Tumlinson Profile

[EE THr]

That Travis said the Heart was "yellowish" is one thing, but he also said it was made from a "slate-type" rock---

ref: Are the Peralta Stone Maps a Hoax?.

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



The red Heart does fit the "slate-type rock" description, in that it seems to be layered---




But I haven't seen any "slate-type" quartzite examples. And it was correct that the Mineralogy Museum Director said it appeared to be quartzite---

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




So, now we have that it's either of these two---

Chalcedony (KAL-suh-doe-nee)


or

Quartzite




Personally, I would describe the photo of the Heart, above, as "a reddish brown, slate-type rock."

I don't think that Travis's description, or the others in the McGee's story, describe the Heart in the photo. But I don't really have any interest in actually arguing that point. I just posted all this for anyone interested to consider, and form their own opinions.



On last discrepancy in the "McGee yellowish rock" heart, is that they never mention the breaks in it. I think that every other drawing and/or written description I've ever seen, always shows or lists the break lines as part of it. The breaks are quite an oddity, and to many treasure hunters are especially significant on any heart shape. Why no mention of breaks at all, from either the McGees or any of the persons they quoted in the story, concerning the heart? That alone seems very strange.

Well, I think I'm done with pointing out what I noticed in the McGee article, finally! (So anyone who was getting bored can rest at ease now.) Anyone who finds it interesting, can take it for what they feel it might be worth, if anything.

It was all very therapeutic for me, anyway.

 

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]

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.

Yeah, it was from the McGee's article that I linked to in a previous post.

Here is it again: Are the Peralta Stone Maps a Hoax?, From page 47, center column, fourth complete paragraph.

 

[somehiker]

EE:
You need to go back to page 11 for the beginning of that particular version of events.
Bernice McGee is relating the story told to her by a couple she identifies as friends of the Tumlinsons during a time frame prior to Travis T's death.
She does not identify the couple by their true names,calling them the "Hansons" to protect their anonymity.
Travis Tumlinson had passed away about two years prior to the McGee's first arriving on the scene in 1963.

Regards:SH.

For a look at what red slate looks like go here....http://www.slate-crafts.com/introduce_h.html

 

[EE THr]

Here are all four excerpts about the Heart Stone, from the McGee's article. I may be easier to check them out if they are referenced all on one post---

ref: Are the Peralta Stone Maps a Hoax?.


From page 7, bottom of middle column---



From page 9, caption to the Stone Maps drawings---



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



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

 

[EE THr]

EE:
You need to go back to page 11 for the beginning of that particular version of events.
Bernice McGee is relating the story told to her by a couple she identifies as friends of the Tumlinsons during a time frame prior to Travis T's death.
She does not identify the couple by their true names,calling them the "Hansons" to protect their anonymity.
Travis Tumlinson had passed away about two years prior to the McGee's first arriving on the scene in 1963.

Regards:SH.

For a look at what red slate looks like go here....http://www.slate-crafts.com/introduce_h.html

You're right. that's what I get for jumping around within the story, trying to find the excerpts. I remembered reading that, then skipped around trying to find it again. Thanks for correcting me. Sometimes it takes teamwork.

Those pictures of slate look more like Joe's photo of the Heart, than either the chalcedony or the quartzite.


P.S. Now I'm wondering what "yellowish" slate looks like!

 

[cactusjumper]

Wayne,

Your link to red slate, does not hint at the variations in the rock's coloration. A yellow tinge is not at all unusual, and depending on the makeup of the slate, can be quite pronounced. Regardless of the degree of yellow in the rock, it is still "red slate".....as far as I know.

Since it is an established fact that I don't know $#!t about rocks, I fully expect to be corrected.

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Somehiker wrote

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?

I fail to see any remarkable difference between the use of the term "cloth duplicate" and "cloth replica". If you can show how these terms are very different, please do explain? In the meantime, cloth duplicate holds no special difference to saying cloth replica in my view. But that is just in my mind, perhaps yours works far differently? Would you prefer that the cloth version be called something different?
Roy

 

[somehiker]

Wayne,

Your link to red slate, does not hint at the variations in the rock's coloration. A yellow tinge is not at all unusual, and depending on the makeup of the slate, can be quite pronounced. Regardless of the degree of yellow in the rock, it is still "red slate".....as far as I know.

Since it is an established fact that I don't know $#!t about rocks, I fully expect to be corrected.

