Challenge for Superstition Gold

[coazon de oro]

Let's make sure we are talking about the same picture. Frank; forgive me. I'm reposting your photo.

View attachment 1188000

This is the photo Frank posted. I rotated it so the writing is easier to read. No tricks, not magic, no changing anything, just rotated. Notice the writing is as it should be.

In the thread where this was originally posted HAL reversed the image and caused the writing (and the image) to appear backward. Its Hal's finagled copy that has the backward writing.

You are good at this so I know you can spot what I'm seeing. The lighting in this photo is coming down across the picture. The lighting clearly shows the lines and heart are elevated. I don't know squat about casting but a quick review of demo tapes in Google talk about with important works or things that will have multiple castings its customary to make a master mold. The master is then used to making working molds. The working molds are what's used to produce the product. Its pretty evident to me Franks picture is the master mold. The written words tend to confirm that.

Howdy Lynda,

I stand corrected that it was Hal who posted the reversed image, and not Frank, sorry Frank.

What the written words tend to confirm is that it is a photo of the original stone maps. The word mold is not there.

If you look at the photo that you posted, you will notice that the stone is not sitting directly on the grass. It's irrelevant what it is resting on, but you will see that the stone is casting its shadow on the top side of your picture. This tells you that the light is coming from the bottom side of your picture.

If the heart was raised it would cast its own shadow towards the same side as the stone. Because the heart is recessed, the shadow is on the opposite side, and on the wall of the recessed heart. The grooves also cast their own shadows to the opposite side, showing that they are not raised.

Homar

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[captain1965]

The 1847 would be reversed it it were a mold.

 

[Hal Croves]

The 1847 would be reversed it it were a mold.

captain1965, corazon de oro,
Ah, the voice of reason.
Yes, if it were a mold, things would appear reversed, as they do in this "finagled" photograph.
Good luck!

​

 

[KXMember]

On America Unearthed the museum owner said they were replicas and the real ones were safe.

 

[Garry]

I believe we could clean up at least some of the discussion of the alleged copies of the stone maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum if we could agree on a simple question.

Do we believe that the Tumlinson Maps and the Maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum are both made from “natural” quarried stone?

If so, we can then rid ourselves of the chafe about plaster, concrete, molds, patterns, etc.

We can then move on to the HOW a carving made of “natural” sandstone” could be used to create a nearly exact carving copy made from “natural sandstone.”

Garry

 

[markmar]

Old

The picture with the heart is a mold . The person who edited this picture for a journal , reversed it without knowing of molding applications . Maybe he wanted to present it like a sample of the stone map .
The mold is like a seal and all should be reversed ( as Hal shows in #103 ). This is the real picture/image of the mold :

 

[cw0909]

maybe my eyesight is worse than i thought
because of the shadow that is cast, and no
obvious light source, IE that bright spot on
the left of Franks posted img, i think is a
flash from a camera

in this cropped pic i did, the upper lobe looks
like it is a solid piece , not the cavity, follow
the lobe all the way to the point

 

[cw0909]

I believe we could clean up at least some of the discussion of the alleged copies of the stone maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum if we could agree on a simple question.

Do we believe that the Tumlinson Maps and the Maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum are both made from “natural” quarried stone?

If so, we can then rid ourselves of the chafe about plaster, concrete, molds, patterns, etc.

We can then move on to the HOW a carving made of “natural” sandstone” could be used to create a nearly exact carving copy made from “natural sandstone.”

Garry

i think the simple answer would be, someone carved replicas from originals
on to ( not sure what medium was used ) to make copies, as i dont think
you could use the originals to make molds without destroying them
maybe the originals were placed in a sand mold, to make casts
i use to do it all the time to make candles, in the 70s

 

[cw0909]

i meant to add this....

Sandblast Stencil
Sandblast Stencil - 12 mil

 

[Old]

Hal,

I believe I can respond. Not that I suspect you will like it much, but I can respond.

I said; "I don't know squat about casting"........ I think that's a clear enough statement. I do intent to find out more, at my leisure, which unfortunately doesn't appear likely any time soon.

Now to any part of my post you may find antagonistic, that's at your prerogative to find or not find. None was meant. The facts speak for themselves. All of them.

