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

[gollum]

Hello again Mike and everyone,
Thank you for the proposed scenario. That at least makes some level of sense, even if I do not agree with the logic involved.

I pointed out my problem with Reavis being the creator - he could not have known of the tales of Peraltas in the Superstitions with lost gold mines; in fact, based on his known behavior he would probably have tried like heck to SELL the mines as HIS. We cannot trace Peraltas (solidly) as being in the Superstitions at all, in fact the earliest instance I am aware of the Peralta legend is in Bicknells article of 1895 - by which time Reavis was in prison. That could be an argument in favor of their being genuine. However we still have a good suspect remaining, who could have CREATED the stones prior to 1949 and buried them - it does not take too long to get some tiny hair rootlets growing into them and the degree of "weathering" we see on these Peralta stones.

Now not to poke holes in your scenario, but why is it that Pedro Peralta would not know of the stone maps? He was after all a Peralta, not a hired man or friendly Indian right? Why would the Peraltas go off to the La Paz district, then up to the Bradshaws if they already knew of secret rich gold mines closer to home in the Superstitions? Would the Peraltas have kept the stone maps a secret from Pedro?

It is a fascinating story, and fills a treasure hunter with hope since after all there are so many of these rich lost Peralta mines. I wish there was more evidence to prove some level of Peraltas mining in the Superstitions - these supposed "monuments" of chopped Saguaros and stones etc are not exactly solid proof of the presence of mines - trails yes, mines...? Where are the tailings piles, records of gold sold or shipped? Mexicans kept surprisingly good records, and the taxes on mines were not so onerous as to shut down mines. Fear of Americans? Perhaps - the report of the first American officer to visit Tumacacori mission mentioned what happened when his small force of troops approached an operating mine near the mission - the men fled into a sort of "fort" as if the Americans were a party of Apache warriors, while the mine owner came out to talk to the American officer. He said the owner went on about how poor the mine was, barely paying his expenses, but then tried to get the officer to buy silver for $1 American per ounce. So they may have felt some fear or trepidation at the Americans arrival, but certainly not too much and some saw the Americans as possible "deliverers" from the Apache menace.

Oroblanco

Come on Roy! Reread the Peralta Family History I gave a while back!

The Peraltas that had the mine in the Bradshaws left Mexico with de Anza in 1776! They left California, and didn't get to Arizona until the early 1860s!

Pedro Peralta made his way back to Mexico, and after recovering, vowed never to go back, and moved to Baja shortly thereafter. Maybe he did know about the stones! As most all of the rest of the group was massacred and stripped, there is a great chance that the paper maps were lost or taken. If he wasn't with the group that actually buried them, he would have no way of knowing just where they were.

You say Reavis could not have known about any Peralta mining, but you are badly mistaken! Reavis had two partners in the scheme; Dr. George Willing, and Dr. W. Gitt. The younger Miguel Peralta (Bradshaw Peraltas) sold Dr. Willing a hand writen copy of the Land Grant Deed in about 1864. That's what started it all. I don't doubt that Miguel filled Dr. Willing's head full of stories about gold and silver mines. The problem is both Willing and Gitt were dead when things came to a head, and Reavis went to jail.

You talk about the level of wear on the stones. I said the wear on the "DON" Stone. That weathering is quite a bit worse than the rest of them. It also just happened to be the stone at the surface, that would have weathered the worst!

I think that unless they had legally filed claims they would have seen ANYBODY not with their party suspiciously!

Best,

Mike

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Oh well, here I go again.

Gollum, what if I told you a story, let me hypothesize here. There was a family of well-to-do Canadians named McGiver. They had a rich copper mine in Ontario which was legally filed etc. Then they went and discovered not one but SIX or SEVEN incredibly rich gold mines in what is not upstate New York around 1775. They were afraid of the Americans taking their mines so they didn't file claims with the King's government nor with the NY authorities; then they were secretly working their whole group of rich gold mines, and were loading the ore onto canoes to sneak back into Canada with their gold when they were suddenly attacked by a war party of Mohawks. The fighting was fierce but the Mohawks got the upper hand and wiped out every single one of the party of 50 in the McGiver group is killed to the last man except for young Michael, who escaped. (The remains of long-ago sunken canoes, with bullet holes have been found on the bottom of Lake Champlain, which is near the area where the secret McGiver gold mines were located) The Mohawks then proceeded to utterly destroy the traces of the gold mines, except for some monuments which happen to be along ordinary trails. The McGivers were aware of the risk of being wiped out so made up a pack of stone maps which are keyed in some way that only a person who has the key can find the mines, and these are buried not in the site of the mines or where the party was massacred but in an otherwise non-descript site. The leather map used to trace out the stone maps has been lost forever on the bottom of Lake Champlain with the bones of the ill-fated McGivers. The stones are never mentioned by Michael nor in any record anywhere, and other McGivers operate gold mines in Vermont twenty years later after the war is over. Michael does not go back to the secret mines for the rest of his life either. Then over 100 years later, a state highway has been built quite close to the spot where the secret stone McGiver maps have been buried. A passing motorist from Michigan, touing the Revolutionary war sites of upstate NY, stops along the road and notices a rectangular stone sticking out of the ground. You can guess the rest of the fictional story here. Now I cannot provide ANY proof that the McGivers were operating any mines in upstate NY whatsoever, but can prove the same family (relatives anyway) had operated mines quite legally and above board both before the period of the secret mines in Ontario and twenty years after in Vermont nearby but still distant enough. Now are you ready to pack up and go drive to upstate NY to follow these stone maps to find the McGiver gold mines? You don't see anything that is open to question? This is where your logic and mine are quite different. For I have not included any known frauds in my hypothetical story, while in the case of the Peraltas we DO have known and proven frauds. Yet despite this you are convinced that the story of the Peralta stones and Peralta secret gold mines is beyond doubt and utterly logical. It seems that when the name Peralta enters the calculation, we must just come up with whatever it takes to accept it as reality, those Peralta-related frauds are just "coincidences".

You pointed out that Reavis indeed had a Peralta partner, yet apparently it did not occur to you to even question then why the stones and secret gold mines were NOT a part of the Reavis fiasco? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Gosh it seems I have asked this question on point after point, but you are more ready to accept whatever stretch it takes to allow that Peralta legend to be "genuine". Nothing is odd or doubtful to you when Peraltas are concerned! You have allowed that Reavis could be the forger, but when I pointed out that there is no record of the Peralta stones prior to 1949 so it seems unlikely that Reavis could have known of them (again if he had, based on his record he WOULD have used them) you ignored that and the equally odd coincidence of this date to the life and career of a man who is well known for his embellishing of the Lost Dutchman story and Peralta legends, Barry Storm. Are you going to take the stand that Barry Storm would not have been capable of creating and burying these stones?

I have stated that in my opinion these stones do not look right for their purported age, having examined many stone inscriptions in researching for a book. You said, quote

You talk about the level of wear on the stones. I said the wear on the "DON" Stone. That weathering is quite a bit worse than the rest of them.

end quote
So let me directly address the DON side of that particular stone. I did not address it earlier as I feared my openly stating my opinion would probably irritate you. So please take no offense, but what that side of that stone looks like to me is simply that side never WAS smooth like the other side, it is indeed "weathered" but was as weathered and rough as it looks right NOW at the moment when the DON was carved into it. But you have already accepted the FBI-affadavits from geologists who examined the stones AFTER they were CLEANED as solid enough proof for YOU to state they are genuine, otherwise I would suggest that the stones be sent to experts in epigraphy. Even this step would be next to useless because the stones have already been cleaned so there is no possible way of establishing a date when the engraving was done. You don't have to take my word for it that it is not possible to establish a precise date when any engraving was done on any stone, ask an expert in epigraphy.

