The Peralta Stones

[Jim Hatt]

Come on Roy,

You are side stepping the question.

Tell me what these experts had to say about the stone maps that you are so impressed with.

Then I will show you one by one, where these "Expert opinions" are elementary, non-scientific and unprofessionall.

Then we can go on to any of the other items you want to bring up in defense of your position. Which I will cheerfully address one by one.

Jim Hatt

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

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

Roy,

Did you read my post or just the first few words? Please go back and reread the WHOLE THING!

I think I stated quite clearly several reasons for a hoax, and to defraud for money was only one of them. The others were "MONEY, FAME, JOKE, WHATEVER". Defrauding for money was only one possibility. My statement still stands absolutely true:

To say the Stone Maps are a HOAX is to say that they were created with the intent to defraud someone. Not necessarily for money, as hoaxes are usually jokes. I SERIOUSLY doubt anybody created the Stone Maps as a joke!

Best-Mike

 

[gollum]

Those are nice hand scratchings Roy, but did you look for professionally engraved stones? I did. Here's just one of what I found (18th century engraving in Madrid):

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Come on Roy,

You are side stepping the question.

Tell me what these experts had to say about the stone maps that you are so impressed with.

Then I will show you one by one, where these "Expert opinions" are elementary, non-scientific and unprofessionall.

Then we can go on to any of the other items you want to bring up in defense of your position. Which I will cheerfully address one by one.

Jim Hatt

Well Jim you have just avoided answering my question to you entirely - does the Peralta stone engravings look similar to the genuine Spanish inscriptions you can see at El Morro NP, (link provided earlier)?

You want me to go back and find their words, so here you are.

1. "There is no evidence that the stones were ever buried."
2. "The dark stones were mechanically sanded and then drilled.........In many places, there is a 'start dimple' where the drill first touched the stone."
3. "The use of an electric drill to create the drawings and symbols............dates their carving to sometime after 1940."
(Dr. Adams)

4. ......"the Peralta Stones originated far from where they were supposedly found."
5. "The big stone with the horse appears to be Coconino Sandstone,...... The other two sandstones are very soft, very fine, iron-rich ...sandstones. [These] are most likely found on the Mogolon Rim or in northern Arizona."
(Dr. Miksa)

6. "The lettering is completely wrong for the Spanish language documents of the [supposed] time period." (Prof. Thiel)

I especially point to #6, the lettering style, and ask you again about the photos comparison. I do not have Father Polzer's exact words on the Peralta Stones, however someone else here may be able to provide them for you, assuming you do not have it.

Thank you in advance.

Gollum <Mike> wrote

Roy,

Did you read my post or just the first few words? Please go back and reread the WHOLE THING!

You have asked me just a few too many times, to go back and RE-read things, when I just don't agree with your posts. Rude, amigo.

Gollum also wrote

To say the Stone Maps are a HOAX is to say that they were created with the intent to defraud someone.

In your opinion, there are other possibilities which doesn't necessarily mean evil intent.

Gollum also wrote

Not necessarily for money, as hoaxes are usually jokes. I SERIOUSLY doubt anybody created the Stone Maps as a joke!

I likewise, SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone created the Stone Maps as a JOKE. Do you not know human nature? Do you know what the term "pious fraud" means? Many religious and quasi-religious texts have been created over the centuries, often with a name added as "author", of someone held in very high esteem, which does not mean that the text was intended to be a JOKE, nor for PROFIT, but as belief.
Roy

 

[Oroblanco]

Those are nice hand scratchings Roy, but did you look for professionally engraved stones? I did. Here's just one of what I found (18th century engraving in Madrid):

Best-Mike

THAT looks even MORE unlike the Peralta Stones amigo, not a good example! Would a PROFESSIONAL engraver make simple spelling errors? So this is your conclusion, "nice hand scratchings" so may I conclude that you believe the Peralta Stones inscriptions looks very much like those of El Morro?
Roy

 

[gollum]

Jeeez Roy,

Here we go again. Not in my opinion. It is a simple fact that there are many reasons for perpetrating a hoax, but the very nature of a hoax is the intent to defraud.

