The Peralta Stones

[cactusjumper]

Hello Wayne,

We are doing fine, and I trust you and your family are doing well.

I would look for the horses that were drawn for Cinderella, or Snow White.....along those lines. I doubt Ted would want the drawings to look exactly like what he was doing, but he was a talented artist and could probably draw other styles. He stuck with what made him money.

Actually, I can pretty well draw a good portion of the horse from a topographic map. Aylor's arch ends up being the eye of the horse, strangely enough.

Your heart is one of the best I have seen, and I have seen quite a few from the Superstitions. I have no problem seeing it and appreciating the resemblance.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Dog]

Wonder if it can be seen with Google Earth??

LOL
Thanks Paul, I needed that. ROFL

 

[Cubfan64]

Wonder if it can be seen with Google Earth??

LOL
Thanks Paul, I needed that. ROFL

Oops did I say that out loud??

 

[Loke]

Jim Hatt:
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.

Jim Hatt:
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!

Now Jim - your answers to Roy did not bring a single 'expert' reference - unless you regard yourself as one - you and you alone defied people that at least are assumed to know what they are talking about. But you - you elegantly sidestep all your talk about references when it comes to yourself.

Me - I can take or leave the PSM - I dont really care one way or the other. If they are real - fine; if they are fakes - well, its no biggie.
But - I would like to see the same rules to _your_ postings as you require from others ...

Just my 2c-worth ...

 

[gollum]

.....
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.

Spring,

Now, while you say that you have no preconceived notions, that's not exactly true, is it? You outright called them a hoax. Sounds like your opinions are already formed.

You say that Charlie Miller and Al Reser are TOO FAR REMOVED from the find to have any validity? REALLY? A couple of hours after the find is too far removed? The man that helped Tumlinson clean the stones and who stated that they still had little roots sticking out of the grooves. Too far removed? REALLY?

Corbin has nothing to do with the possibility of authenticity? REALLY? For Roy and Joe, who state that the Stones are likely the product of Ted de Grazia sometime in the 1940s, Corbin and the FBI are key to placing the Stone Maps in at least the 1800s time frame. The opinion of the FBI seems to have been key to having the stones donated by court order to the Foundation/Museum. They were never confiscated or snatched up by the Smithsonian only to disappear into a bottomless drawer forever hidden. I don't imagine that they were the subject of any conspiracy (although anything is possible HAHAHA).

I am with Joe referring to the "argumentum ad ignoran tium" remark you made not being remotely accurate. We have a story that has so far (since 1949 or 1964 because that was the date of their unveiling) never been proven untrue, and yet you are not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the first known owner of the Stone Maps as to where he got them? Not one thing Travis Tumlinson EVER said on the subject has EVER been proven untrue, and yet you still won't give him the benefit of the doubt as to how he acquired them? That says more about you than him or the stones.

You think they may be a hoax manufactured in the 1800s. I can't say that you are wrong. Being an intellectually honest person, I have to admit, that in the absence of a found treasure or historical provenance, there is always the possibility of a hoax or fraud. I don't personally know you, so I can't say how much or little you REALLY know about the known history of the Stone Maps. I can only say that I am a pretty sharp guy with a very logical mind, and I have spent a loooooooooong time studying the and researching the modern history of them. The conclusion that I keep coming to is that they are authentic. Your mind may work differently, and see the same evidence as me, and come to a completely different conclusion. HAHAHA Thats why we have Republicans and Democrats!

Best-Mike

 

[somehiker]

Welllll Paul,I did check to see if it was.
It do ....kinda...but you have to know where it is.
Otherwise you would "googlyhike" right on by.

There are a number of the larger items that I can locate on GE now,circles,the level triangle,etc.
Not one cave or mine,though.Anywhere that I have found one out there for "real" that is.
The mound only shows up because of the reddish border.The border is why I call it the "heart" mound.
That heart shaped border is one thing that I had spotted on the sat views that did check out when I actually got there.
I only knew where to look by knowing where the horse was located.I only knew about the horse because he was visible in two different photos that I had taken on previous trips.The trail lines on the Horse Map suggested to me that the Priest could be located to the left,at some distance from the horse and around the corner(so to speak).I went back through my older,pre-digital pics until I found one of that general area that had some of the priest visible on it,apparently.The face in particular seemed to match,and a couple of other white areas looked worth checking out as well.None of this shows up on GE either.