You and everyone else who supports the Peralta stones as genuine are certainly welcome to your view; more power to you. I just can't swallow this even with the salt added. Would you want me to just say they are genuine and let it drop?
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

FIRST OF ALL....

Please show me ANYWHERE where I said anything like I believed they were authentic? I don't think you will find that quote.

The only thing I have a belief about is the fact that they are most likely "at least" 140 years old (now). You keep saying that I believe the stone maps are real, but I have never said that!

I make arguments for them being real, and I also make arguments for them being fakes (Reavis). Just because you can't accept the word of the Former attorney General of Arizona, when he says what the FBI "believed" about the stone's age. And YES, if the FBI believed that, it was good enough to force Mitchell to give up the stones.

If your McGiver family had a set of stones that either of or both of the FBI / UC Redlands had tested and determined the age to be at least 100 years old, I would say they warranted further investigation.

Because the stones were never used in the Land Grant Scheme, doesn't prove them fakes or authentic. If the stones were made, and before using them, Reavis found out everybody was on to him, I could completely understand not saying anything about them, and dumping them in a hole in the desert!

Just because you say Barry Storm don't make it so! Since starting this (not here, but on the LDM Forum), I have been contacted by a BUNCH of WELL-KNOWN folks. Their ideas are just as varied as ours! Everything from the map stones being real, and the horse stone a fake, to Bicknell Fakes, to Locals selling the stones secretly to Tumlinson, to Tumlinson's father stealing the stones from a Mission in Mexico, and giving them to his son (His father was nicknamed "PegLeg"). I have even heard from them that the stones are real, and any treasure was taken out in the 40s and 50s. Nothing left but empty vaults (but that would be bad for future book sales)!

Best,

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Hello Mike and everyone,
Seems I can’t leave this thing alone, almost like picking at a scab! (Ouch!) Round 87? Now you asked me where I got the idea that you believe in the stones as genuine? This will take up some space, so please bear with me here and remember you asked me to point it out. Here are some of the statements you have made in previous posts:



Their actions don't look REMOTELY like anything a hoaxer would do.

DOES THAT SOUND ANYTHING LIKE SOMEONE WHO HOAXED THEM FOR PROFIT? Of coarse not!

I amd the only one that has shown any real evidence of their history!

What I am doing is arguing a position that EVERY SINGLE proof of evidence of their being frauds or hoaxes has been either shot down, don't make sense, or are not reliable.

I never said that they were "all shot down". What I said was, "some can be shot down (finder unknown, location of find unknown), some don't make sense (Tumlinson made them for profit, but kept them a secret until after his death), and some are unverifiable (unnamed engraver). ()

As for the Peraltas being in the area in the mid 1800s: this I do firmly believe.

If Bob Corbin tells me that he had the stones tested, I will take his word for it.

The former Atty General of the State of Arizona (with much personal experience with the stones) firmly believes them to be real.

(Quote
You also seem to put a great deal of faith in the opinion of others -)

Yes, I do. I highly respect people's opinion who have been personally involved with what I am researching.

The FBI Tests came back that the inscriptions were AT LEAST 100 years old.

Do I now believe them to be REAL? I am leaning to that side of the fence now. I firmly believe them to have been AT LEAST a hundred years old in the sixties.

Hey Oro,

You're just going to have to quote the spot where Tom K calls the stones a cruel hoax.

Now this, and the fact that the Peraltas Family History states that the family was destroyed by an Indian Massacre in the mid 1800s in the North, would say to me that there is some truth to the Peralta Massacre Story.

It's easy to prove the stones as false. If the FBI would have found any evidence of modern carving or machining anywhere on the stones, their "belief" would have been completely different! Since their belief was over a hundred years old, they must not have found any evidence of modern work on them.

And Yes, I do believe the word of Bob Corbin. nobody has EVERY questioned his honesty, that I have seen. What the FBI had, was the ability to microscopically examine the stones for evidence of modern metal left in the grooves from carving, modern machining of the surfaces, etc. If they would have found any of that, I highly doubt that their "belief" would have been "at least 100 years old".

Right now, that last bit trumps everything.

I have made the following conclusions based on the information I received from many sources:

I have already gone over the finding of the stones, and unless I come across credible evidence refuting the Tumlinson's version, I will keep using it.

I am satisfied (barring any new evidence), that the above is true. I am satisfied that the stones are at least 140 years old (now). Unless a document from the Land Grant Fraud Case shows up, that talks about the stones, I won't say they are fakes.

I have done more research than most human beings who claim to be knowledgeable about the stones. I have found much circumstantial evidence that, when all added together, makes a pretty good case for them being real.

I have not laid out one piece of "questionable logic". Any suppositions I have made, were based on either known facts, documented family history, or known history.

All I can say is, "I must be doing somethig right!"

No, if Storm had faked the maps, he would have said something before he died.

You are 100% wrong about the whole MOEL thing!

I can think of a hundred good reasons for a Mexican not to file a claim on a mine in Arizona at that time.

Either way though, whether the tests were certified at UCLA/Redlands AND the FBI, OR just the FBI, OR just UCLA/Redlands, the story doesn't change. The stones are currently in excess of 140 years old.

Either the stones are part of the Arizona Land Baron or they are authentic.

If they were fakes, the state would have absolutely no interest in taking the stones. Why would they go to all that trouble and expense to litigate for something that wasn't real?

EVERY piece of info I was given is corroborated specifically on topo maps of the area. Every peak and canyon, down to elevations forming shapes of mountains that fit right in with shapes on the stone maps!

Now for the stones: Please explain the process that proved them to be fakes! When I have more reliable sources than your website, that say they were "at least" 100 years old (as of 1962 or 3).

By combining parts of known history (US and Mexican), Peralta Family History, and some imagination (like you asked for), I have given you a good possible story of the making of the stone maps.

On the Witch/Priest Side, is another short map. I believe this map was how to find the other stones.

But remember, the Peraltas had eight rich gold mines in the Superstitions.

I'll even tell you where to look.

If you are in the area, start at the spot indicated by Queens Creek. Follow the course indicated, and see if there are monuments along the way. According to the Trail and Heart Stones, there are nineteen spots along the trail at equidistant intervals.

--------------------------------------------------------



Now if I have not tested your patience beyond the limit, what do you suppose I would get out of your statements? That you DON’T believe in them? You have clearly stated that the only possible way you would accept them as frauds is if they can be proven to be a part of the Reavis-Peralta land grant scam; that leaves the remainder that you DO believe them to be genuine except for a single possibility! But then my logic does not match up with yours when Peraltas are involved it seems. No emotional faith involved?

I would like to add that an age of 140 years old + does NOT put the stones “in the middle of the Reavis-Peralta land grant fraud” as the fraud did not get rolling until 1880, not 1840 or 1860. His first steps (which were in the late 1860s, which would not work out to 140+ years) had no connections with mines of any kind, so why should WE be making any connections between these Peralta stones and Reavis? Again I will point out, there IS no record of the Peralta stones prior to 1949 – so how can we make any connection between Reavis and the stones? There is not even any record of the legendary Peralta secret gold mines until 1895, when Reavis was in prison!