I don't think you had untoward thoughts when you posted the reversed image. That was helpful to the conversation. Now here comes a statement that IS an irritant, at least for me. You were silence when viewers of your reverse image got the wrong impression. We heard not a peep from you to correct that misconception. You were most content to allow that misconception to go forward. That's not at all helpful to the discussion and speaks volumes to which concepts you chose to correct or not. I see you wasted no time in responding to me yet weeks went by with several post comments laying out there attributed to a false assumption that resulted from your illustration.

I do intend to review the photo in more detail and with higher magnification. My impression of what I'm seeing may well be a trick of light, shading and shadow. As of right now I'm having a difficult time separating shading from shadow. One thing I'm fairly confident of cavities create shading. Shadows require mass. Any shadow in the area of a cavity comes from the adjacent wall mass. On that I'm pretty confident.

Garry, on a lighter note. I'm at a disadvantage in that I've never seen the stones in person. I only have photos and illustrations to go on. Even with just photos the HP stone is obviously a rock, likewise the heart stone appears to be stone of a shale or slate type. The trail stones are a mystery to me. To be honest with you, based solely on photos, they look more like adobe or terracotta.

 

[releventchair]

Multiple methods of moulding. From lost wax method to sand casting and on and on.
Where I worked there were old "patterns" made of wood that resembled what the object needed to appear as. After sand and binder mixed to cover and fill and cope and drag the pattern would be recovered to reuse. Different than the stones duplicates casting/pouring but a pattern needed..
Newer technology allowed Styrofoam patterns to be machined ,gate, risers, runners, chill blocks ect. added as sand added. Iron melted the foam core so the foams shape/imprint in the sand mould was the resulting detail..
Pattern allows repeated duplication. A mould may or may not.

 

[Hal Croves]

Hal,

I believe I can respond. Not that I suspect you will like it much, but I can respond.

I said; "I don't know squat about casting"........ I think that's a clear enough statement. I do intent to find out more, at my leisure, which unfortunately doesn't appear likely any time soon.

Now to any part of my post you may find antagonistic, that's at your prerogative to find or not find. None was meant. The facts speak for themselves. All of them.

I don't think you had untoward thoughts when you posted the reversed image. That was helpful to the conversation. Now here comes a statement that IS an irritant, at least for me. You were silence when viewers of your reverse image got the wrong impression. We heard not a peep from you to correct that misconception. You were most content to allow that misconception to go forward. That's not at all helpful to the discussion and speaks volumes to which concepts you chose to correct or not. I see you wasted no time in responding to me yet weeks went by with several post comments laying out there attributed to a false assumption that resulted from your illustration.

I do intend to review the photo in more detail and with higher magnification. My impression of what I'm seeing may well be a trick of light, shading and shadow. As of right now I'm having a difficult time separating shading from shadow. One thing I'm fairly confident of cavities create shading. Shadows require mass. Any shadow in the area of a cavity comes from the adjacent wall mass. On that I'm pretty confident.

Garry, on a lighter note. I'm at a disadvantage in that I've never seen the stones in person. I only have photos and illustrations to go on. Even with just photos the HP stone is obviously a rock, likewise the heart stone appears to be stone of a shale or slate type. The trail stones are a mystery to me. To be honest with you, based solely on photos, they look more like adobe or terracotta.

Old,
Legends of the Stone Maps #452
"A photo of a mold, essentially, a negative, would show things in the reverse."
I reversed the image to give a visual example. Nothing to Amazing Randi like. Just flipped it hoping you would see your mistake.
I explained what it was that you were seeing, gave an obvious example, and I am still expected to argue with every interpretation that is posted.
Ya, well, that's not entirely rational or possible even if I were following along religiously.

Magnification? Why bother? Listen to what others are trying to tell you. A mold would show a reversed image. Just like the photo that I flipped. Here is a simple way of understanding it. Take Silly Putty, roll it out onto a cartoon strip, pull it up and what do you have? A transfer of the cartoon in reverse. The putty is your "mold" (not literally) and the cartoon your original.

In your defense, unwanted as it may appear to be, what you are experiencing is a well documented phenomenon which, for reasons a scientist can explain, the human eye is unable to discern images in the negative. Something like that anyway. For example, if you were looking at the back side of a mold of a doll's face, under most lighting, it would appear to be positive, as if seeing it from the other side.

