The Peralta Stones

[Springfield]

.... Springfield, what part of the Stone Maps sets off your BS Meter? Is it the actions of any of the previous owners? .... etc
.... OOOOOHHHHHH! Is it possible you think the Stone Maps were faked in the 1800s for the Reavis Land Grant Fraud? I used to think it was a possibility as well, but the closer you look, the less likely that would be. Others have already explained why this is so.

So, where does that leave us? See, if you don't have a lot of detailed knowledge of the Stone Maps, then they are easy to dismiss. The one thing I have found in the years that I have been researching them is that the closer you look, and the more details you get, the more likely it is that the Stone Maps are authentic treasure maps.

Best-Mike

All right, Mike, here's my working model. When I label the stone maps as 'fraud' or 'hoax', I'm talking specifically and only about the well-accepted but controversial theory that the symbols on the maps were created as a 'treasure map' by the Peralta family of miners, or perhaps other 'Spanish' miners, to cryptically record the location of certain gold mines located in or near the Superstition Range of Arizona that were allegedly worked at great profit in the early 19th Century. I personally dismiss this theory.

I postulate that the stone maps were created in the 20th Century by persons unknown to us for the purpose of recording/revealing information relating to something of great value located in the same part of Arizona that has been accepted as the venue for the alleged lost Peralta mines. The horse symbology, the prominent heart, the 16th Century quest for the 'true' Santa Fe beyond the northern frontier - and other concepts not at all necessary for even a well-coded treasure map - certainly seem to be saying more than where to find some covered up mines. Although these stone maps are unique, their display of veiled symbology has been used in a similar manner to build interest in other 'lost mines' in the Southwest that may also be camoflages for something else. Same methodology, same time period, different locations. Who created the stones and what are they saying? I wish I knew, but whatever it is, I believe it is not a waybill to the Peralta mines. In this respect, it is a 'hoax'.

I believe the Reavis Land Grant angle is a non-issue as pertaining to the stone maps. No connection, IMO.

BS Meter Reading: the provenience of the stones themselves. Notwithstanding the quite troubling 'coincidence' of Travis Tumlinson's alleged family connection to Pegleg Tumlinson, an earlier treasure hunter from Texas, I have a serious problem with his ridiculous description of the discovery of the stones. Did Travis trip over them while taking a leak one night in the desert? You can believe so if you wish, but I don't. Let's give Travis the benefit of the doubt and assume, for whatever reason, he unwittingly came into possession of the stone maps in some other manner and was genuinely mind-blown and secretive for years as he tried to decipher them before they 'went public'. Maybe he was some sort of dupe, or even A Useful Idiot, ala Stalin's followers. However he got them, I believe it was planned by others. Who? Don't know. Why reveal these stones to the public? Don't know.

Bottom line: the stone maps are certainly 'authentic', since they exist. I think they were created by extremely intelligent people in order to document something of great interest in central Arizona, something more than 'lost Peralta mines'. The discoveries at Adamsville are probably connected.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[somehiker]

Ok, SH,its obivious to me the larger land images were made to view from a higher mountain location. Have you or anyone else tried to triangleate,and compass delinate,by 1600 or 1800 yr degrees, these image locations to obtain a more specific search area. I believe like others the so called Peralta map stones are authanic, I also think they are part of a larger map that fit in with other pieces like a puzzle.

Not necessarily,GD.The viewing angle of each image detail or landform profile is dependent on where you are situated relative to each map.You may be looking either up or down along a particular sight line.This applies to all of the 4 Stone Map pieces,the Latin Heart and the Perficio "map".The Bilbrey Crosses use a different format that incorporates a surprising "trick".
I did take some compass headings from a few locations in order to determine the orientation of individual views relative to the way that they were laid out on each of the maps.I'm still working on these things but it seems obvious that the mapmaker purposefully aligned the trail maps to none of the cardinal directions,where the top= N/S/E or West. The H/P/T maps have also been apparently drawn(carved) surprisingly close to a common scale.
I have not tried to triangulate any of the markings on the maps.One could draw lines from point to point ad infinitum and probably scratch oneself bald as a result.The maps speak for themselves as to where to go and what to look for.I really don't see any necessity for a compass,or declination/deviation calculations.That may also have been the intention of the map maker. Other maps may still lie buried somewhere between Twin Buttes and the Priest,that show the way to the Priest.I have been considering the idea that the two Trail Maps were done in such a way as to be used in a generic fashion.That some of the markings would apply to more than the pathways that I have followed.A number of very intelligent and well qualified people have preceded me in analyzing the stones and hiking trails that may very well match those depicted on the Trail Maps.Therein may lie the rest of the story.