I fear that we are going in circles. You stated that you put great faith in the opinions of others who are deeply involved, yet when I pointed out a published, public statement which carries the name of Tom Kollenborn and you allowed that you DO respect his views, you choose to disbelieve what is public record and instead write to him privately. Now lots of people hold private opinions at odds with their public opinions, but if Tom K has a different opinion in private, then it would not be fair to him to publish it here or anywhere. So are you showing disrespect for Tom K when you refuse to believe what is on the internet and carrying his name, resorting to private communications to seek a different answer? You have accused me of disrespect for Bob Corbin and others, though in the case of the Peraltas, the final conclusion must be made by individuals; the views of others can carry influence naturally and with good reason, but in the end we must decide for ourselves. Of course some are more comfortable sitting on a fence, awaiting some final, absolute proof even in a case like this where we may NEVER obtain any kind of final, absolute proof in either direction. Could be a very long time sitting on those pointy picket fence posts....

Well got to go, take it easy and will see what you have to say later…
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

REAVES REAVES REAVES he never produced them as he had origionally intended since he never found where his personal "Idiot" had buried them for casually finding them later.. Remember, he created a fictitious family of Peraltas to back his plan. He certainly did not know where any mines were in the superstitons to sell, but used an established belief of such a group as existing and that the Peraltas were mining them. He could not make "new" marks in the area since most of the older ones were already known so he had to resort to the old ones for his buried stone maps..

Peraltas having made the stones? nah, most of the Spanish miners or explorers used established marks on existing rocks etc to mark the area or path to a mine or cache. it would be out of character to make stone maps then bury them at a unknown/unrecognizable spot, i.e. no means of locating the spot later since no obvious marks hills, rocks etc. are around where they were supposedly found. Besides , if they ever existed, the mining Peraltas never for one minute, would expect to be in a complete wipe out, so would have no reason to construct stone maps, they would have just made trailmarkers as was normal.

The finders of the stones can be eliminated since they kept the secret for years trying to decipher them. and looking for the mines (?).

Barry Storm? nah, not in the same league with the Reaves. Especially when the experts consider the stones as being over 100 yrs old , besides, Barry was not enough of a fool to bury them where he could not find them again or rely upon the possible chance of their being found in an area of little or no foot traffic. Common sense would have dictated burying them somewhere IN the Superstitions near a traveled access way.hmmm

So the stones are maps made with a knowledge of the terrain of the Superstitions but not of any producing mine, in fact since their existence, they have produced no minerals, nothing in over 100 years. who could benefit most by such stone maps? Only Reaves.!

I understand that DJUI5 has seen most, if not all, of the marks on the Stones in the Superstitions, I am curious, are they all of the type of work that would suggest that the same person was making them and in the same time period?

I am sleepy, will modify this later.

p.s. Reaves had them made, so there!

Till Eulenspiegle

 

[Oroblanco]

Hello again friends,

Djui5 wrote:

"I do have one story about the maps that is immensly believable, and explains why people can't figure them out. The story also explains a lot of other stuff, about the Lost Dutchman, etc. It has nothing to do with frauds, the Peraltas, etc, and to this day is the only story about the maps I believe. I've never heard anyone else mention anything even remotely close to it. To be honest, I don't think 99% of the Dutchman/Stone Map hunters know about it. Sorry, can't share the info. With this info, I believe 100% the stone maps are real, and could lead to something spectacular if you look hard enough, but it's not where they lead that's important, it's why/where they were created that is exciting.
"

Now if that is not a tease, tantalizing us here with more info that the poster is not willing to share publicly, then I don't know what a "tease" is!!! (Just picking, Randy, I can understand completely NOT wanting to share any particularly 'juicy' or tantalizing information, just as Mike has hinted at having possession of.) That said, may I ask if you could give us (including the hard-headed skeptics who can only present words in opposition to the validity, who shall remain nameless to protect us guilty ones 8)) that would give some kind of hint?

Now Mike, you made this statement:
"You say Reavis could not have known about any Peralta mining, but you are badly mistaken!

Okay then, PROVE THAT REAVIS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERALTA STONES AND PERALTA SECRET MINES, and thus prove that I am "SO BADLY MISTAKEN" - you will have a difficult time since there IS NO RECORD OF THE STONES PRIOR TO THE "FINDING" IN 1949, and no trace of any tales of secret Peralta mines in the Superstitions prior to 1895! If you can find actual documented records dating to before Reavis was arrested of the Peralta Stones AND the secret Peralta gold mines in the Superstitions, then it will be fair to say "I am badly mistaken" - otherwise you are making a rather strong statement based ON YOUR SUPPOSITION THAT REAVIS WOULD HEAR OF THE LOST MINES AND - OR STONES through contacts with Peraltas - even though we know that Reavis had NO actual direct contact with Miguel Peralta (remember it was Dr. Willing who had the story of meeting Peralta in the dark of night and buying the documents, not Reavis) and his "Peralta" wife was an invention, her real name was not Peralta at all.

*A side note here but Mike has proposed Gitt as the best suspect if the stones were forged, yet Gitt did not enter the Peralta grant scheme first, it was Dr. Willing.

Then you propose reasons as to why Reavis would not have produced his fake stone "maps" yet consider this little extract:
(quote)
Reavis also rode into the barren Sierras Estrellas range southwest of Phoenix, looking for a big rock with a wide face. When he found an appropriate boulder, he marked it with an elaborate series of script and symbols referring to the Peralta family and the Spanish Crown. This, of course, was the "Initial Monument" that marked the southwestern corner of his 18,750 square-mile empire.

(end quote)

Reavis DID make fake stone inscriptions, and absolutely DID use them to press his claims for his land grant! So why is it that WE are supposed to ASSUME that Reavis for some reason (we can only guess) decided NOT to bring out these stone "maps" to further bolster his claims? You have logic, think about it.

Mike, also, you were quick to dismiss that other site which stated that the Peralta stones had been "proven fake" in 1973, as quick as you were to dismiss the article on DesertUSA; yet are equally quick to accept a statement from a person you admire and respect as to the age, validity etc even when later it is learned that Mr. Corbin did not possess the FBI tests, and that the FBI never actually DID any testing, and in fact the stones were "examined" and/OR "tested" (we really just don't know) by three geologists, AFTER the stones had been CLEANED. Is that not exhibiting a personal bias in favor of the stones being genuine? Why not put some of that zeal for investigating and researching the "truth" you have exhibited, into finding out what study was done in 1973 that is referred to by the website (which website has many what you call "errors" but really could just be yet another version of this Peralta Saga if you think about it) and why they published it. You have admitted having run across some differences, contradictions, variations of the different details in the different tales, yet jump all over that particular website which is not making a claim that their version is THE only one or THE most authoritative version for their many "mistakes". Just because one version which you have decided is more authoritative states there were 50 men in the party, does not automatically make a different version which has a larger number involved. The fact that only 25 skeletal remains were found years later does not prove that the party was not 200, in fact it does NOT FIT WITH 50 OR 60 EITHER, especially since the only supposed "survivor" was one Pedro Peralta! That math doesn't bother you a whit I suppose. We can invent some coyotes who dragged off the remains of the other 24 dead leaving only 25, but cannot invent coyotes to drag off the remains of a larger number right? Jeepers!

