The Peralta Stones

Jim,

It is true that cast copies can actually show more detail than the original given proper casting and lighting angles. The one thing I hadn't thought of was the possibility of someone (the caster) maybe adding very slight markings in the fresh casting.

I would have to use the same angle lighting on the originals.

As far as seeing figures in clouds, no such thing on the Sonora MEX, heart, and tunnel symbol.

Best-Mike
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!
Morning Paul,

The lines that make the dagger are quite deeply cut into the face of the stone. (The same as all the other lines on that map). If anyone tried to remove them by rubbing away the stone there would have been be quite a depression left there. (Which there is not). The difference in color( lighter) could be easily explained by the fact the mud was lighter in color than the stone itself. Especially when that stone is made of the darker (almost dark chocolate) material.

As far as the dagger not being seen in the Life Magazine article... There is no photo of the stone containing the dagger included anywhere in that article. Joe has a way of overlooking little details like that. Best to do your own homework, and not base your conclusions on his. ;D

Best,

Jim
 

gollum said:
Jim,

It is true that cast copies can actually show more detail than the original given proper casting and lighting angles. The one thing I hadn't thought of was the possibility of someone (the caster) maybe adding very slight markings in the fresh casting.

I would have to use the same angle lighting on the originals.

As far as seeing figures in clouds, no such thing on the Sonora MEX, heart, and tunnel symbol.

Best-Mike
Click to expand...

I fully agree with all that Mike... except maybe he part about the "Tunnel Symbol". I personally take that to be something very different than a tunnel, which of course it totally subjective, and highly debatable.

The only way to determine if the individual making the reproductions has done anything to alter the maps in any way, is to compare them to the original stones. Believe me... That has been done many times by people who have purchased the reproductions. (including myself) Nobody has ever found anything to complain about in either the 1980's or 2002 version reproductions.

That should carry a little weight towards dispelling that thought.

Best,

Jim
 

Paul,

Don't know why Jim felt the need to bring me into his comments to you, but I would prefer to voice my own opinions on any conclusions I might have reached about the Stone Maps.

[As far as the dagger not being seen in the Life Magazine article... There is no photo of the stone containing the dagger included anywhere in that article. Joe has a way of overlooking little details like that. Best to do your own homework, and not base your conclusions on his.]

Jim is.......mistaken here. The picture of the trail map with the heart and dagger is in the article. The man on the right side of the picture is holding it. I have the article, and here is the picture of the map:

8.jpg


Like you, this is one of the "little details" I did not overlook.

On the other hand, I must agree that you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I believe I have been saying that to you......for a number of years. I would also be reluctant to take advise from those who don't pay attention to those little details.

Take care,

Joe
 

cactusjumper said:
Paul,

Don't know why Jim felt the need to bring me into his comments to you, but I would prefer to voice my own opinions on any conclusions I might have reached about the Stone Maps.

[As far as the dagger not being seen in the Life Magazine article... There is no photo of the stone containing the dagger included anywhere in that article. Joe has a way of overlooking little details like that. Best to do your own homework, and not base your conclusions on his.]

Jim is.......mistaken here. The picture of the trail map with the heart and dagger is in the article. The man on the right side of the picture is holding it. I have the article, and here is the picture of the map:

8.jpg


Like you, this is one "little detail(s)" I did not overlook.

On the other hand, I must agree that you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I believe I have been saying that to you......for a number of years. I would also be reluctant to take advise from those who don't pay attention to those little details.

Take care,

Joe
Click to expand...


Sorry Joe, but I do no find that photo anywhere in my copy of the Life Magazine article. Could be mine is missing a page, but I seriously doubt that. I have 4 copies of that magazine, and they are all the same. Even if every one of my magazines were missing the same page. It is not even a complete photo of the stone, nor is it represented as such. It is just a cut-out inset photo of the heart cavity to show what information is under the heart insert.

I see no need to suspect foul play, or intent to mislead anyone there.

Best,

Jim
 

Paul,

Jim could be correct, since he went to the magazine to check. I am at the store and only have the pictures in the computer at hand. They are, however, in the "Life" folder. I may have fooled myself there. :dontknow:

Take care,

Joe
 

Cubfan64 said:
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?
Click to expand...

My sincere apologies Joe. It was Paul that said that and I thought he was quoting you. (you know I will not pass by an opportunity to "Bang" on you any more than you will to "Bang" on me). I "Blinked" on that one. ;D

The fact still remains that it is just a photo intended to show the empty heart cavity, and I see no reason to suspect intent to mislead anyone just because the dagger is not in the photo.

Paul... On what page do you see a man in a vault? I have gone through the whole magazine, page by page, 3 times and I can't find it.

