Both sides of Stone Maps Argument

[JohnWhite]

Well I have to respectfully disagree, based on the lack of any direct linkage to the Jesuits for Polzer to have to protect and lie about. He very well may have been quick to leap forward to lay claim to any treasure(s) recovered but as none were reported we can't know for sure what he might have done or not done. It is possible that he would not have tried to lay claim to the treasure as there is nothing to link it to the Jesuits. Who knows?

Homar - I have to agree with you in part but respectfully disagree in part, the fact that there are Spanish errors on the Peralta stones tells me it is fake, not genuine. A Spanish speaker would never write "coazon" for corazon but an Anglo might, by hearing it spoken and not noticing the R is rather quiet -> in my OPINION. But heck everyone is entitled to an opinion and their own beliefs, if you are convinced then you have enough evidence to justify your search further. I don't see enough to encourage me to go for it. The fact that Travis also carved other stones is a huge red flag for me, but then I never really believed in the stone maps being genuine. Too many other guys have already tried to use them to find treasures without any luck. I don't put much faith in any of the treasure maps that are in public circulation because there has to be something very wrong about them even if they are the genuine article, or some earlier treasure hunter would have already successfully found the treasure (and-or mine) the maps supposedly lead to, NOT just the Peralta stones. I would love to be wrong about this.

After all that I have been through...I have come to the realization that many of the treasure maps out there are just repetitious on one subject...IF you have seen what I have seen you might change your mind Oro...One of the sites I have been to is depicted in: Dobie's Tayopa map, the Perfil map, The Cursum Perficio, and the PSM's...And this one site alone might even be the subject of other treasure maps as well...It yet remains to be seen...

I wish ya'll luck in finding the truth to this matter...

Ed T

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[oldpueblo]

Stone naps

Starman1,

Even if you are just dropping in, it's good to see you posting. I always find your posts interesting and thought provoking.
There are a few things I would like to discuss with you that may not be appropriate on an open forum. One thing I will say, I think that you and your associates underestimate both me and others on this side of things. Maybe that's a good thing.

Gentlemen,

IMHO, the stones in the museum are most likely reproductions. What I find far more interesting than the stones themselves is the information that is on them. I am referring to the trail maps, the heart insert, and the Latin heart. Travis may have been a copier, but he was not the creator. According to others the information came from an old map and small white or grey stones. I want to find out the origination of that information.
I have never put any faith in the H/P stone. I believe that stone was made to lead people away from something, not to it. It's easy to muddy the water. Simply mix some deception with the truth. It's been going on for years.

oldpueblo

 

[azdave35]

Starman1,

Even if you are just dropping in, it's good to see you posting. I always find your posts interesting and thought provoking.
There are a few things I would like to discuss with you that may not be appropriate on an open forum. One thing I will say, I think that you and your associates underestimate both me and others on this side of things. Maybe that's a good thing.

Gentlemen,

IMHO, the stones in the museum are most likely reproductions. What I find far more interesting than the stones themselves is the information that is on them. I am referring to the trail maps, the heart insert, and the Latin heart. Travis may have been a copier, but he was not the creator. According to others the information came from an old map and small white or grey stones. I want to find out the origination of that information.
I have never put any faith in the H/P stone. I believe that stone was made to lead people away from something, not to it. It's easy to muddy the water. Simply mix some deception with the truth. It's been going on for years.

oldpueblo

supposedly travis used one of his uncles vintage maps as a model to carve the stone maps

 

[markmar]

Just a comment in the Jesuit connection with the stone maps we are talking about.
Like every painting and different type of art, the maps have their personal " fingerprint " which belongs to the artist who made them, no matter if is a professional or a beginner. Having examples of different maps from different cultures, after a close examination we can determine what treasure codes have been used and to which culture belong.
And my personal imput about the origin of the stone maps and the other paper maps which depict the same region, is:

- the H/P stone map, the Trail stone map and the Crosses stone maps were made by the same artist and have the same treasure code, a Spanish treasure code.
- the Latin stone heart map was made by a different artist than the other stone maps and has a Jesuit treasure code.
- the Cursum Perficio paper map was made by a different artist than the Latin heart stone map and has also Jesuit treasure codes.
- the Sleeping Lady Squaw paper map was made by a different artist and don't has any treasure code.
- the Celeste Jones paper map was made by a different artist and has Spanish treasure codes.