Regards:SH.

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Just want to add, that it is even possible that the Peralta Stones could be modern in origins, and still lead to a valuable treasure - thanks then going to Ted De Grazia, if this theory is correct. This sort of treasure may not be quite the same as stacks of silver and gold bars, but still is a valuable treasure.
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ladies & Gentlemen: the one critical point is still why STONE?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Springfield]

Ladies & Gentlemen: the one critical point is still why STONE?

Don Jose de La Mancha

It is what it is. It's more permanent. Burying small stones is weird to me, unless they were to be soon 'discovered' and revealed, that is. Permanent stone maps above ground on bedrock seems much more logical. Below are a couple examples.

 

[gollum]

Springfield,

By using the word "HOAX", you are stating that the Stone Maps were created in order to defraud somebody. For whatever reason (money, fame, joke, whatever), a HOAX is an attempt to defraud.

You say that the long held theory about the Stone Maps being linked with the Peralta Family is why you use the term hoax. Just because someone has a theory that is incorrect, does not make it a hoax (unless the person who came up with the theory knew for a fact the theory was BS).

I absolutely do not believe the Stone Maps to be a hoax in any sense of the word. Examination and research keeps guiding me to say they are authentic treasure maps. Were they made by the Peralta Family? No idea. Jesuit Priests? No idea.

You may have a problem with them being buried and accidentally found, but it was either Al Reser or Charlie Miller whose house Travis Tumlinson went to right after finding the stones. They said that there were still little roots sticking out of the engravings. I have no reason to doubt that version. Do you have ANY evidence that shows the contrary? Without firm evidence to the contrary, I will take Travis Tumlinson's version of what happened. There are also three different guys who said they sold Tumlinson the Stone Maps. Proof? NONE.

Jose,

Please reread my previous post as to "WHY STONE".

Oro,

For me, a modern manufacture is absolutely out of the question. I know that's Joe's belief, but you have to take into account Bob Corbin's Story. For the stones to be of modern origin, Corbin would have to be lying, or the FBI would have to have been wrong. I don't believe either case to correct. I believe Corbin's Story in its entirety, and I believe the FBI had good reason to state that they believed the Stones to have been "at least" 100 years old in 1969.

I believe that it was because of the FBIs examination of the Stone Maps and their findings as told by Bob Corbin, that was the reason the Arizona Court forced Mitchell to donate the Stone Maps to a non-profit organization (A.L. Flagg Foundation). Because of the FBI's opinion, the stones fell under the Antiquities Act.

Best-Mike

 

[Springfield]

Springfield,
....
You say that the long held theory about the Stone Maps being linked with the Peralta Family is why you use the term hoax. Just because someone has a theory that is incorrect, does not make it a hoax (unless the person who came up with the theory knew for a fact the theory was BS).

....You may have a problem with them being buried and accidentally found, but it was either Al Reser or Charlie Miller whose house Travis Tumlinson went to right after finding the stones. They said that there were still little roots sticking out of the engravings. I have no reason to doubt that version. Do you have ANY evidence that shows the contrary? Without firm evidence to the contrary, I will take Travis Tumlinson's version of what happened.

...Best-Mike

Yes, if the intent was to deceive, then I'll stick with the word 'hoax' for now.

And yes, I have a major problem with the stones' provenience. Do I have any proof to dispell the 'accepted' tale of discovery? Of course not. The only person who we are aware of who knew for sure was Tumlinson - not his family, not his buddies, not his supporters. Were others 'involved'? Maybe/maybe not. Do you have any proof that the Tumlinson story is true and accurate as described? Of course not - you weren't there either, it's all hearsay. It certainly could have happened exactly as told, and it could have happened entirely differently.

You seem to be willing to support accepted lore (hearsay), despite incongruities, by defending the assumed voracity of the alleged witnesses. Me, I know that personal testimony is only worth ardently supporting if it is received first-hand, and then with trepidation depending on my relationship with the provider. All else is subject to human fraility, intentional or not. I don't support legends for their own sake - I look for the truth, and the truth is seldom as it seems. Remember, human psychology is at the very core of all these 'lost treasure' legends. Somebody wants us to believe what they say. Why?