Now I have accused you Mike of being a true believer (not in quite so many words) while you have consistently professed innocence, claiming that you are a fence-sitter - well I found that you are telling the truth - while you have been arguing so vehemently in defense of the validity of the Peralta stones here on THIS forum, on that "other" forum you have argued both sides, so I retract my accusation of being a believer here publicly. You are truly a fence sitter where the Peralta stones are concerned. Not sure that is a compliment though, any more than it would be to say a person is a 'sandbagger' for their caution. Caution is called for when investigating these old legends, and when we venture into Peralta sagas I think we really need to have those blinders off and check every claim as best as possible. In my opinion when any evidence or story puts up too many red flags then it is not worthy of a great deal of effort in researching it (time better spent on other leads) but you have exhibited a deep interest in these Peralta stones so it is worth it for you.

I am left with many problems in trying to accept the Peralta stones as genuine - like just why Pedro Peralta didn't bother to "escape" to nearby Tucson or Tumacacori to report of the horrible massacre, instead we have to swallow that he sneaked his way all the way back down to southern Sonora or California without ever mentioning a word to the authorities about Indian attack. So am I calling Pedro Peralta a liar? Not exactly, but his story is about as hard to accept as those of the many claimants to having survived the Custer massacre.

Well I hope you all have a great day, I look forward to your replies.
Oroblanco

Post Script

Gollum, you posted an old photo of Pedro Peralta and wife - consider this little extract from the Reavis saga:

"Reavis also haunted the junk stores and flea markets of the city. He bought up miniatures, portraits and photographs of nameless noble men and women who had fallen on hard times and had hocked their heirlooms. They were to be passed off as portraits of the fictitious Peraltas, and Reavis even cynically presented them to his wife as her long-lost ancestors. Too happy in her never-never land of wealth and fame to possibly suspect the man who had made her a noblewoman, she believed him.

"

Now are you absolutely certain that the image you posted is definitely of a man named Pedro Peralta, and this cannot be one of the photographs which Reavis bought up and then "adopted" into his fictitious Peralta aristocracy? Not even a shadow of doubt? Are you certain that you have no personal bias in this matter?

 

[gollum]

My proof was only to show that Reavis COULD have known about Peralta Mining because of his associations with Dr. Willing (who bought the Grant Deed from young Miguel Peralta). Now, this was a branch of the Peraltas that had left the area long ago, but who knows what stories Miguel told Willing? For that matter, who knows what stories Miguel might have heard from family members? There were ample opportunities for Reavis to have learned of the Peraltas Mining in the Supers.

Yes, Willing was the first Name involved, but if you read the story, it doesn't look like Willing was a part of the fraud! The story goes that Dr. Willing bought a hand written copy of the Land Grant Deed from young Miguel Peralta (Bradshaw Peraltas). No mention was made as to how much he paid fot it. Willing was not previously known as a fraud or hoaxster. Dr. W. Gitt on the other hand, was a WELL known fraud! Like I previously stated: "Dr. Gitt had to leave St. Louis in a hurry when it was found that the owners signature on one of his deeds was signed after the owners death!" When Dr. Gitt left St. Louis, he went to Mexico, where he stole many pages from archives in the towns he went to.

And this part, I'll put in an easy to understand format:

Let's say you were perpetrating a fraud that went on for a few years. During this time, you and a partner have forged documents, and signatures showing your valid ownership of something (one-fifth of Arizona, say). You have some forged maps that you have had made, and are waiting for the right time to "DISCOVER" them. You find out that people have caught on to your fraudulent scheme. What do you do with the stones now? Do you bring out new fraudulent evidence that can be used against you in court, or do you cut your losses and dump them all in a hole in the desert?

I was quick to dismiss that post about the stones proven fake in 1973 because if it were true, there would be no argument right now! More BS.

What I was quick to dismiss in the Desert USA Magazine was not the article, it wqas a reply letter from a man who wrote a childrens book about the LDM, and began calling himself an expert!

If you read the next letter from Jim Hatt that disputes everything Gene Botts says, you seem awfully quick to dispute that!

And so you are supporting what is said on AUDIGGER's website? Now you are goung to say that the Peraltas definitely had mines in the Supers? Cause if you are arguing for the validity of that website, then you are arguing for the Peralta presence in the Supers! I think you had better go reread that website! The errors I talk about there givens in the stone maps history. I even argued your side that there is NO hard evidence of the Peraltas having any mining operations in the Supers.

You say that I argue both sides on the LDM Forum, but I argue both sides RIGHT HERE! You just seem to forget my arguments about Reavis or Gitt having faked them! Just because I don't hold with your version of their possible faking, doesn't mean I don't believe that it's possible!

"Reavis also haunted the junk stores and flea markets of the city. He bought up miniatures, portraits and photographs of nameless noble men and women who had fallen on hard times and had hocked their heirlooms. They were to be passed off as portraits of the fictitious Peraltas, and Reavis even cynically presented them to his wife as her long-lost ancestors. Too happy in her never-never land of wealth and fame to possibly suspect the man who had made her a noblewoman, she believed him."

Linda Peralta (the source of the photo was not descended from the wife of Reavis. She comes from the Sonoran Peraltas. Different branch. Just like the Bradshaw Peraltas are a different branch).

DJUI,

About the horse map being altered. On a picture of the original Horse/Priest Stone, what looks like the name "PEDRO" inscribed on the horse's flank. There are two ways to tell copied stones from the originals: first, on the side of the Horse Map, where the rivers go around the left side of the stone, the name "Santa Fe" is inscribed on the side between the lines.

The other way is to find the "PEDRO" inscription. If it ain't there, it's a copy. One thing I have found out for sure, is that there were at least 30 sets of copies made (and that was just from 1987 until 1992)! I can't verify how many before or after.

Best,

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Hello again,
Mike, you don't wish to back off that statement of my being "badly mistaken" do you? You have stated, quote

"My proof was only to show that Reavis COULD have known about Peralta Mining because of his associations with Dr. Willing (who bought the Grant Deed from young Miguel Peralta). "

This proof, which is based on a supposition (that Reavis COULD have known about Peralta mining) and has absolutely NO solid evidence, then makes me "badly mistaken" to make a statement that there is no reason to believe that Reavis would have known of the stones, since we have NO evidence of them prior to their discovery and NO evidence of any Peralta secret gold mines in the Superstitions prior to 1895. Yep I see your logic at work here. That "proves" it beyond doubt. More from your post:

"And so you are supporting what is said on AUDIGGER's website? Now you are goung to say that the Peraltas definitely had mines in the Supers? Cause if you are arguing for the validity of that website, then you are arguing for the Peralta presence in the Supers!

Now you seem to be reading more words into what I posted than are there again? Where did I say that the AUDIGGER version is the version I am personally supporting? Please point that statement out and quote it here? I failed to find it.

