The Peralta Stone Maps, Real Maps to Lost Gold Mines or Cruel Hoax?

Do you think the Peralta stone maps are genuine, or fake?

  • They are genuine maps to the Lost Dutchman mine

    Votes: 12 9.9%

  • They are genuine maps to some lost mine, not necessarily the Dutchman

    Votes: 49 40.5%

  • They are fakes, created with the intention to fool

    Votes: 60 49.6%
  • Total voters
    121
I see that none understood what I said,

I own it! Dutchie was stealing from my mine. I will give you finders fee, but

"keep yer cottin picking grubby gold hooks off of MY GOLD!!!

Of curse I did agree to split with djui. providing that he doesn't have an err ah accident.

heheheh

Tropical (Resves) Tramp
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!
Bout darn time you came out and stated that publicly! ;D ;D I was getting tired of not telling anyone where I got that information from! ;D ;D Thanks

I'm still wondering which "Roberts" is in possession of Mitchell's presonal effects? So far, that's all I can find out. Thought it was you. I want to see a copy of the letter Alleen Tumlinson gave him regarding the Stone Maps. That's been bugging the h*** out of me.

Best,

Mike
 

Ah, well...believe what you prefer to, for myself I believe I will have another cup of coffee! :D ;) ;D

Oroblanco
 

thank you for adding to the facts as you know them, i beleave the witch stone and the upper trail map stones and the heart stone & heart insert to be the originals,the latin heart insert and the horse stone and the lower trail map stones are not originals IMHO ...and i have not used those reporduced stones in my work for that reason .

i will not explane in full detail why i think the originals are the originals , but let me say this ,look at the witches hair , look at the # 3 that starts the upper trail map and look at the placement of the 3 mt.s on the heart insert stone ,,..

if you have found the right translation you would know without a dout these are the real originals.

i can not say ether way about the horse map or the crosses . the latin insert is correct in data but it looks to me to be a reporduction ...

i thank you for comeing forward, if you are being honest wich at this point i do beleave you are because of what i just stated ...i wish you long life & freedom ...
 

even if you think you found anything there was 120 years of people before you good luck if anything is found other than a message saying to bad i got here 1st
 

Aurum:stated
"no one can be certain they weren't doctored"

you may be right ! ..but...

i can in fact stated the stones are not fake .. they do point to real locations in the supersititons mt's ,doctored , NO , imho they are not ...reproductions , IMHO i can beleave that some were ....

the data of the stones is vast and the person or persons that made them hade vast wisdom of the mt's them self . not someone passing threw that made them for a joke or to missleed others ..

i proved the 4 mt's are real and that there is a pit and a cave and a witch and even a tunnle . useing the 4 stones i talked about . i knew the location of the pit from my sighting in 1979 . so if they were faked , how could anyone know the pit was there ?

thats my point , they could not be fakes if thats the case and , it is ...

it is a shame that this has taken place with the stones yet few under stood there true value ...or translation ...

i read that Aileen Tumlinson had found the stones near a dirt road in the area west of buzzards roost ,

i must stated IMHO this is the southern end of the old milatary trail....that goes from trail 108 to 104 and north as the dutchman trail . if this is the case than as i stated before the jesuit mule train could be the sorce of the stones ....with a logical reason of how the stones got to where they were found by Aileen Tumlinson...

i stood on that dutchman trail at one given point and could not see what i saw in 1979 yet when i was at the location i saw in 1979 i could see the old milatary trail ...even if the pit has been some what coverd over i do beleave i was very close to the site it self ...

Aileen Tumlinson had no reason to fake the stones , and your statement IMHO is true, and i beleave IMHO i have found LDM ,and from its location the stones do not look to be fakes or misleeding in any way . hard to translate yes ...fakes no ...even harder to relate them to any given location ...

but they do fit one location and one location alone . what i saw in 1979 ....
 

Matthew,

You bring up points that could be important in solving some of the mysteries of the stone maps, but you are vague about your sources and none of your claims are verifiable. If the things you say are true, Why didn’t anyone like, Chuck Kenworthy, Richard Robinson, Richard peck, Bob Corbin, Jim Hatt, Gene Botts, Greg Davis or Tom Kollenborn, who have all done a mountain of research on the stone maps, and interviewed the sources (or people that were very close to them) ever come up with anything similar to what you say about them?

Between the years 1961 (when Mitchell purchased the Stone Maps from Aileen Tumlinson) and 1970 when Mitchell donated the maps, he had at least 2 full sets reproduced. Mitchell put a very small mark on the stones he donated in 1970 and none of the Flagg Foundation Stones bore this mark. The reproduced stones are made from similar rock as the originals and are very authentic looking from a distance.

