The Peralta Stones

[gollum]

Nope. I corresponded with Bill Ray's wife. She in turn got me to the lady that works as the Director of the Life Photo Gallery for Time Inc. All the pics are administered by Getty Images.

Best-Mike

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

I cannot believe that there is all this conversation about the type of writing, grooves, the starting points, etc., and that there ARE professionals
that have looked at the stones, and have written their conclusions.

I'm not sure why someone should take a novice's opinion, when the Archeologists and Geologists from Desert Archaeology - experts in the field,
have already said, in no uncertain terms, that pretty much nothing is correct about the stones. (and they specifically mention the starter points,
the style of drawing, writing, the witch being incorrect, etc.).

And, there is a difference between electric and old hand starter bits (which rotated in both directions).

Beth

That's right Beth! I don't take the experts' word on something just because they said it. If I did, I would believe that the Jesuits had no mines or riches. Kind of puts you in an awkward spot doesn't it? The "experts" just said that nothing was right about them. They didn't take the time (or weren't given the space) to show WHY!

Maybe you can show me how a dimple made by an electric drill looks different from one made by a hand drill.

Maybe you can show me how something that is machine sanded looks different than does something manually sanded.

I am still at a loss as to why you are so quick to take the opinions of "experts" when they fit your beliefs, but laugh at people like Father Polzer SJ when he states without equivocation that the Jesuits were involved in no intrigues, had no mines, and had no treasures. Its' puzzling to me!

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Ellie,

"Were can I find your map?"

Always happy to oblige a friend:

If you draw in the dagger with the point at Parker Pass, and the arrow in the hilt passing through Tim's Saddle, you will see that the dagger is to scale. Take close notice of the locator dots and the lines that are drawn from them. Notice where they pass through other landmarks on the Stone Maps, and then note where they pass through those same landmarks on a Topo.

If you draw in the heart using the triangle as the center, just as it is on the Stone Maps, and then go to that exact spot as it is shown on the Topo, you will find this:

It's really quite simple, but then I'm just a simple man.

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

So, a "novice" opinion holds more weight than an expert opinion? And not just one expert, but 3?

Desert Archaeology had 3 different people, who were geologists and archies not only look at the stones, but write their opinions.

Are we "picking and choosing" based on what we want to believe, or are we taking into consideration the opinions of ALL the experts that look into things?

The deal about the Jesuit mines is a whole nother deal. What non-catholic "expert" think the Jesuits didn't have mines?

Beth

 

[cactusjumper]

Along the lines of being a simple man, I feel somewhat inadequate in that I'm not writing a book about the Stone Maps. In that vein, pardon the pun, I have decided to pen a story that has been sitting on a back shelf for many years. I will give you all a taste of it here:

It begins with Cabeza de Vaca in late 1535 to early 1536. He, along with his three companions, had arrived in what they called the "land of maize". That land lasted for 300 miles. There were many people and villages along with great stores of Maize. The people worshiped the party as healers or Medicine Men. They were accompanied on their travels by 1500 and up to 3000 natives.

Eventually they came to a village they called "Corazones". They received many gifts in this village, among them 600 hearts of deer. The hearts had been split open and dried as a food source. Thus, the village was named. At this time they were in Northern Sonora. This is where the public history and de Vaca's private family notes part company.

Two thing of great importance were seen in this village. One was a native wearing a horseshoe nail on a thong around his neck and a Spanish buckle. He told them that their countrymen were not far away. The other was some beautiful stones that were used in the walls of their buildings. They were studded with gold. They asked to see where they had found the stones, and the natives complied.

They passed an ancient city called Paquime and traveled north to an imposing range of mountains. Entering the mountains, the natives showed them huge outcroppings of gold quartz exposed on the surface of the earth in many places. The men sat down and considered their great luck.

They knew that the knowledge of this vast treasure could not be revealed when they returned to their homes. If they wanted to keep it for themselves, they must swear themselves to secrecy........and they did. They left the gold untouched vowing to return at a later date and make themselves kings.

