Possible source of stone used in Peralta tablets

[Clay Diggins]

Sounds to me like some clay Authority has a intrest in steeling what someone else finds. Like it’s his to do what he pleases. The Jesuits are a far cry from Jesus lol. Looks like he’s here to lay claim. Farewell my brethren 🙏. I’ll keep what I find and donate what I feel suits. Thief is what thief does. I won’t post anymore about Jesuits markers, you can leave now 🤚.

Personal attacks and criminal accusations. A thief? I have no interest in stealing, in fact I consider stealing a crime and a sin. Are you accusing me of crime and sin? Why do you think Jesuits had anything to do with this subject. Who can leave?

What does any of this have to do with the source of the stone used in the "Peralta tablets" - the subject of this thread.

You are far off base gold lead. Maybe circle around and rejoin the conversation. These insults have no place here.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

The "Peralta" stones are not fakes. I have viewed them several times. They do exist and they are made of rock.

The idea that these stones contain maps is unfounded. I know many here think they have a use as maps but at present there is no consensus as to what they are maps of. They haven't even been established to provide the basic elements of a map:

Map definition - A graphic representation of the spatial relationships of entities within an area.

 

[Al D]

Here is a nice picture of Coconino sandstone.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Goldnlead has left the building.

 

[Al D]

I am reminded of a great song by Queen, now what was that title?

 

[markmar]

I am reminded of a great song by Queen, now what was that title?

" Another one bites the dust "?

 

[cyzak]

There will probably be a few more if not careful.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Yeah it would be foolish to expect a database of old court cases in Mexico. From what I hear they don't even know about shoes or combs there - very backwards.

For those who aren't interested in Ostrich kissing there is always these records:
Ramo Civil: 1533–1857 (Civil Division: 1533–1857). 1989.
Documentos Civiles, 1626–1886 (Civil Documents, 1626–1886). 1988.
Ramo de Tierras, 1523–1822 (Land Records, 1523–1822). 1989–1992.

I find it interesting that Mexico keeps a database of all court cases nationwide since 1533 in it's Archivo General de la Nacion in Mexico City but in the U.S. you have to search out each individual court and request a copy of the record if they still have it. Different databases for different folk.

I often see on this forum the misunderstanding about Spanish colonial and Mexican record keeping. The Spanish were obsessed with record keeping and made a note of every quill, spoon and shoe purchased and used as well as personal and family records. The Spanish were record keeping nuts and the Mexicans no less so. If it happened it got written down on paper and filed. The final dates you see on the archives above are when the entire collection was fully imaged.

Clay, part of your problem with understanding what's going on in this thread, is you think you know what you're talking about but you don't have the entire picture. This is no different from any of us here. The difference seems to be that most of us have at least a developed sense of what we DON'T know. I can assure you, if you think there's a court record on this, you're barking up the wrong tree. So your post above is informative, but essentially useless for finding out what happened.

Take for example the AZ Highways article. Sounds like you assumed I had never read it, and directed us to Garry Cundiff's website so all us uneducated folks cluttering up the thread with gobbledegook could get a look at it and get ourselves educated as to what Coconino sandstone is. What you don't understand, is pretty much everyone posting in this thread has already seen, studied and even researched the circumstances around how that article came to be, and there are countless threads discussing it on this and other forums going back to when it first came out in 2005.

I knew exactly what Dr. Miksa was saying when she said "The big stone with the horse on it appears to be Coconino Sandstone." I know why scientists use that word, "appears". I'm not a geologist so my statement that I was unsure what she meant by Coconino sandstone, and that I thought it referred to a geological formation on the Coconino Plateau, was worded that way for a reason. The same reason Dr. Miksa used the word "appears" or "most likely" when describing the H/P stone and the map stones. I personally have confidence in her findings, but I'm in no position to make declarative statements one way or the other on it, beyond what she said in the article.

Garry completed his investigation on the stones and other items years ago, but it's still something I talk to him about from time to time. He's done outstanding investigative work over the years, which he shares with everyone, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that most particicpating in this thread have read and pondered his work over and over again, for years, not just on the stones but also his work with other folks on the Adolph Ruth stories and more. I believe their efforts are the defining work on these subjects to date.

The same can be said for Fr. Polzer's opinion on the stones. We're going over much-plowed territory here. Alan is exactly right, I have read his posts on this and other forums going back to around 2003 or so. I'm sure Alan in particular was researching these subjects for much longer than that. We all know what Fr. Polzer had to say about it. Many of us also understand the context of that history, which is missing when one just reads the end product from a quick search of Tom Kollenborn's articles to support a post on the internet.