What is your source of the information that Mitchell had 2 full sets made of stone? Who made the stone copies for him? Why are ALL KNOWN COPIES made of plaster and NO KNOWN COPIES are made of stone? Did you ever see the stone copies yourself, or are you repeating hearsay?


I have seen the stone maps on numerous occasions at Flagg Foundation shows and museum events, but I have not seen the Stones with Mitchell's mark since the 1970's, before the Mineral Museum moved to it's present location.

Did Mitchell point out these marks to you himself? What kind of mark could he have put on them that anyone making reproductions would not have been able to reproduce? Are you saying that everyone that has paid the museum their $50.00/hr fee to examine the original stones since the 70‘s has been duped by the museum and only been allowed to examine copies?

Someone sent me a PM last night and asked how anyone could be sure the stones Mitchell donated weren't doctored up. At the time Mitchell donated the Stone Maps there was no reason to doctor the maps because Mitchell had absolutely no interest in them as anything but a historic curiousity.

The Story and photos in the Life Magazine article (1964) and Mitchell’s own book (1965) contradict all of the above and show that he had more than a historic curiosity in the stones. Other than a few small pieces of tape over certain areas, the photos in these publications indicate that no “doctoring” of the stones have taken place to the exposed parts since these pictures were taken.

All the drama and heresay and lies that were spread about MOEL and Mitchell, all the stories you have heard about fraud, bankruptcy, the FBI and Federal courts, were all cooked up and originated from the attempt of some people to try and get something they had no legal claim to.

I don’t know about all the rest, but as far as I know, the only reference to FBI involvement with the stone maps comes directly from Bob Corbin in verbal conversations and a written letter. I found a copy of the letter on another website:

It was approximately in the late 1960's, I believe, that I was at the
U.S. Attorneys office in Phoenix, when one of the Deputy U.S. Attorneys
told me that an FBI agent from the FBI laboratory in Washington DC was
in their office. Apparently, the Phoenix office had obtained the stone
maps to have them analyzed y the FBI laboratory to see if they were
recent fakes. He asked if I would like to speak with the agent since I
was interested in the Lost Dutchman Mine and I said I would. I spoke
with the agent and asked him what they had found in analyzing the stone
maps. He told me that they believed the maps were at least a hundred
years old. To my recollection that's all he said about the maps.
Bob Corbin.

Are you suggesting that Corbin was part of the drama, hearsay and Lies? Excuse me for saying so, but EVERYTHING ELSE… in the way of “drama, hearsay and Lies” going around, appears to originate with YOU. It ALL traces right back to YOU on other websites or private emails. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

The Mineral Museum has had several copies of the maps reproduced themselves over the years. The last count I knew was five seperate copies.

Who told you this? Are you talking about stone copies or plaster copies? Where were these 5 copies that you knew of at the time? What time period are you talking about?

You come up with a lot of NEW information that nobody else has ever heard before, and you don’t give any verifiable sources for any it. Why is it that nobody else that knew Mitchell, ever heard of him making any stone or even plaster copies of the maps, or putting any “very small” marks on the originals? Why doesn’t the Mineral Museum or the Flagg Foundation have any documentation that backs up ANY of your claims? Now that we know you were the source a lot of Gollum’s information, we have to reconsider the validity of all of his beliefs.

Nothing personal here Matthew, but, when you contradict all the recognized authorities on a subject, you have to expect some questions about your sources.

Oroblanco may have had the best idea… “I believe I will have another cup of coffee!”


Blazer
 

i agree but the prove is in the stone , how many are reproductions and how many are not if any . but as i stated , if i am right about my sighting and the fact it was the LDM at the time i saw it than 4 four of the stones are real ...and i already got my cup of coffie ! lol in fact i just made a nice oreo cheese cake and i am going to go eat some when its done , and i think its real because i just made it ! lol

why not just ask him and stop questioning every one like their in cort or something .. dam the guy did not have to post a reply . one way or the other ..

he gave us some input . ask for some prove and let it be . he will answer or not ..

my opioion he just told you what he knew . i can say about all of it , but yes i beleave a good portion of it !

one look at the two trail stones the upper stone dose not look the same age and dose not have the ageing marks of the other stone that should be its match .. the same of the horse stone dose not look the griinding of the others and the latin stone get real the latin stone dose have the given data of the real one but it is faded and looks nothing near the ageing of the others even if they are diffrent types of stone ...

so i got to beleave what he said more than not . it make sense for the condition the stones are in now ...

and you are right that is word for word what jim had stated about what bob stated ..
dont beleave me its posted at USA desert !

the point i am trying to make is let the man say what he wanted to , ask a few question , but keep it friendly . no one wants to fight about these things ...
 