Then you proposed a scenario for why Reavis dumped the stones, quote

"Let's say you were perpetrating a fraud that went on for a few years. During this time, you and a partner have forged documents, and signatures showing your valid ownership of something (one-fifth of Arizona, say). You have some forged maps that you have had made, and are waiting for the right time to "DISCOVER" them. You find out that people have caught on to your fraudulent scheme. What do you do with the stones now? Do you bring out new fraudulent evidence that can be used against you in court, or do you cut your losses and dump them all in a hole in the desert?
"

end quote

Well heck Mike, I already pointed out there is no reason why Reavis would not have already put them forward, no reason to "hold them back" and in fact he did make fake stone inscriptions and DID use them to support his fraud. Did he hold those back until it was "too late" - why no, he put them forward not long after he made them! So why should we assume that he would have held them back too long, then dumped them in a hole? For when his fraud got too hot in court, he was in jail. Of course,he could have paid someone to bury them or otherwise dispose of them, but it is more likely (at least in my own logic, based on his documented behavior) to have produced them in order to press his case. You have not shown me any proof that Reavis could have known of the stones or mines, only another supposition based on tales being passed from Miguel to Willing to Reavis. That seems like a strong proof to you?

More from the same post by Gollum:

"I was quick to dismiss that post about the stones proven fake in 1973 because if it were true, there would be no argument right now! More BS

BS? Have you gone and researched the matter as thoroughly as you did to try to prove the stones genuine, that is to try to find the study mentioned in 1973, which is cited as having concluded the stones were fraudulent, or just dismissed it out of hand since it doesn't agree with the stones being valid? Please explain what your research turned up that proves a reported test of 1973 was "BS"? I have not yet tracked down any test of 1973, but will probably not keep looking - I will explain below...


Then you stated,

"What I was quick to dismiss in the Desert USA Magazine was not the article, it wqas a reply letter from a man who wrote a childrens book about the LDM, and began calling himself an expert!


Did you bother to read the article? Please point out exactly where Gene Botts made a claim that he was an expert? I failed to find it even in re-reading it this evening. In fact what I read was this, quote:

"I’ll admit that I’m not an authority on The Lost Dutchman Gold Mine legend, or any other legend. I’m not a gold miner or an authority on mining, either. I’m just a scribbler who likes to read and write about early Arizona and the Southwest."

end quote
Now did I read THAT wrong too, or does that sound to you like Botts is making claims of being "expert"? Are you dismissing Botts for his having committed the ultimate faux-pas of writing (shudder, horrors!) a childrens' book as proof of his incompetence? (Gee doesn't that make him a published author at least?) Geez Mike, you are sure willing to give all sorts of "benefit of the doubt" for many others, coincidentally when their view supports the stones as being "genuine".

You have attacked Father Polzer, for his negative view on the basis of his being a Jesuit, even though he was an educated man and had nothing to gain nor lose with these stones for there is not even a tradition of any Jesuit treasures or lost mines in the Superstitions. I suppose this is not a personal bias then, but a reason to dismiss any statements of Polzer on the basis of his being a Jesuit as this is a good enough reason. Despite the fact that Father Polzer physically examined the stones IN HAND and said that he could see the marks of modern tools easily. Now you have posted rather vehement messages about how you were ready to take the word of Bob Corbin on the FBI having tested the stones and believed them to be at least 100 years old, then we learn that the FBI didn't actually DO any tests (it would be unlikely, unless related to a federal crime - oh shoot, but then we would be going back to the MOEL thing which even though another fraud and directly related to these stones, that is a "good" thing for proving them genuine right?) but they (FBI) had three letters from geologists in CA saying so. This doesn't even prove they were tested by the geologists, they may have simply examined them, and in fact the stones were cleaned before any expert examined them, but that doesn't bother you either. If I didn't have your word for it, I would conclude that you do have some personal bias in favor of the stones being valid and real.


To continue here, Gollum said,

"If you read the next letter from Jim Hatt that disputes everything Gene Botts says, you seem awfully quick to dispute that! I can tell you that one of my sources of information is Jim Hatt himself. He is still a resident of Apache Junction, and is a very key person in the whole Stone Maps affair! We have corresponded on several occasions, and I have found him to be very forthright and forthcoming. I have no reason to doubt anything he has told me.
"

So here we have a case where someone has publicly posted letters in favor of the stones being genuine, which you then accept as pretty solid proof - and the fact that Mr Hatt lives in Apache Junction and has been open and forthcoming with you, you have no reason to doubt anything he might tell you. I have no problem with Mr Hatt, but it sure looks to the reader like he has a personal bias involved, regardless of whether he lives in Apache Junction or Florida. You know, I have tramped over the Superstitions quite a bit, despite having had the handicap of not living right next to them, and have seen the ORO sign, the strange symbols and the "ventana rock" clue, the "house in the cave" the "Indian Face" up close and personal-like, and many other things there including some which are not published anywhere, but would you take MY word for it, if I told you that I believe these stones are frauds? Of course not! I am not holding the "right" view and am "badly mistaken" when I point out that there is no evidence of these stones prior to 1949 and no evidence of secret Peralta mines prior to Bicknells embellishing in 1895 so Reavis could not have known of them. Yes I begin to see where this whole thread has been weaving its way...

I have attempted to bow out gracefully, and have no problem at all with those who are convinced the Peralta stones are genuine as well as the fence-sitters, but keep getting drawn back in - the subject has been fascinating. We know and can document Peraltas having a rich silver mine near Ures in southern Sonora, named the Valenciana, which played out in the middle 1800s (actually haven't tracked down the exact date when they closed the silver mine) and then went to California. Their presence in Tuolumne county CA is fairly well documented. They then went to the La Paz district in AZ (about 1863) where they did not have great luck so went to the Black Canyon City area where they had a registered claim (also named the Valenciana) on the Agua Fria river, which produced very well - your own posted newspaper article mentioned a production of $35,000 per year in the 1870s which is not chump change for the day. They were attacked by Indians several times and Pablo was seriously wounded by a lance on once occasion - eventually they sold the mine and the Peraltas then moved to Wickenburg where Pablo died shortly afterwards from his wound. Miguel married and opened a store in Wickenburg. He prospered and opened a second store in Seymour, then later opened a large store in downtown Phoenix.

So why are we to accept the stories of Peralta secret mines in the Superstitions at all, much less Peralta stone maps? We have a good, solid and provable record of the Peralta family, yet we have to make a lot of assumptions to accept the story of the finding of not ONE but a whole GROUP of incredibly rich gold mines in the Superstitions, their massacre and sole survivor, the mysterious stone maps etc. Yet none of these leaps of faith, accepting assumptions of what is "possible" but not proven by a shred of solid evidence, bothers you at all?

You don't mind investing your time in pursuing the Peralta stones, but don't seem too interested in actually going out to see where the maps lead - now perhaps you don't have the time and it is not exactly like a walk in the park to head into the Superstitions (one writer described them as "desert standing on end" which is fairly apt!) but I don't understand what then you stand to get out of your time invested? If you can prove them absolutely genuine, but don't find one of the lost mines the stones are supposed to lead to - will that be enough remuneration/reward for your efforts? I can understand satisfaction in proving a truth, but for myself, I would sooner spend the time researching and pursuing leads which are at least a little bit better documented, like the info we can trace directly to Jacob Waltz or his partner Weiser. So I will bow out of this discussion - I really cannot PROVE the stones are fakes, and as you have stated earlier Mike, it will take solid evidence of a direct connection to Reavis to convince you they are frauds, something that I am convinced is impossible since we can't prove the stones existed nor that the Peralta legends were known when Reavis was building his fraud. I will keep on a-reading, as the subject has proven to have more "suction" than a Hoover ( ) and is good reading, but will spend my research time on other leads. Thank you ALL for the great and interesting discussion, and I hope you all have a great day!

your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca

 

[gollum]

No need to get testy when you're mistaken!