Bottom line is.At the current level of resolution,available only since late last year for the Sups area,GE is next to useless for finding anything that you haven't already found on the ground previously.Even many of the elevations are off by a significant amount so planning an overland hike is iffy.

I could probably draw quite a few animals by staring at topo maps as well,Joe.If I was in Laos or Thailand,I could find a Water Buffalo.If I was in Peru,it would probably be a Llama.In Kenya an Elephant,you know what I mean?
The face of the priest does resemble Aylor's as well as it does on the map.It's one photo I was unable to get in april.It's gonna take a long day's hike to get to a vantage point where I can get a full length shot.That point will,I expect,be a point somewhere along the trail from the Queen Creek crossing.There may be something man-made at that place as well.
There was an arch,also at the seven o-clock position,not far from the mound.It wouldn't have been visible from there,though.

Regards:SH.

 

[gollum]

"GOOGLYHIKE"

roflmaonec (rolling on the floor laughing my ass of naked eating Cheetos).

Best-Mike

 

[inamanmike]

hi gollum, this is incaman sence you seam to be the expert on the peralta stones , do you know anything about the name or word DeVoN ? that i found out at one of my cache sites scribed on a black rock , i have been trying for a long time in trying to find out if it is a jesiut or someone that was with the spanish when they hid there goodies, can any one help in this quest, it would be very appreciated, thanks INCAMAN M.Z.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening Inca man, you posted --> sence you seam to be the expert on the peralta stones
*******************
Gollum mi buddy an expert on the stones?? He isn't even an expert on his own stones, let alone Reaves stones.

snicker:

Hi golly how is "OUR" pretty little Land rover doing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[somehiker]

I was never able to figure out how to do the transcendental elevation thing,otherwise I would have a better photo of "chucky"
to post.This is from one of the less vertical places on the slope and I would have had to "butt bump" my way out into thin air to get a better head-on view.
.One of the obviously man-made piles of rock that was used to create the priest and cross,etc,on the mountainside.For those who may have missed an earlier post,it is probable that a great deal of labour went into gathering white and/or white faced rocks and piling them in such a way (mostly white face outward) so as to present a recognizable landmark.The horse,other than the circle above,the big "E" and a few other things that surround it,is all natural.He could have been "scraped" a little here and there,though.
It is what can be found,clearly and cleverly man-made,from the priest to the horse and as far as the mound area that IMHO eliminates De Grazia as a suspect.The sheer tonnage of relocated rock alone,not to mention the scrapings,makes all but the scenario of a large group working for a long period of time under close supervision virtually impossible I believe.If this was the case,it also negates the possibility of fraud or hoax as well,that being the likelyhood that total confidentiality becomes impossible to maintain with a larger group involved.Especially with the passage of time.

Regards:SH.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening my friend SH: You have seen my post on how they constructed the huge sun up at Tayopa?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Springfield]

.....
You think they may be a hoax manufactured in the 1800s. I can't say that you are wrong. Being an intellectually honest person, I have to admit, that in the absence of a found treasure or historical provenance, there is always the possibility of a hoax or fraud. I don't personally know you, so I can't say how much or little you REALLY know about the known history of the Stone Maps. I can only say that I am a pretty sharp guy with a very logical mind, and I have spent a loooooooooong time studying the and researching the modern history of them. The conclusion that I keep coming to is that they are authentic. Your mind may work differently, and see the same evidence as me, and come to a completely different conclusion. HAHAHA Thats why we have Republicans and Democrats!

Best-Mike

Actually, as George Carlin said, the reason we have Republicans and Democrats is as a cynical ploy to convince the people they actually have a choice. But that's another topic.

I believe there's a strong possibility that the stones were created in the early 20th (not 19th) century. I think they're important but are probably not a treasure map leading to the so-called Peralta mines. I believe it's quite possible that Tumlinson's discovery story could be a ruse to cover his aquisition of the stones from another party. The reason I say this is because of two factors: 1) Pegleg Tumlinson; 2) the highly unlikely discovery circumstances. Reser, Miller, et al are innocent bystanders who reported what they experienced truthfully, I'm sure, but they came after the fact if even by only a couple hours.