After leaving the mountains and heading south once more, heading towards the Spanish slavers that the Indians had told them about. The rest is history..........almost.

Cabeza de Vaca went back to Spain and attempted to reenter the imperial world. He had many adventures, but did not have many successes. He held onto the knowledge of the gold they had found and passed it down in the family. Andres Dorantes and Alonso del Castillo stayed in New Spain, married well and became wealthy, important men. They also held the secret close.

Estebanico was the only wild card in the game. He, owning nothing, except his knowledge, dreamed of returning to the distant mountains and building his own kingdom. He was confident he could charm the Indians into making him their king.

In 1538, Friar Marcos de Niza was chosen to head a reconnaissance party into the unknown north. They chose an anxious Estebancio to guide them. After passing through Culiacan, the Moroccan slave pushed ahead of the main party and was never seen again. The Friar made up his own story, which is well known, and the rest of the story took centuries to develop.

It took the ancestors of Cabeza de Vaca to complete the tale.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Beth,

"The deal about the Jesuit mines is a whole nother deal. What non-catholic "expert" think the Jesuits didn't have mines?"

Is it your opinion that every Catholic "expert" on Jesuuits in the New World would be less than honest about their historical research?

When you write "the Jesuits", does that mean all Jesuits, some Jesuits or every iota of a white cracker Jesuit?

Take care,

Joe

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

No, actually I wasn't being anything more than "generic" when I talked about the Jesuits. Just responding to "If I did, I would believe that the Jesuits had no mines or riches" statement.

The folks who have the stones seemed to think that DA was a good place to have them examined, and the folks who are there are professionals
at what they do. There are skills that a professional possesses that many other folks do not possess.

I just don't understand why these "findings" are being ---- for lack of a better word - ignored. And the conversation continues like nobody who
is an expert ever had anything to say about it.

Beth

 

[gollum]

So, a "novice" opinion holds more weight than an expert opinion? And not just one expert, but 3?

Desert Archaeology had 3 different people, who were geologists and archies not only look at the stones, but write their opinions.

Are we "picking and choosing" based on what we want to believe, or are we taking into consideration the opinions of ALL the experts that look into things?

The deal about the Jesuit mines is a whole nother deal. What non-catholic "expert" think the Jesuits didn't have mines?

Beth

No Beth, the Jesuits are not a whole nother deal. Father Charles Polzer SJ was one of the most noted researchers in the field of Colonial Spanish History in the New World. He was renowned in academia. So was Father Ernest Burrus SJ, so was Herbert Eugene Bolton, so was Theodore Treutline. None of them believed in Jesuit Treasure either.

Who says a novice's opinion holds more weight than an experts? I never said that once. I am just wondering why you are so quick to take the word of the experts in THIS case without ANY questions, while you argue till you are blue in the face AGAINST ALMOST EVERY EXPERT in the field of Spanish Colonial and Jesuit History regarding their wealth and mine holdings (oh, and lets not forget their slaveholdings).

Why is it that expert opinion is not worth squat to you in one instance while in another, you believe the experts blindly with absolutely no questions?

I don't think my opinion has any more validity than anyone else's. I just have questions about how they reached their conclusions that weren't answered in their article. Beth, I don't just blindly accept their word like you do. I want to understand why they think as they did.

Since this is how you now believe, I guess you'll be completely accepting the word of the experts such as Fathers Polzer and Burrus SJ, as well as the many other experts who have said for the last 100 or so years that the Jesuits had no treasure, slaves, or mines. So I guess you will be siding with Lamar from now on?

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Gollum wrote <to Mrs Oroblanco>

That's right Beth! I don't take the experts' word on something just because they said it. If I did, I would believe that the Jesuits had no mines or riches. Kind of puts you in an awkward spot doesn't it? The "experts" just said that nothing was right about them. They didn't take the time (or weren't given the space) to show WHY!

