The Peralta Stones

[Springfield]

....
There have been MANY times I've been involved in analyzing things in the lab where those of us doing the work don't interpret the results the same way.

And in each instance I assume there was a report prepared containing procedures used, data collected, personnel involved and conclusions summarized.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cubfan64]

....
There have been MANY times I've been involved in analyzing things in the lab where those of us doing the work don't interpret the results the same way.

And in each instance I assume there was a report prepared containing procedures used, data collected, personnel involved and conclusions summarized.

Yes, whether there is a customer involved for the work or if it's just an internal analysis/investigation of something there is always documentation.

That said, it's just as political as any other place. If the analysts involved don't necessarily agree on the interpretation of the results, eventually SOMEONE has to make a decision FOR THE LAB. Sometimes the customer is given all the possibilities/interpretations as options to what the "lab" believes, and sometimes the person in charge of the project doesn't share all that with the customer and just goes with the interpretation of who he feels is the most "trusted" analyst - heck, sometimes they even give the interpretation THEY feel is the most correct even though they did none of the testing.

That's why, to be honest with you all, Bob's statement about what the FBI agent said to him doesn't really answer any questions definitively, and without documentation from the FBI's analysis, there's no way to interpret the answer to Bob's question of him.

 

[cactusjumper]

Paul and Springfield,

As the requesting party, there would have to be paperwork on our end as well. Did we just hand over someone's property to the FBI without authorization.....probably triple countersigned.

It would not surprise me if those stones never left Phoenix. The only way that anyone can conclude, with any degree of certainty, that the the maps are over 100 years old would be the 1847 date. That seems like slim evidence to base a conclusion on, which is why we all still can't agree.

Seems a lot like determining what Waltz said or didn't say.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

I think in the end, for alot of people it really doesn't make much difference what the FBI determined does it?

If there are things in the mountains that have convinced people that the stones are authentic maps/guides to something of importance, they will follow their own hearts and minds and either discover what they are meant to reveal, or die trying. Either way it sounds like a pretty good life to me.

Either new evidence will surface someday (Azmula's?) that can be tossed on the table and under a microscope to see what it looks like, or we're left discussing the history of the maps from what's currently available. It's an interesting discussion, but ultimately doesn't lead to anything terribly new at this point.

Just my $0.02

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI JOE: Nope, but illustrates hanging all of your hopes on an indefinite factor. If the FBI did 'not' analize them, then 80%+ of the in fighitng in here was useless.
**********

Gully, mi buddy, send in for the report from the FBI,under the freedom of information act. You have the approximate date, personel, and subject. I would, but since my ID / server is in Mexico, I doubt that it would be honored.
**********

My good friend Cubber has posted -->If there are things in the mountains that have convinced people that the stones are authentic maps/guides to something of importance, they will follow their own hearts and minds and either discover what they are meant to reveal, or die trying. Either way it sounds like a pretty good life to me.
**********

A M E N !!!


Don Jose de La Mancha .

 

[Jim Hatt]

....
There have been MANY times I've been involved in analyzing things in the lab where those of us doing the work don't interpret the results the same way.

And in each instance I assume there was a report prepared containing procedures used, data collected, personnel involved and conclusions summarized.

Yes, whether there is a customer involved for the work or if it's just an internal analysis/investigation of something there is always documentation.

That said, it's just as political as any other place. If the analysts involved don't necessarily agree on the interpretation of the results, eventually SOMEONE has to make a decision FOR THE LAB. Sometimes the customer is given all the possibilities/interpretations as options to what the "lab" believes, and sometimes the person in charge of the project doesn't share all that with the customer and just goes with the interpretation of who he feels is the most "trusted" analyst - heck, sometimes they even give the interpretation THEY feel is the most correct even though they did none of the testing.

That's why, to be honest with you all, Bob's statement about what the FBI agent said to him doesn't really answer any questions definitively, and without documentation from the FBI's analysis, there's no way to interpret the answer to Bob's question of him.

Paul,

I have worked in a lab and done quite a few evaluations which required written reports myself. Although very different from an evaluation of the stones, the requirements for documentation of the results of the evaluation could be much the same.

In my case I worked in a radiation survey instrument calibration lab. Not often, but occasionally an individual would be working in a radiologicaly controlled area, and receive an accumulated exposure (of radiation for a specific and identified time in the area), greater than had been anticipated, based on a documented radiation survey of the area prior to the work being performed. This type of an event would always be followed up with an examination of the survey instrument.