The engraving I posted was just to show that there were many types of engraving during the same period. All of yours were hand scratched in sandstone, and mine was on marble professionally engraved.

..............and how many times do we need to rehash the spelling errors of the Stone Maps? There are several possibilities as to why there could be mispellings. If you need to see them, they are all posted earlier in this thread.

Actually, the opposite holds true to your argument. If the Stone Maps were made to defraud, don't you think the forger would have been careful enough to use correct spelling. I mean, since he went to all that trouble to engrave all those stones? Its not like finding a Spanish Speaker in Arizona would be very difficult! HAHAHA

Best-Mike

 

[Jim Hatt]

Here you go Roy,

Below is my reply to each and every one of the "Expert Opinions" you have provided.
It does not take a PhD, or a whole lot of common sense to see the weakness in the opinions expressed by these experts.

Expert opinion #1 "There is no evidence that the stones were ever buried."

reply: What kind of evidence would Dr Adams expect to find on stones that had been scrubbed with soap and water and brushes by Tumlinson, Mitchell and God only knows how any other people, before being locked away in the temperature/humidity controlled environment of the M&M Museum? No visible evidence that the stones were ever buried IS NOT evidence that they were not under the circumstances.


Expert opinion #2. "The dark stones were mechanically sanded and then drilled.........In many places, there is a 'start dimple' where the drill first touched the stone."

reply” Mechanically sanded? Is this to imply that a modern machine sanded the stones flat, rather than a hand moving another stone across the face of them to make them smooth? How would an “Expert” make the determination… decades after the fact, about how the surfaces were smoothed?

A Dimple? It is curious that all the other Experts and treasure hunters (including myself) that had examined and photographed the stones in the past, had never noticed the dimples where the drill first touched he stone. Even if there were a dimple… Who ever made the stones, even if 1000 years ago still had to use some kind of tool to engrave them. Would they have to be (in Dr. Adams mind) scratched out by someone’s fingernail to be authentic?



Expert opinion #3."The use of an electric drill to create the drawings and symbols............dates their carving to sometime after 1940."
(Dr. Adams)

reply: This conclusion is based totally on her “Opinion” that an electric drill was used to make the infamous “Dimple”. It is also wrongfully assuming that only an “electric drill” could make a dimple, and that no drills existed prior to 1940, so it had to be an electric drill? What? What? What? The more it goes on, the worse it gets!

Expert opinion #4. "the Peralta Stones originated far from where they were supposedly found."

Reply: Where is this assumption concluding that they were found? Why would they have to have been carved right where they were found? I can present testimony from a licensed Geologist and Archeologist, that is a registered member of the DUSA forums, which states that the exact type of stone(s) the maps are made from, exists within the boundaries of the Superstition Wilderness Area.

Expert opinion #5. "The big stone with the horse appears to be Coconino Sandstone,...... The other two sandstones are very soft, very fine, iron-rich ...sandstones. [These] are most likely found on the Mogolon Rim or in northern Arizona."
(Dr. Miksa)

reply: “Appears to be Coconino Sandstone….” Like I said above… I can present testimony from a licensed Geologist and Archeologist, that is a registered member of the DUSA forums, which states that the exact type of stone(s) the maps are made from, exists within the boundaries of the Superstition Wilderness Area. The words “Appears” and “most likely” are not exactly conclusive about anything. I would be interested to know how much time Dr. Miksa has spent on he ground, within the boundaries of the Superstition Wilderness Area? I tend to believe that those (stated) are the only areas where she has seen those types of stones, and therefore wrongfully concluded that they could have ONLY come from there.

