LDM, OZ, & CALALUS

[markmar]

Hal

I have explained in my previous posts how in the Byzantine era the builders were able to make mortar . So , I believe how the artifacts were encased in mortar , a process which would protected the artifacts from the elements and to move apart each other . I believe also how this process was not for the elements because the the lead is inoxidable , but to keep them together and intact . For this the artifacts were easy to clean , because was in the shape like when were encased .

And the authors motivation ? Maybe to explain a timeline of the natives evolution and of some Cities of gold .

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hal Croves]

You think the beeswax was INSIDE the lead artifacts, to preserve the interior? May I ask why you think that is the case? I would have thought the presence of the wax was simply due to the makers of the artifacts using the wax process, so the melted wax ended up mixed in the lead as happens with the wax casting process. Could the wax just be from the original molds being made of wax, that got melted into the lead on casting? I don't see the reason to have wax INSIDE the artifacts, to "preserve" the interior, which obviously would not be exposed to any kind of weathering process until and when the outside had broken, decomposed or otherwise made the interior exposed. Thank you in advance.

Oroblanco

Oroblanco,
I just wanted to point a few things out that might be helpful regarding the creation of the Silverbell Road objects. You are correct in writing that with the process of wax casting (an African invention) some residual wax might be found. But only in trace amounts as most of the casting wax burns or smokes off during the heating of the mold... before molten metals are poured into it. It this weren't removed, a gas pocket would form and the cast would be incomplete/ ruined.

I have not seen the objects up close to examine them, but if asked, based on photographs, I would argue that wax was not used to create the original positives. Notice how the objects are essentially flat? These objects were cast using sand and oil. Take a wooden object like a sword or cross, stick it in the oil sand and create a mold, either in two parts, or one "open faced".

Remove the wooden object and pour in 376 degree lead. Take the mold (now very hot) and dip it in cold water. Most of the sand immediately releases and you are left with a metal copy of the wooden object only, a slight percentage smaller. One side of the objects seems textured, correct? That was the down side, touching the oil sand. Strange how the inscriptions are on a smoother side.

Look at the crosses. Note the rough edge, what looks like a seam in casting.

I can not tell from the photographs but it looks like the inscriptions were done after the casting. If someone is interested, look at the inscriptions under magnification. Do you see sharp, uninterrupted lines or do you see any trace of what looks like tinny bubbles on or in the inscriptions. If you see any bubbling in the lead, along the edges of the inscriptions, then chances are the inscriptions were done in the original wooden positive.

Clean, bubble free inscriptions would suggest that they were added after the casting.
And why not? Pb is easy to inscribe.

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal

I have explained in my previous posts how in the Byzantine era the builders were able to make mortar . So , I believe how the artifacts were encased in mortar , a process which would protected the artifacts from the elements and to move apart each other . I believe also how this process was not for the elements because the the lead is inoxidable , but to keep them together and intact . For this the artifacts were easy to clean , because was in the shape like when were encased .

And the authors motivation ? Maybe to explain a timeline of the natives evolution and of some Cities of gold .

Markmar,
It is an interesting concept but not one that I am familiar with. Could you site one other example of someone finding archeologically important objects that were intentionally encased in cement for preservation?

 

[markmar]

Markmar,
It is an interesting concept but not one that I am familiar with. Could you site one other example of someone finding archeologically important objects that were intentionally encased in cement for preservation?

Hal

I believe does not exist examples with the same process of preservation for important ancient objects . And why I believe this ?

Now , how to tell it without provoking apoplexy to some folks ...
This process of preservation and the power which give the artifacts to those who know to handle them , has a deeper meaning ... such as the connection with the legend of Excalibur ?

 

[Hal Croves]

Markmar,

My friend, that's a very difficult path to navigate and unfortunately one that I simply can not follow. Be cautious before investing too much of your time and coin and if you can, mind the Philanthus.

 

[somehiker]

Maybe the guy's old lady simply got sick of having hubby's hobby cluttering up their domicile.
Threw it all in the grease pit out back....and his bags out the front.
Whaddya think ?

Seriously, the place was not just a lime processing facility, but later a garbage dump. Offal, including cooking grease and other undesirable renderings were likely discarded out there, away from town. Those and other old liquid contaminants have spawned a brisk business for companies specializing in cleanup of such sites.

 

[markmar]

Hal

I understand ... is a very difficult path . Is a puzzle game recommended for people over 1000 years old .
Also , don't worry about me .