Have you gone and researched the matter as thoroughly as you did to try to prove the stones genuine, that is to try to find the study mentioned in 1973,

Actually, yes I have! That's one of the reasons I dismissed it so quickly! Here, read this about that "proof" that the stones were faked using the Florence Quadrangle of 1900 (It is actually the Florence Quadrangle of 1902, not 1900):

"The last issue raised is the stone maps do not appear to relate to any area within the Superstition Mountains. The Florence Quadrangle Map of 1902 is often used as a basis. Until cartographers began using airborne radar, GPS, computers, satellite imaging, and laser surveying equipment, maps were commonly known to be imprecise. The maps made by the Spaniards of the 16th through the 18th centuries are notoriously imprecise compared to modern maps. Comparing two imprecise maps with each other in order to disqualify one is not good science. Compare the Florence Quadrangle Map to the modern maps made with the latest cartographic equipment. An "expert" might claim the Florence Quadrangle Map to be a "fake." Trying to precisely relate any feature on the Peralta Stones with reality requires the understanding the Spanish failed to have the latest in 21st century technology."

I NEVER said beyond a doubt that that Reavis knew about Peralta Mining. You stated very unequivocally that Reavis could NOT have known about Peralta Mines (I never said ANYTHING about the stones, other than him possibly having them made)! I just showed that it WAS possible. You are just wrong. Sorry.

Mike, also, you were quick to dismiss that other site which stated that the Peralta stones had been "proven fake" in 1973,

That is why I asked if you are supporting that website's version! From the research that I have done, there are some "givens" about the LDM and Stone Maps' History. That site has gotten many of the "givens" wrong (date of the massacre, etc)! That site also states as fact that the Peraltas had mining interests in the Supers! A "given" is that there is NO legal record of the Peraltas in the Supers. As for the Florence Quadrangle Statement, see above.

Did you bother to read the article? Please point out exactly where Gene Botts made a claim that he was an expert? I failed to find it even in re-reading it this evening.

While Gene Botts stated what you quote, read just before that:

"I hope no one is taking all of this too seriously and investing a lot of time and money in any scheme to recover the Dutchman’s treasure based on the clues in these stone tablets. There are no legitimate clues there. The Peralta Stones are fakes! There is no doubt about it! They’re not even very good fakes. The whole thing is a hoax, dreamed up and perpetrated by God-only-knows who for God-only-knows what reason. The evidence is clear, convincing, and unequivocal."

Sounds kind of like an expert to me! Otherwise why would we believe somebody who makes such a profound claim, and then says they are no expert! Not much sense to me!

You like reading Gene Botts' piece so much, why not read the replies as well! That's where the counter for his Florence Quadrangle "Proof" came from!

Please show me ONE place where I said that I "respect and admire" Bob Corbin? Please? I WILL show you where I said that I don't personall;y know the man! What I HAVE said, is that due to his position as Attorney General of the State of Arizona, I give a great benefit of the doubt to his word! Can you show me ANY reason to disbelieve that he spoke to an FBI Agent in 1964 that told him the FBI believed that the stones were at least 100 years old! Are you saying that he is senile? or maybe lying? Do you know him to say either of those things? Why would you take the word of GENE BOTTS over him? Do you know Gene Botts? Can you say that he is really a former federal investigator? I can only find two references to Gene Botts on Google. One is because of his children's book, and the other is for a Lonnie Gene Botts. A cop killer from Columbus, Georgia. I did find a reference to a private investigator named Gene Botts' testimony in a workers comp case!

You also say that there is no story of Jesuit Gold in the Supers. Wrong again! There is a story about a Jesuit hoard buried around Weaver's Needle. Many people think that is why Ed Piper had a permanent camp at the base of it. Look for another story about either Harry France (real name Harry LaFrance), or Bob Brady. Both of them found caves with gold bars in the Supers. Here are quickies about both:

Bob Brady: No validation No first person witnesses. The cave was supposed to be somewhere in Needle Canyon.

Harry France (LaFrance): This story has some first person validation. Harry France found a cave somewhere around West Boulder Canyon. He took pictures, and a Tracy Hawkins saw the pictures. They were butterbars with a small crown cast into the upper left corner (that would be the King's Royal Quint).

Best,

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Seems I can't bow out gracefully. I am stuck in a sequential vortex! Hello again Mike and everyone,

Mike, your vehement statements that I am "wrong" and "badly mistaken" are based on your providing supposition of how Reavis could have known of the stones. Hmm, now I made a statement based on the facts that there is no record of these stones even existing prior to their 'discovery' in 1949, and worse, there is no record of secret, lost, rich, gold mines belonging to Peraltas in the Superstitions. Sorry to you, buddy, but you are wrong. Based on the known evidence, it is safe to say that Reavis could not have known of the Peralta stones - unless you can show positive records that the stones existed in his day, and prior to his being in prison. As far as I know, this is not possible as there are no records of such. However I no longer expect you will back off of your "badly mistaken" statement, with so strong "proof" backing up your version - suppositions of how Reavis could have known while there is NO evidence the stones even existed then.

If you read my post, you would have seen that I said that the AUDIGGER version is one of the versions out there, not that it is the most authoritative - and please provide the evidence of the 1973 examination being BS? I did not find your proof that it was BS in your reply. You pointed to the given errors in that AUDIGGER version as "proof" that we must toss the reference to the 1973 study - exactly why is that? Are you willing to throw out all evidence that has any error in it, or do you just filter out the known errors and retain the rest? Geez Mike, how do you sort out what you will accept and what you will not?

You know, we have debated the fact that the Peralta stone maps are in fact very accurate. You have stated how the surprising level of accuracy could (more supposition) be because the Peraltas had included a trained cartographer in their expedition. I pointed out that most all old maps have notable errors in them, but you demurred and the explanation (more supposition) is that the map-maker could have climbed to a high peak (assuming he didn't haul the heavy stones up there, more supposition) and drawn the map onto leather then transcribed it onto the stones (more supposition) and why we don't have the stones well it is that handy-dandy massacre, which you claim is the Peraltas (more supposition) and point to a sergeant who was there, though the two other men including a higher-ranking officer stated they believed the victims were Pimas. Anyway, now you stand behind the accuracy of these stone maps as nothing we should be doubtful about....

Then compare this to the very statement you extracted from a person whom you have already described as, quote
"I have found him to be very forthright and forthcoming. I have no reason to doubt anything he has told me.
" end quote
here is what he said, in case you missed it:

"The maps made by the Spaniards of the 16th through the 18th centuries are notoriously imprecise compared to modern maps."

Still want to stand by that surprising accuracy as something we should not doubt whatsoever? Or do you now have reason to doubt what Jim Hatt said, publicly? Remember your own words, my friend?
"No need to get testy when you're mistaken!



Now you also said, in trashing Gene Botts, (the fellow you said was making claims of being an expert, in spite of the very clear statements IN the very article which say very much the opposite), quote "Sounds kind of like an expert to me! Otherwise why would we believe somebody who makes such a profound claim, and then says they are no expert! Not much sense to me!


Now why doesn't that make sense to you? Is no one allowed to make a statement of their own personal position, even when they state openly they are no expert? Jeepers! Boy I hope you are using that same level of standard for ALL of the research you are doing, or it might start looking one-sided, fence-sitter or no.

Now despite the fact that you have NOT posted the requested citations I asked of you, you went ahead and asked this, quote

"Please show me ONE place where I said that I "respect and admire" Bob Corbin? Please?"

Ooooh-key-doh-key! Here you are:

And Yes, I do believe the word of Bob Corbin. nobody has EVERY questioned his honesty, that I have seen.

years old. To my recollection that's all he said about the maps.

Bob Corbin"

Do I now believe them to be REAL? I am leaning to that side of the fence now. I firmly believe them to have been AT LEAST a hundred years old in the sixties.

How about Bob Corbin? He was the Attorniey General for the State of Arizona during the time the stones first came into the public spotlight, and has been personally involved in some of the lawsuits pertaining to them. He has also (supposedly) sent the stones to the FBI labs to be tested for age pertaining to a lawsuit. If he told you that, "YES, I sent those stones to the FBI labs, and the tests came back as over 100 years old." would you change your beliefs?


If Bob Corbin tells me that he had the stones tested, I will take his word for it.

So what SHOULD I get from your statements, that you DON'T respect and admire him? Jeepers!

Now since I posted your request, I await your posting of my requests. In case you do not recall or don't care to go back through all the old posts, a step you have insisted on MY doing, time and again, and yep I am pretty tired of that request so I will remind you of my requests, here they are:

Where did I say that the AUDIGGER version is the version I am personally supporting? Please point that statement out and quote it here? I failed to find it.

(in reference to the 1973 test) Please explain what your research turned up that proves a reported test of 1973 was "BS"?

(In reference to your statement that Gene Botts was claiming to be an expert,) Please point out exactly where Gene Botts made a claim that he was an expert?

(In reference to your claim that I am "badly mistaken" to state that Reavis could not have known of the Peralta stones since there is no evidence they existed in his day, ) PROVE THAT REAVIS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERALTA STONES AND PERALTA SECRET MINES?




I can wait, as I am still a-waitin' for several other requests for you to point out things you have accused me of saying like that the Tumlinsons are liars, that Bob Corbin is a liar and so forth. Yep boy ol-wrongo-Oroblanco, you know me! When I express any kind of doubt, I MUST be calling them all LIARS!!!

Mike also said, with emphasis:

You also say that there is no story of Jesuit Gold in the Supers. Wrong again!


Ok so you found two STORIES, and even provided a synopsis of one having little evidence and the other having gold, but NO tie-in with Jesuits - so now provide some evidence of Jesuits in the Superstitions please? Someone creating a tale of Jesuit treasures in any particular mountains hardly is good strong evidence they were actually there.

Now you asked me a series of questions, and it is only good manners to give some replies. I will follow the pattern of your quote in blue, and put my replies in red.

Can you show me ANY reason to disbelieve that he spoke to an FBI Agent in 1964 that told him the FBI believed that the stones were at least 100 years old!

Actually I can, if you care to go to "legal" levels of proof for testimony, it is second and third hand report. I did not say that I doubted Bob Corbin, but we have since learned that the FBI actually never DID any tests, though you repeatedly stated they had, almost vehemently.

Are you saying that he is senile?

Exactly how did you arrive at that conclusion? More supposition? Yeesh.

or maybe lying?

There we go again with the direct implication that I have called Bob Corbin a "liar" so NOW I WANT YOU TO SHOW ME WHERE I DID!

Do you know him to say either of those things?

No. Did I say that I did? If so, please post the quote? I sure cannot recall ever making such claim.

Why would you take the word of GENE BOTTS over him?

Where exactly did I say I was taking the word of Gene Botts over ANYONE? Please quote the post? I make my own decisions where evidence is concerned and do not depend solely on the statements or veracity of any individual. Next...

Do you know Gene Botts?

Where did I make that claim? NO I don't know Gene Botts, and don't automatically dismiss his statements because he wrote a childrens book either - nor do I give his OPINION any greater weight than I would the OPINION of anyone in particular. Seems a silly question, really - what would it have to do with the Peralta stones issue if I knew Botts or not?

Can you say that he is really a former federal investigator?

I can say that HE SAID he was. Are you in a habit of reading more into what is there than really is? Might color your research, if it is habit.

Did I get all of your questions at least some reply? I await the same courtesy. I am getting the impression that you WANT me to keep on being the "Devils Advocate" arguing against these stones. I am not really the best Devil's Advocate, as you know well from my Tinfoil Hat it is not my usual position. I have mentioned earlier that I am probably biased about these stones, and can trace it to the first time I saw pictures of them, when they just didn't look right to me. I guess I don't mind playing the skeptic where the Peraltas are concerned, but really would prefer to be looking into other leads which is why I have "bowed out" here several times. I can't agree that these stones are genuine, and have said that my level of disbelief has reached the point that I would need for someone to locate one of these legendary mines using the stone maps to find it - so am sort of wasting your time here getting you to do more digging to support them. I asked if you were willing to try the stones yourself, using them as maps to find at least one of the legendary mines but you have never answered me, so I have to assume that you are not. That says a lot to me about your real feelings, which could be totally wrong but that is what seems to be a reason that you don't believe they are valid, at least not valid enough to waste your own time tramping up into those beautiful hills. So I guess I am stuck returning to this thread, it is just too interesting for me to leave it alone!

Thanks and I hope you have a great day.

Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Hey Roy,

You keep asking questions that I have answered at least two or three times.

I can see that this is going nowhere, so at this point, I will allow you to bow out gracefully, and I will do the same!

All I will say is that I have done more research on the stones in the last few weeks than most people in the world have done in 50 years. Since starting this quest, I have gotten a ton of personal information that I can't share, and some that I can. I even made a few new friends in the process (and some enemies who have made threats as well).

As I said before, I firmly believe the stones are in excess of 140 years old (currently). I also believe that they are either real or fakes made in conjunction with the Willing/Gitt/Reavis/Peralta Land Grant Fraud Scheme.

Other than that, anything is possible. If you want to believe that Barry Storm faked them in the forties, and buried them near a highway, rather than along a known trail in the Supers, that's your perogative (as Bobby Brown would say)!

Best,

Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Mike, I didn't mean for YOU to bow out! I only wished to cease playing Mr Skeptic here (it is NOT my strong suit ) but did add that if you kind folks have a sort of 'need' for a skeptic, if for no other reason than to keep us all from becoming "true believers" (at least one foot on the ground) then I can oblige, however feeble and uncomfortable the Skeptic hat feels on top of my Tinfoil Hat!

Mike, Aurum, Randy and others here (and elsewhere) have put together a fair case for the stones being the genuine article, if circumstantial; I don't have any problem with anyone who wishes to pursue them as leads to treasure. Stranger leads have led to treasure in the past! For the hard-headed skeptic, a circumstantial case is not quite strong enough to pursue - yet in our courts a person CAN be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone! (Perry Mason-type TV dramas aside, evidence is not always tossed on ground that it is circumstantial.)

Anyway if you are bowing out Mike for greener pastures, I won't try to draw you into more debate here. It only occurred to me that if you nice folks are getting some entertainment out of my playing skeptic then I don't mind playing along!