The serial number of survey instrument used to perform all surveys is always shown on the survey form. When circumstances like the one described above occur, the instrument would always be sent to the lab to determine it's current state of accuracy. Normally it was a simple matter of exposing it to the variety of known radiation fields it is calibrated to and documenting it’s responses in terms of +/- % error. Normally anything that responds to within +/- 10 % of all of the known fields exposed to, is considered to be within acceptable limits and in calibration.

That’s under normal circumstances. Every now and then a situation occurs where the instrument in question has been dropped or otherwise damaged since the radiation survey in question was performed, and it cannot be checked for it’s current state of calibration, or even if it was still functional, the results of the test would be inconclusive, as far as what state of calibration it was in when the survey was performed.

In a case like that. The only thing that could be documented was that an evaluation could not be performed and the reason stated. A copy of the most recent calibration data sheet would be attached to the report, to indicate it’s status the last time it left the calibration lab, and the file would be closed. “Inconclusive”

In the case of the FBI investigation of the stone maps, things become a lot more complicated, and a lot less scientific. The only thing I can think of that they could have used to estimate the age of he carvings on the maps back in the 60’s would have been an examination of any residual patina deep within the groves. (since nobody at the time thought about the glue in the repaired heart stone)

Although an evaluation of “patina” could be a fair estimate of age, it is not, in most cases, considered to be an “exact science”. It is very possible that the FBI investigation and resulting “opinion” of the age of the maps, was based what they saw in the way of patina, but because of the possibility of pending litigation and scrutiny of their “opinion” by the Defendant’s Attorney in court. They opted not to put their “opinion” in writing in a formal report, unless specifically asked to do so, (which may never have happened) but "IF" requested, would have included a lot of “wiggle room” with an allowed tolerance of +/- an accuracy of somewhere around 100 years. Which is what they more or less stated verbally.

Under the circumstances I see every possibility that no formal report was ever written up, depending on what FBI procedures of the time required. What good would a report stamped "inconclusive" to within +/- 100 years have been to either side?

Best,

Jim

 

[cactusjumper]

Jim,

I was under the impression that their tests were not "inconclusive". They/he/the lab, concluded that the stones were over 100 years old.

When you say "patina" could you explain exactly what kind of patina you are talking about?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[Jim Hatt]

Jim,

I was under the impression that their tests were not "inconclusive". They/he/the lab, concluded that the stones were over 100 years old.

When you say "patina" could you explain exactly what kind of patina you are talking about?

Thanks,

Joe

I believe you are reading something into the statement that is not there Joe.

The exact words from Corbin's letter to Greg Davis were:

"I spoke with the agent and asked him what they had found in analyzing the stone maps. He told me that they believed the maps were at least a hundred years old.

Notice the word "Believed". That Joe is an "Opinion" not a scientific fact.
I don't believe that I, or anyone else, (besides you) has ever suggested that the conclusion reached by the FBI, was ever anything more than their opinion.

re: "patina"
Look it up in the dictionary my friend.

When you say "patina" could you explain exactly what kind of patina you are talking about?

I sure can't Joe as I was not present at the time the stones were examined. I presented the idea merely as a possibility of what their "opinion" could have been based on, other than the number "1847" shown on the maps.

Best,

Jim

 

[Blindbowman]

@always lost:
Just a li'l bit interested in what kind of software you are using for your data collections and following conclusions ...??

i use more then one software and i run Os windows 7 64 bit ,Asus Commando custom system in a Armor LCS 1000 watt PS with multi-screen 42 " and 23 " with 3GB of expanded high speed overclocked graphics both graphic cards are Asus Ati with ATI crossfire step down over clocked by Asus smart-doctor and backed up by Asus PC probe 2 ,i am running the EE p965 3.73 ghz overclocked to 4.57 ghz , i am running both LCS and air cooling . what can i say she runs hot
i run a NZXT temp sentry with 8- 1 ..3000 watt sound system and custom Saitek cyborg key board , i push 8gb patriot viper gaming ram of low lat 4 4 4 12 .
Hughes sat internet with Asus router ,i wrote the logic code this system runs my self ..i also wrote the PPL profiling system my self ..
i designed this system custom to run my research projects , i have a programmer cleaning it up for future refinements..

i have few more goodies like 362 TV and over a 100 fm channels with a Asus TV tuner card ..

but that dose not change the data flow, just the resources... when i came to this site i saw so many opinions i felt there would be some way to define them into workable sequences its taken 3 years but i got it up and running stable and it works great ...

hope that answers your questions

just in case someone ask , why run step down crossfire and not full crossfire , because i can run the graphic cards at different speeds , one runs at DDR 3 and the other runs DDR 5 , there is a reason it was design this way ..

in most evidence cases, the main background research moves at a slower pace then the on going day to day data flow ...

the system makes it easyer to blink between back ground data and on going investigatory sequence . its complex ...lol

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning Jim. You posted ->”. It is very possible that the FBI investigation and resulting “opinion” of the age of the maps, was based what they saw in the way of patina, but because of the possibility of pending litigation and scrutiny of their “opinion” by the Defendant’s Attorney in court. They opted not to put their “opinion” in writing in a formal report, unless specifically asked to do so, (which may never have happened) but "IF" requested, would have included a lot of “wiggle room” with an allowed tolerance of +/- an accuracy of somewhere around 100 years. Which is what they more or less stated verbally.

