone knows differently please share your knowledge.

I don't understand the date issue. I know some people would like to link the stones to the Superstitions, LDM, Peralta or aliens at some particular point in time before TT but there is nothing there to support that but the many individual theories themselves.

I know the source of the stones is all wrapped up in the date issue to some but no matter what you think of Dr Miksa's work those stones obviously did not come from the Superstitions or nearby. If someone wants to believe that secret Jesuit aliens were mining there thousands of years ago they have about as much evidence of that being true as someone believing they were buried by local miners prior to WWII.

Some people find this frustrating, some people find it amusing and others just ignore that detail. It's all good - it's just some rocks and you can believe any story you might wish about their purpose or meaning. There is no fraud or attempt to deceive on the part of the stones or their various custodians. I don't understand the "hoax" issue either. Just because people told stories that they have since contradicted or the story is retold so many times it's all tangled up in LDM, Peraltas, Rich mines, Spanish treasure, Barons, aliens and old politicians doesn't mean there is a hoax.

 

[deducer]

I am directly rebutting the points raised in the article in support of the hypothesis that the Stone Maps were not authentic, that should be pretty obvious to you. The article chose to highlight these particular points as the basis for the argument that we're dealing with a hoax here. No other points from the "DAI report(s)" were raised in the article, and the scientists were not quoted further, or additionally, and whether that is because of the preference of the writer, or a desire on the part of the editor of AH to be succinct, is not my problem.

And it isn't my problem either, if the article fails to address how to determine when carving is caused by a mechanical drill vs. when it is caused by an electric drill (which is what I assume you meant to say; your language is confusing). Since that issue wasn't raised in the article, I did not address it.

But you have just done exactly what I expected you to do, which is to move the goalposts as you often do, and backpedal into the ambiguity of rhetoric rather than directly rebut any of my points.

You can either do that, or if you want to put aside the article and address the "DAI report(s)" directly, then let's do that. Lay out the facts.

@Clay Diggins I'm waiting.

Let's see the "DAI reports(s)" that you claim to have, and go through them, point by point.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I did reply to you deducer. Did you miss that?

I will not be lead into an off topic argument defined by your interpretation and restatement of a qualified expert. If you wish to rebut do so but if you would like me to consider your rebuttal please rebut the precise language of the original - not what you would like to believe the language means.

Once again I will ask the ON TOPIC question that precedes your request for a rebuttal of your misstatement of the DAI report:

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of the source of the stone other than the 4 independent published assessments by experts?

 

[deducer]

I did reply to you deducer. Did you miss that?

I will not be lead into an off topic argument defined by your interpretation and restatement of a qualified expert. If you wish to rebut do so but if you would like me to consider your rebuttal please rebut the precise language of the original - not what you would like to believe the language means.

Once again I will ask the ON TOPIC question that precedes your request for a rebuttal of your misstatement of the DAI report:

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of the source of the stone other than the 4 independent published assessments by experts?

I'm calling you out Clay.

Let's see the three "DAI reports" that you claim to have.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Once again I will ask the ON TOPIC question that precedes your request for a rebuttal of your misstatement of the DAI report:

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of the source of the stone other than the 4 independent published assessments by experts?

I'll answer your question. I'm personally not aware of any claims made to the source of the stones other than the article in AZ Hwys with quotes from DAI personnel that we've been talking about.

Since that's out of the way now, I'll point out that any lab reports, etc. that you claim to have seen from from DAI are germane. They're not off topic at all.

Just my opinion, but I tend to take articles where people are quoted with a grain of salt. Many times I've heard interviewees say "I never said that!" when quoted in an article. Myself included.

Any lab reports done by the DAI folks on these stones would certainly clear up exactly what they found, with no editing or interpretations by writers, or even editors that weren't even there and could have made changes inadvertently ruining context.

Since you've seen them, you could educate us on what they say. It's right on topic.

Thanks, Jim

 

[coazon de oro]

Fellow Peralta Stoners,

It is nice to come here, and find new postings after this thread lies dormant for some time. Even if it's the same old thing being repeated by new members. I don't like putting likes when two friends are fighting with each other, and when I do put a like, it is just for giving me something to read.

Many bright (,and not so bright) minds have been mesmerized by the mystery of the PSM's existence when they learn about them. Some come with the common sense educated out of them. The problem is that many leave behind their failed ideas, and others leave behind many made up lies.

Some newbies will bring up these failed ideas, or lies to make their point. Some resort to criticism, which breeds ignorance. That being said, I will try to inject some logic into this discussion, hoping at least someone can get back on track. Over the years, I have shared with few how I dated the PSM's, burial date to the early 1700's. I would have to go to the Queen Creek area to get the actual month, and year.

When you know that for a fact, you know that Travis T. did not carve them, and that no one brought the stones from miles away, when stones are abundant in the Superstitions. Now, if the DAI had unearthed them, they would be in the Smithsonian, lucky for us that it was Travis T. who found them.

On deducer's list from the DAI's conclusions,
1. DAI concluded there was no evidence of the PSM's having been buried. Actually, there were several witnesses at the gas station, in Arizona where Travis washed the remaining dirt from them. They said there were roots in some of the grooves.
2. DAI concluded that an electric drill was used to carve the PSM's. The electric drill was not yet invented when the PSM's got carved.
3. DAI concluded that the P/H stone most likely came from the Mogollon Rim of Northern Arizona. See above
4. DAI concluded that the PSM's had poorly spelled Spanish, can't argue with that. Even Clay Diggins caught that, but saying that made them the work of a non Spanish writer? That's like saying the Spanish writers don't make misteaks. "BUSCA EL MAPA" Seems like they were shouting, but they at least got "busca" right. A non Spanish writer like Jim Bark, on his "notes" wrote "boosca".
Just about everyone misspells a word or two in every language. However, a non Spanish always has trouble with the gender in the Spanish language. The gender is correct all through the PSM's. Even "EL MAPA" which is an exception to the rule is correct. Travis T. for one was incapable of carving the PSM's, he did not know Spanish. On the Treasure/Galleon stone which he did carve, it stands out like a sore thumb, he even mixed the two languages by carving "Madrid Spain" instead of "Madrid España".
5. Was pretty well covered by deducer.

Homar P. Olivarez

 

[deducer]

Shouldn't be hard for you to upload or post an excerpt of the "DAI reports", @Clay Diggins, or even to just copy and paste relevant sections of it.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm calling you out Clay.

Sounds like fun! I haven't done one of these in a few years and it would be like the real old west when everybody was busy burying treasure instead of looking for buried treasure. I'm getting older and my eyesight isn't what it used to be so how about we do it this way:

Meet outside the saloon at high noon, walk 5 paces turn and fire. Last poster to die WINS!!!