Maybe you can show me how a dimple made by an electric drill looks different from one made by a hand drill.

Maybe you can show me how something that is machine sanded looks different than does something manually sanded.

I am still at a loss as to why you are so quick to take the opinions of "experts" when they fit your beliefs, but laugh at people like Father Polzer SJ when he states without equivocation that the Jesuits were involved in no intrigues, had no mines, and had no treasures. Its' puzzling to me!

Best-Mike

That is an interesting argument; that if we find one set of historians are in error (with other historians to support this contention) then we should view ALL experts as being erroneous, in ALL cases of anything related to treasure? That is a puzzler to me!



I guess that since it is possible to find errors even in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, then all encyclopedias are false too?

Gollum also wrote to Mrs Oroblanco

Since this is how you know believe, I guess you'll be completely accepting the word of the experts such as Fathers Polzer and Burrus SJ, as well as the many other experts who have said for the last 100 or so years that the Jesuits had no treasure, slaves, or mines. So I guess you will be siding with Lamar from now on?

My goodness Mike, your world is in black and white isn't it? I have found myself "on the same side" as Lamar on a number of occasions, and think Beth has been as well. Do you hold that since the whole Jesuit treasure subject can be contested, that all expert opinions on everything related to treasure are likewise as debatable? Not everyone views the world, or the opinions of experts as all black or all white. Can you show us an expert opinion, published and with the name of the author, that states the Peralta stones are genuine treasure maps over 160 years old? That would certainly help to 'contest' those experts you seem to view so dimly. Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Ellie Baba]

Hey Joe,

Thanks for allowing me to take a look at your map. I know that you have put a great deal of time putting all the clues together both from the stone maps and the on ground trail blazing to make sure it all fits perfectly.

You say that you are a simple man, modest maybe, assertive, yes indeed. Simple? I do not think so. If you are like me, you have followed somewhat in your father's footsteps, like I did in the past. Some of the best days of my life I spent in the deserts with my Dad.

You know, he is still out there walking around with the adventurers that came before us. Dad and I did not need to find a treasure because we had in fact already found it.

Start at the bottom of page 2 to on the American Mining article.

Have a great weekend all,

Ellie B

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Mike,

I might ask you the same question - in fact - that's the exact question I am asking. The Jesuits are a whole 'nother story from the "stones".

It strikes me that, the MMM was actually wondering the exact same thing - as to the stone authenticity, wouldn't you imagine? I mean, why
else would they have specifically asked for DA to examine them? Might it be for the exact same reason that the FEDS did? Maybe that is why
the Feds didn't KEEP the stones? Or, maybe they just didn't want to get all involved with that part - but the Museum did.

Tell me - don't you think it is something that should be brought to light? Let me do that for you all.

FROM DESERT ARCHAEOLOGY

Subject: Peralta Stones
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:23:32 -0700
From: Henry D. Wallace <hwallace1@mindspring.com>
To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxx



We are finished with the analysis of the stones (see below for comments
from analysts that we sent to Anne). A photographer from Arizona Highways
may be calling you to get a photo with you and the stones. He was going to
get photos and then they are ready to be picked up.

Cheers,
Henry Wallace
Desert Archaeology


___________________
From Jenny Adams:

In my opinion, they are very nicely done and very interesting pieces.

Having said that - in my opinion - most of the manufacturing was done
with modern (meaning electrical) tools. The pair of dark stones were
mechanically sanded and then drilled or dremmeled to make the symbols. I
didn't see any metal filings to help with that interpretation, but in
many places, there is a start dimple where the drill first touched the
stone. The large cross on one side was chiseled rather than drilled. I
could go on in more detail about which symbols were made with different
tools and with different techniques but I doubt that level of detail is
necessary at this point.
There is no evidence that these stones were ever buried and then dug up
or that they sat out in the elements for any great length of time. The
stone material is very soft and there would be lots of random abrasions
across the sanded surfaces if they had been buried. If they sat out in
the open there would be lichen, weathering of the symbols, and
discoloration of the stone material - just look at old headstones in any
cemetery.


