Hello again,
Mike, you seem to have again mis-read my post, I guess I should expect this. Lets look at your statement:
You are absolutely wrong about people who believe in them don't ever go out and try using them as maps.
Now here is what I posted:
Some of the supporters of the Peralta stones seem pretty hesitant to try using them as maps too, which says volumes to me.
And:
...the fact that many of the 'believers' won't go into the field using the stones as maps says they don't believe in them enough to use them, to me.
If you noticed (apparently not) - nowhere did I make a statement that NONE of those who believe in the stones ever go out and use them to make searches. “Absolutely wrong”? Sweeping statement and incorrect. The fact that Tumlinsons and all those who have also tried and failed to find any kind of treasure or lost mines apparently doesn't matter to those who believe in the stones. If any of them ever did have any success, it is a well-kept secret.
I beg to differ that I did indeed stir up the mess, HERE anyway - I began this thread in order to discuss their validity, didn't wish to start posting negative comments in the other thread which already existed. I certainly didn't begin the debate about the stones (everywhere) it seems logical that even the Tumlinsons must have had some debate among family members.
Your contention that the experts are usually fooled with 'dead languages' is not accurate, Hebrew is not a dead language; (the language on the most recent frauds, the James ossuary and King Solomon’s tablet) styles of writing and the way things are said do change over the centuries (boy friends, ever try to read Beowulf in the original Old English? Ye gads! Those old King James bibles “thee” and “thou” are EASY compared to that Old English!) I don't know of any actual study which compiled the numbers of fakes which fooled the experts, or the genuine inscriptions which were first believed to be frauds (like the Paraiba stone, first thought to be fraudulent but later shown to have been genuine - though there are experts who maintain the position that it is fraudulent if for no other reason than we cannot have had Phoenicians in Brazil) but of the inscriptions I have studied which were frauds, (more than I would care to list here!) a minority are in dead languages. One that comes to mind is the Cardiff Giant, which supposedly was "covered" with Phoenician writing, but on examination ALL of the "writing" was simply gouge marks left by the forger's chisel. Even Phoenician isn't truly a "dead" language, for Maltese is the descendant of Punic and retains many Phoenician words.
Professor Dana had no agenda in the matter. He was not a treasure hunter. He had no interest in the Stone Maps, other than the tests he ran on them.
I have NOT stated any such accusations against professor Dana, I don't know the man, and have never said that he had any "agenda" in examining the stones whatsoever. We don't know what 'tests' he might have done, it is quite possible he simply examined the stones carefully. I have NOT made a statement that professor Dana is utterly in-correct, what I have said (repeatedly) is that since the stones were cleaned before he examined them, it is NOT possible to obtain a date as to when the inscription was done.
Now let me qualify my flippant dismissal of professor Dana's "tests" (or perhaps "examination" would be more correct?) - the fact that the stones were cleaned would not remove tool marks; any attempt to 'date' the stones after having been cleaned is hopeless, without some outside evidence like coins, pottery, organic remains etc. I don't see how you can accept any statement about how old the stones are, AFTER they are cleaned and WITHOUT any outside evidence (coins, pottery etc) that CAN be accurately dated, or at least dated with some degree of confidence. I am repeating myself here but it is NOT possible to get any kind of accurate date estimate from a CLEANED stone. If you think I am fooling about this, look it up; my word means nothing to you anyway so I suggest that you do so, especially if you are leaning toward a position that the stones are genuine but have not concluded (and closed mind to any further debate) as it is important. There are new methods of testing (uranium/thorium test for example, oxygen isotope is another) that were NOT available even a few years ago, so we know that no matter how competent professor Dana was, the tests were not known yet because they had not been invented. There was Carbon-14 testing, which at that time required a relatively large sample of organics to test (modern methods use incredibly tiny amounts - if ANY rootlets or organics remain on the Peralta stones it might be possible to test today using these advanced methods) however since the stones were in fact cleaned before he examined them, it seems unlikely that he was able to run any Carbon-14 tests on them.
I do know that microscopic exams of tool marks is
not a part of the education curriculum for most geologists. Dana may have had some training in the field of epigraphy (which is not
solely based on the writing styles) we simply don't know.