 

[Oroblanco]

Bump; fire away Starman et al, so we do not continue to derail Sarge's thread.

 

[Oroblanco]

Actual photo of underground library of OZ!

It took some hiking and spelunking, but here it is!



Scroll down for details on how I got this!




















Well to be honest, it is NOT the library of Oz, it is a photo of one of the fascinating secret libraries (underground) in Mauretania, borrowed from this site:
Where Books Live: Ancient Libraries of the Sahara - Mmofra Foundation


Now if we could see a photo of the library that Starman has talked about, it might help sway some opinions, so thanks in advance.
Oroblanco

Coffee?

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I would just like to hear a cogent explanation of the different levels of the artifacts in the caliche, which is much, much older than the purported age of the artifacts. Add this to the explanations:



Take care,

Joe

 

[Somero]

Roy,

I would just like to hear a cogent explanation of the different levels of the artifacts in the caliche, which is much, much older than the purported age of the artifacts. Add this to the explanations:



Take care,

Joe

Step 1. Dig a very deep whole.

Step 2. Throw "Stuff" in whole.

Step 3. Fill whole with dirt and water.

 

[Somero]

Step 1. Dig a very deep whole.

Step 2. Throw "Stuff" in whole.

Step 3. Fill whole with dirt and water.

Addendum to above steps.

Step A. Get Battery Lead

Step B. Create "ancient artifacts" for art/school project?

Step C. Follow steps 1, 2, and 3 above because nobody would buy them?

 

[cactusjumper]

Starman 1 makes this statement:

[Furthermore your quote regarding the mental state of the creator(there were several creators), comes from a letter from Judd to Manier in July 1925. In this letter Judd makes no statement to the effect the artifacts were fake. In fact he states,"Had I not personally dug out the two specimens visible at the time of my visit--numbers 12 and 14 as I recall--I should, from necessity, have continued to regard the whole series with the same doubt I held at the sight of the first two crosses".]

Nice try, but he fails to provide the rest of Judd's statement:

"I do not mean to say that even now I believe these specimens of prehistoric origin. On the contrary, I am certain they were all made within the historic period and doubtless by the same individual....I cannot, therefore, alter my original conviction that all the specimens are modern. Your solution of the mystery might lie in a search of the local mission records for trace of some mentally incompetent individual with a flair for old Latin and the wars of antiquity."

The alluvial fan where the artifacts were found "is considered to be Pleistocene or older in age, i.e., older than 10,000 years BP." Quinlan 1994 Quinlan further states: "Based on the foregoing analysis, I would place the time of burial as post kiln operation."

He goes on from there, but it only gets worse.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[starman 1]

The Way

Gentlemen:

I made this post at the beginning of this discussion a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away and it still points the way. Not much really to be added.

This:

Gentlemen,

While it is always pleasing to pursue discussions that reinforce what you already believe perhaps the truth can be better served by embarking on a journey who`s destination is not yet known.

A close reading of the Bent work will diffuse many of the arguments that have been presented regarding the so called planting of the artifacts by their discoverers. Pay particular attention to the discovery of several of the artifacts and the role played by folks who were supposedly planting the artifacts. As far as confessions go a close reading of the Burgess article will probably result in more questions than answers.

Keep in mind that respected folks in the scientific community believe these are the real deal and acquaint yourself with their efforts. One should not dismiss the efforts of Covey nor the beliefs of Hardaker that both believe the artifacts were not planted. In all fairness Hardaker believes the artifacts were not planted but were not a relic of a Roman/Jewish Community referred to as Calalus.

Perhaps as a starting point consider where there is agreement. Calalus no longer exists this we can all agree. As to whether it ever did should be for you an open question. True scholarship will be uncomfortable but it will open a gate that might amaze you.

As far as the relationship between Calalus and the Superstitons a good starting place might be to research the history of the naming of Battle Axe road and the reading of the small work, "Arizona in the fifties".

Obviously having access to the Bent/ Mcgee correspondence may provide some information. I would pay particular attention to the Mcgee comments in one of her articles regarding the location of certain sites in the Superstitions that speak of an ancient presence. Also there are signs high up in Boulder Canyon that speak not only to the Tucson Artifacts but to the presence of a more ancient people.