Expert opinion #6. "The lettering is completely wrong for the Spanish language documents of the [supposed] time period." (Prof. Thiel)

reply: What time period is Prof. Thiel "Supposing" the stones were carved in? Dr. Adams concluded they were carved after the 1940’s. Is he referring to that time period? The 1800’s, the 1700’s? "Suppose" the inscriber were not of Spanish decent, but was only hired to do the engraving? what if he were an Italian stone cutter, or German? That “assumption” would have to be reconsidered under those circumstances wouldn’t it?

Like I said before. It does not really matter if he Experts were examining the original stones or the reproductions. The lack of scientific and detailed professional examination of the stones themselves, and the known history of them, would have resulted in the same conclusions, no matter which set of stones they examined.

Jim Hatt

 

[somehiker]

Good morning all:
This photo may address the assertion that the raw materials were not all available locallly.
I gathered this collection of rocks from a small area at the top of the bluff over Queen Creek.
The two stones at the left are of the same type as the H/P and Trail Maps and there were many varieties with differing textures present in the area.The Queen Creek watershed drains a wide area of the Superstitions and I am sure that this grouping of samples represents only some of the differing types of stone that would have been available.Note the small red rock positioned deliberately in the center of the picture.This was a sample which I thought at the time,most closely matched the heart stone.

Regards:SH.

 

[somehiker]

That piece of red stone when compared with the heart stone on display.
No match.
A piece of shale that I had taken from an outcropping within the mountains is a match,however.
Jim has seen that sample and knows of many places where the same kind can be found.

SH.

 

[somehiker]

The "triangle" with the "arched" cave above and to the right (four o'clock) of the mound.As viewed from a point beside a trail at seven o'clock from the mound and about the same height as the cave.Almost all cholla within the boundaries of the triangle.Not so in any of the surrounding area,where the cholla is more sparse.The cave is about 40' wide and 15' high.Only the left side is useable.It is probably about 50' deep in total.

SH.

 

[Springfield]

.... 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. ....

Roy

You've nailed the crux of the matter, Oro. This topic, like so many other treasure-related legends, has become similar to a religion for the true believers. No matter what rational questions you can raise against the popular lore, you will be hammered with a litany of unsupportable hearsay, fuzzy science and questionable expert opinions that have become the gospel of 'proof' for these interesting stones. The true 'burden of proof' lies with those who have not yet provided a solution to the enigma. By keeping all other possibilities on the table, you make yourself an enemy of the legend and those who support it. People who have become true believers to any idea are not wont to be open-minded - it's merely human nature.

 

[gollum]

There is always reason to distrust ANYTHING without a guaranteed provenance..................... BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT.................

Unless anyone can show incontrovertible proof that:

1. Travis Tumlinson's story about finding the stones is not true

2. The stones were manufactured for any reason other than to be treasure maps

3. That there is a reason to distrust Travis Tumlinson, Robert Tumlinson, Al Reser, Charlie Miller, Clarence Mitchell, Bob Corbin, or the FBI

..................................... THEN ...........................................​

There is NO reason NOT to give the benefit of the doubt to the story as told by Tumlinson and the rest.

Like I said earlier; If your knowledge of the Stone Maps and their history is not deep, then they are easy to dismiss by using one or two POSSIBILITIES (as Oro does). But if you do more in depth research into their history, you will find that the weight of probability lies in them being authentic treasure maps. I stayed completely on the fence about their authenticity for about the first year and a half of researching them. Its just that the more I learned about their KNOWN history and the actions of their owners over the years, the more I started leaning to the authentic side of that fence until I eventually fell over on that side.

I don't ask anybody to become a believer based on what I say, but before dismissing them, do the research. Plenty enough information is out there. If you go into it with an open mind and no preconceived notions, you may get a surprise!

Best-Mike

 

[cactusjumper]

Jim,

Good to see you have escaped the oppressive atmosphere over on your site, and have come to a place where all opinions are welcome......even those that oppose someone else's.

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

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. Since an opposing opinion "can be found with very little effort", would you mind posting another such "EXPERT OPINION", with the same credentials as those who were asked to offer their opinion for AZ Highways? I mean a positive opinion they are willing to put their name on for publication.