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

[For me, a modern manufacture is absolutely out of the question. I know that's Joe's belief, but you have to take into account Bob Corbin's Story. For the stones to be of modern origin, Corbin would have to be lying, or the FBI would have to have been wrong. I don't believe either case to correct. I believe Corbin's Story in its entirety, and I believe the FBI had good reason to state that they believed the Stones to have been "at least" 100 years old in 1969.

I believe that it was because of the FBIs examination of the Stone Maps and their findings as told by Bob Corbin, that was the reason the Arizona Court forced Mitchell to donate the Stone Maps to a non-profit organization (A.L. Flagg Foundation). Because of the FBI's opinion, the stones fell under the Antiquities Act.]

I have talked to Bob a few times about that "FBI" story, and that's exactly how he remembers it. I trust Bob and his memory, but don't see anything official from the FBI. As far as I know, the Stone Maps were never any part of an investigation into MOLE. I also don't believe Mitchell was forced to donate the maps to the Flagg Foundation, but I could be wrong there.

The only experts to ever sign there name to an opinion on the Stone Maps, believed they were from around the 1940's. I have had correspondence with all of them.

I will look into it.......again.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

Here is a post by Matthew Roberts, which can no longer be found on the Internet......Defunct site:
______________________

Aurum

10-23-2006, 03:38 PM

The authenticity of the Stone Maps has been debated for 42 years and will probably be debated on into the future.

The amount of mis information and confusion surrounding the Stone Maps is probably only slightly less than the Lost Dutchman Mine confusion.

Travis Tumlinson supposedly discovered the Stone Maps partially buried in the ground while resting along Queen Creek near Florence Junction, Arizona about 1952. Upon his death in 1961, his widow, Alleen Tumlinson sold the Maps to family friends Clarence and Grace Mitchell of Apache Junction, Az.

It is a misconception that the MOEL Corporation was formed to promote and use the Stone Maps to sell shares of stock and find buried treasure.

MOEL was already a Corporation before the Maps were sold to the Mitchell's. MOEL was incorporated on December 12, 1960, a year before the Mitchell's owned the Maps. MOEL Corporation was Clarence Mitchell, President, Elgin Kriewald Vice-President and Grace Mitchell, Vernon Edwards and M.R. Calhoun as oficers.

It was Clarence Mitchell who had the Stone Maps analized at the University of California. He received, in 1962, a letter of authenticity that stated the Maps were at least 100 years old.

MOEL Corp. Was never indicted for fraud or defrauding it's investors. The only charge against MOEL was selling securities without the proper State registration. No one involved with MOEL was ever convicted of any crime and it's only sanction by the courts was an enjoinment from selling further securities under the MOEL name. No investor or group of investors ever had a claim against MOEL. MOEL corporation never filed bankruptcy and disolved their own corporation years later in 1969. Neither the court nor investors ever took the Stone Maps from MOEL Corporation for payment as has been alleged. The FBI never prosecuted MOEL because there never were any charges filed against MOEL for them to pursue. The FBI only became involved with MOEL because securities had been sold in multiple States and their office was called to investigate the sales. The Stone Maps were never an issue of the court proceedings. The FBI never themselves had the Stone Maps analized.

Clarence Mitchell donated the Stone Maps to the Arizona Mineral Museum of Phoenix in 1970 . In return for the donation, which also included numerous ore samples and equipment, Mitchell received a large State Tax deduction.

The Flagg Foundation only became the benificiary of the Stone Maps when the Arizona Mineral Museum loaned them to them for shows and fund raising activities. The Maps are still today the property of the Arizona Mineral Museum.

Most of the mis information floating around today concerning the Maps can be traced to a series of articles in the Arizona Republic and Gold Dust Gazette done by a reporter named Paul Dean. Dean, in 1971, interviewed two people unrelated to Moel who did not know the story and filled Deans articles with wild stories and half truths. It is those stories that have confused the real truth for the past 36 years. As someone would read one of those articles they would retell it and retell it to someone else, each time the words became more and more confused until you have what we have today.

Are the Stone Maps real ? I believe based on Mitchell's work to authenticate the Stones, that they were at least made before 1860. How much before that date and by whom, is the big question.

Aurum
_________________________________________________
Matthew's historical research was very good. I imagine he had the goods on this subject, but I would reccomend everyone interested in the subject check it out for themselves.

I post it here simply for another opinion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Spring,

Yes. I am willing to accept Tumlinson's Story at face value.

Do you have any proof that the Tumlinson story is true and accurate as described?

Yes. Please reread my previous post regarding when Tumlinson took the stones to Al Reser's House right after he left that gas station. Reser stated that the stones still had little roots sticking out of the engravings. THAT is more proof to believe Tumlinson than you have to disbelieve him.

