Tumlinson Profile

[EE THr]

I found some more stuff on the "third" Heart Stone.

These additional excerpts are from the same story referenced in my previous post.

From page 7, bottom of middle column---


and

From page 12, left column, second complete paragraph---


and

From page 47, center column, fourth complete paragraph---




Here are some samples I found of Yellow Quartzite and "Yellowish" Quartzite.

"Yellow" Quartzite



"Yellowish" Quartzite




These were found by Googling "yellowish quartzite."

That makes a total of three references, in this article, to the "yellowish" Heart Stone.

The the fourth excerpted statement, about the Heart Stone being made of Quartzite, was made by the Director of the Arizona Mineral Museum, where the Stones were being kept.


The "current" Heart Stone, as seen in photos and at the museum, not only doesn't look at all like the drawing in the McGee's article, but neither does it resemble "Yellowish Quartzite"!

Has someone been playing "switcharoo"?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Oh noes!

I found a contradiction already! On the first excerpt in my previous post, I cut off the remaining text, because I thought it was referring to the upper Trail Map, when I saw the word "red." But here is what it actually says---

From page 7, bottom of middle column---



But this is contradicting itself! How can it be both yellowish and red? And to further confuse things, the museum director says it's not chalcedony! What's going on?

All I know is that the currently supposed Heart Stone looks redder than the Trail Maps, so I can't imagine why anyone would call it "yellowish."

Also, the middle excerpt of my previous post says that the other Stones were "gray" sandstone. The Horse/Priest Stone looks gray, but the trail maps on display don't. Why would they display the original of the one, but show reproductions of the Trail Maps?

 

[cactusjumper]

Here it is:

Joe

 

[somehiker]

EE:
It has previously been much discussed,just how many copies/replicas of the original Stone Maps have been made,including a set of "perfect replicas" photographed and possibly made by Tumlinson himself.Some are part scale and some are of differing colours evidently.Some may be of plaster or concrete or even non-authentic types of rock.Both museums,the Mineral Museum and the SMM have sets of replicas as well.Some of these replicas may have been made using power tools and a device called a duplicator,others from moulds taken from the originals or even from copies.There is evidence within the documents on Garry's site,that Clarence Mitchell kept the original stones locked in a vault in another state after the Life article,yet he had shown a set to the McGees during this same time frame.Other material suggests that Mitchell had a set of duplicates made,with a partner retaining two copies and two originals,and Mitchell keeping two copied stones and two originals as well.The author of the article which you quote based their analysis on a set of self-made drawings from memory and other sources.In that sense,the author was critiquing a hoax of her own making.For those who search,based on their faith in possibilities,details such as these may have some bearing on their ideas and areas of interest.
For those who only believe in the sure thing,and that the originals were fake,it probably makes no difference.
Here is one photo from ...http://home1.gte.net/ltdan/stones.htm...
In this case all of the stones are of a different colour.


Regards:SH.

 

[EE THr]

SH---

Someone else brought up the same point, that the article said they drew the maps from memory. And I remembered something about that also. But I went back and reread it, and the only mention of anything close to that, in the article, is this---

From page 7, caption under drawing of Priest Map---



So, seeing as it only applies to some apparently small part of the Priest Stone, and also seeing as all of the other lines and marks on the rest of their drawings of the Stones seems to be nearly exact, I would say that memory is not the reason for the huge differences in their Heart Stone drawing.

And I still can't imagine anyone describing the Heart (that we all know as the supposed real deal) as "yellowish rock." And the yellowish thing is not just a typo, as it appears in three different places in their story....

 

[EE THr]

Here it is:

Joe

Thanks, Joe.

If someone were to ask me for one word describing the color of that Heart, it wouldn't be "yellowish"!

And, what looks like "layering" when seen from the edge of that Heart, doesn't look like the examples of rough quartzite I've seen on the Web, either.

ref: Wiki Quartzite photos.

But then, I don't know even as much as you do about rocks! 8)

 

[somehiker]

SH---

Someone else brought up the same point, that the article said they drew the maps from memory. And I remembered something about that also. But I went back and reread it, and the only mention of anything close to that, in the article, is this---





So, seeing as it only applies to some apparently small part of the Priest Stone, and also seeing as all of the other lines and marks on the rest of their drawings of the Stones seems to be nearly exact, I would say that memory is not the reason for the huge differences in their Heart Stone drawing.

