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

[the blindbowman]

Bowman,

"i got to say i have never seen a 1 yard by 1 yard stone block over the doorway in any building that i know of ...."

That's a pretty big rock alright. Must be a pretty big house.

that have never been recorded in the Superstitions is quite a find.

The size of the stone would not be a problem, if it were quarried on site. For most locations in the Superstitions, including one that would stay hidden for so many years, it would not be of a size that would need to be moved any distance.

Most "doorways" constructed in the prehistory Southwest were distinctive in size and design. It would be interesting to see, perhaps I missed it, a complete description or even have you post pictures of the building(s).

The problematic part of your "stone", is that it is completely unnecessary (size wise) for it's location. The more likely design of such a doorway in the Superstitions would be something like the Pueblo Bonito doorway, pictured below. A large stonework, like the "Gateway to the Sun" (A single piece of andesite), has another purpose altogether, which required monumental size.

Population at the site would be another factor in what is being built, and the type of architecture used.

Your "discovery" could, of course, change all of that. That's the reason you can seldom get a definitive answer from an archaeologist. The next turn of a spade could change history as we accept it today, and no one wants to look like a fool.

Joe Ribaudo

lol :Four separate 150' X 150' Aztec sites,, thats not what i said ! i am not researching aztec building or do i care if it is or not aztec .......


i am shocked you dont own cows . cause you milk it for everything it worth ....lol


the build dose not look like ether of those but some what more the lower building than the top one ..


i got much to do to worry about that stuff right now ... its spring time and i have a lot of work to do around the farm . who builds them out of stone and than covers them with mud . the one building looks more spainish to me . but i dont know that much about old spainish buildings ..but i looked at the stone block over the door way it feel it would have something to do with a bell maybe . that would be my guess ..its just not logical to but a stone block of that size up there with out a reason . as it is i dont know what that reason would be .i even wonderd about a smelter but it dose not look like one . or at lest those i have seen ... that house did have a trail to it .that stone wall may not be aztec . but i do got question for you CJ . wait i will go get a picutre and ask you what it is ...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Bowman,

It's a problem when you are trying make connections with the past, without learning the history of the subject. Every time you come up against something you can't explain, you have to splash around in ever widening circles looking for answers to the unanswerable.

I thought you sold the farm......

I look forward to your "picutre". Can't guarantee I can tell you what it is, as I have a hard enough time figuring out what you are writing.

Joe

 

[the blindbowman]

i am working on my girlfriends hobby farm doing the spring clean up ! she has a 17 acer place with a 2 acer yard with lots of trees ......

i will try to use spell check ... i have a hard time haveing something that i tell what to do correcting me even if i am wrong ...lol



with out evidence or facts, i can not just say that the stone wall was a chruch in 1488 and that church was the chruch in the Jim haydock tayopa legend . i can not say that the statement (in cut -stone box are stored jewellery. box is buried in basement under room built of stone and mud ") IMHO should not read ( in cut-stone (a tunnle or crypt)or box , (crypt) or box is buried ,under room built of stone and mud ), and i can not say that the true traslation could leed you to a rounded arc of a buried crypt 40 ft away down the hill from what i can not prove is a stone and mud chruch ,i can not say what they used to seal this crypt ,, i can not tell you the date above the crypt says 1488 because i have no prove other than a poorly taken photo at this piont . so i can not show you the crypt and tell you it has a inifinity sign over the arc , the same way the stone maps have on them . and i can not tell you this fits the jim haydock tayopa treasure crypted because i have no prove as of yet because i have not gone to this crypted and dug it up yet to get the prove needed ..


so haveing this picture and finding this crypt means nothing ...yet !to say that the other story about the tayopa and the massacre site that descrips these things in detail is diffrent than haveing prove of it !

i can not say without prove that i have in fact found the sites of the LDM legend and the tayopa mine , when so many say they dont beleave the tayopa crypt was in the supersititions at all ..and i can not say i have found the chruch crypt and the tunnle ...so why say anything about it !


at this piont i find it dum to think i have not located the LDM and the tunnle , the crypt was a freeBee

so i can not say !