Joe,

You are absolutely wrong there. Ray Grant of the AM&MM emailed me a while back and stated that the reason MOEL/Mitchell/Cochrane donated the Stone Maps was due to a Court Order in 1969.

Best-Mike

 

[gollum]

Mike,

Here is a post by Matthew Roberts, which can no longer be found on the Internet......Defunct site:
______________________

Aurum

10-23-2006, 03:38 PM

The authenticity of the Stone Maps has been debated for 42 years and will probably be debated on into the future.

The amount of mis information and confusion surrounding the Stone Maps is probably only slightly less than the Lost Dutchman Mine confusion.

Travis Tumlinson supposedly discovered the Stone Maps partially buried in the ground while resting along Queen Creek near Florence Junction, Arizona about 1952. Upon his death in 1961, his widow, Alleen Tumlinson sold the Maps to family friends Clarence and Grace Mitchell of Apache Junction, Az.

It is a misconception that the MOEL Corporation was formed to promote and use the Stone Maps to sell shares of stock and find buried treasure.

MOEL was already a Corporation before the Maps were sold to the Mitchell's. MOEL was incorporated on December 12, 1960, a year before the Mitchell's owned the Maps. MOEL Corporation was Clarence Mitchell, President, Elgin Kriewald Vice-President and Grace Mitchell, Vernon Edwards and M.R. Calhoun as oficers.

It was Clarence Mitchell who had the Stone Maps analized at the University of California. He received, in 1962, a letter of authenticity that stated the Maps were at least 100 years old.

MOEL Corp. Was never indicted for fraud or defrauding it's investors. The only charge against MOEL was selling securities without the proper State registration. No one involved with MOEL was ever convicted of any crime and it's only sanction by the courts was an enjoinment from selling further securities under the MOEL name. No investor or group of investors ever had a claim against MOEL. MOEL corporation never filed bankruptcy and disolved their own corporation years later in 1969. Neither the court nor investors ever took the Stone Maps from MOEL Corporation for payment as has been alleged. The FBI never prosecuted MOEL because there never were any charges filed against MOEL for them to pursue. The FBI only became involved with MOEL because securities had been sold in multiple States and their office was called to investigate the sales. The Stone Maps were never an issue of the court proceedings. The FBI never themselves had the Stone Maps analized.

Clarence Mitchell donated the Stone Maps to the Arizona Mineral Museum of Phoenix in 1970 . In return for the donation, which also included numerous ore samples and equipment, Mitchell received a large State Tax deduction.

The Flagg Foundation only became the benificiary of the Stone Maps when the Arizona Mineral Museum loaned them to them for shows and fund raising activities. The Maps are still today the property of the Arizona Mineral Museum.

Most of the mis information floating around today concerning the Maps can be traced to a series of articles in the Arizona Republic and Gold Dust Gazette done by a reporter named Paul Dean. Dean, in 1971, interviewed two people unrelated to Moel who did not know the story and filled Deans articles with wild stories and half truths. It is those stories that have confused the real truth for the past 36 years. As someone would read one of those articles they would retell it and retell it to someone else, each time the words became more and more confused until you have what we have today.

Are the Stone Maps real ? I believe based on Mitchell's work to authenticate the Stones, that they were at least made before 1860. How much before that date and by whom, is the big question.

Aurum
_________________________________________________
Matthew's historical research was very good. I imagine he had the goods on this subject, but I would reccomend everyone interested in the subject check it out for themselves.

I post it here simply for another opinion.

Take care,

Joe

I saved that one too. HAHAHA

We corresponded on many occasions and he was a valuable source of much information. Almost everything he told me I have found to be accurate.

While he did share a lot online. There are other things that he did not. I am also not at liberty to share anything he asked me not too.

Actually, Clarence Mitchell was not the one who donated the Stone Maps to the Museum. In Ray Grants email, he states that Boyd Cochrane was the name of the person who handed the Stones over in the name of MOEL Inc.

Quote from his email:

We have a single sheet of paper that says the stones were donated in 1969 by a Boyd Cochrane for Moel Inc.

I have never seen any document with C.O. Mitchell's name or FBI. only information as above. The story, not written, was that the court ordered the company..........

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

"Joe,

You are absolutely wrong there. Ray Grant of the AM&MM emailed me a while back and stated that the reason MOEL/Mitchell/Cochrane donated the Stone Maps was due to a Court Order in 1969."