I believe that any statements made by Father Polzer regarding anything that might have to do with Jesuit Mining interests in Primeria Alta is suspect.
Mike you have repeatedly dismissed the statements of Father Polzer concerning the Peralta stones as if he were making bald-faced lies. You have again implied that Father Polzer had a Jesuit-based bias against the Peralta stones, (which is impossible to prove one way or the other) however I repeat this again -
there are NO known, documented, Jesuit operations anywhere in the Superstition mountains, in fact even the date on the Peralta stones (1847) is
EIGHTY YEARS after ALL Jesuits had left Spanish possessions in the Americas. There is NO reason for any Jesuit priest to have ANY bias toward (or against) the Peralta stones, as there is not even a
tradition of any Jesuit operations or explorations in the Superstitions. Your casting of Father Polzer as a biased, Jesuit priest protecting Jesuit mines in the Superstitions is simply without foundation. If the stones were related to, say (for example) the Tumacacori mountains, and appeared to date to 1767 or thereabouts, we could hold a suspicion about what a Jesuit priest might say about them - however we are talking about stones which purport to be from the Peraltas, date to eighty years AFTER the last Jesuits were GONE from Arizona, and to an area where Jesuits NEVER apparently even penetrated. You may continue to dismiss Father Polzer's opinion that they were modern frauds, but at
least stop implying that he is a liar trying to protect some Jesuitic treasure/mines when there are and were NONE in the Superstitions. Certainly not in 1847!
The fact that Polzer may have stated there were no Jesuits mining, may in fact be correct! Most mining work was done by Indios, mestizos and Spaniards; many of the "Jesuit mines" as we call them today were not actually OWNED nor operated by Jesuits, just that these mines were
associated with local Jesuit missions nearby. Then too, assuming that SOME mines were owned and operated by Jesuit priests, it is possible that this fact was not transmitted to the leaders of the church; Father Polzer may have known only what is recorded, and if these mines were not recorded in the Jesuits' archives he would not have learned of them. Even the existing silver bars with the name "Kino" on them, may NOT have been from a mine OWNED or operated by Kino, the eminent explorer Father Kino might have simply processed silver brought to his church. So your assumption that he is a liar, based on his saying there were no Jesuit mines (which point the Jesuit church maintains today, BTW, read Conrotto) is being unfair. Your other statement:
A preponderance of the evidence shows that they were at least 100 years old in 1964.
is your opinion, as you weigh the evidence. A preponderance? Hmm.
I just hate liars!
Gee how do you feel about our president?
Sorry about that, (attempt at levity) really that belongs in politicks! You know that MANY prospectors and treasure hunters, like fishermen, are known to tell a tall tale or pull a leg now and then – I don’t hate a fellow who is spinning a yarn, so long as he is not hurting anyone with it.
It's not a question as to if you can use them for a map of the area. It's all about the starting point.
I beg to differ, it is all about ENDING points, the spots where the “X” is supposed to be secreted, the fact that many landmarks are identifiable should allow a person who is competent with maps to be able to pick up the trail at any point past the start point, so long as the landmarks can be pinned to your “new” starting point.
It had nothing to do with being bilked.
Hmm, the investors put up money, MOEL dissolved, investors got….? If they did not get all or at least most of their investment back, that fits with the definition of “bilked”. You may say no, but in my opinion, the investors were in fact ‘bilked’ of their investments.
The reason I say this is that many of the miners in the late 1800s and early 1900s found and reopened older Mexican and Spanish Mines out there, and worked them until they played out.
Found and re-opened old Mexican or Spanish mines in the Superstitions? Who and when? Can you document this statement? Something OTHER than the Peralta legends, which are NOT documented prior to 1891. (A side note here but the US Bureau of Mines study of the Superstitions stated there is no evidence of any mining activity in the Superstitions that can be traced before 1872; the old arrastras do
not prove the existence of mines close by; read US Bureau of Mines Mineral Land Assessment MLA 136-82; the only mine with recorded gold production other than Jacob Waltz is the Palmer mine, which was discovered about 1890.)
Oroblanco
For those using them as maps, I hope so!