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HIO, in any event good luck

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Bowman,

Yes.....Yes, by all means... I concure with Dr. Tramp.

"good luck".

 

[the blindbowman]

i look at it a diffrent way , if this is a crypt there are laws in place to protect these things , but at this piont there is no prove that it is or not ....a crypt ,

on the other hand if it is a vault , and not a crypt . all i can say is it is sealed ...and dose not look to have been opened ...

if we are to beleave there was a chance of a indain city in the supers as pinkley descriped than the date over the vault makes sense , the idea the vault and chruch were there at that date is beleaveable even if the tunnle site predates it ...

the reason i say that is the spainish arrow cave is at the same site ,if this was chruch in question at the time the treasure trove was placed in the vault it had to have been there for some time before the event ..the vault dates 1488 the Aztec montezuma treasure happend in 1512 , the spainins dates 1520-1535 ,the bells date 1603 , the list dates 1646, the massacre i beleave happend in around the 1690 -1703 , the peralta date before the dutchman , and the dutchman dates between 1878 -1890,, and so on ,

yet under stand this is a rough outline and we dont know if all or any knew of the location of all the sites in question here ...

remember what was stated in the killer mts ., when kino learnd of the pit and the legend it was older than montezuma than , the legend was far older than ...and the date on the vault could in fact prove that statement was some what ture !

i can not help but think this chruch is not the normal site of the times ...this was a very early missionary IMHO ,

it well take time to clear up hunders of year of confussion . yet i can see it happening peice by peice as the legends stages become clear to the dates and events that took place at these locations ..

there is no facts wrote in stone but maybe we just havent found them yet ...


i am just one man . gifted or not ...


i wonder if the mission had nothing to do with gold or wealth at the time they came to that area . than i remeber the logicial ... they made a vault ...

what would be harder to find something lost or something lost and recoverd and than lost again ...?

if the indain city was in ruins at Kino's time , say late 1780 's we can beleave they were lost well more than a hunderd years before that , thus makeing the 1680 or 1580 , what the hell , if we can go back 200 years why not 300 years to 1480 ....

its often hard to built a time line when it expans the life time of a human ..

all i can say at this piont is . if i am right it well change the history of this area ...but that not what i am trying to do . i want to locate what i saw and defind what it is . and all of this is no more than background research ...


but you got to remember if the date 1488 of the vault is proven fact, it will predate the 1492 discovery of America....

 

[cactusjumper]

Bowman,

I don't want to delve into the abyss of your last post, but have to admit I am curious about one thing you said.

"but you got to remember if the date 1488 of the vault is proven fact, it will predate the 1492 discovery of America...."

In your theory, what is the relevance of the above statement? Why should we remember that piece of information?

Joe

 

[the blindbowman]

it goes to say history is always changeing as is what we know or think we know ...as it dose with all creation ..remaining always changeing as new discoverys are found and old data and fact as we know them are rewritten and corrected as new evidence becomes known ...

who cares if the date changes or who found it . the piont is for how many years have we beleaved that 1492 was the fact ...we were told ..yet could the facts change as we known them , the answer is yes . and our prespectives should change as well ...

if a bindman can teach himself to see again and than change our countries history, than anything can happen if we welcome the will to beleave with a open mind ..

CJ you dont have to remember anything you dont want to ...beleave what you want ,only you can make that choice ...

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

[=the ... if a bindman can teach himself to see again and than change our countries history, than anything can happen if we welcome the will to beleave with a open mind ..
****************

I sincerely hope that doesn't include making me a mommy! sheesh I will happily leave that to the gals.

oops, sorry blushing.