Under the circumstances I see every possibility that no formal report was ever written up, depending on what FBI procedures of the time required. What good would a report stamped "inconclusive" to within +/- 100 years have been to either side?
*************

I tend to disagree, since in their case the lab technicians would normally have no knowledge of the circumstances involving the stone maps, so would have issued a report based strictly upon their findings - micro organism remenants among other things - there is no reason to modify or whatever their report, that tends to devalue their ability or basis.

Hovever it would tend to certify certain parts of the Peralta Stones history. Did they come under the antiquities act or not, if a case was being made under their age, no wriggle room is allowed. The investgating agent would be a bit unhappy with
them later if he knew that they had wriggled enough for him lose a case which goes against his record..

So, it still remains, did the FBI lab actually examine them or not? Gully?
*******

Incicentally Jim, the VA and I have hit a point of not giving in by either side. Since I cured myself of terminal neck cancer 7 years ago, they have insisted in full body scans each year with in between chest x rays and MRI each year. What do you suppose my accumulated dosage now is between watching the Atomic tests at Bikini and these annually run ones?

I often have wondered why they don't issue a monitor to remain in the possesion of the VA to monitor the amount of radiation they are submitting their patient too. In my case, simple mathametical calculations are not close enough, or are they?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Geeze BB, I have a used, second hand, $250 HP laptop. If it isn't working I yell for mi tiger to come fix it. So far she has done an acceptable job.

Incidentally, the wattage that you are running would blow my AC in the computer room since the outside temp is hitting 104 F / 39 C. The 4 ft adobe walls accumulate the heat and act as a well made baking oven. The one tonner can barely handle it.

In any event welcome back (show off, snicker . Nice bit of hobby equipment)

Don Jose de La Mancha

P.S. How come your LDM pictures are always out of focus yet here --->

 

[Jim Hatt]

Hovever it would tend to certify certain parts of the Peralta Stones history. Did they come under the antiquities act or not,if a case was being made under their age, no wriggle room is allowed.

Don Jose de La Mancha

That is the big question we would all like to know the answer to on Don Jose!
As a result of the matter being settled with out a trial, we will probably never know the answer.
Unless the "Glue test" turns up something, or new methods of evaluating the water solubility of certain minerals is ever discovered.

(There might be some hope of advances in the study of patina also if we live long enough)

I think both sides were probably very happy, that they did not have to try to prove their cases in court, and settle it with the stones being donated to a third party non-profit organization.

Incicentally Jim, the VA and I have hit a point of not giving in by either side. Since I cured myself of terminal neck cancer 7 years ago, they have insisted in full body scans each year with in between chest x rays and MRI each year. What do you suppose my accumulated dosage now is between watching the Atomic tests at Bikini and these annually run ones?

I often have wondered why they don't issue a monitor to remain in the possesion of the VA to monitor the amount of radiation they are submitting their patient too. In my case, simple mathametical calculations are not close enough, or are they?

Don Jose de La Mancha

You are correct that mathematical calculations are useless in your case. Mainly because you have no numbers to plug into the formula, either from the Bikini Island tests or the chest X-Rays. MRI's do not expose you to any ionizing radiation. they are purely magnetic rays. ( MRI = Magnetic Resonance Image)

The normal time period for the effects of exposure to ionizing radiation to show up for: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron, X-Ray & some radio frequency waves at high intensities. (unless it is a short term acute dose) is around 20 years. If you had received a significant dose from the Bikini Island tests, you would have experienced the effects of it way before now. (probably in the form of Leukemia) which I am sure the VA checks for since it is on your Military record, and in some cases cataracts on your eyes (from Beta exposure) which I am sure they look for also.

An annual chest X-Ray should be no problem at your age. The older we get, the less vulnerable we are to the harmful effect of ionizing radiation, and the VA (and all institutions that take X-rays) should keep a record of all your exposure to them in your files, (even tho they are not required to by law the last I knew) whether they share that information with you or not.

In short... I suspect that your lifetime total accumulated exposure, is equal to about one months worth that I "sponged up" when I responded the accident at Three Mile island back in 1979, (out of about 6 months there) and I'm still kicking!