The reason most of us get on these forums and discuss these things is we're seeking some kind of resolution on a particular legend, map, lost mine, etc. For some of us, it's a lifelong hobby. It requires a bit of an open mind if one isn't going to dismiss the stories outright. My feeling is it's mostly BS, but I'm unsure of what led to the creation of the stones, thus my interest. Everyone here has a different motivation and point of view.

There are those that get on these forums and insist that dismissing things outright is the appropriate action because something isn't written down somewhere, or that historians or scientists say it didn't happen. Fair enough. But many here have already considered that point of view many times, and no amount of browbeating by that point of view is going to change much. Many here lose patience with such rigid views as it assumes we've never thought of what the poster is talking about, when in reality we've crossed that road with that particular information decades ago.

 

[Idahodutch]

Jim,
Those words were outstanding 😳 it’s hard not to self reflect with words like those.
I sincerely thank you for posting them
Russ Ragsdale

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Russ, thanks for the words.

I've been following your search and wish you the best of luck. I'm relieved to hear that your health is improving and pray that it continues! Best regards to you and yours, Jim

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Jim, a good reply without resorting to insult, attack or rules being broken, thank you sir.

 

[Al D]

The whole DAI report is just a pile of speculation and opinions.
Any real scientific analysis would have included photomicrographs of the sandstone in question to determine % ratios of feldspar and quartz.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Thanks for the replies. Thank all of you for kindly telling me what I don't know and what I assumed. It's a real big help.

But.... I've seen the rocks. I also lived in a house made of Coconino sandstone, built on Coconino sandstone on the Mogollon rim for 18 years. I've read the full DAI reports (there were three of them) and the conclusions.

Basically what you think I don't know is just speculation, nothing more. Thanks for spending the time but you need not have bothered. I already have a list of what I don't know (see below)

Maybe I'll spend some time speculating on what others don't know. Naw ... endless subject and a waste of my time.
But feel free to assume and speculate all you want.

So my question is (this is the part I don''t know) -
If you don't believe all the scientists about the source of the rock material what source(s) do you rely on? I mean I've got my eyes, years of experience and some very well known scientists that agree with my assessment. What evidence or facts do you have that could convince me my eyes and experience are lying just like you say the the experts are?

This thread is about the origination of the stone material. I am hoping others will chime in with some facts or knowledge about the source of the stone material. What I don't know would fill buckets but that's probably best left for another thread on a different forum where those type subjects are appropriate.

 

[Al D]

If anyone wishes to discuss the original topic, fell free to PM me.
I am finished here

 

[Clay Diggins]

The whole DAI report is just a pile of speculation and opinions.
Any real scientific analysis would have included photomicrographs of the sandstone in question to determine % ratios of feldspar and quartz.

Do you know of a study of these rocks that used a better petrographic microscope than the DAI investigation? It would be nice to review the thin slices from the examination.

With our current knowledge of Coconino sandstone an investigation based on dolomite composition and form in the source rock it should be possible to pin down the original source within 50 miles or so.

p.s. Please send me the material on the Polzar mining case. Despite comments to the contrary I've had very good luck locating Mexican court cases. If it was actually filed in a Mexican court it can be found.

 

[Clay Diggins]

There will probably be a few more if not careful.

Wow that was prophetic!
Looks like you got your wish cyzak.

If anyone wishes to discuss the original topic, fell free to PM me.
I am finished here

 

[PotBelly Jim]

View attachment 2104685
Here is a nice picture of Coconino sandstone.

Thanks Alan, 'bout what I'd expect, it's all over my yard.

Doesn't look much like the H/P stone to me. I mean, maybe a little, but not convinced.

 

[deducer]

Yeah reading the actual DAI report compared to the tourist article in the pretty magazine can be quite instructive.

Unfortunately the popular press isn't really equipped or designed to convey scientific reports into usable material for the public. They tend to summarize, rewrite and pick out the sensational parts for their purposes and the science gets left behind. Pretty pictures though.

Who here is relying on the pretty magazine article as a final authority? All I see in this thread is PotBelly Jim's several magazine images. I don't think he has written that he relies on the magazine article clippings as a final authority. Maybe I missed that.

Quite instructive?

This was a non-invasive cursory examination of the Stone Maps done as a favor to a tourist magazine in exchange for free PR.

Four "accomplished" scientists in one room for two hours and it didn't occur to anyone to analyze the glue on the heart stone? That would have been a smoking gun.

Lost me right there.

 

[deducer]

If you don't believe all the scientists about the source of the rock material what source(s) do you rely on? I mean I've got my eyes, years of experience and some very well known scientists that agree with my assessment. What evidence or facts do you have that could convince me my eyes and experience are lying just like you say the the experts are?

This thread is about the origination of the stone material. I am hoping others will chime in with some facts or knowledge about the source of the stone material. What I don't know would fill buckets but that's probably best left for another thread on a different forum where those type subjects are appropriate.