Joe

Joe:
Not by me in this case.I can see the yellowish tinge in your photos as well as my own and others I have seen.
As I recall,it was visible as well on the Heart Stone at the SMM under flourescent lighting,when I was last there a year and a half ago...and on the sample I collected at the slate outcropping in the mountains a couple of days later.Personally,for a couple of reasons,I have little doubt that the heart in your photos and the one I saw at the SMM are the original stone,that being one of the reasons.Same goes for the H/P stone.It's the Trail Stones which give me pause,and that mainly due to the extra hole apparent on the lower stone in the "bumper photo" which was discussed previously.A hole exists,in that location in the field on the trail which I have been working.Therefore,IMO...it could be of some importance.
I can also see where EE's confusion originates within the article and due to evidence I mentioned previously in this discussion,suspect that the McGee's were describing a set of copies held by Mitchell,perhaps misrepresented by Mitchell as original.Those copies may have included a heart more yellow than red.
Even all yellow,like the heart copy shown in my post on the previous page.

Regards:
Wayne

 

[somehiker]

Roy:
My own understanding of what was described is based on what was written in the letter.
Where do you see the words "cloth duplicate" or "cloth replica" ?
Or even "cloth map" for that matter.
I myself, can only find these words in your posts.

Regards:
Wayne

 

[EE THr]

SH---

I can see where the sentence, in the letter you posted, could mean that there was a physical (stone or stone-like) replica, sitting on a white cloth....

Is that what you mean?

 

[somehiker]

SH---

I can see where the sentence, in the letter you posted, could mean that there was a physical (stone or stone-like) replica, sitting on a white cloth....

Is that what you mean?

Absolutely..............http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replica

I may have a very good....even perfect photo of Superstition Mountain in my computer's memory files.
But I doubt a "perfect replica" would fit.It just ain't big enough.

Another example of what are considered replicas.
http://www.virtualkhan.com/statuesandmuseumreplicas.aspx

Regards:SH.

 

[EE THr]

Wayne,

Your link to red slate, does not hint at the variations in the rock's coloration. A yellow tinge is not at all unusual, and depending on the makeup of the slate, can be quite pronounced. Regardless of the degree of yellow in the rock, it is still "red slate".....as far as I know.

Since it is an established fact that I don't know $#!t about rocks, I fully expect to be corrected.

Joe

It is my understanding that most slate is gray. Although in the link I posted, they had lots of yellow slate---and one of them looked tan or reddish tan, but it turns out that it comes from Argentina. Of course that doesn't mean that there isn't some around Arizona.

If you ask anyone who deals with colors, like an interior designer, or clothing designer, what color "slate" is, I believe they will say "gray." As in the color "slate gray." Or sometimes they just say "slate."

Unless someone thought that all slate was red, then "yellowish slate" would be yellow-gray.

If it was yellowish red slate, and the only kind of slate that he person describing it had ever seen or known of was the red variety, then "yellowish slate-type rock" would indicate red slate with your "yellow tinge." But the other excerpt just says "yellowish rock." Period. So it sounds to me like what they meant was that the Heart was made out of---yellowish rock.

Whether or not the Yellowish Heart Stone, with different markings, and no breaks, ever really existed, it sure seems to be the one being described in the McGees article. If it was a hoax, or if it was a diversion, or if it was actually the "original," is another matter all together....

 

[EE THr]

It's the Trail Stones which give me pause,and that mainly due to the extra hole apparent on the lower stone in the "bumper photo" which was discussed previously.

And then there is the Director of the Mineralogy Museum, saying that all of the other (three) stones were gray.

 

[somehiker]

EE:
This is a sample of such slate from within the Sups.

Some of the outcropping can be seen in the background.

Regards:SH.

 

[somehiker]

It's the Trail Stones which give me pause,and that mainly due to the extra hole apparent on the lower stone in the "bumper photo" which was discussed previously.

And then there is the Director of the Mineralogy Museum, saying that all of the other (three) stones were gray.

The stones examined by the people from Desert Archaeology,on which their opinions were based,are pictured in the article.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gcundiff/LostDutchman/peralta/Arizona Highways.pdf

Do they all look grey?

How many are the same colour as the ones at the SMM ?

Regards:Wayne

 

[coazon de oro]

I've never seen so much debate as the color of the heart stone has created, so here's my two cent's worth:

I do believe that "yellowish" best describes the true color of the heart stone since the etchings seem to bring that out. If one were to grind the surface down you would have more of a yellowish heart.