Yes, you are indeed a very sharp cookie and I have appreciated many of your postings on this topic and a number of others. I don't really have a horse in this particular race and won't spend as much energy on it as you have, but I am curious about it because of any possibility that these stones may relate to other things I'm interested in. I approach the enigma of these Peralta stones the same way I approach all similar types of legends: wary of accepted theories and aware of common patterns. Until this mystery has been solved, all bets are off and everything must remain on the table.

 

[somehiker]

Evening my friend SH: You have seen my post on how they constructed the huge sun up at Tayopa?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Evenin RT:
Nope,musta missed it.Wouldn't be supprised if they used white rock,though.
Seems to be a trademark.
Forgot to mention that bits of "concrete work" in out of the way places seems to be a factor as well.
Busy fellas,they were.
SH.

 

[somehiker]

Hi Springfield:
Gonna keep this short,but I agree that Tumlinson's claim of having tripped over the first stone seems a stretch.Even out on the flats,there are lots of stones and other objects to trip over if one has their nose in the air.There is a small hump at the top of the highway embankment and close to the creek.It is heavily overgrown now but who knows what it was like in 1949? I found some pics of the area,taken in 1966.I'll put one up or post a link later,but I can't imagine a person climbing such a rise without watching their step.
My personal,makes-sense opinion is that Pegleg somehow found out about the stones,what they applied to,and where they were buried.
He passed the information to his son,who checked it out and got lucky.The roots indicate a shallow burial.Anything deeper than a foot or so out there would have taken days of work for one man.
Subsequent searches for the other stones were made because Pegleg found out more at his end.

Regards:SH.

 

[Oroblanco]

Gollum wrote

For Roy and Joe, who state that the Stones are likely the product of Ted de Grazia sometime in the 1940s,

I must take exception here amigo, I do not say this, in fact I have said that is ONE THEORY. It appears that you have mis-interpreted what I said. I told you who I would point to, if I must pick the "likely suspect" quite some time ago, a person whom was a promoter of the legends of the Superstitions, whose motive had nothing to do with money or a joke, it was a matter of BELIEF - to create artifacts that he felt OUGHT to exist somewhere. This person, with very powerful connections <friends> in AZ, including the backing of an influential club whose very name is ON the Peralta Stones (unlike the name PERALTA) and he was seen creating fake Spanish treasure inscriptions IN the Superstitions by old-timers. Even his pen-name initials are suggestive, for they are "B.S." This 'religion' aspect is an important point to consider, for a belief is a strong driver, it is why those ancient writers made "hoax" <fake, pseudo-nymic> gospels and testaments and put the names of famous religious figures as the "author", not because they wanted to FOOL anyone, nor to make a fast buck, nor as a joke, but because they wanted others to believe what they did and thought it was justifiable to create the "missing" evidence which would help others to become believers too.

Jim, I started to write out a full response to your rebuttal, but a key point you seem to be missing. Let me give an example;

Lets say that I tell you John Doe is a sick man, and Doctor Smith tells you that John Doe is in perfect health. Whom will you give greater belief to, me, with NO medical training whatsoever, or the fellow with the PHD?

With the Peralta Stones we have several PHD's saying they think the stones are a modern hoax or forgery, and yes they CAN be mistaken - the stones were cleaned, they looked at "copies" which makes zero sense whatsoever for why on Earth would anyone take a copy to have it authenticated etc but you and I don't have PHD's so I have to at least be keep that in mind that several experts didn't think they were authentic.

In truth the bare facts we have with these Peralta Stones are a pretty short list, and much of what we debate is based on theory and speculation. We just don't know all the answers. If only we had some kind of reference that pre-dates 1949 that says these stone maps exist, it would go some ways to support their being old. Unfortunately as far as I know, nothing has turned up yet. The only treasure maps linked to Peraltas were with Adolph Ruth and his son, and they were not made of stone. They also had a set of written directions that was required to make sense of the maps, which suggests that with the Peralta Stones there is likewise the possibility that there is a necessary set of written directions that goes with them.

