The Peralta Stones

[Jim Hatt]

You got me Mike!

There are quite a few things inscribed on the maps that I am not "REALLY" sure about.
The 8-N-P is one of them, the Sonora Mex is another.

I am not sure I am following your explanation. I don't see a dagger on the Horse map.

Here are a few more photos (Original Stone Maps) you can work with.

Jim

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

One more question and I will sign off for tonight - does anyone think that the "P" is made noticeably larger for a purpose? Any theories as to why the "P" might be deliberately made larger, or is it just chance or optical illusion (from photos?)? Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Here ya go:

 

[Jim Hatt]

I'm going to quit for tonight Mike,

I can only stare at them for so long before I start suffering from the "Seeing Elephants in the clouds" syndrome.

I think I'm almost at that point.

Jim

 

[Oroblanco]

Muchas gracias for the detailed photos; this particular one is especially interesting:


...clearly something has been deliberately scratched out, attempting to deface whatever was there. Do any of the older/earlier photos show what might have been there (also showing that the scratching-out happened after 1949 discovery) or are the scratched/defaced areas present on the oldest photos? Thank you in advance, have to sign out for the night.
Oroblanco

 

[Jim Hatt]

As anyone can see from Mike's photos and mine. These stones were not as perfectly "Mechanically Sanded" as some "Experts" would have us believe. There are a lot of imperfections in the surface of the stones. These imperfections have been the cause of many people thinking they see things that others cannot see. That is what I call the "Seeing Elephants in the clouds" syndrome.

I never argue when people say they see something that I cannot see. I just work with the things I think I can see myself.



Jim

 

[Jim Hatt]

Roy,
Mike's photos are of reproductions that have been painted (They look like "Richard Robinson" series reproductions from back in the 80's to me).

Sometimes the paint on them is deceiving.

Here is the same area in the Original stone. I am not sure what it is Mike is trying to show us there. Whatever it is I cannot see it in the reproduction or the original stone. How 'bout a "Hint" Mike?

 

[Springfield]

.... It is only a small part of a greater mysterious formulae. You need better resolution pics of that stone!

Best-Mike

Mike, you are dead on target here. Anyone who ignores the less obvious marks on these stones does so at the risk of possibly discarding clues as important as any others on them. We all see the magician's hands but we seldom look behind his back. Always take the highest resolution photos you can - it's surprising what may appear. Anyone trying to decipher these things also needs to be working with the originals. The reproductions are great for the tourists to gawk at and wonder, but they will be missing the subtle nuances on the originals.

 

[ghostdog]

Piece of cake, if you lay the letters on their sides,connect them, you come up with a sort of directional type trail map.

 

[Jim Hatt]

Good Morning Springfield,

Mike, you are dead on target here. Anyone who ignores the less obvious marks on these stones does so at the risk of possibly discarding clues as important as any others on them. We all see the magician's hands but we seldom look behind his back. Always take the highest resolution photos you can - it's surprising what may appear. Anyone trying to decipher these things also needs to be working with the originals. The reproductions are great for the tourists to gawk at and wonder, but they will be missing the subtle nuances on the originals.

I don't think that's exactly true Springfield. A 10X Jewelers loop even on a reproduction, with different angles of light, will bring out things that might never be captured in a photograph of an original stone. The process used to make the reproductions, is capable of transferring details as small as the date on a dime. The surface of these stones is pretty rough to be looking for anything smaller than that. I believe there are around 30 sets of reproductions out there in private collections, (20 of them with painted surfaces, cast in the 1980's, and 10 of them that are stained, cast in 2002). Nobody that owns one of them has ever reported finding anything on the original stones, that could not be found on the reproductions. The only disadvantage I have ever observed in examining the reproductions is that. The ones that have been painted, have a "glossy" finish to them, that can interfere with the clarity of the smaller details.

I think if you were ever able to examine a reproduction beside an original stone. (With both under magnification). You would conclude, that they are far better than just something "for tourists to gawk at and wonder", and many times better than working with just photographs of the original stones.