Here's the thing, Clay, this is a treasure-hunting forum.

There is no scientific burden of proof to be met here. No requirement to do so. You either find treasure or you don't. No amount of science is going to help. If you want science, go to a science forum.

You barge in here demanding to be hand-fed "scientific proof," (as if that would help you locate any treasure ) and of course you don't get what you want and throw tantrums as a result. By now you should understand that nobody is going to hand feed you, and neither are they obligated to. Subjecting the methodologies of treasure-hunting to the requirements for scientific validation is the worst way to accomplish anything in either field.

Mel Fisher didn't find the mother lode using scientific protocol or analysis. He acted on a simple tip from the Archive of the Indies in Seville, Spain that 18th Century attempts to salvage the Atocha had centered not on the Metecumbe Keys, as was previously thought, but on the Marquesas Keys 32 miles west of Florida`s southern tip.

Treasure hunters and archaeologists have always had such contempt and disdain for one another because they are after different things and their methodologies differ greatly.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Here's the thing, Clay, this is a treasure-hunting forum.

There is no scientific burden of proof to be met here. No requirement to do so. You either find treasure or you don't. No amount of science is going to help. If you want science, go to a science forum.

You barge in here demanding to be hand-fed "scientific proof," (as if that would help you locate any treasure ) and of course you don't get what you want and throw tantrums as a result. By now you should understand that nobody is going to hand feed you, and neither are they obligated to. Subjecting the methodologies of treasure-hunting to the requirements of scientific validation is the worst way to accomplish anything in either field.

Mel Fisher didn't find the mother lode using scientific protocol or analysis. He acted on a simple tip from the Archive of the Indies in Seville, Spain that 18th Century attempts to salvage the Atocha had centered not on the Metecumbe Keys, as was previously thought, but on the Marquesas Keys 32 miles west of Florida`s southern tip.

Treasure hunters and archaeologists have always had such contempt and disdain for one another because they are after different things and their methodologies differ greatly.

Once again another member mischaracterize my writings. I have never asked much less demanded "scientific proof" of anything. I guess if all the believers make up enough stuff that I supposedly wrote but never wrote you can assassinate the character of another expert that might disagree with your conclusions. You picked the wrong guy to be playing those sort of high school games with.

I am asking that treasure hunters as well as people interested in verifiable facts consider the physical knowledge as well as their experience in finding (or not finding as the case may be) "treasure" as you call it. Yes I am an acknowledged expert in finding mineral deposits and creating great wealth from the mining of those natural treasures. Yeah science, testing and logic have produced billions in treasure every year of my and your life. Don't give me that hokum that "treasure hunting" is different or that real treasure hunters don't use science. I wasn't born yesterday.

You are enjoying my treasure hunting results every day, you use a computer made from the minerals I helped discover and recover. You drive or ride in cars that are made of the minerals I helped discover and recover. There would be no internet or computers if it weren't for the treasures I continue to discover. Your lifestyle and the living standards of your family friends and country rely on the science and skills involved in finding and recovering the most hidden treasures on earth. Without myself and other treasure hunter scientists you would still be looking for a bear to kill with your stick so you could keep warm in your mud hovel this winter.

I see here people trying to question the scholarship and scientific conclusions of DAI and Polzar's work as well as their personal character. I don't see anyone here actually questioning their results based on facts or science but instead with charges of plagiarism and incompetence - yet they provide no evidence.

You can find volumes of Beth Miksa's work in any university geology library as well as in the archaeology section (she has two doctorates in two scientific disciplines). Beth is respected worldwide for her work in the southwestern United States. She's also a very pleasant and honest woman. I have never seen any question about her work quality through the years, her research publications are highly regarded and often cited. Yet here I see personal slurs against her character as well as denigration of her abilities as a scientist. It seems you would like me to believe treasure hunters know more about Beth and her work than all those universities, corporations and science foundations who have relied on her work through the years. This is BS. Beth is a nice honest woman who has spent her life discovering the truth about past life in the southwest.

Here's what I see going on here. You have four Phd's highly trained and experienced in answering just the type of questions the Peralta stones elicit from treasure hunters. All four Phds investigate the actual stones in question. They form their answers to the questions independently at different times. They all agree on the answers to those questions. Treasure hunters scream it must be collusion! It's plagiarism! They are lying! They aren't real scientists! Treasure hunting doesn't involve facts or science!

Strangely the obvious conclusion is bypassed as if it's not even there - that if several scientists all independently, by their own methods, at different times, reach the same conclusion you have the extreme possibility of a real fact on your hands - unless you can refute that fact with other facts. No one has presented anything factual in this thread that in any way challenges those four scientists conclusion.

I smell sour grapes.