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[the blindbowman]

we got talking about this , if columbus discoverd America he clam it for spain . but if he did not discover America and someone else had discoverd it 4 years before he said he did ,then he out right could not clam it and any and all sales of the land by him would not have been legal ...i think the real question is who did discover it in 1488 and can this be proven ...in a cort of law ...

 

[cactusjumper]

B.,

Looking through modern-day eyes, we can all smile. In those days, they discovered places that, they believed, had never been seen by people of their race. Civilizations advanced over the bones of weaker people.

At one time, the Apache discovered the Southwest. They left a lot of bones in their wake.

Take care,

Joe

 

[the blindbowman]

i out right agree cj . but the legality is a diffrent forum ... if this site is proven, it coulds supersede the consitution ...you can not legally consitute right to people of a land you do not legally own ....and unlike the native tribe of indains , this was a missionary ....

one fact remains , the stone have the letter R in there wording , this means they are not nahuatl , even if they were to relate to nahuatl sites . so we find two common choices latin or spainish or a variation of the two ... or a hybird of one or the other ... my guess would be latin translated to spainish .why because the date 1488 is 32 years before cortez ,and 24 years before the death of montezuma 2 ,

the date could be the year the site was founded ., if thats the case the chruch and vault would have been constructed in the years after that date , how long would it take to construct the chruch and vault , 10 years 20 ... thats my piont ! if thats the case and monetzuma 2 death was in 1512 , he could have very likely know of this missionary ....he may have even befriend them before he knew of the white man's greed for gold ...

maybe monetzuma 2 did go here to the magic stone gate way . maybe that gate way was that of the chruch mission and not of his own faith ...the pearly gates ...

 

[cactusjumper]

Bowman,

Don't mean to "kill a debate", but you are so far out in left field, while wearing your lawyer's hat, that you will be late coming in for supper.

Probably should just stick to your area of expertise, which from what I have read, would be changing history. No one is going to get their land back until they take it... the same way that we did.

Your grasp of historical dates is amazing, but in the interest of accuracy.....Montezuma died in 1520, which is 32 years after 1844. Cortez landed on the soil of Mexico in 1519, which was 31 years past 1844. I doubt that does anything to change your theory as actual dates are probably not much of a factor for you.

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

DUH CJ??

Don Jose de la Mancha alias Till Eulenspeigle

 

[the blindbowman]

Bowman,

Don't mean to "kill a debate", but you are so far out in left field, while wearing your lawyer's hat, that you will be late coming in for supper.

Probably should just stick to your area of expertise, which from what I have read, would be changing history. No one is going to get their land back until they take it... the same way that we did.

Your grasp of historical dates is amazing, but in the interest of accuracy.....Montezuma died in 1520, which is 32 years after 1844. Cortez landed on the soil of Mexico in 1519, which was 31 years past 1844. I doubt that does anything to change your theory as actual dates are probably not much of a factor for you.

Joe

" Montezuma died in 1520, which is 32 years after 1844."



1520 is not 32 years after 1844,1844 is 324 years after1520 but the date was not 1844 it was 1488 , stop drinkingthat cheap shit ... i was mainly pionting out the time line ..i saw the date 1512 at a site and they must have it wrong . . .my history is as bad as your math ! where did you learn to count ? are you missing fingers or toes ....

"1519, which was 31 years past 1844. "

what are you talking about . you got the 1 year diffrence betwen 19 an 20 right ,
!

 

[cactusjumper]

Bowman and T.T.,

Wow!!! Did I write that? Damn.....No way out of this one.

In the interest of historical accuracy, I will now correct myself:

Your grasp of historical dates is amazing, but in the interest of accuracy.....Montezuma died in 1520, which is 32 years after 1488. Cortez landed on the soil of Mexico in 1519, which was 31 years past 1488. I doubt that does anything to change your theory as actual dates are probably not much of a factor for you.

Thank you for the correction of my transposed numbers.

I can see where folks would be confused, and not be able to tell I had transposed numbers. Pretty dumb mistake, but I have been know to do that now and again. I will leave the erroneous post in place to remind me not to be such a smart ass.