I think I will drop out of this discussion, as it looks to me like we are at loggerheads with little hope of new evidence that might help tilt the balances. Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[Jim Hatt]

Jim, I started to write out a full response to your rebuttal, but a key point you seem to be missing. Let me give an example;

Lets say that I tell you John Doe is a sick man, and Doctor Smith tells you that John Doe is in perfect health. Whom will you give greater belief to, me, with NO medical training whatsoever, or the fellow with the PHD?

With the Peralta Stones we have several PHD's saying they think the stones are a modern hoax or forgery, and yes they CAN be mistaken - the stones were cleaned, they looked at "copies" which makes zero sense whatsoever for why on Earth would anyone take a copy to have it authenticated etc but you and I don't have PHD's so I have to at least be keep that in mind that several experts didn't think they were authentic.


Roy ~ Oroblanco

Hi Roy,

Glad to see you are still following the topic and at least trying to understand some things you have been overlooking.

I don't know how many PhD's you have been around in your life Roy, but trust me. I have worked for, around a bunch of them in my career in the Nuclear Industry. The first thing I can tell you about them is that having a PhD is not a guarantee of having whole lot of intelligence. It only indicates a whole lot of education. I have run across a good number of PhD's in my time that had no idea of how to use their education to make a living!

There are a whole lot of them out there that graduated at the very bottom in their class. There are a lot of them who only got their PhD's because their father's name was on a building at the University that they attended. Never, Never automatically associate higher education, with higher intelligence!

I am not saying that any of the PhD's involved with evaluating the stone maps have no intelligence, or graduated at the bottom of their classes. I am just saying that from what I see in their evaluations... it makes me wonder!

If you cannot see the flaws in their evaluations, as I have already pointed them out. It would be a total waste of my time to try to explain them to you any farther.

No... I WOULD NOT believe a single word someone said just because they have PhD behind their names. (Especially if my B.S. meter went off in my head when they said it) I have seen too many Physicists with PhD's who could work mathematical calculations a half page long in their heads, that did not have enough common sense to come in out of the rain while they were doing it.

Look at the evaluations yourself. Read them word by word. Do you see any kind of science, higher education, or common sense in anything they wrote? Is any of it so far over your head that you cannot understand it? No! It is not, I am sure. If it is not over your head then you should be able to evaluate it yourself, and so should everyone else. Unless they are really dense, or totally biased by preconceived conclusions.

Keep struggling to understand Roy... Never know when that little light bulb will come on for you, and you will see the light!

If it doesn't... For God's sake spend your time thinking about something else. Delve into something you can get a handle on. These maps and their history are very complex. If you are not willing to make the commitment of time and energy required to understand them. Then just ignore them and get on with your life.

Jim

 

[Oroblanco]

Jim, I started to write out a full response to your rebuttal, but a key point you seem to be missing. Let me give an example;

Lets say that I tell you John Doe is a sick man, and Doctor Smith tells you that John Doe is in perfect health. Whom will you give greater belief to, me, with NO medical training whatsoever, or the fellow with the PHD?

With the Peralta Stones we have several PHD's saying they think the stones are a modern hoax or forgery, and yes they CAN be mistaken - the stones were cleaned, they looked at "copies" which makes zero sense whatsoever for why on Earth would anyone take a copy to have it authenticated etc but you and I don't have PHD's so I have to at least be keep that in mind that several experts didn't think they were authentic.


Roy ~ Oroblanco

Hi Roy,

Glad to see you are still following the topic and at least trying to understand some things you have been overlooking.

I don't know how many PhD's you have been around in your life Roy, but trust me. I have worked for, around a bunch of them in my career in the Nuclear Industry. The first thing I can tell you about them is that having a PhD is not a guarantee of having whole lot of intelligence. It only indicates a whole lot of education. I have run across a good number of PhD's in my time that had no idea of how to use their education to make a living!

There are a whole lot of them out there that graduated at the very bottom in their class. There are a lot of them who only got their PhD's because their father's name was on a building at the University that they attended. Never, Never automatically associate higher education, with higher intelligence!

I am not saying that any of the PhD's involved with evaluating the stone maps have no intelligence, or graduated at the bottom of their classes. I am just saying that from what I see in their evaluations... it makes me wonder!

If you cannot see the flaws in their evaluations, as I have already pointed them out. It would be a total waste of my time to try to explain them to you any farther.