And I still can't imagine anyone describing the Heart (that we all know as the supposed real deal) as "yellowish rock." And the yellowish thing is not just a typo, as it appears in three different places in their story....

Which would mean...unless a photo of a stone heart can be found,which matches the McGee drawing exactly,that the heart which the McGees viewed was unique,both in colour and markings.

Regards:SH.

 

[EE THr]

SH---

Yeah. It's not that it might be just a copy or duplicate, but it's that---


This --> is not the same animal as this -->



And the different description of the stone color and material doesn't help matters, either!

 

[cactusjumper]

EE,

I would describe our photo of the heart as having a yellowish tinge.

Since around 7% of American men (around 10-million) are color blind, I would think that should be a consideration in this conversation.

Joe

 

[Furness]

Hi EE

don't worry to much about exact colouration of the heart, geologists quite often refer to what the majority of a stone resembles for that particular type of stone, and refer to its makeup or crystalline structure,

but it can vary greatly from the normal colour used to describe it, the same stone from different parts of the country can vary from almost white to deep orange but still be known as yellow quartzite because of its structure, the banding occurs when the stone is laid down the orange mostly due to iron oxide,

this quite often happens when various natural chemicals effect the stone during the period it was formed IE tertiary Devonian etc, especially if it is formed where iron oxides exist giving a more reddish colouration,

depending on the amount of oxides in that area this also effects the surface over time due to the minute oxides of iron combining with oxygen in the air, whilst that inside the stone is protected from the oxygen and retains its more normal colour which is only seen when it is cut, also handling it because of sweat can cause a surface discolouration,

but look at the carved lines they are a lighter colour, much lighter nearer a deep yellow,
which perhaps gives an indication of how long ago the carving was done if of course the surface is natural and hasn't been treated or painted with anything,?

John

 

[Hal Croves]

It seems that the drawing you posted was done without a guide and perhaps relying on memory. Try drawing the heart stone using just your memory. We tend to fill it the things that appear to be less important through interpretation, while key features (the ones that are burned into memory) appear more accurate (but even these end up in a less than perfect location). If you want to understand how this applies to the artist, just read up on the BAUHAUS school. One method in their figure drawing class was to put the subject on the top floor of the school and the artists with their sketch pads on the first floor. The students were required to run up several flights of stairs, study the figure, then run down again to draw the details. It would go on for hours and resulted in an improved visual memory... or stroke. Notice how some of the rounded lines are replace in the drawing with sharp, mountain like peaks? A perfect example of the artist replacing facts with their own perception.

The human mind (memory) is at times deceptive and almost always inaccurate. Then factor in age and or vices and well, "forget about it!"

Something that has always bothered me was the fact that the Heart insert looked much older than the two trail stones.

 

[cactusjumper]

Hal,

"Something that has always bothered me was the fact that the Heart insert looked much older than the two trail stones."

Does this look any better/older?

Joe

 

[EE THr]

Joe---

First of all, I hope you don't mind my using your images of the Stones in my posts. I assumed it would be OK, and I don't think I always credited you in every post, over the months, so I want to fully credit you now for taking the pictures at the museum, and I feel I should make it clear that they are yours, and I hope it's permissible to use them my posts as much I have.

Also thanks for posting the "bumper pictures." That Heart looks much darker than the Trail Stones.


For a description of the color of the Heart Stone in your museum photos, if asked, I would say "reddish" with a yellow tinge. I've always thought of them as more red than even brown, and certainly not "tan," as the Trail Maps appear to me.

Color blindness has different types, also, involving different colors. While it could account for one person's description of the color of a stone, the McGee article was written by both of them, so they would both have had to have, not only color blindness, but the same type of it. While that's not impossible, what are the odds?

Also they would both have to be unaware of their eye conditions, because if they knew about it, they would certainly check with someone else on the color of the Heart Stone they observed, before putting their description in a publication. While I have heard of some people not realizing they are color blind, at least early in life, I think it's a stretch that neither of them would be aware of it. I'm sure that if one of them knew about being color blind, it would come up in conversation sooner or later, and the other would become aware of their colors being off, also.

So, I think, altogether, the odds are heavily against it being a case of color blindness.



furness--

I do realize that geologists refer to some stone colors by their known references, rather than to the color directly observed on a particular specimen of that stone type. That shows in some of the reference photos I included.

But the McGees apparently weren't geologists, because all their references to color say "yellowish rock."

But in one of their three references to "yellowish...," in their very next sentence they add that it was "Reportedly cut from a slab of red chalcedony." This could be the very same type of geologists identification to which you referred. In other words, it seems to have been a yellow piece of red chalcedony. If there is such a thing.

Curiously, if the Heart which they saw was, indeed, yellowish in color, it would need to go through the oxidation effects that you mentioned, sometime between then and when Joe took the photos of it that have been posted above. That's quite a bit of change for that time period. And if the surface color did go through a change, then why didn't the surface inside the markings change as well? The carved portions of the surface would have been exposed to air for the same amount of time.

I know that turquoise in jewelry gets darker from being handled, from skin oils---but the museum photographed Heart is reddish all over, and that would mean a lot of handling, from which I would expect most of the color change to be around the edges, and hardly any in the center area.

For all of those reasons, it doesn't seem that it's the same Heart Stone.



Hal---

The problem I see with the "memory" idea, is that they specifically note about memory in the caption under the Priest Stone, even though it's a small part of their drawing, as they also mention a few other sources which were diagrammatic (which they could directly copy from). If they bothered to mention memory when it was only a small part of the composition of the Priest Stone, then surely the would so state it for the Heart if it was entirely from memory.

The fact that they tell the color of the Heart Stone, three separate times, indicates that they were looking at it, and drew it accurately. And their drawing is not just slightly different than the museum Heart, but rather it's a lot different!

This again is saying that the Heart they depicted is a different Stone than what is seen in the museum and all the replicas.



=====



Another glaring contradiction in the McGee's article, is that they say it was made from a yellowish piece of "reportedly" red chalcedony; while the Director of the Mineralogy Museum made special note that it appeared to be quartzite, and definitely "not chalcedony."

The only thing I can get from that is maybe the McGee's had received information that the Heart was red chalcedony, but what they observed was yellowish rock, so they emphasized this by specifically using the term "reportedly" when telling about it. It seems like they wondered, too, why the Heart they saw was "yellowish." Maybe they suspected some funny business, because of the seemingly different colors, but didn't want to make waves with people who they relied upon for information, so only hinted that something seemed odd about it. That does make sense, actually.

There is also the additional discrepancy that the Mineralogy Museum Director states the color of all of the "other three" Stones to be gray.

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THer, I think you are making too much of the use of terms to describe color of the rock. People have their own interpretation of how a color term should apply to any particular color; hence a rock that you or I might call one color, another person might call quite another which seems quite wrong. For instance, it was once common to refer to black women as "yellow roses" though hardly of a yellow tint.

As to the Heart stone, I too would call it "yellowish". Also the colors of the stone may have darkened or lightened as John pointed out, through exposure to light, oxidation of the minerals in the stone, dampening or drying, or by handling. The color issue is not one that we should attach a great deal of importance to.

The drawing is just that - a drawing - not a photo, for all we know, the drawing may well have been made deliberately wrong and not ever intended to be a true and correct copy of the stone heart. Until a photo of a different stone, perhaps more closely matching that drawing should turn up, it is very much speculation to say that a second heart stone must exist that is so radically different from the one known to exist.

Just a personal opinion, I could be 100% wrong but until that second stone turns up, I have to dismiss the drawing as simply erroneous. The fact that a color of the stone was mentioned does not prove that the artist was viewing the stone, may have been using the term as received elsewhere (written or verbal) so we are building a case on a series of suppositions which is never a practical way to proceed. The evidence we do have indicates only the known heart stone. If anyone has photos of this theoretical second version, now would be a great time to post them.

Oroblanco

 

[EE THr]

Oro---

I agree that the existence of another Heart Stone is pure speculation.

But I stated my reasoning in suspecting that the Heart which the McGees wrote about, in my previous post, which addresses the issues you mentioned. Maybe you were writing your post while I posted mine, and didn't get a chance to read it.

And I also thought that maybe the McGees altered the markings when making their drawing. It would be understandable if information was furnished to them for their article, under the condition that the Heart depiction be altered, so as not to reveal the actual Map.

But the oddities of the color, combined with the comments by the Director of the Mineralogy Museum, do stand out as interesting, at the least.

I also find it interesting that their Heart drawing does not include that confounding "Needle," which has never been satisfactorily (in my opinion) explained; and also seems to match the one shown on the "unknown" copy of Julia's map. That needle tends to discredit the "red" Heart Stone. Plus the "broken heart" aspect of the red Heart, doesn't bode well for it, either.

Not that I am changing my mind about the authenticity of the entire Stone Maps phenomenon, or have an intense interest in their "accuracy," but rather I'm just pointing out what adds up to be several things which could indicate the existence of another Heart. Any one of the said discrepancies, alone, might not be significant. But when all are combined, the odds start to go pretty high, you know what I mean?

Since solid proof of anything concerning the Stone Maps, is very rare, then the use of odds, are about the only thing left to put together a mystery which, so far, is far from solved.

The only other option is to just give up, and say, "Nobody will ever know." And I know from your posts to me last year or so, that you are not the type of person to do that, right?

 

[EE THr]

Well, here is another goof of mine. I said that the "other three" Stones were described by the museum director as "gray sandstone." Wrong.

I went back to my previous posts, and inserted the locations from where each excerpt from the McGee's article came from, by page, column, and paragraph. And in doing so, I discovered that I transposed that description from another excerpt, and said it was the director's quote.

It turns out that it was actually Travis, describing to the McGees, how he found the Stones, who said the other Stones were "gray" sandstone. That makes more sense, timeline-wise.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Oroblanco]

EE THer wrote

The only other option is to just give up, and say, "Nobody will ever know." And I know from your posts to me last year or so, that you are not the type of person to do that, right?

Thank you for the compliment, I believe you have the same sort of tenacity to get at the truth of a matter; most treasure hunters have a streak of it to one degree or another IMHO. While I have not done as much research into the stone maps as some have, I have read a fair bit and you have characterized the situation very astutely; we have very little solid information. What we also have are many hands involved and many questions which can not be answered. My main concern is that our speculations are read by many others and frequently converted into "facts" which then take on a life of their own, as with the cloth duplicate which could very easily become a pillowcase by a casual use of the descriptive terms. I misunderstood your previous post as suggesting something quite different, now understand that we are not actually in disagreement.

I don't want to discourage you from investigating further, if a heart stone can be found that matches the drawing, it would certainly add much to the discussion - good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.

Please do continue, did not mean to interrupt the discussion.
Oroblanco



PS - I see that we were again attempting to post at the same time, and no apologies needed for any confusion, that is the normal state of affairs for some of us!

 

[somehiker]

The appearance of the article in question also appears to have been a watershed event in the relationship between the Mitchell's and the Mc Gee's.
A friendship which began shortly after the Life Magazine was published and resulted in the two couples spending a fair amount of time together,both in and out of the mountains.
Obviously,the controversy and publicity surrounding the SEC charges did lead to considerable strain upon this friendship,and perhaps that alone was mostly responsible.With many of Mitchell's claims to having solved portions of the maps with doubtful evidence a factor as well.
I wonder though,about the fact that the McGee's did not have photographs of the stones which they could use for the article,instead having to publish only sketches.There is nothing mentioned in any of the Mitchell/McGee correspondence to the effect that Mitchell did or did not allow them to take or even gave them a set of photos.....especially for their article.Unfortunately we do not have McGee-Mitchell letters in order to see the other side of the story.Nor do we have photographs of what Mitchell may have shown them, to compare.

Regards:SH.

 

[somehiker]

EE:

"It turns out that it was actually Travis, describing to the McGees, how he found the Stones, who said the other Stones were "gray" sandstone. That makes more sense, timeline-wise."

Do you have a link to the text of this "conversation" ?

Thanks in advance:SH.

 

[somehiker]

Roy:
I'm still not sure how "a perfect replica" of the maps "on" a white cloth...became a "cloth duplicate" in your mind.
Can you explain this to me again?

From:http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gcundiff/LostDutchman/Dutchman.htm

"Jack" is of course the name used by Mitchell,when referring to Travis Tumlinson.


Thanks and take care:
Wayne