Actually, my math was fine, it was the huge gap between my mind and my typing that failed.

Thanks again for the correction.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[the blindbowman]

it happens to the best of us , one site says cortez landed in 1512 and i do so much research each day i didnot catch the missteak and i should have ...

at the time i was trying to show a relateship between the events and the time line not so much if the dates were 100% or not but yes you are right i should have recheck the dates or stated that before i posted the time line ..

now i am trying to find that 1512 post i may have it confused with a nother topic some how .now you see how i learn to spell after being blind . i type and try to reread it but some times i just dont have the time to . and 90% of the time i type with out watching the keys . its kind of funny if someone moves the key board and i dont know it ! i look up and there is no words just letter groups...



my piont of the topic is not if there is any legal matter , the piont was to try to define a time line even if its a rough one i can fill in the missing peice a little at a time if the peices are out there ..

the real idea is i still beleave i am in the right search area ....

what kicks me is i was 40 ft from that crypt 4 diffrent times and had no idea it was there . if you get close enough to see it its out of sight . if you get in a sight line from it ,its to far away to see it ... the photos are proveing to be well worth the time and hard work ...

another thing that showed up in my research of the chruch area was the stone block on the was has a triangle on the side that faces toward the camera ...

we have found something else but we dont know what it is . we know its something man made but its got what looks like two poles and some kind of seat that looks to be hung from something , we just dont have any idea of what it is at this piont ...we have to wait for expedition 3 to find out ...

 

[cactusjumper]

Bowman,

The 1512 date could be a typo for another important date in the life of Hernando Cortez.

In 1511 he sailed with Diego Velasquez in his successful effort to conquer Cuba. Cortez became the Mayor-Judge of Santiago in the same year.

Believe it or not, I typed 1812 two times before I caught myself. It's hell to get old.

Good luck with your next trip into the Supes.

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

B,

Are you talking about this post?

"Boy, you sure know how to kill a debate!!!

As far as I can tell, I have only seen you provide OTHER people's evidence."

I have a 50/50 chance of being right....right?

I suppose I many not know what you were saying. I am prone to call a spade a spade, and call B.S. when I think it is being shoveled. If that means "to kill a debate", I reckon that's what I know how to do.

I believe I told you what I thought constituted a "debate". In my mind, I am furthering debate by offering an opposing view. The other guy/gal is supposed to come back and offer something to back up his/her view. As far as I know.....That's a debate.

Blindbowman is offering up his "theories" in a public forum. I am not here to judge the soundness of his mind, but it seems reasonable to question the soundness of his theories. That means asking for facts to support them. Even though I have had my doubts, I am pretty much convinced he is sincere.

If the only reason this forum exists is to tell stories, then I am out of line. If it's purpose is to create debate over conflicting theories, I think that's what is happening.
If you think I am being unfair, I will defend bowman's theories for awhile. In truth, there is a good argument to be made.

I took your words as they were written. You could have meant a number of things, and could have written with "tongue in cheek". Perhaps I looked at it the wrong way. Don't take it personal, as I am often mistaken in what people write as opposed to what they mean.

"As far as I can tell, I have only seen you provide OTHER people's evidence.?

I assume you are talking about the LDM, because I have placed a good deal of evidence about the Stone Maps on this site. Much of that has been mine alone.

If you were referring to the LDM, I have more to offer about that mine than you could imagine. It will not be forthcoming any time soon. To my mind, that is the proper response to any question that you don't want to, or won't, answer......And that is how you "kill a debate".

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

B,

Any time you get involved in a conversation like this, you run the danger of chasing and biting your own tail. Once your teeth sink in, you realize how senseless it was.
Us old dogs just can't hep it.

My attempts at keeping it light often fall waaaay short. I suppose I didn't realize that it was necessary to actually make a point. I need a reality check now and then.

Thanks,

Joe