Oroblanco, Mr True Skeptic (NOT!!! )

 

[Oroblanco]

Hi Randy! Yep I got it, didn't want to say anything in public. I will reply to you by PM on your info.
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Nah! I know we agree on more than we disagree on, but those damned stones have become just about the most time consuming thing I have ever obsessed over!

Here's what I'll do, some of those folks who don't want their info in the public domain, will gradually get better with the idea.

The nice gentleman who had his dog and burro shot mysteriously after opening up about the stones, is okaying me little by little to put out some of the information he has given me. He allowed me to use his name, but I will keep it in my hip pocket (so to speak), because I wouldn't want his headaches to start all over again.

When enough info is ok for general release, and it is meaningful, I will post it up.

It's FAR from over! (Thanks Roy)

Best,

Mike

 

[Springfield]

I don't buy this premise myself, but another pay-for-view theory nonetheless:

San Francisco, Ca- September 13, 2006

Xzault Media Group unveils its long-awaited documentary DVD discussing for the first time ever the link between the legend of Montezuma’s treasure and the mysterious Peralta Stone Tablets. The Secrets of the Stone Tablets: In Search of Montezuma’s Treasure DVD is an amazing 80 minute journey chronicling the history of the Aztec peoples, Montezuma, and his treasure, and the lesser known narrative of one man and his family who are attempting to find the treasure; all of which is interspersed with historically accurate details regarding the treasure and stones presented by various accredited scholars, historians, and archaeologists.

The heart of the story behind The Secrets of the Stone Tablets begins in 1949 when a man discovered four mysterious pieces of stone engraved with a myriad of symbols and markings while vacationing in Arizona. By 1965, the intrigue surrounding the meaning of the tablets had become so widespread that LIFE magazine even profiled the cryptic tablets in a detailed feature. In that same year, a man named Ray Dillman residing in California with his two young sons came across the LIFE magazine article and was instantly compelled to learn and explore the matter further. Seventeen years later, Ray’s conclusion that the tablets provided a map leading toward Montezuma’s missing treasure, was put to the test in an exploratory mission with his sons into the deserts of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. The result was the discovery of a previously unbeknownst fifth stone tablet. After much speculation and research with the complete set of tablets, it was Ray’s belief that the enigmatic signs and symbols emblazoned on the stones were equipped with distinct navigational coordinates that would prove to be the exact directions to Montezuma’s treasure.

Although Ray Dillman passed away in 1992, his legacy and findings have lived on through his sons and grandson who appear throughout the DVD giving personal insight into the man behind the innovative theories and sharing their own perspectives on the treasure that they are still searching to find today. Also filled with stunning 3D animation reenactments, historically valid information about the Aztec civilization, personal family photos, documentary footage of the mission into the southwest and all the intrigue and lure that comes with Montezuma’s treasure, The Secrets of the Stone Tablets: In Search of Montezuma’s Treasure, is a must-see DVD for all generations, from the littlest explorers who only read about this kind of adventure in books, to adults who have once dreamed of finding treasure as a kid, and even those that have always wondered just what became of Montezuma’s treasure.

 

[Oroblanco]

Hello friends,

Now this is the first I have heard of this:

quote
"Ray’s conclusion that the tablets provided a map leading toward Montezuma’s missing treasure, was put to the test in an exploratory mission with his sons into the deserts of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. The result was the discovery of a previously unbeknownst fifth stone tablet. "
end quote

I had never heard of the stones being tied to Montezuma's treasure, nor of a fifth stone which was not with the other four! This just keeps getting better.

I would like to add here (not wishing to let my Mr Skeptic hat fall off) but of the four stones found by Tumlinsons, ONE I do agree is very intriguing and may indeed be genuine even if the remaining three are found NOT to be - the "Heart" stone. It has a different look to it, if I had to bet on any or all of these stones being "genuine" my money would have to go on that "Heart" stone - though then I would have to propose a supposition based theory as to why this one is real and the others NOT, in which case my only guess would be that the other three were created by a forger to go along with a real one, possibly to throw off anyone who was trying to work out the location of the legendary mines. All supposition, but that Heart stone does look different to my eye than the other three. Now I wonder what that fifth stone has on it?

Thank YOU Mike, for the kind words - I just don't want to make any more enemies here (I have plenty of enemies already) so if my skepticism ruffs any feathers, just consider me a true curmudgeon!
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

No ruffled feathers Roy.

I have never heard anything about this either. I have never heard of a fifth stone either. Sounds shaky so far!

For anybody not familiar with the story of Montezuma's Gold, here is a quick synopsis:

In 1519, when Cortez first went to Tenochtitlan (The Aztec Capitol that is now Mexico City), he was there as a tourist (more or less). He saw temples sheathed in gold, and gold everywhere the eye could see! Jewelry, clothing, decorations, everywhere. This is what inspired him to come back with friends.

In 1521, when Cortez returned as a Conquistadore, much of the gold he had seen was gone. Cortez' men spent months torturing the Aztecs about where the gold went (all of the torture is recorded in written reports of the time). Problem was, the people that Montezuma sent away with the gold, never came back, so nobody knew where the gold was.

There are a couple of knowns about the gold:
It existed. The Aztecs could not have taken it to the East (The Spaniards were there), they could not have taken it to either the South or the West (There were tribes hostileto the Aztec and friendly to the Spaniards there). The only remaining route was North!

The Aztecs were known to have temples as far North as about the current US/Mexican Border (A Spanish Mission was built on the ruins of one). There are known Aztec carvings in Southern Arizona. And finally, it was a fact that the Aztec were friendly with the Apache.

That leaves the probable route for Montezuma's Gold as up through Nogales-Tuscon corridor. If they kept going directly North, that would put them EXACTLY into the Superstitions! Most stories put the Aztecs as taking the gold all the way to NorthEastern Utah, in the Uintas, but who knows? Remember, the Aztec's didn't have the wheel! They didn't have horses or burros. Everything they took, they carried on their backs!

Best,

Mike

 

[gollum]

Oh, and about the heart stone being different; yes it is. It is an almost deep red color (like a heart). I'm sure that was not by accident!

Mike

 

[boulder dash]

Seems there is some spanish/mexican wrighting on horse priest stones. Aztecs did not write in spanish kinda seems far fetched. I think i would bury a little closer to home than carry it to az or utah. maybee throw it off a cliff into the ocean??

 

[Springfield]

Some have postulated that the so-called 'Montezuma's Treasure' was not taken to North America to conceal it from the Spanish invaders, but was instead returned to it's place of origin to placate 'the gods' in hopes that the conquistadores might then leave them alone. That place of origin was somewhere in the region from which the Aztecs migrated south a few centuries earlier (called Chicomoztoc, 'Land of the Seven Caves').

Mike, your theory about an Aztec/Apache relationship is interesting, although the Apache are generally thought to have arrived in 'Apacheria' only in about the 1600's (a little late for the Conquest). Interestingly, however, there are certain locations in the present US Southwest that the Apache were particularly steadfast in keeping outsiders away from. Presumably, the Superstitions were one of those places, although I'm not so sure a lot of the lore hasn't been embellished due to the LDM rumors. Another site I know of cost more than 400 Anglos their lives in an eight-year period in the 1870's. The pictures below show some apparently Mexican-influenced petroglyphs within sight of this hot spot. It seems that even the so-called turncoat Apaches who scouted for Crook, Miles, et al were tight-lipped about known locations of gold deposits and maybe caches too.