As I said:

"Matthew's historical research was very good. I imagine he had the goods on this subject, but I would recommend everyone interested in the subject check it out for themselves.

I post it here simply for another opinion."

Take care,

Joe

 

[Springfield]

Spring,

Yes. I am willing to accept Tumlinson's Story at face value.....

Best-Mike

Okey-dokey. At least you have a solid baseline on this tale.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI: I don't believe any of you, ya bunch of con artists. I only believe ORO because Beth backs him. sides they were made for the land grant.

Don Jose de La Mancha ( el pesto)

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,

Mike I have to respectfully disagree with your definition of "HOAX" you are taking it as meaning an attempt to defraud for money, which is not the meaning of the word. Hoax has a very different meaning from what you are claiming;

Main Entry: 1hoax
Pronunciation: \ˈhōks\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: probably contraction of hocus
Date: circa 1796
: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoax

It is a hoax when someone carves wooden feet and makes fake Bigfoot tracks, it is a hoax when someone fills a plastic dry-cleaning bag with hot air and attaches a candle to make people see a "UFO" light in the sky, and it is a hoax if someone creates fake Spanish maps and inscriptions, even when they do not make a CASH profit on the deal. Gosh Mike is everything about money value to you? Not everyone thinks that way, or your definition of "hoax" would be correct.

We can only surmise what benefit or satisfaction a person gets out of perpetrating a hoax, but it is NOT always about money amigo. You also are taking Bob Corbin's stated recollection of overhearing as having greater weight than the published opinions of several experts who examined the stones too. Bob could very well be stating it as he recalls it, without lying at all; and a "belief" that they were "at least 100 years old" can be a MISTAKEN belief. The person making that statement may well have been guessing just by seeing the "1847" date on them, we just DON'T know.

I want to see something valuable found and recovered by use of those maps. Otherwise, except for the material they are made of, they are very similar to all the other treasure maps in public circulation in my opinion.

Oh and one more thing, "why stone?" - for display purposes, of course!

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

That was about as well as it could be said.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Jim Hatt]

Hello my Amigo (And disbelieving stone map hater) Roy!

Since you and Joe are coming at my Amigo Mike from as a tag team, I feel compelled to put my back to his, so he only has to cover himself from one direction.

It is a rather long post that does not provide much usable information my friend.
You are getting all hung up on the definition of words that have little to do with the real subject.

The real subject of discussion should be more along the lines of the quality of the evaluations of the so-called "Experts" that examined the stones, who they were and what they said.

These stones have been evaluated many times over the years, and as Mike pointed out, not all of the evaluations have resulted in negative opinions about the authenticity (age) of the carvings on the stones.

When you refer to expert opinions, you should name the experts you are referring to, and quote what they said in their evaluations. Sometimes it takes little more than a bit of common sense to to reveal weaknesses in these "Expert Opinions".

The opinions of the "experts" presented in the most recent Arizona Highways article about the stone maps, have been shown to include no scientific evidence of any kind, and it is even questionable if they were evaluating the original stones or reproductions of them when they made their evaluations. Neither those experts, or the personnel at the M&MM can testify as to exactly which set of stones the experts were given to examine. The person representing the M&MM at the time, was not even aware of the fact that the museum owned a set of the reproductions when they were brought out for the experts to evaluate.

If you are going to use expert opinions as evidence supporting your opinions. Please provide quotes from the specific "evaluations" you are referring to, so we can properly evaluate the quality of those evaluations.

For every EXPERT OPINION presented without supporting scientific evidence, an opposite EXPERT OPINION can usually be found with very little effort!

Just ask any Prosecution and Defense Attorney. They line them up in court to testify against each other all the time.


Jim Hatt

 

[Oroblanco]

Thanks Joe, as they say even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.

I don't want to "tear down a dream" for those who are convinced these stone maps are the genuine article, just saying that we do have reasons to be suspicious about them and hesitant about trusting them for a treasure hunt. There are other treasure maps of the Superstitions, yet none seem to have the following of the Peralta Stones; is it because they are stone? I don't know. If they are the genuine article, it is going to take a major commitment for someone to solve AND find whatever they lead to, and since there are other ways to search for treasure I will stick with those other methods which I am more comfortable with.

If I may ask a hypothetical question here (for anyone who cares to reply) suppose the Peralta stones are for something very different than vaults full of gold and silver bars - suppose it leads to the graves of Jesuit missionaries and neophytes who died 'in service to the Lord' so to speak? The odd oblong figures perhaps could be the number of graves, the spot with the "witch" could be a mission/visita from which the missionaries worked or departed from. I am speculating of course but would appreciate any views on that possibility, thank you in advance.

