EB, your answers only serve to generate more questions (and answering these questions will create more questions) . For example, what leads you to believe Marcos de Niza visited the Superstition area? Frey Marcos had to go to a specific landmark and right now I cannot say any more. If he did, why, other than convenience, do you speculate he would have seen your landmark? Let's call the Knight a SARA (shadow animated rock art) monument while the landmark is in itself just that, a specific landmark. I hope you're not using that hoaxed rock carving found at South Mountain Park as supporting evidence. I am not. Is it OK to use four cross hill?
Even though I'm quite open to the idea that Pre-Columbian Europeans may have had first-hand knowledge of the American Southwest, it seems quite illogical to me they would have arrived from the west, i.e. up the Gila River. Up the Rio Grande from the Gulf of Mexico? Yes, more likely. If the stories of the Welsh/Mandan school of thought is in fact true they would have either proceeded from the east coast or the Gulf via the Mississippi. The Viking Templar theory is also plausible as they were supposed to cross the Atlantic and arrive somewhere around Nova Scotia, Oak Island, New England, Minnesota and west to Denver, CO then south to Utah, AZ and NM. My interest has been focused on the Egyptians. We have found elephants in the cliffs and other Egyptian signs and symbols.
While I believe there is something of great value concealed in the Gila/Salt vicinity, my logic tells me it was here before the Europeans (YES), not brought by them (just a few valuable religious artifacts). I put little faith in either the LDM or the stone maps (they are one and the same) - I think they're diversions (very subtle ones at that). Of course, I could be wrong and am open to convincing explanations of either or both legends, but frankly, I doubt that will be the case (after reading my book and seeing the evidence submitted you will be able to comprehend the truth). I hope your theories are laid out for readers to judge the evidence for themselves (without a doubt). The pareidolia-based evidence (the documentation for this type {SARA} of rock art is evolving as we speak) is interesting but very tenuous evidence, IMO.