(My eyes do seem to have a little "Glow" in the dark. But that helps me find my way around in the mountains on a moonless night, so I have never complained about it)

Hope that helps,

Best,

Jim

 

[starman 1]

The original Stone Maps were lifted from Tumilison prior to his death.

That is why the current rendition take you somewhere and no where. The somewhere is three specific locations in the Superstitions. One has been mentioned. The other two are a ravine near Hermann Mountain and a canyon North of Fish Creek Canyon, south of the Salt River.

The truth of this statement is right in front of you. A simple measurement.

 

[Jim Hatt]

Hello starman!

We'll have to add that to the "undocumented" history of the stone maps.
Thx for sharing it with us.

Best,

Jim

 

[starman 1]

Hello Mr. Hatt,

Good luck to you in your search. I know you are right in the importance of the Latin Heart.

I could be mistaken about Mr. Tumilson. The maps may have been lifted after his death.

The maps in Arizona are frauds that contain a lot of truth. In that sense you are all right.

 

[gollum]

Joe,

You are exactly correct about a paperwork trail.

That is why I faxed in a new FOIA Request Sunday afternoon. I should have heard something back from them within about a week or so.

Paul,

I don't agree with you there. If an Arizona Court asked the FBI Lab to examine the stones to try and verify authenticity, and this agent Corbin spoke to was a representative from the FBI Lab, and he stated that "in his opinion", the Arizona Court based its decision on his opinion, which means he was speaking for the FBI. Its that simple.

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

I was asked to get Bob Corbin's account of what took place with the FBI Agent.
If you want to continue this kabuki dance around his reply with Jim, I will let you folks have the floor.

Good luck with the FOI request.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Blindbowman]

its not if the stones are fakes or real , they are real the next question is what translation makes the most logical use of all the data on the stones and what links one stone to the next and why , is it a set of stones or a random collection . vs a set and a few well made fakes mixed in .. my under standing Mr. Tumilson had no real reason to fake the stones in the first place ..not to say they were not real only to state a logical fact . if the stones were fakes and he knew it why make them so public and risk jail time..

OK let step back and look at one other small detail . if Crystal stole the stones from a church it dose make good logic he would hide them for safe keeping .. know if this is the case , then Mr. Tumilson 's copy of the stones is very realistic of the true stones .. even if Crystal had translated them wrong it would not change how they got to where they were found ..or where they had come from to get to where they were found .. Crystal scammed people after he could not find the what the stones pointed to . if translation was wrong that makes good logic ..

ok . not to say this is the only path of ownership but . lets agree on a few facts on well documents details if we can ..

i stated i believe the stones were copies of codex , dose mean Mr. Tumilson or Crystal or someone else before or after the church had them in there holding ?Mr. Tumilson

lets say for the sack of debate Mr. Tumilson had no reason to fake them . and lets say if Crystal did take them from the church he may have hide them because he did not want to be caught with them . but dose that tell us he faked them no ...

ok would the church fake them and why if they had them hide away for safe keeping . no . so it goes back to who made the stones and why the rest is of no logical value from this point on ward ..

so what do we know or think we know about the stones

1 they are old
2 the stone relate to each other in details at lest in some respective order ..
3 we have a Jesuit priest or Franciscan priest on the witch stone
4 we have Spanish wording on some of the stones
5 we have stone crosses that match the Sinclair family crest ..

is this the logical path of these stones
could they have been copies of codex left behind by the native Americans,someone put the codex to stone to stop it from fading away

these stones were around a long time how they got there will always be in question . but can we build a logical pattern around them that details one sequence above the others ...

out of the whole LDM story i find the stones interesting for one reason .. the way they were written . was to confuse anyone that could not link them to the correct location ..that alone tells me they are real ..no matter who made them or why

 

[Cubfan64]

Paul,

I don't agree with you there. If an Arizona Court asked the FBI Lab to examine the stones to try and verify authenticity, and this agent Corbin spoke to was a representative from the FBI Lab, and he stated that "in his opinion", the Arizona Court based its decision on his opinion, which means he was speaking for the FBI. Its that simple.

Best-Mike

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Mike - you may very well be correct in your interpretation, I just don't see it as being that cut and dried is all.

 

[Blindbowman]

if they said the stones were more then 100 years old that pretty much covers it ...

but let me get you thinking a little . look what happend with the rune stones of 1362 the farmer that found the stones tried to clean them and they were almost ruled as fakes because of his poor skill of cleaning the stones . he ran a nail threw the cut ins and almost change history with a nail .. could this be the case with these stones . maybe when Crystal found them he clean them ..maybe the church clean them ..

?

lets go by what we al agree on . we do'nt agree yet ...lol