Having said this if you are only interested in proving a hoax I can only smile and wish you well. If you are interested in finding the truth you may or not succeed but you will be better for the journey. For us Calalus, the Library of Oz, and the Canyon of Souls are very, very real. If what you discover takes you down a different trail that is fine. Go there in good spirit.


Starman 1

 

[Hal Croves]

Starman 1 makes this statement:

[Furthermore your quote regarding the mental state of the creator(there were several creators), comes from a letter from Judd to Manier in July 1925. In this letter Judd makes no statement to the effect the artifacts were fake. In fact he states,"Had I not personally dug out the two specimens visible at the time of my visit--numbers 12 and 14 as I recall--I should, from necessity, have continued to regard the whole series with the same doubt I held at the sight of the first two crosses".]

Nice try, but he fails to provide the rest of Judd's statement:

"I do not mean to say that even now I believe these specimens of prehistoric origin. On the contrary, I am certain they were all made within the historic period and doubtless by the same individual....I cannot, therefore, alter my original conviction that all the specimens are modern. Your solution of the mystery might lie in a search of the local mission records for trace of some mentally incompetent individual with a flair for old Latin and the wars of antiquity."

The alluvial fan where the artifacts were found "is considered to be Pleistocene or older in age, i.e., older than 10,000 years BP." Quinlan 1994 Quinlan further states: "Based on the foregoing analysis, I would place the time of burial as post kiln operation."

He goes on from there, but it only gets worse.

Joe Ribaudo

cactusjumper,
The entire awkward thing reminds me of the Kenworthy video that you sent.

 

[Not Peralta]

Unknown History is just History not known.
The concept of this doesn't fit in for some,the thought of their very way of thinking is threatened, some react defensively,
Its easy to dismiss something you can't see,Its harder to dismiss something you can see.
Example.
Imagine spending years searching and researching something,only to have eyewitnesses come to you and tell you about a group of individuals
in an operation removing objects and different things that took place in the area you were searching, and the eyewitnesses being confronted
and threatened,but,now, every thing you were hunting for is now gone,site destroyed.
this is History known to you,but, now is gone forever,never to be history known,or proven.NP

 

[cactusjumper]

Unknown History is just History not known.
The concept of this doesn't fit in for some,the thought of their very way of thinking is threatened, some react defensively,
Its easy to dismiss something you can't see,Its harder to dismiss something you can see.
Example.
Imagine spending years searching and researching something,only to have eyewitnesses come to you and tell you about a group of individuals
in an operation removing objects and different things that took place in the area you were searching, and the eyewitnesses being confronted
and threatened,but,now, every thing you were hunting for is now gone,site destroyed.
this is History known to you,but, now is gone forever,never to be history known,or proven.NP

NP,

A big effort has been going on for a number of years now, all aimed at convincing non-believers that the story of Calalus was a historical reality, not an imaginative piece of fiction. As written in an earlier post, the Tucson artifacts are accepted, by most authorities, as modern-day creations.

I initially looked into this story with an open mind. However, I did look at both sides of the debate looking for any truths that might apply. What did you think of the Bent Manuscript? Did the widely separate depths that the artifacts were found at in the caliche make you wonder how that could happen? Did the picture of the Diplodocus, which was supposed to have been engraved long before their existence was known, seem logical?

From Wikipedia:

Diplodocus (/dɪˈplɒdəkəs/,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] /daɪˈplɒdəkəs/,[SUP][2][/SUP] or /ˌdɪploʊˈdoʊkəs/[SUP][1][/SUP]) is an extinct genus of diplodocid sauropod dinosaur whose fossils were first discovered in 1877 by S. W. Williston.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

We are being told we should do more research into the Tucson artifacts.

OK:

1996: Geologist Confirms Tuscon Artifacts Fake, Caliche Formed in Just "Hours" - Jason Colavito

http://madridismus.blogspot.com/2013/02/america-unearthed-response-to-tucson.html

Joe Ribaudo

 

[markmar]

Joe

You wrote

Did the picture of the dinosaur, which was supposed to have been engraved long before their existence was known, seem logical?

Maybe you have to read at Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

 

[cactusjumper]

Klondike,

[As far as the relationship between Calalus and the Superstitons a good starting place might be to research the history of the naming of Battle Axe road and the reading of the small work, "Arizona in the fifties".]

There are a number of "Battle Axe" roads in the U.S. Do you believe they are all part of the Calalus story? What is the connection with the Superstition Mountains?

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo