Video 6 - On Tumlinsons Trail : The Peralta Stone Maps

[RG1976]

well after all this great investigation , im still at a loss as to why
whoever did the museum stones, needed to add or subtract info
from the bumper stones onto the museum stones

i think of it like a great novel

Revision 1. Revision 2 Revision 3

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Matthew Roberts]

Matthew,

I completely understand that they were private property purchased by an individual. However, as part of evidence as they were in "Discovery" prior to the trial, there is a document filed by FLAGG stating that they could not verify the authenticity of the stones.

DiggerGal,

The Stone Maps were never a part of discovery or any part of the SEC case against MOEL. Maybe the Flagg foundation did something on their own but they did not own the Stone Maps at any time during the MOEL SEC period. I believe Lee Hammons saying the SM's couldn't be verified came about 5-6 years later.

Matthew

 

[cw0909]

If there ARE any stones in a "back room", which will be copies as well, they are the stones that the museum had on display prior to the acquisition of the "permanent loan" set from the AMMM in 2009. These were the stones that AMMM kept in a "back room" and charged people extra to examine under supervision. Does anyone know what happened to the "display" copies from the AMMM ?

LOL SH, the next thing you know we will have, threads on how many copies?
we could start with the bluebird set, and i forget where someone mention
another set , i think they said somewhere in az too, and a set in cailf.
though it might be interesting to see the difs, if any, in each set

 

[DiggerGal]

DiggerGal,

The Stone Maps were never a part of discovery or any part of the SEC case against MOEL. Maybe the Flagg foundation did something on their own but they did not own the Stone Maps at any time during the MOEL SEC period. I believe Lee Hammons saying the SM's couldn't be verified came about 5-6 years later.

Matthew

Matthew,

Something's just are not worth arguing. The case in Its entirety is a matter of public record and you may read it at your leisure. The filing, discovery, documents, and the actual hearing (which you are correct, the stones were not a part of the Hearing as they were removed once discovered that they were not an asset of MOEL).

 

[RG1976]

LOL SH, the next thing you know we will have, threads on how many copies?
we could start with the bluebird set, and i forget where someone mention
another set , i think they said somewhere in az too, and a set in cailf.
though it might be interesting to see the difs, if any, in each set

This should help a bit.

 

[UncleMatt]

Hal, i did not belittle anyone. That is not my modus operandi.

 

[somehiker]

Large antlered deer are copied and taken on tours. King Tuts goodies methinks too..
Probably not a few paintings.
Liability of loss may be one reason.
Historic value of originals another. Risk of theft or damage.. Fragility, human oils on objects allowed to be touched.
Sometimes reproductions for display have sound reasons.
What ever the museum wants to do I guess. Not my place to run.
Sounds like hospitable host's there though no matter what's really on display, though it's understood the originals hold greater weight with those seeking their credibility..
I enjoyed the museum peek here online.

Sure do, and I toured such a road show just a few weeks ago.
Got lucky, because I waited until the last afternoon (Sunday) and was able to get a guided tour by the Egyptian born museum curator.
The quality of both the genuine (few) and the replicas (many) was excellent, but with to much gold paint instead of gold leaf.
One thing quite noticeable though, not included in Egyptian collections I've seen previously in larger museums and likely due to political (correctness) pressure, was a mixture of post Pharaonic Islamic art and artifacts which was scattered throughout the displays.

 

[RG1976]

Hal, i did not belittle anyone. That is not my modus operandi.

Don't bother with this conversation. It just leads to thread derailment and the moderators having to come in and issue warnings. I'd really prefer to keep this thread "moderator free".

When people act silly - just add them to ignore.

 

[DiggerGal]

Why is the outside area of the vehicle in the photo of the bumper stones blacked out?

 

[azdave35]

Don't bother with this conversation. It just leads to thread derailment and the moderators having to come in and issue warnings. I'd really prefer to keep this thread "moderator free".

When people act silly - just add them to ignore.

i think we'd all be wise to ignore hal.....he seems to take joy in derailing threads

 

[somehiker]

This should help a bit.

Perfect !
Thanks Ryan and Greg....bit by bit we track down first person truths.
Read and saved.

 

[RG1976]

Why is the outside area of the vehicle in the photo of the bumper stones blacked out?

To hide something. But why would you hide something - if you aren't doing anything that needs to be hidden?

Perhaps there was something in the background that would throw off the dates - thats my guess.

 

[DiggerGal]

To hide something. But why would you hide something - if you aren't doing anything that needs to be hidden?

Perhaps there was something in the background that would throw off the dates - thats my guess.

I completely agree. I think there was a landmark or something very recognizable that needed to be hidden. Perhaps if it were in view it would not be the Legend it is today.....

 

[somehiker]

Why is the outside area of the vehicle in the photo of the bumper stones blacked out?

Because there was something there that the photographer and first owner of that print didn't want others to recognize.
If he wanted to show it to locals for instance, to ask if they had heard of anything similar being found in that part of Arizona.

Then again, maybe it was someone holding a newspaper from 1939......
Cause that car is definitely a 1939 Olds, and I guarantee IT'S a copy.

 

[RG1976]

Perfect !
Thanks Ryan and Greg....bit by bit we track down first person truths.
Read and saved.

Sure thing. I still have lots of documents that I didn't add in the video, due to it being quite long.

Here is another. Unsure if these 2 photos have been all over the net or not.

Edit - I may be mistaken on this - but I believe this was one of the showings by the Flagg Foundation

Also added is the donation receipt between Moel and Flagg

 

[cactusjumper]

I have heard there are many copies of the Stone Maps out there. The two that I have seen, outside the museum, belong to Ron Feldman (OK Corral) and Bradley Cooper (Lazarus). At one time, I heard that Jim Hatt had some for sale.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[somehiker]

Think about it.
Why do WE crop some of our photos that we post on public forums like this.
We may want to share and show other THers what we have found and thus solicit their opinions.
But we sure as H--- don't want them to invade the places where we shot the pics.

 

[DiggerGal]

Think about it.
Why do WE crop some of our photos that we post on public forums like this.
We may want to share and show other THers what we have found and thus solicit their opinions.
But we sure as H--- don't want them to invade the places where we shot the pics.

I agree on a level of what we do today. I guess, I am leaning more on the side of deception in some regards to Travis..

 

[somehiker]

I agree on a level of what we do today. I guess, I am leaning more on the side of deception in some regards to Travis..

In Treasure Hunting there are two classes of participant.
Those who take and those who give.
There is nothing in what we do have on Travis that suggests and corroborates that he was a taker.
Plenty that he shared with close friends of his and Aileen's though.
But he obviously didn't have "sucker" written across his forehead.

 

[RG1976]

In Treasure Hunting there are two classes of participant.
Those who take and those who give.
There is nothing in what we do have on Travis that suggests and corroborates that he was a taker.
Plenty that he shared with close friends of his and Aileen's though
But he obviously didn't have "sucker" written across his forehead .

Except when he stole a car at age 19 and burglarized someone's house in his mid-20's.

Served time in jail.

That's a taker - isn't it?