I will not explain what is every treasure code used, to contradict a statement made by someone how I want to be the first drum in the hall, but I can tell how without the H/P stone map from the first set, nobody would ever locate the treasure site using only the Trail and the Crosses maps.

 

[deducer]

Well I have to respectfully disagree, based on the lack of any direct linkage to the Jesuits for Polzer to have to protect and lie about. He very well may have been quick to leap forward to lay claim to any treasure(s) recovered but as none were reported we can't know for sure what he might have done or not done. It is possible that he would not have tried to lay claim to the treasure as there is nothing to link it to the Jesuits. Who knows?

Relying on Polzer as being any sort of authority on if the Stone Maps are a treasure map belonging to the Jesuits, IMO is tantamount to asking a police officer how many successful bank robberies have happened on their watch, or asking a fireman how many houses have burned down to the ground on their watch.

Neither, by nature, are going to answer or make admissions against what they stand for and work for (namely keeping law and order, and fighting fires).

Likewise, Polzer would have never done anything else than maintain his slogan that "Jesuit treasures" were actually "the salvation of men's souls."

Anyway, I think we are getting sidetracked with this Jesuit/Polzer angle. For me, it's not necessary to identify the authors of the Stone Maps as a means of proving their authenticity.

As I have been maintaining throughout, I think it's adequate to establish veracity by pointing out the absence of solid proof from those who are claiming that the Stone Maps are fraudulent. I.e., since no actual proof of fraudulence can be established, the opposite must then be true.

 

[azdave35]

Relying on Polzer as being any sort of authority on if the Stone Maps are a treasure map belonging to the Jesuits, IMO is tantamount to asking a police officer how many successful bank robberies have happened on their watch, or asking a fireman how many houses have burned down to the ground on their watch.

Neither, by nature, are going to answer or make admissions against what they stand for and work for (namely keeping law and order, and fighting fires).

Likewise, Polzer would have never done anything else than maintain his slogan that "Jesuit treasures" were actually "the salvation of men's souls."

Anyway, I think we are getting sidetracked with this Jesuit/Polzer angle. For me, it's not necessary to identify the authors of the Stone Maps as a means of proving their authenticity.

As I have been maintaining throughout, I think it's adequate to establish veracity by pointing out the absence of solid proof from those who are claiming that the Stone Maps are fraudulent. I.e., since no actual proof of fraudulence can be established, the opposite must then be true.

you have been given mountains of proof..you just refuse to listen

 

[Oroblanco]

As I have been maintaining throughout, I think it's adequate to establish veracity by pointing out the absence of solid proof from those who are claiming that the Stone Maps are fraudulent. I.e., since no actual proof of fraudulence can be established, the opposite must then be true.

Isn't that taking the whole thing backward? Would you accept a story at face value, without establishing that it is true? The stone maps tell a story, unfortunately the story is not verifiable as truth. It is not possible to prove a negative. The stone maps want you to believe they are true. By definition then, they must prove themselves as true, not assume it is true until someone can prove it false. Besides, we have the statements of DAI Inc and (one you dismiss out of hand) Polzer that they are not genuine, along with the state of Arizona decision to classify them as 'curiosities rather than antiquities, which if the 1847 date were true, they would certainly be. Plus we have Garry's posts stating he was informed by Tumlinson family relatives that it was indeed Travis who carved the stones, and Travis carved other stones which kind of puts a smoking gun in his hand doesn't it?

Ed - our mutual amigo Don Jose stated that one of the treasure maps published by Dobie is actually correct but aligned backwards, however that particular map is hardly useful and he did not use it in his own search. As that map was, it could not help anyone find Tayopa because it is backwards. A treasure map with such a major flaw is hardly a good map to use for hunting treasure, you could spend years searching the wrong area because of the flaws built into the map. Hence with the stone maps aka Peralta stones, clearly something is wrong with them or Tumlinson or Mitchell would already have found the treasure, or one of the other hundreds of other guys that have 'solved' them and used them to search the Superstition mountains.

 

[JohnWhite]

Isn't that taking the whole thing backward? Would you accept a story at face value, without establishing that it is true? The stone maps tell a story, unfortunately the story is not verifiable as truth. It is not possible to prove a negative. The stone maps want you to believe they are true. By definition then, they must prove themselves as true, not assume it is true until someone can prove it false. Besides, we have the statements of DAI Inc and (one you dismiss out of hand) Polzer that they are not genuine, along with the state of Arizona decision to classify them as 'curiosities rather than antiquities, which if the 1847 date were true, they would certainly be. Plus we have Garry's posts stating he was informed by Tumlinson family relatives that it was indeed Travis who carved the stones, and Travis carved other stones which kind of puts a smoking gun in his hand doesn't it?