All of your points are completely valid, as to the limited procedures and time they were given with the Stone Maps they were presented with......original or copies. Given the limitations they had to work under, they gave a "qualified" opinion as to their authenticity.

The key here, IMHO, is that they allowed their names to be published along with their opinions. Another important factor, is that there was no fee from an interested party to the examination and results.

The rumors and quasi-reports that are often offered as evidence of authenticity for "artifacts" never seem to have tangible reports or even a signed opinion available for public review. What we are left with, in this case, is the AZ Highways article. In addition to that, I have personal email's that corroborate their opinions in the article.

The same claims have been made for the Stone Crosses and the Latin Heart. Can you tell us where those artifacts (original) are today? Can you tell us where the written/signed opinions that they are genuine can be found?

It's always the same old saw.......NADA! I could, of course, be wrong.

On the other hand, a few bucks can always be made by making copies for the treasure hunting market. In that respect, someone (at least) can derive some good out of what are usually considered to be modern-day hoaxes. I wonder how many people here have some of those "copies" and if they had to pay for them. Anyone know the going rate for such copies?

The first, unscientific, thought that comes to mind is........The person creating and selling those copies might also be the most vociferous defender of them being true copies of an authentic artifact.

Glad to see you posting over here......nowhere to run.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Springfield]

.....
Unless anyone can show incontrovertible proof that:

1. Travis Tumlinson's story about finding the stones is not true

2. The stones were manufactured for any reason other than to be treasure maps

3. That there is a reason to distrust Travis Tumlinson, Robert Tumlinson, Al Reser, Charlie Miller, Clarence Mitchell, Bob Corbin, or the FBI

....

I don't ask anybody to become a believer based on what I say, but before dismissing them, do the research. Plenty enough information is out there. If you go into it with an open mind and no preconceived notions, you may get a surprise!

Best-Mike

1. Can't provide incontrovertable proof his story is true or false. Awarding benefit of doubt does not purge the doubt. Moot.
2. Can't provide incontrovertable proof as to the true reason for the stones' manufacture. Could be other reasons. Moot.
3. Tumlinsons: see no. 1 above. Reser and Miller: critical degree of separation from discovery makes their testimony irrelevent to actual facts of 'discovery'. Mitchell: too far removed from the 'discovery'. Moot. Corbin: irrelevent to issue of authenticity. FBI: ah, let's be delicate and just say that this is not a group with unimpeachable credibility.

As I've acknowledged before, I don't have any preconceived notions regarding this Peralta stone lore. I'm not 'dismissing' any of it ... I'm just not accepting the popular book answer at this time. Your arguement (argumentum ad ignoran tium) is essentially that something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. That's too much of a leap of faith for me.

 

[cactusjumper]

Springfield,

[As I've acknowledged before, I don't have any preconceived notions regarding this Peralta stone lore. I'm not 'dismissing' any of it ... I'm just not accepting the popular book answer at this time. Your arguement (argumentum ad ignoran tium) is essentially that something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. That's too much of a leap of faith for me.]

While the irrelevant conclusion moniker might seem a little harsh, I don't know how else you could be more accurate. Being on the fence as to a final conclusion seems prudent. I am in the same place......not knowing the truth of these "artifacts". On the other hand, my own feelings that they are not products of the 20th. Century are based on the same kind of evidence that try's to establish that they are 18th. Century creations.

There is that pesky article that seems to agree with my conclusions. It has been said that the people who offered their opinions were less than professional in their examination of the stones. Given the circumstances, they were as professional as time would allow.

I was told that the drawings on the Priest/Horse Map resembled the "cartoon style" from the 1940's. The professor was not aware of my suspicion that Ted DeGrazia was the creator of the maps, when she offered that opinion. I found it to be an interesting comment.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Jim Hatt]

Jim,

Good to see you have escaped the oppressive atmosphere over on your site, and have come to a place where all opinions are welcome......even those that oppose someone else's.