B-Bowman,

You have a good point. Everything should be kept as friendly as possible. But, some things cannot be approached without sounding otherwise. Blazer brings up some good points. Clarence Mitchell lived in Apache Junction for a long time and had a number of close friends. Why should we take Matthew's word that Mitchell told him something that none of Mitchell's other friends ever heard him say? Was Matthew that much closer to Mitchell than anyone else was? Can we really believe that the museum has been duping everyone that paid to view the original stone maps all these years by showing them copies instead of the originals? It is only natural to question the source of any information that contradicts recorded history. If it were not for people like Blazer, Gollum and Oroblanco that have a good background knowledge of what the recorded history is, and challanging contradictions to it, the rest of us might be led into believing all kinds of misinformation.

There is nothing unfriendly about asking where information comes from, and there is no reason for an honest person that is searching for the truth or trying to share it to be offended buy anyone else asking for his source of information.

Matthew is the sole source for the story that is going around that Mitchell made stone copies of the stone maps and only gave 1/2 of the original set to the museum. He can't tell us where the other half of the original set is. He doesn't name anyone that ever saw them that we can talk to or tell us where we can see them. He can't back up any of his claims with anything verifiable. But we are supposed to believe him over the recorded history and the recognized authorities on the subject? Matthew is the one that introduced all this MOEL crap into the mix, by feeding it to Gollum and getting him to repeat it. Now he is calling it all drama, hearsay and Lies. Go Figure!

You can believe it if you want to, But I'm with Blazer and and until some verification is made available, I don't buy any of it either.


Keifer
 

Jim / Blazer / Keifer,

If you don't believe what I have said thats your privilige. I don't care one way or the other, it makes no difference to me. I posted what I know about the Mitchell matter and those are the facts as I know them. I'm not asking anyone to pay for what I'm saying, you can take it or leave it and you aren't one nickle poorer. I can't speak for why Kenworthy, Robinson, Peck, Corbin, Botts, Davis, Kollenborn or yourself haven't ever come up with anything but the same old MOEL fraud stories that Paul Dean sensationalized back in the 1970's. Possibly it's because you and those men never took the time to read anything other than those stories. In short, the stories were your research. I'll give you a case in point. You use the Mitchell/MOEL FBI story as proof I'm a liar. Ok Jim, show me the case that the FBI brought against Mitchell/MOEL. Where was it, what court, what were the charges, where are these records ? You can't answer these questions because there never was such a case. I, on the other hand, pointed out and provided the court documentation for the ONLY thing MOEL and Mitchell were EVER enjoined with. Forgetting to file their registration certificate for the Corporate year July 1, 1964- July 1, 1965. No fraud case, no bankruptcy, no Federal investigation, no FBI confiscation of property. You saw those documents yet you ignore them and persist in the MOEL fraud fantasy. If you want to see the complete file on Mitchell and all the REAL court papers and documents I'll bring them out to Government Well and show them to you. You can copy them for your files in case you ever get confused again. It does me no good to provide you proof for what I've said, you've seen proof and you ignore it. The other people you mentioned, save for Greg Davis, had no clue of the REAL enjoinment against MOEL/Mitchell. Why is that, given your statement that they interviewed and knew all the people involved ? So continue to believe what you want to believe, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me Jim.

I can't speak for what Bob Corbin said because I think Corbin's comments were taken out of context. I believe Corbin spoke with an FBI agent at one time concerning the Stone Maps, but not in the context of any investigation concerning Clarence Mitchell or MOEL Company. I've known Bob for longer than you've been west of the Mississippi River. I've been in the mountains with him and in his home. Bob stands by what he says and I stand by what I say. I am not always right, but what I say is the way I know it and have experienced it.

Matthew Roberts
 

[=Oroblanco]
Ah, well...believe what you prefer to, for myself I believe I will have another cup of coffee! :D ;) ;DOroblanco
************
Beth, watch his coffee slopping, too much will tend to lower his pH to below his normal healthy 6.4 range down into the the 5+ range, cancer loves this range. We need him, I still have a few things for him to do.

Tropical Tramp
 

Matthew,

Typical response, you can't answer my questions, so you change the subject and attack someone else. They are simple quesations. How can you say Bob's words are are of context when the entire letter is reproduced? You and your clan tried pulling this junk before and got ran off another website for it.

There are other things we could discuss that might flare you up even more?

Best,

Blazer
 

Jim,

If you read my post you know I did answer your questions. When I show you proof of what I'm saying you ignore it. There's nothing anyone can respond to someone who plays that game. If you read Bob Corbin's words, nowhere does he mention Clarence Mitchell or MOEL Company. Nowhere does he mention a fraud case or an investigation of a fraud case involving Mitchell or MOEL. If Corbin meant the FBI was investigating the Stones as a fraud perpetrated by Mitchell / MOEL, he would have said that. Read what was said, and don't attach the Paul Dean story to what Corbin said and you will see he wasn't talking about Mitchell or MOEL, he meant something entirely different. That is why I said I believe Corbins words were taken out of context. Of course, that won't be good enough for you either Jim.

Matthew
 

Matthew,

I'm not Jim, but since I had the last post on the subject, I feel obligated to post a response.

You seem to be getting all tangled up in your own statements. I have no idea who Paul Dean is or what he has to do with anything. As far as Bob Corbin goes, Neither I or anyone I have quoted has ever tied MOEL into Bob's statement or the FBI investigation he mentions.. That all came from Gollum via an unknown source. (Until today) I have no idea what Corbin "Meant" and I have not tried to read anything into his statement that is not there. If you have any documentation that you consider proof of any of your claims, scan it and post it, but you saying it does not prove anything.

Blazer
 

djui5

Hard to get run off of a web-site you leave on your own free will now isn't it?

Of course you are correct! I won't argue that.
 

Greetings,

All the debate on whether the stone maps are genuine aside, ask yourselves this:

A: Assuming the stones are genuine, why did not the Tumlinsons nor Mitchell manage to find treasures and-or lost mines by using them?

B: If they are genuine and over 100 years old, why were the stones not seized by the state of Arizona under the antiquities act during the MOEL investigation? (It was the SEC involved BTW, the FBI only peripherally) The Apache Junction public library has something like 40 or 50 treasure maps - think they lead to treasures too?

I think the ultimate test for any treasure map is to USE it - and by this test those Peralta stones have failed time and again. However to anyone who wishes to try them (again) I wish you good luck and good hunting, hope you find the treasure that you seek - and that you will stop by T-net to "rub my nose in it" (with photos to drool over too, please?) I will be more than happy to congratulate you. On the other hand, if they prove to be useless, please let us know that too. Before you ask why don't I do it, I just don't believe in them enough to invest the time/effort/expense to try using them. ;)

Oroblanco

PS See if you can de-code this bit:

Matthew 7:7

Luke 11:9

Matthew 10:26

Mark 4:22

Luke 8:17

Luke 12:2

John 3:27

Luke 1:37 ;)
 

Blazer said:
Matthew,

I'm not Jim, but since I had the last post on the subject, I feel obligated to post a response.

You seem to be getting all tangled up in your own statements. I have no idea who Paul Dean is or what he has to do with anything. As far as Bob Corbin goes, Neither I or anyone I have quoted has ever tied MOEL into Bob's statement or the FBI investigation he mentions.. That all came from Gollum via an unknown source. (Until today) I have no idea what Corbin "Meant" and I have not tried to read anything into his statement that is not there. If you have any documentation that you consider proof of any of your claims, scan it and post it, but you saying it does not prove anything.

Blazer
Click to expand...

Hey Blazer,

If you are going to bring my name into this, you might want to research the things I have said a little more closely.

While Matthew has been the source of SOME of my information, the greatest bulk of it has come from months of emailing, phone calling, and letter writing. I have contacted the SEC (L.A. Office), U of A Roger's School of Law Library, Redlands University, Mrs. Jane Dana (Professor Stephen Dana's Widow), Cal State University at Los Angeles, Jim Hatt, Azmula, One of Mitchell's Investors (who doesn't want to be named), and several others who want their privacy respected.

I will say one thing about the information that Matthew has provided me. Much of it has been in document form, that backs up what he has told me. I would post what I have, but promised not to post on public forum. The greatest part of what he states about the whole MOEL situation is beyond reproach (IMO). The place where he and I differ, is about the FBI's involvement in the SEC Investigation of MOEL in 1964. I believe what Corbin states about the FBI having the stone maps at the US Attorney's Office in Phoenix, as another source (official records of the MOEL Investigation) states that the FBI did indeed have the stones looked over by someone at ASU (date inconclusive), when they found out about the tests that Stephen Dana did in 1961 for Mitchell, they interviewed him and accepted a signed affidavit stating his conclusions. Still waiting on hard copies of the files to verify what was emailed to me about it. I am also waiting on Jane Dana to finish going through her late husband's papers to find exactly what made him come to the conclusion that the Stone Maps were at least 100 years old (in the early 1960s). So see, you are quite wrong about where I got the FBI's involvement with the Stone Maps (Matthew doesn't believe they did). Maybe when you have done as much research as I and some others have on the Stone Maps, you may be able to speak with some authority. Don't sit there and try to say that I got everything I know about the stone maps from Matthew, it just shows that you haven't actually read what I have stated, and if you approached some of the people who have actually done a lot of the footwork on this, you might have many of the copies of the releases and forms that we have (someone may have shared).