Ed - our mutual amigo Don Jose stated that one of the treasure maps published by Dobie is actually correct but aligned backwards, however that particular map is hardly useful and he did not use it in his own search. As that map was, it could not help anyone find Tayopa because it is backwards. A treasure map with such a major flaw is hardly a good map to use for hunting treasure, you could spend years searching the wrong area because of the flaws built into the map. Hence with the stone maps aka Peralta stones, clearly something is wrong with them or Tumlinson or Mitchell would already have found the treasure, or one of the other hundreds of other guys that have 'solved' them and used them to search the Superstition mountains.

I will continue to reiterate that it is my belief that the Peralta Stones do not depict any area in the Superstition Mountains...But I do not claim to be an expert on the subject...lol...Who can say for certain what area is depicted on any treasure mapWe as treasure hunters try to force certain areas into said maps in the hope that we might find something...Some of us just may be wasting our time...But we continue to hope that our site is the sight so many others have sought over the years and years... Nobody wants to believe that we have just been wasting our time in our futile searches...

I sure hope that Don Jose has found Tayopa...I am certain that he believes that he has...Oh well...I am not out to prove Don Jose wrong...Even IF I believe that he just might be...One day we may find out who was right and who was wrong...Although I will continue to state that I could care less IF I am wrong...I am not out to prove my claims to anyone...hehehe...I have already been there and done that...How many of us can make that claim...Probably everyone on this site...rofl...

Ed T

 

[deducer]

Isn't that taking the whole thing backward? Would you accept a story at face value, without establishing that it is true? The stone maps tell a story, unfortunately the story is not verifiable as truth. It is not possible to prove a negative. The stone maps want you to believe they are true. By definition then, they must prove themselves as true, not assume it is true until someone can prove it false. Besides, we have the statements of DAI Inc and (one you dismiss out of hand) Polzer that they are not genuine, along with the state of Arizona decision to classify them as 'curiosities rather than antiquities, which if the 1847 date were true, they would certainly be. Plus we have Garry's posts stating he was informed by Tumlinson family relatives that it was indeed Travis who carved the stones, and Travis carved other stones which kind of puts a smoking gun in his hand doesn't it?

If you show conclusively that something cannot be proven to be fraudulent, then what other outcome is there?

It's well known in archaeology that it's next to impossible to date stones, especially when they've been cleaned and are out of context. Stones have to be in situ, to be accurately dated. The one thing that could be tested is the glue used to hold the heart stone together, but from what I've read, the museum is resistant to doing this.

And like Polzer, what does DAI have to profit from, by declaring the Stone Maps to be true, authentic treasure maps?

They'd get laughed out of the room by their peers.

I don't know why there is a stubborn illusion that what Garry Cundiff was told, is proof of anything? Hearsay is not proof.

As Garry, in his own words has said: "It is not my intention to try and convince anyone of anything. I just want to present some of what we have found, what we have seen and what we have been told."

And on top of that, I'll repeat that not the whole family is in agreement on what really happened.

 

[sdcfia]

"Shifting the Burden of Proof" is generally considered to be a fallacious argument - with some leeway when you consider the concept that nothing can be proven or disproven beyond any doubt, ala the Greek Skeptics school of logic. Quite an esoteric concept, but of limited use in our world.

In most human arguments, the original claims are judged against a "Standard of Proof", generally ranked in strength by "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", "proof by a preponderance of evidence", or "proof providing convincing evidence" - all three acceptable in most matters. In the case of the Tumlinson stones, most objective folks, based on the available evidence, are way more likely to accept that Travis carved the stones, IMO. Believing otherwise seems more like a stubborn case of confirmation bias on the part of those who essentially believe that Travis "found" the rocks.

On the other hand, if Travis carved the stones, would this imply that there is nothing of importance on them? No, IMO. However, these "authenticity claims" will only be accepted by most observers when proof is provided, and the same Standard of Proof would apply.

 

[azdave35]

"Shifting the Burden of Proof" is generally considered to be a fallacious argument - with some leeway when you consider the concept that nothing can be proven or disproven beyond any doubt, ala the Greek Skeptics school of logic. Quite an esoteric concept, but of limited use in our world.