Here's Homer's:

HI Henry,

My comments on the Peralta Stones:

1). Witch imagery- a quick review of witch pictures on the internet reveals
that prior to 1900 witches were not depicted with the pointed hat that
appears on the stone next to one of the 1847 dates. The stone image
resembles strongly witch imagery from the 1910s to 1940s.

Examples- http://www.geocities.com/~sturtas1031/halloween5.html

http://www.magicgallery.com/images/KELLAR_WITCH.jpg



2). The horse image is also not typical of horse imagery of the 1840s.



3). The lettering is completely wrong for Spanish documents of the time
period.

Summary- it is a fake.


Letter to me from Homer Theil.

From: Homer Thiel [mailto:homer@desert.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:40 AM
To: xxxx@xxxx
Subject: RE: Any DAI instituational knowledge about the Peralta Stones?

Jenny Adams, Sergio, and I looked at those stones maybe 5 or 6 years ago. Arizona Highways published an article that mentioned our interpretations.
The witch that appears on one of the stones is clearly based on 1930s witch cartoons. Sergio noted that the Spanish wasn’t correct. Jenny saw evidence that the stones had been mechanically shaped.
Homer


But you "blindly" take the words of-----who, of substantial credentials? Who, of substantial credentials is saying they are genuine?

Beth

 

[gollum]

Gollum wrote <to Mrs Oroblanco>

That's right Beth! I don't take the experts' word on something just because they said it. If I did, I would believe that the Jesuits had no mines or riches. Kind of puts you in an awkward spot doesn't it? The "experts" just said that nothing was right about them. They didn't take the time (or weren't given the space) to show WHY!

Maybe you can show me how a dimple made by an electric drill looks different from one made by a hand drill.

Maybe you can show me how something that is machine sanded looks different than does something manually sanded.

I am still at a loss as to why you are so quick to take the opinions of "experts" when they fit your beliefs, but laugh at people like Father Polzer SJ when he states without equivocation that the Jesuits were involved in no intrigues, had no mines, and had no treasures. Its' puzzling to me!

Best-Mike

That is an interesting argument; that if we find one set of historians are in error (with other historians to support this contention) then we should view ALL experts as being erroneous, in ALL cases of anything related to treasure? That is a puzzler to me!



I guess that since it is possible to find errors even in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, then all encyclopedias are false too?

Gollum also wrote to Mrs Oroblanco

Since this is how you know believe, I guess you'll be completely accepting the word of the experts such as Fathers Polzer and Burrus SJ, as well as the many other experts who have said for the last 100 or so years that the Jesuits had no treasure, slaves, or mines. So I guess you will be siding with Lamar from now on?

My goodness Mike, your world is in black and white isn't it? I have found myself "on the same side" as Lamar on a number of occasions, and think Beth has been as well. Do you hold that since the whole Jesuit treasure subject can be contested, that all expert opinions on everything related to treasure are likewise as debatable? Not everyone views the world, or the opinions of experts as all black or all white. Can you show us an expert opinion, published and with the name of the author, that states the Peralta stones are genuine treasure maps over 160 years old? That would certainly help to 'contest' those experts you seem to view so dimly. Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

Roy,

Nice attempt to take up for the wife but, you are waaaaay off.

Maybe you should (and this is not meant as an insult) reread my post. I think I stated quite clearly that I do not dismiss the expert opinions. I only want to know WHY they arrived at those opinions. See, there is nothing specific in the article. How to tell the difference between an electric drill dimple and a hand drill dimple. How to tell the difference between machine sanding and manual sanding. That is all I want to know. If there is a good answer for those questions, I will be satisfied that they arrived at their opinions in good faith.