Hello my Amigo (And disbelieving stone map hater) Roy!

Since you and Joe are coming at my Amigo Mike from as a tag team, I feel compelled to put my back to his, so he only has to cover himself from one direction.

It is a rather long post that does not provide much usable information my friend.
You are getting all hung up on the definition of words that have little to do with the real subject.

The real subject of discussion should be more along the lines of the quality of the evaluations of the so-called "Experts" that examined the stones, who they were and what they said.

These stones have been evaluated many times over the years, and as Mike pointed out, not all of the evaluations have resulted in negative opinions about the authenticity (age) of the carvings on the stones.

When you refer to expert opinions, you should name the experts you are referring to, and quote what they said in their evaluations. Sometimes it takes little more than a bit of common sense to to reveal weaknesses in these "Expert Opinions".

The opinions of the "experts" presented in the most recent Arizona Highways article about the stone maps, have been shown to include no scientific evidence of any kind, and it is even questionable if they were evaluating the original stones or reproductions of them when they made their evaluations. Neither those experts, or the personnel at the M&MM can testify as to exactly which set of stones the experts were given to examine. The person representing the M&MM at the time, was not even aware of the fact that the museum owned a set of the reproductions when they were brought out for the experts to evaluate.

If you are going to use expert opinions as evidence supporting your opinions. Please provide quotes from the specific "evaluations" you are referring to, so we can properly evaluate the quality of those evaluations.

For every EXPERT OPINION presented without supporting scientific evidence, there is an opposite EXPERT OPINION!

Just ask any Prosecution and Defense Attorney.


Jim Hatt

Stone map HATER? Where have I ever said that I hate the Peralta stones amigo? Please do not put words in my mouth, I have no "hate" for the Peralta stones or anyone associated with *(or against) them. The experts mentioned have been named here in previous posts, it would be laborious to continuously have to go back and re-check the names, dates etc each time. Here is the first mention in this thread
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,41448.msg1910144.html#msg1910144
The names are

<snip>...three employees of Desert Archaeology, Inc. are: Research archaeologist Dr. Jenny Adams, Historical archaeologist Dr. Homer Thiel and research geologist Dr. Elizabeth Miksa.

Can we state for an absolute (prove-able) fact, that these folks examined COPIES? What did Father Polzer examine? How can we make ANY kind of judgements, (for OR against) if all we have are copies?
Roy

 

[Jim Hatt]

Ok Roy,

The statements of the experts have been posted before. So have the rebuttals to those expert opinions. (Which you never acknowledge)

You mentioned the experts by name. Now tell us what each one of them said, so we can evaluate those opinions, one by one.

If you are going to continue to bring up the same arguments over and over again, then you should be prepared to defend them over and over again.

What did these experts have to say that you were so impressed with?

The simple truth is... The evaluations done by Research archaeologist Dr. Jenny Adams, Historical archaeologist Dr. Homer Thiel and research geologist Dr. Elizabeth Miksa, were so elementary, non-scientific and unprofessional, that it doesn't even matter if they were looking at the original stones or reproductions. The end result would have been the same in either case! HAHAHA (as Mike would say)

Jim Hatt

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola Jim <and everyone>

What is there to defend? Those people, with greater education than I have, examined the stones and gave their opinions which were published. Against this we have the recollection of Bob Corbin, overhearing a statement about the FBI believing them to be at least 100 years old. A Dr Dana is supposed to have done tests on them, but so far no one has ever been able to even find out what sort of tests Dana did, if anything other than a cursory examination, plus we do know that the technology for establishing the age of stone inscriptions in his time was far behind what was available years later. It is one thing to make an argument (as in rebuttal) and to present evidence amigo, and in this case I have to wonder if you would be as quick to doubt the opinions of Miksa et al if they had stated the stone maps are genuine?

What about this problem; the style of the inscriptions. Look at this genuine Spanish stone inscription
[xxxxxattach=1]

...then look at the engraving in the Peralta stones, (for anyone not in possession of photos, they are posted here
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,41448.msg294149.html#msg294149

Do they look similar to you? Thank you in advance,
Roy

PS hmm well THAT didn't work, my photo is too large, however there are good pictures of genuine Spanish inscriptions at this site
http://www.nps.gov/elmo/photosmultimedia/photos.htm?eid=112902&root_aId=58#