No... I WOULD NOT believe a single word someone said just because they have PhD behind their names. (Especially if my B.S. meter went off in my head when they said it) I have seen too many Physicists with PhD's who could work mathematical calculations a half page long in their heads, that did not have enough common sense to come in out of the rain while they were doing it.

Look at the evaluations yourself. Read them word by word. Do you see any kind of science, higher education, or common sense in anything they wrote? Is any of it so far over your head that you cannot understand it? No! It is not, I am sure. If it is not over your head then you should be able to evaluate it yourself, and so should everyone else. Unless they are really dense, or totally biased by preconceived conclusions.

Keep struggling to understand Roy... Never know when that little light bulb will come on for you, and you will see the light!

If it doesn't... For God's sake spend your time thinking about something else. Delve into something you can get a handle on. These maps and their history are very complex. If you are not willing to make the commitment of time and energy required to understand them. Then just ignore them and get on with your life.

Jim

Gee, Jim that sounds sort of like you are politely saying "Shut up, go away and get a life!" Would you rather that non-believers just not speak their minds? Is that keeping an open mind to possibilities? None of us here knows exactly how 'deep' any of the others have researched these Peralta Stones amigo, I see some assuming going on that some have a LOT more info than the rest, which is not proven.

Have no worries about how I will ever be able to fill my time amigo, as that never seems to be the problem around here. Usually it is more of an issue to get time to do the things I want to do, rather than someone else's labors and the endless list of things which must be done. I won't pester you any further on the Peralta Stones. <Actually I just noticed the time too, dang it have to git.>
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[somehiker]

Hi Jim:
Having had a closeup look at the stone maps in the museum,I too noticed that they are not flat enough to have been "machined" as claimed by these "experts".Having plenty of actual hands-on experience with many of the same processes that involve machining,part of my trade in machine building after all,I really could see nothing to back up the assertions.
There are a few nay sayers that do seem to devote an inordinate amount of time,usually in a very repetitious manner,to their interest in proving that the stones were faked as part of a conspiracy to commit some kind of fraud.Often these same folks have made claims of discovery themselves which,partly out of common respect for a fellow enthusiast,most of us have accepted despite a shortage of descriptive or photographic evidence.They would gladly share this evidence,but.....excuse,excuse etc.Yet they become experts on the topic of others' treasure hunts,presenting mainly the opinions of others to support their case.I really wonder if they shouldn't find another hobby.
The "Dons Club" theory was discussed a while back on another forum.Sounded far fetched to me then as well.There is a big difference between a few etched symbols and "ORO's" on some rocks and the kinds of things that we,who have actually have spent time chasing these things down,have found out there.

I kinda like that "cocino sandstone" determination,though.If,as I believe,the stones lead to a Jesuit cache then it will also prove Jesuit involvement elsewhere to those same nay sayers.

Regards:SH.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Somehiker,



Honestly, I don't think that "machined" decision holds any water, one way or the other. If someone says "Its not flat enough to be machined", then they have never looked at any cemetery stones. There are thousands upon thousands of headstones that are machined, and engraved, that have rough, bumpy, wavy looks.

Any stoneman worth his salt (and I'm absolutely certain about this, because my brother is a stoneman for many, many years) can make an old stone look new, an old stone look machined, a new stone look old, etc., etc.

This is not to say the stones are real or fake - just don't base it on a ridiculous theory - too uneven to be machined is ridiculous.

Also, I would want to ask when you saw the stones, because there are many who have seen "the" stones, but they were fakes. (copies).

B

 

[gollum]

hi gollum, this is incaman sence you seam to be the expert on the peralta stones , do you know anything about the name or word DeVoN ? that i found out at one of my cache sites scribed on a black rock , i have been trying for a long time in trying to find out if it is a jesiut or someone that was with the spanish when they hid there goodies, can any one help in this quest, it would be very appreciated, thanks INCAMAN M.Z.

Thanks Incaman, but there are some others that have more sweat and time invested in the Stone Maps than I do.

Well, I do like DEVO and Devon Aoki is very cute, I would have to say that off the top of my head, I can't think of any DeVoN. Is that the only carving on the rock?

Best-Mike