To give you an idea of how delicate and accurate the process of making a reproduction of a stone map is…

First the stone has to be prepared with a releasing agent so the mold can be removed when completed. Then layers (almost the consistency of water) are applied one at a time, and allowed to dry for 24 hours before another coat can be applied.

It takes about 30 coats to build up the latex enough to fill all the nooks, crannys and grooves to a level surface. The photo below shows how the stone looks after about 5 coats of latex have been applied. The white substance in the grooves is liquid latex that is not dry yet.

Then a layer of cheesecloth is applied to give the mold strength, and another 30 layers of latex is applied., each given the same 24 hour drying time.

By the time the mold is finished, you are looking at 2 months worth of time, just applying the latex.

Now the easy part is over and the hard part begins. Anyone that has worked with plaster is familiar with all the problems that can be experienced with fractures, that can occur from curing too fast, or too slow, or air bubbles in the plaster. For every stone that comes out perfectly, at least two have one kind of flaw or another in them, and have to be thrown away. The more you do it, the better you get, but “I” never got to the point where every plaster pour was good.

The end result comes out looking like this. With the exception of true color, they are absolutely identical to the originals, right down to the finest little scratches. (the reproductions in this photo are stained not painted).

This should give you a better understanding of how even the smallest textures and details, in the maps can be reproduced.

Jim

 

[Springfield]

Good Morning Springfield,

Mike, you are dead on target here. Anyone who ignores the less obvious marks on these stones does so at the risk of possibly discarding clues as important as any others on them. We all see the magician's hands but we seldom look behind his back. Always take the highest resolution photos you can - it's surprising what may appear. Anyone trying to decipher these things also needs to be working with the originals. The reproductions are great for the tourists to gawk at and wonder, but they will be missing the subtle nuances on the originals.

I don't think that's exactly true Springfield. A 10X Jewelers loop even on a reproduction, with different angles of light, will bring out things that might never be captured in a photograph of an original stone. The process used to make the reproductions, is capable of transferring details as small as the date on a dime. The surface of these stones is pretty rough to be looking for anything smaller than that. I believe there are around 30 sets of reproductions out there in private collections, (20 of them with painted surfaces, cast in the 1980's, and 10 of them that are stained, cast in 2002). Nobody that owns one of them has ever reported finding anything on the original stones, that could not be found on the reproductions. The only disadvantage I have ever observed in examining the reproductions is that. The ones that have been painted, have a "glossy" finish to them, that can interfere with the clarity of the smaller details.

I think if you were ever able to examine a reproduction beside an original stone. (With both under magnification). You would conclude, that they are far better than just something "for tourists to gawk at and wonder", and many times better than working with just photographs of the original stones.

Jim

I'll defer to your experience here, but in general, I would much prefer to have the original in hand. The important point is not to overlook the nuances.

 

[cactusjumper]

No comment to make, just wondered how my blow up of the area would show up.

Joe

 

[Jim Hatt]

Springfield wrote: "I would much prefer to have the original in hand."

I agree with that 100% , but museums are "sensitive" about letting just anybody handle their display objects, or letting them take them home to inspect at their leisure, if you know what I mean.

Jim

 

[Cubfan64]

In the old black and white photograph of the stones on the car bumper, the dagger appears to have been "rubbed out" in some way - either on the negative or the photo itself. In the Life Magazine article photograph with the men holding the stones within the vault, that same area where the dagger should be is either blacked out by electrical tape or hidden within the shadows.

Coincidence, or is there something attributed to that dagger that people didn't want made public?

 

[Jim Hatt]

In the old black and white photograph of the stones on the car bumper, the dagger appears to have been "rubbed out" in some way - either on the negative or the photo itself. In the Life Magazine article photograph with the men holding the stones within the vault, that same area where the dagger should be is either blacked out by electrical tape or hidden within the shadows.