In most human arguments, the original claims are judged against a "Standard of Proof", generally ranked in strength by "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", "proof by a preponderance of evidence", or "proof providing convincing evidence" - all three acceptable in most matters. In the case of the Tumlinson stones, most objective folks, based on the available evidence, are way more likely to accept that Travis carved the stones, IMO. Believing otherwise seems more like a stubborn case of confirmation bias on the part of those who essentially believe that Travis "found" the rocks.

On the other hand, if Travis carved the stones, would this imply that there is nothing of importance on them? No, IMO. However, these "authenticity claims" will only be accepted by most observers when proof is provided, and the same Standard of Proof would apply.

actually there is a way to prove the doorstops are not bogus..and that is to produce the mine or treasure that they lead to...and being as that has never been done with hundreds of individuals trying to solve them in the past 70 years ...these doorstops are by far and wide the most studied treasure maps on the planet (or at least on the north american continent)...and many highly intelligent people have worked on them and came up with nothing..that should be enough proof to anyone that they are bogus...now that being said..i have known dozens of arrogant hunters that bragged they solved the maps and they fit their area perfect....but the truth of the matter is that whoever carved those maps put alot of work into them...and they didn't carve them so they could return to an "area"....they would have been carved to return to a mine or treasure .....and like sdcfia said....if travis carved them it doesn't mean they are worthless.....a map is usually only worth something to the artist of the map...he is the only one that truly knows what it means

 

[JohnWhite]

actually there is a way to prove the doorstops are not bogus..and that is to produce the mine or treasure that they lead to...and being as that has never been done with hundreds of individuals trying to solve them in the past 70 years ...these doorstops are by far and wide the most studied treasure maps on the planet (or at least on the north american continent)...and many highly intelligent people have worked on them and came up with nothing..that should be enough proof to anyone that they are bogus...now that being said..i have known dozens of arrogant hunters that bragged they solved the maps and they fit their area perfect....but the truth of the matter is that whoever carved those maps put alot of work into them...and they didn't carve them so they could return to an "area"....they would have been carved to return to a mine or treasure .....and like sdcfia said....if travis carved them it doesn't mean they are worthless.....a map is usually only worth something to the artist of the map...he is the only one that truly knows what it means

IF you continue to insist that nobody has found anything dave...I' will have to...

Ed T

 

[deducer]

In the case of the Tumlinson stones, most objective folks, based on the available evidence, are way more likely to accept that Travis carved the stones, IMO. Believing otherwise seems more like a stubborn case of confirmation bias on the part of those who essentially believe that Travis "found" the rocks.

On the other hand, if Travis carved the stones, would this imply that there is nothing of importance on them? No, IMO. However, these "authenticity claims" will only be accepted by most observers when proof is provided, and the same Standard of Proof would apply.

May I ask what the available evidence consists of?

 

[Oroblanco]

If you show conclusively that something cannot be proven to be fraudulent, then what other outcome is there?

By that line of reasoning, then if I say that I found the lost Dutchman's gold mine, and you cannot prove I didn't then it must be true right? Actually I am a little surprised that you would be accepting that logic?

Deducer also wrote

It's well known in archaeology that it's next to impossible to date stones, especially when they've been cleaned and are out of context. Stones have to be in situ, to be accurately dated. The one thing that could be tested is the glue used to hold the heart stone together, but from what I've read, the museum is resistant to doing this.

And like Polzer, what does DAI have to profit from, by declaring the Stone Maps to be true, authentic treasure maps?

They'd get laughed out of the room by their peers.

We have been over this ground before - the stones out of context (their original bedding) are not possible to 'date' precisely. This leaves us with other options like finding little rootlets growing in the stone, and unfortunately according to the story, Travis scrubbed the stones heavily to remove all the dirt. This leaves only the actual inscriptions themselves, and unfortunately, the style of the letters is all wrong for a supposed 1847 Mexican author. This was basically the conclusion of DAI Inc. The style of the inscriptions is all wrong - including the art work, like the horse for example which is perfectly in line with 1930s-1950s cartoonish artwork. Not correct for mid 19th century.

Deducer also wrote'

I don't know why there is a stubborn illusion that what Garry Cundiff was told, is proof of anything? Hearsay is not proof.

As Garry, in his own words has said: "It is not my intention to try and convince anyone of anything. I just want to present some of what we have found, what we have seen and what we have been told."

And on top of that, I'll repeat that not the whole family is in agreement on what really happened.