On a lighter note,

Blazer, I can answer a few of the questions you asked:

1. The Story and photos in the Life Magazine article (1964) and Mitchell’s own book (1965) contradict all of the above and show that he had more than a historic curiosity in the stones. Other than a few small pieces of tape over certain areas, the photos in these publications indicate that no “doctoring” of the stones have taken place to the exposed parts since these pictures were taken.

A: Yes, Mitchell truly thought the stones to be treasure maps, but by 1970, when he donated them, he had possessed them for about nine years, and couldn't solve the puzzle. If he thought they were THAT valuable, do you REALLY think he would have donated them as part of TAX BREAK DEAL? Of course not! If Clarence O. Mitchell thought that there was any way he could solve them, he would have kept them until he died as did both Travis and Robert Tumlinson.

2. You asked about the AM&M having copies of the stone maps made.

A: One of my sources gave me the name of the Special Effects Company in Arizona that made the copies in the mid 1980s for the museum. I spoke to the former owner (no longer in business), and found that this company made approximately five copies of the stone maps (other than the set for the museum). They then sold the molds to an artist in Laguna Beach, California (I live in Laguna Niguel, about 5 minutes away). This man made about 22 sets of full size plaster casts before the molds broke. He continued to make half size copies for many years, but no longer.

As for your questions about those marks Mitchell made on the stones, about Bob Corbin being part of any drama, I have no idea. Matthew and I disagree on the FBI's involvement with the MOEL Investigation.

Blazer,

I have an idea who you may be (probably wrong though), but if you REALLY know what goes on at the original LDM Website (not Peter's New One), you would know that there is so much behind the scenes drama in Apache Junction, The Young and the Restless staff is jealous! Most everybody has something bad to say about everybody else. Most everybody has an agenda. I stay out of all that, and talk to everybody. I also take most things that everybody says with a grain of salt, but when they include documentary evidence to back it up, I tend to give their statements more weight!

Best,

Mike
 

Oroblanco said:
Greetings,

All the debate on whether the stone maps are genuine aside, ask yourselves this:

A: Assuming the stones are genuine, why did not the Tumlinsons nor Mitchell manage to find treasures and-or lost mines by using them?

B: If they are genuine and over 100 years old, why were the stones not seized by the state of Arizona under the antiquities act during the MOEL investigation? (It was the SEC involved BTW, the FBI only peripherally) The Apache Junction public library has something like 40 or 50 treasure maps - think they lead to treasures too?

I think the ultimate test for any treasure map is to USE it - and by this test those Peralta stones have failed time and again. However to anyone who wishes to try them (again) I wish you good luck and good hunting, hope you find the treasure that you seek - and that you will stop by T-net to "rub my nose in it" (with photos to drool over too, please?) I will be more than happy to congratulate you. On the other hand, if they prove to be useless, please let us know that too. Before you ask why don't I do it, I just don't believe in them enough to invest the time/effort/expense to try using them. ;)

Oroblanco

PS See if you can de-code this bit:

Matthew 7:7

Luke 11:9

Matthew 10:26

Mark 4:22

Luke 8:17

Luke 12:2

John 3:27

Luke 1:37 ;)
Click to expand...

Oro,

Why are you stuck on such easy to answer questions?

A. EASY! Neither of them had the starting point! Without a known starting point, the rest of the Trail Maps are wild guesses.

B. Just as easy! In order to seize the stones from Mitchell, the Government would have to PROVE that the stone maps were "at least" 100 years old. If the only testing performed on the stone maps was either inconclusive or shown to be the "belief" of Prof. Stephen Dana, that was far from what would be needed to confiscate them from their rightful owner.


About your Bible Passages; What are you trying to say? What are you trying to say? ;D ;D

Best,

Mike
 

Hi Mike!

I am not stuck, and disagree that the starting point is the "key" which resulted in the failures of Tumlinson and Mitchell; treasure maps (IMHO) are all about ending points, not starting points - my point is for anyone who is considering using them as maps to think about it well before diving in with both feet. If you are the type of person who will quit treasure hunting if your 'maps' turn out to be false, then don't use the Peralta stones.

Did you get it? ;D :D ;) The answer is in Gospel of Thomas:5, and G-T: 2

Oroblanco
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Another LDM Story

⬅️ Previous Thread

??? on peralta stone maps???

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top