Not everyone finds the atmosphere oppressive over there Joe. There are a few who do, but they are usually the kind of people who had trouble “playing” well with others when they were children too, so we don’t take any of it personally.

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

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. Since an opposing opinion "can be found with very little effort", would you mind posting another such "EXPERT OPINION", with the same credentials as those who were asked to offer their opinion for AZ Highways? I mean a positive opinion they are willing to put their name on for publication.

Since you have no disagreement with the statement. I see no reason to bring out the “Big Guns” where a little one was enough to do the job.. After all, as I stated in my rebuttal. It does not take a PhD to see the flaws in the evaluations. I think I spelled them out in simple enough terms for everyone to understand. If any of the PhD’s I challenged the opinions of, would like to personally come here, point out the flaws in my rebuttal, defend their evaluations, and put me in a corner that needed a bigger Degree than mine to get me out of. I’ll entertain the idea of bringing in some “Bigger Guns” to back me up. Until that time comes… I certainly don’t need a PhD to respond to any of your comments.

All of your points are completely valid, as to the limited procedures and time they were given with the Stone Maps they were presented with......original or copies. Given the limitations they had to work under, they gave a "qualified" opinion as to their authenticity.

I said nothing in my post about any limited procedures or time being involved with the Expert Evaluations, and I saw no disclaimer in their comments, about not having all the time and procedures they needed , or any limitations they were required to work under when performing their evaluations. Their names on the report indicates they were satisfied with what was written on it. (With NO Exceptions, Excuses or Disclaimers)

What we are left with, in this case, is the AZ Highways article. In addition to that, I have personal email's that corroborate their opinions in the article.

Well there you go Joe! You should have posted those to make your case, instead of trying to muddle your way through it by yourself.

There is that pesky article that seems to agree with my conclusions.

It does not surprise me that the article agrees with your conclusions Joe. But then... We HAVE seen your conclusions change every time the wind blows over the years, so you have the flexibility to make them agree with any whim you have at the moment don't you?

Busca El Coazon Joe,

Jim Hatt

 

[cactusjumper]

Jim,

Thanks for your reply.

I have no doubt that each of your points? is quite valid in your mind.

"Not everyone finds the atmosphere oppressive over there Joe. There are a few who do, but they are usually the kind of people who had trouble “playing” well with others when they were children too, so we don’t take any of it personally."

That's probably a good thing, although I have notice you reading the riot act to someone who recently said, pretty much, what I have said, so I guess you do take it personally......and not the first time either.

There will always be people who think they have something to gain by putting up with those with huge egos and made up personal histories. That would not include you, of course, just saying some folks can rationalize just about anything.

It's amazing the long-winded post you wrote without answering a single question.........Why bother at all? There is always some lame excuse for not bringing out "the big guns".

Bowman posted the same, exact, type of missives. All form, no function.

I won't be posting the email's I received any time soon. There were no big revelations in them, pretty much what they said in the article.

If you want to actually address the points I made in my post to you, I will be happy to do that. In between the digs, there were some serious questions. Do you have any serious answers?

Take care,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Heh Joe:
Hope that you and the missus are well.

"I was told that the drawings on the Priest/Horse Map resembled the "cartoon style" from the 1940's. The professor was not aware of my suspicion that Ted DeGrazia was the creator of the maps, when she offered that opinion. I found it to be an interesting comment."

That's something I looked into,for a while.Couldn't find any horse drawn or painted,other than those chunky ponies on carousels that even came close.

I don't think that the cartoon styles of the 40's had much to do with DG's style,but that's just my opinion.There are more than a few cartoonish elements within the map collection that has accumulated since the origin of the Lost Dutchman Legend.I've spent probably too much time perusing maps dated as far back as the eleventh century and quite a few of them have "cartoon" buildings,trees,ships,animals etc,etc.Many of the illustrations in some of the old first editions of the period within your library would appear so,as well.The illustration of the arrastra that QB posted a while ago is just one example from the time in question.
BTW....whatever happened to QB? Vanished into thin air,maybe?.....Then again,maybe he's one of them "shape shifter" fellas...or a "Sybil" type still posting.Has been known to happen.