The biggest problem I have with the entire article is that it is quite obvious from reading it that they don't believe Tumlinson's Story. They make statements about how the stones SHOULD be weathered not taking into account that they were underground. A lot of inconsistencies in the article which cause me not to give it as much weight as I normally would.

Mike

 

[gollum]

Mike,

I might ask you the same question - in fact - that's the exact question I am asking. The Jesuits are a whole 'nother story from the "stones".

It strikes me that, the MMM was actually wondering the exact same thing - as to the stone authenticity, wouldn't you imagine? I mean, why
else would they have specifically asked for DA to examine them? Might it be for the exact same reason that the FEDS did? Maybe that is why
the Feds didn't KEEP the stones? Or, maybe they just didn't want to get all involved with that part - but the Museum did.

Tell me - don't you think it is something that should be brought to light? Let me do that for you all.

FROM DESERT ARCHAEOLOGY

Subject: Peralta Stones
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:23:32 -0700
From: Henry D. Wallace <hwallace1@mindspring.com>
To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxx



We are finished with the analysis of the stones (see below for comments
from analysts that we sent to Anne). A photographer from Arizona Highways
may be calling you to get a photo with you and the stones. He was going to
get photos and then they are ready to be picked up.

Cheers,
Henry Wallace
Desert Archaeology


___________________
From Jenny Adams:

In my opinion, they are very nicely done and very interesting pieces.

Having said that - in my opinion - most of the manufacturing was done
with modern (meaning electrical) tools. The pair of dark stones were
mechanically sanded and then drilled or dremmeled to make the symbols. I
didn't see any metal filings to help with that interpretation, but in
many places, there is a start dimple where the drill first touched the
stone. The large cross on one side was chiseled rather than drilled. I
could go on in more detail about which symbols were made with different
tools and with different techniques but I doubt that level of detail is
necessary at this point.
There is no evidence that these stones were ever buried and then dug up
or that they sat out in the elements for any great length of time. The
stone material is very soft and there would be lots of random abrasions
across the sanded surfaces if they had been buried. If they sat out in
the open there would be lichen, weathering of the symbols, and
discoloration of the stone material - just look at old headstones in any
cemetery.


Here's Homer's:

HI Henry,

My comments on the Peralta Stones:

1). Witch imagery- a quick review of witch pictures on the internet reveals
that prior to 1900 witches were not depicted with the pointed hat that
appears on the stone next to one of the 1847 dates. The stone image
resembles strongly witch imagery from the 1910s to 1940s.

Examples- http://www.geocities.com/~sturtas1031/halloween5.html

http://www.magicgallery.com/images/KELLAR_WITCH.jpg



2). The horse image is also not typical of horse imagery of the 1840s.



3). The lettering is completely wrong for Spanish documents of the time
period.

Summary- it is a fake.


Letter to me from Homer Theil.

From: Homer Thiel [mailto:homer@desert.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:40 AM
To: xxxx@xxxx
Subject: RE: Any DAI instituational knowledge about the Peralta Stones?

Jenny Adams, Sergio, and I looked at those stones maybe 5 or 6 years ago. Arizona Highways published an article that mentioned our interpretations.
The witch that appears on one of the stones is clearly based on 1930s witch cartoons. Sergio noted that the Spanish wasn’t correct. Jenny saw evidence that the stones had been mechanically shaped.
Homer


But you "blindly" take the words of-----who, of substantial credentials? Who, of substantial credentials is saying they are genuine?

Beth

Beth,

ONCE AGAIN~ I don't take ANYBODY'S word blindly as you appear to here. I simply ask the questions that you don't seem to need. As I stated to Roy, I have some questions that neither the article nor your emails have answered sufficiently. Your emails do answer other questions, and thanks for providing it. The thing it mostly answers is why the AM&MM thinks they are not authentic.

Like I stated before, I have pictures of the drill dimples. I just can't see the difference between electric and hand drill dimples. What is the visible difference between manual and machine sanding?