Coincidence, or is there something attributed to that dagger that people didn't want made public?

Morning Paul,

The only explanation I have ever heard that explains that, is that the photo was taken so close to the moment the stones were found. That there is still dried mud in the grooves of the dagger. If you examine the rest of the photo, you will also see where some other lines are not visible (or only partially visible). I assume this also be due to the fact that the stones had not been thoroughly cleaned yet, at the time the photo was taken.

I wasn't there when the photo was taken, so I do not know for sure. Makes sense to me tho.

Jim

 

[cactusjumper]

All,

While they would never say so publicly, the folks at the museum, in Phoenix, believe the Stone Maps are a fraud. On the other hand, some folks have been allowed to get pretty close.......Like Carolyn and I:

After all, the only examination that has ever been done, that is documented, say they are not authentic beyond the 1940s. The museum sanctioned that examination, so it makes sense that they would lean towards the professionals' results.......privately.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Jim Hatt]

No comment to make, just wondered how my blow up of the area would show up.

Joe

Nice photo Joe,

Every photo of the stone maps can reveal, (or conceal) something that another does not. This is due to the amount, and angle of light that was present when the photo was taken.

Jim

 

[Jim Hatt]

All,

While they would never say so publicly, the folks at the museum, in Phoenix, believe the Stone Maps are a fraud. On the other hand, some folks have been allowed to get pretty close.......Like Carolyn and I:

After all, the only examination that has ever been done, that is documented, say they are not authentic beyond the 1940s. The museum sanctioned that examination, so it makes sense that they would lean towards the professionals' results.......privately.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

For many years the Mineral and Mining Museum allowed photo sessions, and close examination of the maps for a FEE with a representative of the museum present at all times. I did not say it was impossible. Only that they were "sensitive" about it.

Don't look now... But the idea of having another "Expert" examination, under much more controlled conditions, and with consideration given to the known history of the maps, (As well as some actual scientific testing that was never performed before) is currently being considered, which could end up totally invalidating all the conclusions arrived at by "Experts" during previous examinations.

I suspect you will be hearing about it before too long. Probably soon after the next SMHS meeting of their Board of Directors.

Best,

Jim

 

[Cubfan64]

Interesting that they may be given another "once over" by a professional. If I were at all involved in the possibility of that happening, I would do my darndest to find a specialist who has never heard of the Stone Maps, has absolutely no "dog in the race," perhaps is willing to do it for free, etc... I'd like to see a completely non-biased examination and report done.

Even if that were to take place, one side or another is not going to like the results, and someone is bound to bring up the "how do we know these are the originals?" argument

Jim - I've heard that before about dirt still being in the grooves, and while that may be the case, I don't really see any other large areas like that in the B&W photo. From just a short look, it seems like most of the grooves are cleaned out fairly well - at least any large sections like what the dagger takes up. I know I saw a discussion on another forum about how it looks like the area where the dagger should be is "lighter" as if someone rubbed away the image. And it just struck me odd that the same section of that stone is blacked out in the Life Magazine vault photo.

I'm not saying the dagger isn't there (although I've heard that argument too), I'm just wondering if at the time there was some significance given to that dagger that we don't know about now.

Just a thought - I honestly should be taking my own advice and stepping back from a subject I pretty much know nothing about

 

[cactusjumper]

All,

Just to be clear, the photos that I took are easy to distinguish from those 41 photos taken under professional lighting and with a professional grade, high resolution, camera. Here is one:

We did not pay a fee for our time with the Stone Maps. We were left alone with them. I would prefer that I explain the facts of these pictures rather than someone who wasn't there. I have no doubt that Jim's post applies to him, as well as the people he knows.

The Stone Maps can't be dated at this time......as far as I know. The best that could be done is the same kind of examination that has already been done. That would be to compare the style and writing to the matching era. It may be that another type of testing has been developed that I have not heard of. It's been awhile since I last researched the question.

Take care,

Joe