Look it up. I think this may be what you are experiencing.

 

[releventchair]

Old: Here's an exercise, if you please.
Imagine we poured liquid silicone on the carved face of a stone and let it cure/dry.
Now we peel it off and inspect it.
Grooved lines in stone are now raised lines on silicone. How is their accuracy of direction/orientation compared to actual stone...
Now if we lay our silicone flat with the details facing upwards,add a retaining edge around it,
(if the whole stone was not covered with silicone and a cut all around separating the whole into two pieces allowing removal. Or a slit cut on one end and removed like unrolling a sock off a foot)
and we then pour plaster or other medium into it and let dry/cure, then remove the silicone, will the comparison to the original stone carving match?

 

[Old]

Thanks all around.

Hal particularly, but to everybody, one question. Please look at the blow up CW posted. Are you looking at a raised heart or are you looking at a heart shaped cavity.

I see a raised heart, which means its a casting of the image we are used to seeing. Most likely from the museum set of trail maps. The photo has wording that says "original stone map.....I think the last word is "plates".

What happens with that casting is anybody's guess. I have my own ideas, I'm sure you have some ideas that may be just as likely correct.

I appreciate your indulgence. I am truly trying to find common ground. If I'm wrong and that's concave heart shape I am really going to make that eye exam appointment a priority.

 

[releventchair]

I'm trying not to look!
CW's pic appears to be a separate heart shaped piece sitting on top of another piece. Heart is not inlaid in a recess.
Pics are tricky huh?

 

[gollum]

I believe we could clean up at least some of the discussion of the alleged copies of the stone maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum if we could agree on a simple question.

Do we believe that the Tumlinson Maps and the Maps in the Superstition Mountain Museum are both made from “natural” quarried stone?

If so, we can then rid ourselves of the chafe about plaster, concrete, molds, patterns, etc.

We can then move on to the HOW a carving made of “natural” sandstone” could be used to create a nearly exact carving copy made from “natural sandstone.”

Garry

Garry,

That is the easy part. Make a cloth or paper tracing of the originals, then apply it to the stones you want to put the images on.

Mike

 

[coazon de oro]

Thanks all around.

Hal particularly, but to everybody, one question. Please look at the blow up CW posted. Are you looking at a raised heart or are you looking at a heart shaped cavity.

I see a raised heart, which means its a casting of the image we are used to seeing. Most likely from the museum set of trail maps. The photo has wording that says "original stone map.....I think the last word is "plates".

What happens with that casting is anybody's guess. I have my own ideas, I'm sure you have some ideas that may be just as likely correct.

I appreciate your indulgence. I am truly trying to find common ground. If I'm wrong and that's concave heart shape I am really going to make that eye exam appointment a priority.

Howdy Lynda,

I understand how it plays tricks on the eye, but you have to look at the whole picture. As Hal patiently explained, and captain1965 also pointed out, if that were a mold, everything would be cast backwards.

The word is not plates, but photos. It is a picture of a picture, the words are not on the picture it's self. The light on the picture is just a reflection.

If the heart was raised it would cast a shadow to the same side like the stone does.

Homar

 

[DiggerGal]

Lynda,
I too see a "Raised" heart, not a hollow mold. I do believe these are obverse casting plates. The reasoning behind my conclusion is the the lettering, numbers, trails and holes are raised not carved, yet the numbers are reading left to right, but still raised. If in fact they were the originals, everything would be carved creating a depression, yet this is reversed.
Perhaps, this is a reversed photo of a negative making the illusion of an end print that we can identify.

 

[releventchair]

Howdy Lynda,

I understand how it plays tricks on the eye, but you have to look at the whole picture. As Hal patiently explained, and captain1965 also pointed out, if that were a mold, everything would be cast backwards.

The word is not plates, but photos. It is a picture of a picture, the words are not on the picture it's self. The light on the picture is just a reflection.

If the heart was raised it would cast a shadow to the same side like the stone does.

Homar

The heart throws a shadow. The dark area above it you call the stones shadow... looks like one side of a plastic flower flat. Or a piece of iron brace/stand/bracket?.
A slight hint of less light hitting on edge where transition to side begins is where you are saying the "stone" casts shadow.
Stone is under plastic.
Not sure what stone rests on allowing view it shows of grass, but it is a strange picture.