Homar

 

[somehiker]

I've never seen so much debate as the color of the heart stone has created, so here's my two cent's worth:

I do believe that "yellowish" best describes the true color of the heart stone since the etchings seem to bring that out. If one were to grind the surface down you would have more of a yellowish heart.

Homar

It would be pretty boring around here with no debate.
Debates make ya think,rather than just memorize.
Might be able to agree on that....if nothing else.

Regards:SH.

 

[Oroblanco]

Somehiker wrote

Roy:
My own understanding of what was described is based on what was written in the letter.
Where do you see the words "cloth duplicate" or "cloth replica" ?
Or even "cloth map" for that matter.
I myself, can only find these words in your posts.

Regards:

Perhaps it might help you to re-read those words in that letter again; and take note that the writer made it a point to describe the cloth - hardly necessary for describing a set of stone replicas or duplicates. What matter how big the cloth is, if it is referring to stones on top of them? Simple logic and deduction, but perhaps you have it right - though I doubt it very highly in this instance. Based on what I see, it is referring to a cloth duplicate of the stone maps a "perfect replica" on a cloth the size of a pillowcase. Otherwise it is non-sensical to refer to the color and size of the cloth.



Roy

 

[somehiker]

Roy:
The size of a cloth on which a set of replicas,made from stone had been placed for a photograph,would matter to someone trying to visualize the size of the replicas in the photo.Especially for someone who had questions regarding the dimensions of the original stones,or had claimed the stones as being "so heavy they would give two pack mules the heaves"...as McGee claimed in her article.

Regards:
Wayne

 

[Hal Croves]

That is a difficult one. It could be understood either way. The fact that the letter calls attention to a photograph with a wooden background tends to make one think that the white cloth is also just a background material with a perfect replica displayed on it. One or two key words would have cleared up any questions. If it were a "perfect" copy (replica) on a cloth map then it should have been a rubbing, like those done on tombstones; most of which are done with paper. And tracing the lines onto a cloth laid on top of the stones would not have resulted in a "perfect" copy. There would have been some stretching and distortion in the final image.

Also, think about the sentence.. ", and Jack also showed us a perfect replica of map(s) on (a) white cloth about the size of (a) pillow case," Is the cloth the size of a pillow case (impossible to show perfect map(s) on one pillow case sized cloth) or were the replicas the size of a pillow cloth, displayed on a white cloth. I am leaning towards this interpretation.

Just the fact that replicas were already being displayed in Travis's time is something to think about. Today the process is not that difficult, but in Travis's time a perfect replica would have required someone with a level of skill. Was that Travis?

cactusjumper,
Yes, the photograph that you posted of the stones on the bumper makes the stones appear older and weathered. How much of that is the quality of the photograph and the lighting? Was the image (photograph) described above (on a wooden wall) ever found?

somehiker,
"PS: I know that you are searching for evidence of Masonic involvement in the Stone Maps,but have you considered the possibility of a group of corrupt officials and officers within the Spanish Government and Military (during the Spanish Colonial Period) being responsible for the maps as well as any treasure they may lead to?"

It all depends on when the stones were carved. I am 100% convinced that they were made using an aerial photograph.. which logically puts the date sometime after 1930. But if the stones were to be tested (this is now possible) and dated to an older period, well history will need to be rethought. As many of you know in a previous thread I provided some evidence of balloon flights during the time of Santa Anna's rule and experiments in ballooning by the order of Jesuits. But technically obtaining a high altitude image in the 1840's would have been a challenge.. I will admit.

I believe a map was found in a mission but not the stones. That map (or maps) or a copy of the stolen map(s) would have been used to make the stone charts. It makes my head spin at times because so much points to Travis carving the stones, yet if he used an aerial photograph as his visual guide, then he absolutely knew where everything was. Why then was no treasure ever found? So, if this is not a hoax, and if Travis did carve the stones, then I am left believing that someone else took information from a master map (the one found in a mission) and used it in combination with an aerial photograph to create the images and symbols that Travis then transferred onto stone. I am convinced of a Masonic connection, and Travis's family in the past were Texas rangers (a masonic organization). His Grandfather was a treasure hunter and perhaps even his father. So it is not a stretch to imagine that they were involved.

But there is another group that we should be considering. I am not quite ready to share that information.