Stubborn? Surely you jest!

Do you doubt that Travis carved the chimney of their family house? If you can accept that he probably did it, and likely the Galleon stone as well, that makes Travis a stone carver. A stone carver who then claimed to have "Found" the set of treasure map stones we call the Peralta stones even though the name Peralta never appears on them. It doesn't automatically prove that Travis must have carved the Peralta stones, but it is highly suspicious.

I suppose I should include this question, in case you do not believe that Travis carved the chimney of the house - IF you don't believe Travis carved the chimney, who or whom do you say carved the chimney? Thanks in advance, although I don't expect you will say that Travis never carved the chimney.

Coffee?

 

[JohnWhite]

By that line of reasoning, then if I say that I found the lost Dutchman's gold mine, and you cannot prove I didn't then it must be true right? Actually I am a little surprised that you would be accepting that logic?

Deducer also wrote


We have been over this ground before - the stones out of context (their original bedding) are not possible to 'date' precisely. This leaves us with other options like finding little rootlets growing in the stone, and unfortunately according to the story, Travis scrubbed the stones heavily to remove all the dirt. This leaves only the actual inscriptions themselves, and unfortunately, the style of the letters is all wrong for a supposed 1847 Mexican author. This was basically the conclusion of DAI Inc. The style of the inscriptions is all wrong - including the art work, like the horse for example which is perfectly in line with 1930s-1950s cartoonish artwork. Not correct for mid 19th century.

Deducer also wrote'


Stubborn? Surely you jest!

Do you doubt that Travis carved the chimney of their family house? If you can accept that he probably did it, and likely the Galleon stone as well, that makes Travis a stone carver. A stone carver who then claimed to have "Found" the set of treasure map stones we call the Peralta stones even though the name Peralta never appears on them. It doesn't automatically prove that Travis must have carved the Peralta stones, but it is highly suspicious.

I suppose I should include this question, in case you do not believe that Travis carved the chimney of the house - IF you don't believe Travis carved the chimney, who or whom do you say carved the chimney? Thanks in advance, although I don't expect you will say that Travis never carved the chimney.

Coffee?

I have a theory on who carved the chimney Oro... https://www.google.com/search?q=did...ome..69i57.22886j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 lol

Ed T

 

[azdave35]

IF you continue to insist that nobody has found anything dave...I' will have to...

Ed T

ed my friend...if you have found something please entertain us

 

[Oroblanco]

I have a theory on who carved the chimney Oro... https://www.google.com/search?q=did...ome..69i57.22886j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 lol

Ed T

Oh my gawd I nearly had the double-nostril coffee-fountain explosion! I have got to learn to NOT be taking a big swig of anything when reading your posts!

 

[azdave35]

Oh my gawd I nearly had the double-nostril coffee-fountain explosion! I have got to learn to NOT be taking a big swig of anything when reading your posts!

like i said before...better than tv and no commercials...

 

[JohnWhite]

ed my friend...if you have found something please entertain us

I learn something new every day Dave...Today I learned something about Revelation 16:21...I had the strangest thought about the hundred pounds of ore I brought from a location that some ancients may have considered their heaven here on Earth...So, what IF said ore might be the hailstones mentioned in said passageThat would be one heck of a theory on my part...Wouldn't it

You could always ask a certain member of this site about said hailstones Dave...Maybe one day he will come clean and let ya'll in on said ore...I'll not hold my breath though...It has been said that you can't teach an old dog new tricks...Oh well...

I wonder how much time we have leftYa'll will not see me spilling the beans Dave...I don't believe that things will be changing anytime soon...And IF this is the case...We all might be heading down the road to hell...hahaha...You won't see me sweating it though...I have already stated that I have already been sealed...By me...rofl

Ed T

 

[deducer]

Do you doubt that Travis carved the chimney of their family house? If you can accept that he probably did it, and likely the Galleon stone as well, that makes Travis a stone carver. A stone carver who then claimed to have "Found" the set of treasure map stones we call the Peralta stones even though the name Peralta never appears on them. It doesn't automatically prove that Travis must have carved the Peralta stones, but it is highly suspicious.

I suppose I should include this question, in case you do not believe that Travis carved the chimney of the house - IF you don't believe Travis carved the chimney, who or whom do you say carved the chimney? Thanks in advance, although I don't expect you will say that Travis never carved the chimney.

Roy,

Have you seen a picture of the entire chimney?