The Book Club

[wrmickel1]

[QUOTE=Hal Croves;
It is a short list. Even shorter when you see the key being a topo, an aerial map, or an aerial photograph.


Hal

You are so misguilded I,m sure you must work for the Obama's, One more time, there were no airplanes then, no topo maps, no aerial photograph,s. Maybe you work in the anal-lies-errr department. I'm sure if you work as a aid in the whitehouse your underware are hanging in a closet in plastic wrap waiting to start a scandle.

Take your meds

Wrmickel1

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Hal Croves]

You may be correct, but if there are unmentionables involved, rest assured that they are not mine. We live close to the gaberdine here on the east coast.

Here is an idea. Why not put some meat on that bone of yours and prove yourself by sharing some concrete evidence? Why all the secrecy in your eloquent yet beguiling posts?
One truth does remains constant here on TN...

If one could, one would, but most can not and therefore don't.

It is not an easy thing to create a narrative for the stone maps and yours is as valid as the next. In my mind, being understood is a validation of ones efforts. They don't have to agree with the solution, just comprehend it. TN is an incredible sounding board for ideas and a great tool for research. You obviously spend time on the site, so why not use that time to explain your discovery? Or, are you also protecting some secret location in the mountains that conceals a kings ransom? Careful here. In the end, many who go looking find only themselves, one shingle short.

Anything of value that is in the SWA is protected, not to mention the ensuing legal battle that would blossom overnight if one were to find something that could be removed. The discoverer might be the last person to realize any reward and it might take years to see any of that. But if you have something, what-on-earth could possible stop you from filing for a treasure trove permit? It makes little sense unless you plan to simply walk away with your find. Regarding this... my advice would be not to attempt it... for both legal and superstitious reasons.

Make yourself understood. I for one would read your conclusions.
You might even become famous in the process.
I wonder if celebrity is your Achilles heal?
A pensive head shot overlooking your discovery site on the cover of People, Time or even Tiger Beat Magazine?

 

[sgtfda]

I've as yet to see evidence on when or how the stones were made. There are many opinions but how many are based on a scientific examination of the stones. Was there such a exam and if so what were the results. Other than the FBI thing.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

there is no method to date the stones. type of stone yes...
when the carving took place...perhaps: patina in the carving...but, typically inaccurate.
there are no artifacts found in association with these stones: method to date through association.

 

[sgtfda]

Tool marks. Machine or hand cut. What type tool was used. Modern or antique.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

yes...but...hand tools have been around a long time...

 

[sgtfda]

The copies at the museum have machine made tool cuts. Perhaps from when the castings were cleaned up. I've qualified as a expert in criminal court on these issues. It is possible to date the carving with tool marks. If there are machine made marks on the original stones then they are modern or recut with machine cutting tools.

 

[Hal Croves]

there is no method to date the stones. type of stone yes...
when the carving took place...perhaps: patina in the carving...but, typically inaccurate.
there are no artifacts found in association with these stones: method to date through association.

I think that there might be a way to test the stones for a possible date range.
You wrote "type of stone yes". Do you know what type of stone and where a local source can be found?

 

[sgtfda]

Don't take my word for it. Get a magnifying glass and visit a cemetery with grave stones from the mid 1800's. look at the engraving. Find one thats not to weather worn Then look at a modern machine cut headstone from the 1940's. On the machine cut stone look for tool marks at the end of the cut or on a overlap cut. Then the next time your near the Superstitions stop at the museum and check the display stones. You tell me what you see. If your going to spend time on the stone search you should at least know what your working with as your guide.

 

[Springfield]

Don't take my word for it. Get a magnifying glass and visit a cemetery with grave stones from the mid 1800's. look at the engraving. Find one thats not to weather worn Then look at a modern machine cut headstone from the 1940's. On the machine cut stone look for tool marks at the end of the cut or on a overlap cut. Then the next time your near the Superstitions stop at the museum and check the display stones. You tell me what you see. If your going to spend time on the stone search you should at least know what your working with as your guide.

This is very tricky business, particularly if the intent to deceive is in the mix. Experts can be fooled - it happens every day with faked artifacts, forged paintings, etc.

If I were seriously interested in investing time, energy and money in this project, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a close examination of, and a comprehensive set of photos of the original stones - not duplicates, replicas, display pieces, etc. Why settle for less?

 

[sgtfda]

I agree 100%.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

This is purely my own personal opinion, based on what I've seen of the Stone Maps and read about them and I believe the two Stone Maps ( DON Heart-Cross) currently in the Superstition Mountain Historical Society Museum (SMHSM), are not the original stones.
It is undisputed that Travis Tumlinson was first to possess the Stone Maps. It is also undisputed that Clarence Mitchell, obtained those same Stone Maps from the widow of Tumlinson after he passed away.
Clarence Mitchell aka. Travis Marlowe, wrote a book based on those Stone Maps in 1964 titled Superstition Treasures, University of California Press 64 pages.
In that book Mitchell/Marlowe details how Tumlinson said he found the Stone Maps, and how he (Mitchell/Marlowe) came into possession of them from Tumlinson's widow.
Of most interest in that book are several very clear and detailed photographs of the Stone Maps both front and back. Photos taken by Mitchell/Marlowe shortly after he acquired the Stone Maps from Mrs. Tumlinson about 1960-1963 time period.
If you look closely at those photos, examine them in detail, and look closely, comparing them to the Stone Maps in the SMHS Museum, you will see they are not the same Stone Maps. (I am talking about the two, DON and Heart, Cross maps, not the Priest and Horse map.) Several glaring differences can be easily noted.
I believe the Museum Stones were most probably made as copies and may have been manufactured with modern equipment or tooling.
In Mitchell/Marlowe's book, he explains in detail he has in his possession an affidavit from a professor of a leading California University stating the Stone Maps he acquired from Tumlinson are authentic, and without question at least 100 years old.
Mitchell's reference to the professor stating the Stones being at least 100 years old is the basis for the stories that the FBI examined the stones and stated they were at least 100 years old. There is no record the FBI examined the stones as they would have had no reason to examine them. Stories circulated over the years that Mitchell's Corporation (MOEL) filed bankruptcy and was tried for defrauding investors using the Stones are simply not true. Neither account ever happened.
Once again, this is merely my own opinion based on a comparison of the Stones in Mitchell/Marlowe's book and the Stones currently in the SMHS Museum.

Matthew K. Roberts

 

[Springfield]

..... In Mitchell/Marlowe's book, he explains in detail he has in his possession an affidavit from a professor of a leading California University stating the Stone Maps he acquired from Tumlinson are authentic, and without question at least 100 years old.
Mitchell's reference to the professor stating the Stones being at least 100 years old is the basis for the stories that the FBI examined the stones and stated they were at least 100 years old. ....

Matthew K. Roberts

IMO, Mitchell did the right thing, seeking an expert's opinion. Did he choose a reliable witness? Who knows? Seems like a lot of folks have hung their hats on the academic's affidavit.

Me? I'd want a private forensic professional who examines and certifies museum purchases for a living. Big-time collectors want reliable results when a lot of money is on the line. This isn't Monday-morning quarterbacking of Mitchell - what's done is done. However, there is nothing preventing a re-examination of the original stones except their presence, some money and the proper authorization.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

UNE - Archaeology - Dating Rock Art

 

[Hal Croves]

IMO, Mitchell did the right thing, seeking an expert's opinion. Did he choose a reliable witness? Who knows? Seems like a lot of folks have hung their hats on the academic's affidavit.

Me? I'd want a private forensic professional who examines and certifies museum purchases for a living. Big-time collectors want reliable results when a lot of money is on the line. This isn't Monday-morning quarterbacking of Mitchell - what's done is done. However, there is nothing preventing a re-examination of the original stones except their presence, some money and the proper authorization.

Pass the hat around. I am in for a hundred if you can pull it off... permission that is.

 

[Springfield]

UNE - Archaeology - Dating Rock Art

A clever hoaxer might overcome detection by using old hand tools and relying on the assumption that the stones were buried for a lengthy period to confound the scientists. Maybe.

I suspect that the stylistics of the modern-looking cartoonish graphics, the cliche treasure symbols and the text lettering styles would be looked at very closely.

Pass the hat around. I am in for a hundred if you can pull it off... permission that is.

You'd need a heavyweight for that argument, and I suspect the owners have no desire to rock the boat.

 

[sgtfda]

We don't even know for sure who has the original stones. A copy could have been passed of at any point

 

[Matthew Roberts]

IMO, Mitchell did the right thing, seeking an expert's opinion. Did he choose a reliable witness? Who knows? Seems like a lot of folks have hung their hats on the academic's affidavit.

Me? I'd want a private forensic professional who examines and certifies museum purchases for a living. Big-time collectors want reliable results when a lot of money is on the line. This isn't Monday-morning quarterbacking of Mitchell - what's done is done. However, there is nothing preventing a re-examination of the original stones except their presence, some money and the proper authorization.

Springfield,

For all we know, Mitchell/Marlowe did have the best experts of his day look at the Stones. We can't assume he had an unqualified rock hound look at them.
And then there's the problem of no matter who examined them, there would always be those who say the examiners were not qualified, or on the take, or paid to say one thing or another.

Why right here on this very forum if God himself appeared and said the Stones were authentic there would be at least one person who posts who would tell us God had made a mistake and he knew the real story.

One very intelligent and open minded member here did look into the story of Mitchell and his examination and ran it down to the family of one of the men who allegedly did the examination. As I understand the family either didn't have all his papers, couldn't find them, had disposed of some of them or the University had them at one time. There is no assumption either that the examination was not a private matter between Mitchell and the Professors and the University was not involved. We don't know the circumstances and cannot say how the examination was structured.



Photo of Clarence O. Mitchell ( Travis Marlowe ) in the Superstition Mountains 1964. Photo from the Life Magazine archives.

Matthew K. Roberts

 

[cactusjumper]

"Why right here on this very forum if God himself appeared and said the Stones were authentic there would be at least one person who posts who would tell us God had made a mistake and he knew the real story."

Could that person be the same one who told Bob Corbin that he would sell him a piece of LDM ore?



Does that piece of ore look familiar to anyone posting here?

There is one person who is posting here, who is known to have twisted the truth for many years. Bob Corbin knows who that person is, and the truth about him. It would be interesting to see if he ever has a face to face conversation with Bob.

Glad to see that Kraig has decided to use his real name on his posts.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[sgtfda]

Joe this is why I enjoy you posts. Never know what dirty little secret may show up.