Back to the ranch... Yes, there is a possibility that a chemical test might be able to be performed on one of the stones, that could result in changing the way a lot of people view them, as far as how old the carvings on them are concerned. it is going to take the approval of the Mineral & Mining Museum, to have the test done, and someone to locate a Lab that can do the testing. (Not to even mention someone to pay for the testing) But, I believe it will all come to pass, one way or another. When it does, and if there are any conclusive results at all. I am confident that they will show that the stones maps existed at least 100 years before Tumlinson found them.

Obviously I may be chopping off my own nose to spite my face here. I have not had a whole lot of competition in the field, during the last 20 years, looking for where these maps lead to, and that could all change. But I would still have the advantage of being 20 years ahead of most everyone else in my field research. :wink:

Best,

Jim
 

Jim,

I don't believe there is any way to "date" the Stone Maps......other than what has already been mentioned. The age of the rock are a moot point. It's the carvings that must be evaluated and dated by the style and wording. Anything else is a complete waste of time, IMHO.

I have my doubts that another such evaluation will ever be done again. While there may be talk of such "testing" being done, there seems little of a positive nature that would be gained. It seems best that their authenticity be left undetermined.

If they are deemed to be "modern-day" creations, the museums would be left with valueless lumps of rock. A curiosity with no real drawing power. The Superstition Mountain Museum has had enough problems, what with valuable collection being "lifted" in the past. The Stone Maps, as they are, still have value.

One other point, the people who did the testing did not have an "axe to grind". They were impartial and, if anything, would have wanted to please the people at the museum by giving them a positive report. My experiences with them, showed them to be sincere, honest, dedicated professionals who did the best job they could, given the time restrictions and limited testing that could be done. The mindless attacks they have been subjected to here, and on other forums, are due the convictions of those without the training and with the "biases" that have been mentioned.

Lots of opinions here, so I could be wrong.

Thanks for your replies,

Joe Ribaudo

FORGOT TO MENTION! Tests have been developed to test the age of volcanic rock. As I recall, 60,000 years was the outer limits of those tests. I may have that confused with Carbon Dating. Someone else will need to clue me in.
 

Yikes - I go away to work for a couple hours and come back to all sorts of stuff.

First of all, I do my own research which includes reading what other people have written in books, articles, research papers and even including forum posts. If I based any of my comments about the dagger on someone elses work, I apologize since that was not my intention, however it's quite possible discussions on a now defunct forum may have inadvertantly jogged my memory.

Jim - when I mentioned the old B&W photograph from the car, I wasn't referring to someone having tried to physically rub away the markings on the actual map. What I was referring to was someone trying to erase, smear or otherwise deface the photograph negative (or original) so that one could not see the dagger for some reason. For that matter, it's possible that the photo just didn't develop quite right in that spot.

As far as the LIFE Magazine, I've only seen a copy in Greg's collection, but the photograph I'm referring to is this one...

http://images.google.com/hosted/lif...ges?q=stone+maps+source:life&hl=en&tbs=isch:1

It's quite possible that the dagger is either covered by shadows or by the guy's sleeve, or even by electrical tape like they covered a few other things.

The main gyst I was getting it was whether that's just coincidence or not. I'm not implying any kind of misleading or anything - just wondering if the dagger was thought to be the "key" to the maps by someone back then is all.
 

Paul,

That's the same picture I have in my collection here. As I said, it's in a folder labeled "Life Magazine".

I scanned those pictures from my own copy of the magazine, and don't remember getting that particular one from another source. I will check that again tonight, but I am pretty sure that's where I got it. It's never a good idea, at my age and mental condition, to be too positive about anything concerning the memory cells.

As for my own opinion on the dagger, I believe it was removed with a rubber eraser. That's just what it looks like to me. It's anyones' guess as to why that might have been done......if it was. Once you place the tip of that dagger on Parker Pass, you are on another section of the Stone Map trail. See my map. :read2:

Take care,

Joe
 

Cubfan64 said:
First of all, I do my own research which includes reading what other people have written in books, articles, research papers and even including forum posts.
Click to expand...

Paul,

I already apologized for to Joe for getting my sources crossed, so please consider that applicable to yourself also. I sometimes lose control when I think I have Joe by the short hairs. ;D

Joe,

I consider myself more than qualified to evaluate the opinions of the "Exports" expressed in the Arizona Highways article. I would go so far as to say that any High School graduate, would also be qualified to do the same thing, based on pure logic and level of expertise displayed in their opinions. "Time restrictions and limited testing that could be done" being no excuse for doing a sloppy job. This appears to be an excuse that was formed long after the evaluations were completed, signed and published for all to see. Obviously, a second look at their conclusions, resulted in the need for some "wiggle room" to be created.

I have no doubt that if the stones could be confirmed as modern creations, the SMHS would make that information known, and simply promote them as one of the greatest scams in the history of Legends of the Superstitions. Which could be just as big of a draw, if not bigger, than they are now, in their unknown and questionable status.

Unfortunately, although the chemical test being considered, presents the possibility of proving the maps to be 100 or years old, or more, at the time Tumlinson found them. The only other conclusion that could be reached by this chemical test, would be inconclusive, due to lack of material to be tested, or the possibility of material introduced by man since they were found. I see no way for this test to prove they are modern creations, so don't get your hopes too high. Worst case is that we would learn nothing from the testing.

The sooner you quit publicly making excuses for the "Expert" opinions in the Arizona Highways article. The sooner I will be able to quit publicly pointing out the flaws in them... Something I would thing those "Experts" would appreciate very much.

Best,

Jim
 

One thing that DOES interest me is that look at the picture of the witch/priest. See how evident the "8" is? Much more so than it is now.

Why?


Mike
 

Paul,

I looked at that photo you provided the link to and it sure looks like it should be in the Life magazine article alright. But another check of all my copies of that article and I still do not find it in there. I cannot tell if I have all the pages or not because not all of the pages are numbered.

I bought all of my copies of the magazine from the same eBay seller, so it is possible that there are pages missing, but the same page in every copy?

Unless... There was an advertisement on the back of the same page that they wanted to sell separate from the magazines. (Some advertisements bring big bucks on eBay)

In that case... (To quote a friend of mine) I wouldn't know whether to feel STUPID or CHEATED! ???

Jim
 

Jim,

"The sooner you quit publicly making excuses for the "Expert" opinions in the Arizona Highways article. The sooner I will be able to quit publicly pointing out the flaws in them... Something I would thing those "Experts" would appreciate very much."

If you feel that pointing out the facts is "making excuses" that's fine with me. On the other hand, if you think they have ever read a single one of your posts........... :dontknow: No doubt you do feel more qualified than those folks who have been trained and make a living doing this kind of thing. For now, I will accept their findings until you, or someone else, comes along with convincing evidence otherwise.

"I sometimes lose control when I think I have Joe by the short hairs."

For our patients, I usually recommend "Depends" for those kinds of personal problems. :wink:

As for your thinking you have ever had me "by the short hairs", I place that in the same catagory as your knowing more than the professional archaeologist. :laughing7:

On that note, I am glad to see you posting over here, and hope you don't decide to get mad and go away again. Your experience in the Superstition Mountains is invaluable to many who participate in these forums.

Everyone deserves to know who Jim Hatt is, and this is one of the ways they can find out.

As I have said before, we can have a civil conversation any time you want. When it stays that way, I enjoy the debate. As long as you don't make personal observations about me an issue, we will be fine. Let's just stick to the topics.

Take care,

Joe
 

Jim and Mike - I wonder if that photo that I posted was one of those "supposed to go in the magazine" photos that never made it in there? One of the copies I've seen has "LIFE" in the corner - I don't think it's a made up photo or anything.
 

Jim,

"Unfortunately, although the chemical test being considered, presents the possibility of proving the maps to be 100 or years old, or more, at the time Tumlinson found them. The only other conclusion that could be reached by this chemical test, would be inconclusive, due to lack of material to be tested, or the possibility of material introduced by man since they were found. I see no way for this test to prove they are modern creations, so don't get your hopes too high. Worst case is that we would learn nothing from the testing."

I am, of course, more than a little interested in this "chemical" tests that will be able to prove that the maps are "100 years old, or more, at the time Tumlinson found them." I assume, since that is the way you have worded the post, that you are talking about the maps that are engraved into the stone, and not the stones themselves.

If you can provide a source for the information about that kind of test, I and I'm sure others, would be grateful. I don't know if you know this or not, but I am a great fan of archaeology and have "self studied" the topic for many years. In those years, I have gone directly to many very well known archaeologist for my information.

Don't get me wrong here, I am a rank, rank novice.......not even an amateur, jut someone who is a big fan of the science. I have looked into the dating of artifacts many times, as well as dating the pictographs scratched into rocks by using the surrounding lichen. Having read the works of some of the foremost.......experts at ASU on the subject I am at least minimally familiar with that subject.

I would love to see the information you have, if you care to share it.

Take care,

Joe
 

Joe,

There is a characteristic of the stones that has not been mentioned anywhere that I have (NOT) seen until a few days ago when Jim noticed it. It is that characteristic that will be tested (soon hopefully). I will leave it to Jim if he wants to be more specific since it was his discovery.


Best-Mike
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Some more info on the LDM

⬅️ Previous Thread

Another LDM Story

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top