No,I think that the horse looks that way because that's the way that it appeared to whoever designed the map,when the map was made.He may have used a bit of artistic licence with some of the lines....but he got it pretty close.Thats just how I see it,of course.

This is what I take to be a "heart" similar(I know,not identical) to the one at Twin Buttes.It may be just a coincidence that it happens to be on a hillside visible from the mound at the five o-clock position,which would place both the mound and this "heart" in the same relationship as the omega and the heart that seem to have been added to the Priest Map.
Just one of those things,I guess,where some will see it but most will not.Sometimes it's just a case of too much theory and not enough practical.

Regards:SH.

 

[cactusjumper]

Hello Homer,

[Cactus Jumper, Expert opinions with their name on them are still just opinions. Everybody makes mistakes. Three employees from Desert Archaeology Inc., who work a lot with the government, sure sounds fishy to me, but it also tells me they have been out in the sun too long. Still the lame reasoning behind their opinions just proves they are no experts regardless of title. Mike ( gollum ) says it best "actions speak louder than words" Homar P. Olivarez]

Your opinion is, of course, good to hear, but I have my doubts that any government conspiracy is involved in their conclusions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are some kind of conspiracy nut, but your derogatory remark that they have "been out in the sun too long" cuts both ways here.

In the same vein, your comment that their opinions are "lame" and that they are proven to be "no experts" really carries little weight without some kind of solid argument, as opposed to emotional "fishy" sounds.

I agree that Mike said it best. "Actions speak louder than words". They took the action of examining the Stone Maps that they were presented with, forming an opinion based on their "qualified" experience, and put their name on those opinions.

Other than adding Homar P. Olivarez to your own opinion, do you have anything to match their qualifications and actions?

Thank you,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Cubfan64]

Heh Joe:
Hope that you and the missus are well.

"I was told that the drawings on the Priest/Horse Map resembled the "cartoon style" from the 1940's. The professor was not aware of my suspicion that Ted DeGrazia was the creator of the maps, when she offered that opinion. I found it to be an interesting comment."

That's something I looked into,for a while.Couldn't find any horse drawn or painted,other than those chunky ponies on carousels that even came close.

I don't think that the cartoon styles of the 40's had much to do with DG's style,but that's just my opinion.There are more than a few cartoonish elements within the map collection that has accumulated since the origin of the Lost Dutchman Legend.I've spent probably too much time perusing maps dated as far back as the eleventh century and quite a few of them have "cartoon" buildings,trees,ships,animals etc,etc.Many of the illustrations in some of the old first editions of the period within your library would appear so,as well.The illustration of the arrastra that QB posted a while ago is just one example from the time in question.
BTW....whatever happened to QB? Vanished into thin air,maybe?.....Then again,maybe he's one of them "shape shifter" fellas...or a "Sybil" type still posting.Has been known to happen.

No,I think that the horse looks that way because that's the way that it appeared to whoever designed the map,when the map was made.He may have used a bit of artistic licence with some of the lines....but he got it pretty close.Thats just how I see it,of course.

This is what I take to be a "heart" similar(I know,not identical) to the one at Twin Buttes.It may be just a coincidence that it happens to be on a hillside visible from the mound at the five o-clock position,which would place both the mound and this "heart" in the same relationship as the omega and the heart that seem to have been added to the Priest Map.
Just one of those things,I guess,where some will see it but most will not.Sometimes it's just a case of too much theory and not enough practical.

Regards:SH.

Hi Wayne - pretty impressive heart if I must say so! looks like not only a stone border in places, but the ground seems to be devoid of vegetation in alot of places as well.

Only seen a couple things I'd truly consider to appear to be "hearts" out there in the short time I've explored and looked at other's photos - yours just got into my list!

Wonder if it can be seen with Google Earth??