Mike

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Mike,

But which came first - whether they believed Tumlinson first - or if they don't believe Tumlinson because they think the stones are fake.

You don't decide if something is real - a real piece of something - because someone told you a story about it. There are examples - like when pointed witches hats came into being. And of course, they mention the spanish, and they mention the "cartoon" horse.

It is quite possible for an expert to figure out if it is "dimpled" by electric or hand tools. (I'm not that expert). But, they also talk about the type of stone.

And, isn't it just a little bit funny that the MMM doesn't make that report known, even though THEY asked for it? Could it be a money thing?

NAH!

BTW, Maybe someone has to back your play, but Roy doesn't need to talk for me - he is a big boy, just like you, and I am a big girl. And, to answer something else you just said ....... are YOU the expert in dimples - more than the archaeologists and geologists?

 

[Oroblanco]

Gollum wrote

Roy,

Nice attempt to take up for the wife but, you are waaaaay off.

Maybe you should (and this is not meant as an insult) reread my post. I think I stated quite clearly that I do not dismiss the expert opinions. I only want to know WHY they arrived at those opinions. See, there is nothing specific in the article. How to tell the difference between an electric drill dimple and a hand drill dimple. How to tell the difference between machine sanding and manual sanding. That is all I want to know. If there is a good answer for those questions, I will be satisfied that they arrived at their opinions in good faith.

The biggest problem I have with the entire article is that it is quite obvious from reading it that they don't believe Tumlinson's Story. They make statements about how the stones SHOULD be weathered not taking into account that they were underground. A lot of inconsistencies in the article which cause me not to give it as much weight as I normally would.

Hmm Mike perhaps you ought to re-read my post; where did I say that "you dismiss the expert opinions"?

I would like to know why, if one set of historians is found to be in error (our Jesuits) you seem to think that by default, we ought to view the expert opinions on the Peralta stones must likewise be in error? This argument has been used by others who "believe in" the Peralta stones, and that logic is puzzling to me. Just because in one subject, we can show that a set of historians are in error (and in part likely due to the fact that they simply don't look for Jesuit mining activities as historians) doesn't mean that the experts who examined the Peralta stones must also be erroneous.

I would like to see an expert opinion opposing those of DAI. Jim had hinted that such opinion does exist, so I for one would like to see it.
Oroblanco

 

[SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN]

1). ((((Witch imagery)))) My Response: HHHMMMMMMM? What About ((((Priest Imagery?)))) 2). The horse image is also ((((not typical)))) of horse imagery of the 1840s.
My Response: HMMMMM? What Does That Mean? """"((((Not Typical))))""""? 3). The lettering is """"((((completely))))"""" wrong for Spanish documents of the time
period.

My Response: HMMMMM Define ((((Completely))))? 100% Spelling ERRORS or 20%?

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Hey, John,

Email me - please - read your PM's

Beth

 

[SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN]

And Finally: """"((((I doubt that level of detail is
necessary at this point.
There is """"no evidence.""""))))"""" My Responce: >>>> bu·reau·crat   /ˈbyʊərəˌkræt/ Show Spelled[byoor-uh-krat] Show IPA
–noun
1. an official of a bureaucracy.
2. an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.
Use bureaucrat in a Sentence
See images of bureaucrat
Search bureaucrat on the Web

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

Origin:
1835–45; < F bureaucrate. See bureau, -crat

 

[SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN]

YES BETH I READ IT AND RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY ON OUR THREAD LOST DID YOU SUBMIT IT?

 

[Oroblanco]

Santa Fe NM wrote

((((Witch imagery)))) My Response: HHHMMMMMMM? What About ((((Priest Imagery?))))

Here is a pictograph of a priest, from the Chihuahuan desert; note the hat

<If the photo doesn't show, here is the link:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1253/1453013391_df0b10678b.jpg

Here is another image of a priest; again note the hat;

Can you show us a depiction of a priest with a pointed hat, like what we see on the Peralta stones? Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco