The Peralta Stones

I would only add here that Papal infallibility is a relatively recent idea, it only dates back to 1870.  Kind of points up how ideas, even including dogma change over time. 
 

Dear Oroblanco;
Actually, the idea of Papal infallibility goes back to the first centuries of the Christian Church, however it was never fully defined until the Vatican I Council in which it was given Solemn and Formal Definition. The first instance of Papal infallibilty was in 449 AD when Pope Leo I wrote The Tome To Flavian which defined the two natures of Jesus Christ. Two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops exclaimed "This is the faith of the fathers! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!"

The issue of Papal infallibilty was first raised by Theodore Abū Qurrah, a Christian Arab, during the 9th century, however was not until the Middle Ages that the concept of Papal infallibilty was serious discussed by Catholic theologians, some of which included the famed St. Thomas of Aquinas and John Peter Olivi.

The very first time that Papal infallibility was defined was in 1330 AD by +Bishop Terreni and His definition of the use of Papal infallibilty is remarkably similiar to the solemn definition outlined at the Vatican I Council. To sum up what the correct definition of Papal infallibilty is, it can be accurately stated that:

"It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear Lamar,

WOW!!!

Take care,

Joe

Sorry, got to interject for a tad of clarity.

Speaking from the Catholic view and teachings - Papal infallibility ONLY pertains to what he says "ex cathedra" (on behalf of the church).  The term does not, nor has it ever, meant anything but that - in other words, his own issues, personal life, temper, personal opinions or what-have-you never came under the heading of Papal Infallibility - and then when it is with the collective learnings of cardinals, past popes etc., and then, usually only when some doctrine has been questioned.

Protestants don't see it quite the same way. In fact, they don't believe in Papal Infallibility.   They believe the Bible is perfect, however, it is the human interpretations that are an issue, and not always entirely free of human error. (of course, depending on the individual person, this can be more conservative or more liberal in thinking)

Bottom line is:  when discussing Papal Infallibility, you kind of have to define it very carefully before you can comment on it - because it's meaning is different for different Christian religions.

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
Papal infallibility ONLY pertains to what he says "ex cathedra" (on behalf of the church).

Actually, EX CATHEDRA means "FROM (or OF) THE CHAIR, meaning of course, the chair of St. Peter. While there exists no true explanation of what defines an Ex Cathedra statement, they are generally considered to include one, or both, of the following statements:
1) a formula which determines that the statement which follows is definite and everlasting, such as "We declare, decree and define..."
2) The statement includes an anathema which states that anyone who knowingly dissents the statement is excommunicated.

A perfect example of Papal infallibilty would be Pope Pius XII encyclical titled "Munificentissimus Deus" (Most Bountiful God). This particular encyclical defines the Assumption of Mary into Heaven and in the encyclical we may read:

(Part of paragraph 44)  by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.


and:
(All of Paragraph) 45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

And that pretty much ends the debate on the assumption of the Virgin Mary's body into Heaven upon Her death. Forever. Period. It may be further defined in the future but the statement itself can never be altered due to "Sensus Fidelium" which says that the original statement can never be altered or deleted by the Church, even if it is later shown to be fallible.

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, He does not do so on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic body, He does so as the Supreme Pontiff, or teacher and protector of the faith and He is speaking to the entire Roman Catholic congregation, for now and all time.
Your friend;
LAMAR

  Larmar my friend ,Can you ever concede to a draw, after all the real last words end up in H. or H. Why not agree with everyones point of view even if you don"t. Why be Ceaser when you can really be Lamar.
Your friend in ice cold Las Vegas.

Dear ghostdog;
I would be more than happy to let the issue of Papal infallibilty rest, however like much in the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, there exists a great deal of doubt and misunderstanding. It would take several lifetimes for any single person to remember all of the current doctrines and dogmas by rote, to say nothing of trying to keep track of all the conspiracy theories currently floating around.

In regards to Roman Catholic dogma I am merely attempting to clarify the position of the traditional teachings, my friend. I do not mean to preach or lecture however I do tend to correct those misrepresentations. Sadly enough, most of the misrepresentations tend to come from members of the Church Herself, in that generations of Roman Catholics were taught incorrectly by other Roman Catholics, and thus their interpretation of certain doctrinal issues are hazy.

The issue of infallibility is one those which is often misunderstood, simply because the use of Ex Cathedra is so rare that most Roman Catholic scholars and teachers consider it to be a very minor issue, and so they tend to gloss over it or eliminate it entirely from their cathecisms.

And now, if there are no more questions regarding Papal infallibilty, I shall be happy to put the issue to rest.
Your friend;
LAMAR

[you are saying that the Papal infallibility was in fact DOGMA and the rule, prior to 1870?]

Lamar wrote

Dear Oroblanco;
Actually, the idea of Papal infallibility goes back to the first centuries of the Christian Church, however it was never fully defined until the Vatican I Council in which it was given Solemn and Formal Definition. The first instance of Papal infallibilty was in 449 AD when Pope Leo I wrote The Tome To Flavian which defined the two natures of Jesus Christ. Two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops exclaimed "This is the faith of the fathers! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!"

The issue of Papal infallibilty was first raised by Theodore Abū Qurrah, a Christian Arab, during the 9th century, however was not until the Middle Ages that the concept of Papal infallibilty was serious discussed by Catholic theologians, some of which included the famed St. Thomas of Aquinas and John Peter Olivi.

The very first time that Papal infallibility was defined was in 1330 AD by +Bishop Terreni and His definition of the use of Papal infallibilty is remarkably similiar to the solemn definition outlined at the Vatican I Council. To sum up what the correct definition of Papal infallibilty is, it can be accurately stated that:

"It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."

So let me get this point, you are saying that the Papal infallibility was in fact DOGMA and the rule, prior to 1870?  As far as I could ascertain, this infallibility idea was not accepted as dogma prior to the Vatican Council of 1870.  Thank you in advance,

I have absolutely NO idea how to tie this in to the subject matter of this thread, just wanted to pin down the dissimulation of our friend Lamar on this point.
Oroblanco

Lamar,

I have to disagree and say - not only do I disagree, but you are incorrect.

Exact translation from one language to another, word for word,  is not possible.  Many many languages, if translated exactly - do not mean what they really mean.  Anyone who has ever spoken another language besides English knows this is true, without a doubt.  For instance, translate this: jugo de china - juice of a chinese woman - right?  Nope, its orange juice.  How about "huevos or juevos" - eggs, right?  Or, it could mean testicles.
Or, how about "hijo de una gran puta" - It can mean "son of a b.....tch - OR - child of the biggest whore.  How about - well, I could go on forever, but I hope you get the point.

The pope ALWAYS talks about doctrine, when  we are speaking about "papal infallibility" - any catholic (as opposed to just Christian), learns that every Sunday in Catechism.

How about a quote or two from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Scope and object of infallibility
1
In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

There is much more, if you'd care to be so educated.  So, before you "put something to bed", make sure you have all the facts, and understand that WE (you included) are not "infallible".

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
translation from one language to another, word for word,  is not possible.  Many many languages, if translated exactly - do not mean what they really mean.  Anyone who has ever spoken another language besides English knows this is true, without a doubt.  For instance, translate this: jugo de china - juice of a chinese woman - right?  Nope, its orange juice.  How about "huevos or juevos" - eggs, right?  Or, it could mean testicles.
Or, how about "hijo de una gran puta" - It can mean "son of a b.....tch - OR - child of the biggest whore.  How about - well, I could go on forever, but I hope you get the point.


Actually  that's all slang. To say "orange juice" in Spanish you would state "jugo de naranja or naranxa" or even "sumo de naranja(naranxa) in certain parts of Spain. Please note that the word "jugo" is true Castillian, whereas the word "sumo(a) was originally Portuguese. The word "huevos" means literally "eggs" an the word "testiculos" is the correct word for testicles, however we were taught as youngsters to say "Blanquillos" for chicken eggs, which is a more polite form of word, although not correct. To state the saying "son of a b....tch" correctly you would proclaim "hijo de perra" in Castillian Spanish or "fil de goz" in Catalan Spanish.  I can even say it in Latin if you'd like. :-)

About the issue which we were discussing, I find nothing in the Catholic Encyclopedia which contradicts that which I've been stating all along, therefore I do not understand how I was possibly incorrect. Perhaps your interpretation is lacking?
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear oroblanco;
You wrote:
So let me get this point, you are saying that the Papal infallibility was in fact DOGMA and the rule, prior to 1870?  As far as I could ascertain, this infallibility idea was not accepted as dogma prior to the Vatican Council of 1870.  Thank you in advance,

I have absolutely NO idea how to tie this in to the subject matter of this thread, just wanted to pin down the dissimulation of our friend Lamar on this point.
Oroblanco

Yes, it is correct that Papal infallibility was not defined in a Council before 1870 AD, however this does NOT mean that the concept did not exist before then. In our Holy Church we have dogma, doctrines, rubrics and something which is known as "Sacred Tradition". This means that if something which was previously undefined, yet accepted by the Church, for the preceeding two hundred or more years, it becomes a part of the Church's heritage and religious beliefs.

A good example of sacred tradition would be the Ambrosian Rite Mass. Prior to 1570 AD, there did not exist a defined set of rubrics (rituals) for the celebration of Mass, therefore Pope Pius V incorporated the Tridentine Missal, making it mandatory throughout the Roman Catholic Church EXCEPT for those Missals which could prove that they have been in use for at least 200 years preceeding the 1570 mandate.

In light of sacred tradition, the Ambrosian Rite Mass continues to be celebrated throughout parts of Italy. There also exists several other Missals which pre-date the Council of Trent by at least 200 years, and some are still celebrated while others have fallen into disuse, however, the fact remains that if a Mass was celebrated for 200 years prior to 1570 AD, it remains a valid and licit Mass recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. This includes all of the Eastern Orthodoxies.

This is also why the current Roman Catholic Church cannot foresee any critical issues of doctrine by permitting the whole of the Anglican Church to reunite with Rome. The traditions of the Anglicans were taken directly from their former religion, that being the Catholics, and Englicized. In fact, the Latin Vulgate Bible was used throughout the Anglican Church until at least the mid 1800s and it remains a licit interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to the traditional Anglican clergy.  In short, the doctrines of the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic Church are so similiar that, because of sacred traditions, the Anglicans may be welcomed back into the fold with opened arms and little, if any, Catholic catchecism.

The confusion lies in that not everything within the Roman Catholic Church is written down or even NEEDS to be written down, my friend. There exists no SOP in regards to the Holy Church and the closest we come to something like that would be the Code of Canon Law and the Catchecisms and even these are quite often subjected to the closest scrutinies. Sacred tradition, however cannot be subjected to the same scrutiny because they are accepted as part of the Church. When asked why a certain diocese does something a certain way, the age-old universal answer seems to be "Because that's the way we've ALWAYS done it!" :-)
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear oroblanco;
In all reality, the entire issue of Papal infallibility would never have been discussed in a theological Council, much less defined, had it not been for the unrelenting attacks on the subject by the Protestant clergy. They would spout off with something like "Catholics think that everything the Pope says and does is beyond reproach!", which of course is wholly untrue, however the Protestants liked to say things like that, however they didn't really start saying this until the 1800s, as most of them were still subjects to kings and queens before that time. Talk about your classical example of hippocracy. It boggles the mind. The use of Papal infallibility is so rare within the Church that most Roman Catholic church leaders would not even have considered it to be a point worth defining had it not been for the Protestants.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Lamar wrote

The use of Papal infallibility is so rare within the Church that most Roman Catholic church leaders would not even have considered it to be a point worth defining had it not been for the Protestants.

Then in your opinion, do Catholics owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for having brought the whole issue into question and thus getting it officially defined?  Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

See, Lamar,

You are again making an assumption.  Only Costillians think that Costillian is "the" proper and only Spanish.  I said nothing in "slang", but rather in other Spanish tongues.  Puerto Rican, Mexican, Basque and other spanish areas have their own dialects - yes, they have slang, too, but there is other dialects.

Here is more quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  (please note the dates, because we must remember that Protestants do not agree with Papal Infallibility, even though they are Christian.)

To the Roman Catholic, "ex cathedra" (Latin for 'from the seat') statements are as infallible as the Bible. This infallibility rests on the Pope's supreme authority as St. Peter's successor. Here are three of the "infallible" declarations which exercised the "ex cathedra" and were placed alongside the authority of the Bible:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unan Snactam, 1302).
"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can never be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into eternal fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church" [Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.


Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

B

Dear Oroblanco;
You asked:
Then in your opinion, do Catholics owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for having brought the whole issue into question and thus getting it officially defined?  Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco
Honestly, no I do not feel that as Catholics we owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for anything. They've taken many non-issues and because of deliberate misinterpretations converted them in something to their own liking. In other words, they slandered a religious group in order to (incorrectly) try and portray themselves as the ideal Christian faith.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
You are again making an assumption.  Only Costillians think that Costillian is "the" proper and only Spanish

In all reality, Castillian Spanish is recognized as the correct form of the langauge throughout the Spanish speaking world, my friend. International Spanish is taught directly from the rules of grammar from Spain. To quote directly:
The Real Academia Española (English: Royal Spanish Academy), the RAE, is the official royal institution responsible for regulating the Spanish language. It is based in Madrid, Spain, but is affiliated with national language academies in twenty-one Spanish-speaking nations through the Association of Spanish Language Academies.

In other words, the Spanish of the Royal Spanish Academy, which is in Madrid, Spain, oddly enough, is the regulating body for the Spanish language. And no, they do not teach the phrase "juego de china" in the classrooms in Puerto Rico. That is learned on the streets, hence my use of the term "slang".  All educated Puerto Ricans realize the correct form would be "juego de naranja" and as such they can fully comprehend this phrase whenever they venture away from their island.

I am able to communicate in two of the five principle dialects of Spain, and have been trying to learn a third dialect off and on. And yes, I am able to translate Latin into English in a concise and coherent manner with a precise and comprehensive definition. Converting from English to Latin is another story entirely and in this aspect I am woefully lacking, however I am seldom called upon to do so, so it does not handicap me much at all.

This is the beauty of translating from a dead language into a living one. The dead language is not subject to change in that the meaning of the words always remain as they are.  Written words are used to convery instructions, thoughts, concepts and ideas and if the language used to express these is not subjected to the evolution of time and usage then it's a very simple matter to translate them.

On the other hand, when attempting to translate from a living language into a dead one, the problems multiply, because the words of the living langauge tend to evolve and therefore we must always remain vigilant to the modern nuences of the language we attempting to use as the root language.
Your friend;
LAMAR

They don't teach "jeugo de China"  in Puerto Rico?  Well, they've been teaching it, and saying it, at least since 1967 - and every year since then - I have not only spent much time in PR, several of my nieces and nephews went to school there, not to mention I have family who lives there.  In fact, my ex-father-in-law (Costillian Spanish), from Spain, and my ex-mother-in-law (Puerto Rico), used to have very spirited discussions over her language and his.

I'm done now, since you obviously don't know what you are talking about, but want to convince me that you do.

Oh, and I can speak both.

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
As a point of fact, Castilian is spelled with an A and not an O. It's pronounced as CAW STEEL E AHN, and not COST EEL E AHN. I may not know what I am talking about but I do know how to spell in Spanish.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Well, excuse me for typing faster than I think and not using the spell-check.

Ok, you have the last word.

B

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
No apologies are necessary! And now let's return to Papal infallibility, or whatever it was we were discussing... Oh yes, the Lost Dutchman Mine! Are people STILL looking for that? Amazing.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Yep - I guess there are still people looking for the Lost Dutchman - but, imo, it won't be found with the Peralta Stones.

B

B,

I have to agree with you.  The Stone Maps are of the western end of the mountains, and the LDM is over by Iron Mountain.

Take care,

Joe

Evening: I am going to inject a few comments here.  I was born and raised a Catholic.  I was an altar boy for a bit - no, ORO! - I was even being groomed for the Seminary.

Unfortunately the lumps on my head by the sisters  interfered with my clear thinking by the contusions and I finally asked, "why did the Lord make it soo difficult for we moderns, when the original ones were only given 10 commandments to follow ??

I am still waiting for the answer as to when the LORD reappeared to give me further orders beyond the 10 commandments.

Am I to assume that like the Archaeologists, the present  teachings are a form / type of job security?

Conclusion, Oro if BETH brings up Religion at night around the camp fire, she will be banned to the woman's place, clean up the area, fetch firewood, cook, wash, care for the mules, and scratching the backs of the two legged ones..

Peeps, regarding translations I have had to do Legal ones many, many times down here.   I have found that even professional personnel still tend to a literal word for word translation.  They can't seem to understand that one must understand the context and intent of the original to faithfully translate.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[Shh!]

Don Jose la gringo de la Mancha wrote

Conclusion, Oro if BETH brings up Religion at night around the camp fire, she will be banned to the woman's place, clean up the area, fetch firewood, cook, wash, care for the mules, and scratching the backs of the two legged ones..

Shh!  I have told her that was her job description, don't go and make it sound like some kind of punishment!   

Don Jose, Dueno de Minas Y Real de Tayopa also wrote

Peeps, regarding translations I have had to do Legal ones many, many times down here.   I have found that even professional personnel still tend to a literal word for word translation.  They can't seem to understand that one must understand the context and intent of the original to faithfully translate.

Just a personal opinion but I prefer the literal translation, which can then be re-examined for contextual meaning(s).  For me, the hardest (and most fun) have been Punic and Phoenician inscriptions, which often can be read in more than one way since the vowels are not written except when used more like a consonant.  (There was a website with a number of good photos online, with Dutch translations, very good practice but it seems to have been pulled from the Net. Drat.) 

To try to tie this back in with our topic matter, has anyone considered the idea that the Peralta stone inscriptions may NOT be Spanish but a similar, perhaps closely related language like Portuguese?  It seems this idea did get mentioned earlier but I don't recall any comparisons with Portuguese or Italian or another Latin based language. <I know "coazon" is not Portuguese for "heart" as that word is "coracao" just curious if anyone has found anything new along these lines.>  Thank you in advance, 
Oroblanco
 

The Knights of the Golden Circle???

B

I take it nobody buys into the theory that the Peralta Stones lead the way to a giant Knights of the Golden Circle depository and The Lost Dutchman's Mine mystery was solved   

I buy the theory in part SWR.

The Stone Tablets are not exclusively KGC and the tablets are not restricted to one giant depository.
The LDM legend was craftily concocted to lead the masses away from the depositories to focus the search in the areas near Iron Mountain and Weaver's Needle. Guess what? The plan has worked perfectly. Wouldn't you say SWR?

EB

The Knights of the Golden Circle???

B

Yes B,

AKA KGC, a secret society that primarily operated during the Civil War that supported the Confederacy. Their primary job was to mine for gold (in the southwest and California). They also stole gold, arms and goods from the Union forces and Union sympathizers. These goods were hidden, cached, buried, etc. and WERE to be given to the Confederacy to help them win the war. This never happened, thus the KGC betrayed the Confederacy and all of the men that supported it. A short historical account. Any questions? Open to anyone.


EB

Yes, question - in what years?

B

Ellie,

One other question:   What is your source for those "factual?" historical statements?

Thank you in advance.

Take care,

Joe

Yes, question - in what years?

B

Hi B, and Joe,

Mid to late 1850's up to 1910 give or take a few years. I do have some personal documentation that I have been gathering over the years which will shed some light on a number of their operations. One being the hard rock mine that we are currently developing was once operated by the KGC as identified by the use of many common signs and symbols that can be found all over the mine area. The secrecy of this mine and the region's mining activities had effected the local communities near these mines and the secrecy still exists in its older citizens while the younger generations are suspicious of these secret societies. These towns have no written history related to mining although hundreds of claims were filed from the 1860's through the early 1900's! The mines in the area produced millions of US dollars in wealth and no records exist. The state of Arizona and the USGS can back up this claim. I am not yet ready to release this information until I write the book. This depository is also connected to the Stone Maps. A snapshot view of the KGC, pg. 16, Rebel Gold by Bob Brewer is a very good read. He is currently the authority concerning the KGC.

EB

Hi SWR,

When the time comes to write the book it will be well documented and based on actual information. Theories involving the facts will be demonstrated and submitted to the reader's scrutiny. I do not plan to include fictional data of any kind. Real people, places and events will fill the pages, the data will be historically accurate. It will not be a perfect publication and some folks will always have their doubts, while others will find faults and choose not to believe the truth. Bob Brewer's book is in no way fictional, as I was working with him here in Arizona concerning the LDM, the Stone Maps and the Arizona Desert Treasure located in Adamsville and that is the truth (33). I am in one sense a witness mark.

Have a great week,

EB

Hi mi buddy swr: Have you tried 'jugo de Muso' for that eye problem?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Thanks for the follow-up.

I have not done much research on the KGC  -  depositories or otherwise, though I will have to follow up with that.

However, IF (big if) the Peralta Stones are equated with it, then it definitely was NOT the LDM. (or a combination thereof).

After years of research, I am convinced, without a doubt, that the LDM existed, and the Peralta Stones have nothing to do with it. (big emphasis on the Peralta Stone connection).

B

HI LUV: I have already told both You and ORO, they were for the land grab  snicker.

Don Jose de La Mancha

                                       

Don Jose,

While James Addison Reavis did visit the Phoenix area in 1880, he spent the next ten years traveling between Arizona, New Mexico and California.  There is no record of his ever spending any time exploring the Superstitions.

As I have mentioned many times, whoever created the Stone Maps spent many years in the mountains.  They did not pop in for a short hike and draw the maps.  The Stone Maps were never produced in support of Reavis' claims, and would not have helped those claims.......whatsoever.

There is nothing on the Stone Maps to tie them to the Peralta family.  Historically, we can make that leap in logic today, but it would have been a difficult sale in 1880.  Reavis would have put the Peralta name on the stones, if he sought to make that connection.

If I were to follow logic I would look to other possible creators such as,  Chuck Aylor and Ted DeGrazia.

You would need to flesh out your theory a bit more to make it, somewhat, believeable.

Take care,

Joe

I don't know if they would have spent time in the Supers - just have access to people who did, or to a good library of maps.

Or someone like Barry Storm, who spent time in the Supers - and sure did like to tell stories, not to mention that he had been caught making fake spanish clues.  Sure did sell a lot of books. (even a movie on his book - Lust for Gold), the man never mined bending the truth here and there.

B

Beth,

I believe we are talking 1880 here.

Take care,

Joe

[much]

Don Jose wrote

I have already told both You and ORO, they were for the land grab snicker.

As our mutual friend Cactusjumper has already replied and covered the same objections I would have, I can only ask why, if they were a part of Baron Reavis' plan, did he not make use of them?  I know Don Jose' suggested that they were just "too late" in the game to help, thus were discarded, but even the date (1847) is quite late compared with the falsified documents actually used by the Baron.  

1880?  I have to wonder about a couple of factors that would not work well with that date - for one, the artwork is very 1930's.  For another, the site where they were found was along a well used trail in 1880, and folks traveled a lot by horseback.  That may not be instantly apparent as some reason for not agreeing with an 1880 date, but sitting on a horse, you can see farther than a person in a car - <This is one reason why mounted searchers are still used for modern search and rescue operations> and with less obstructions (no glass or car frame) not to mention the far lower speed; hence there would have been a much higher chance of being discovered by a passerby.  Even if hidden in the brush, remember much of the area was open range, and the cow hands had to "beat the bushes" all the time, in the process becoming much more intimate with the terrain and what was in it than modern people are.  Anyway I don't think an 1880 date will work.

Oroblanco

OK peeps:   (((((((((((((((((Reavis theory ))))))))))))))))

That fleshed out enough?

Don Jose de La Mancha

K  what date would they have to be for Reavis?

Who says they weren't ready then?

They were for bolstering his claim, undoubtedly he had papers prepared using them as an aux bit of confirmation. Unfortunately, they weren't rediscovered in time to be of any good, so the prepared papers using them were simply destroyed since they were of no further use, except for the gov't to prosecute him.

As for cowboys covering that area, yet not seeing them - sheehs if it doesn't have horns or a skirt, no self respecting cowboy would see them.

If you think that Bb was rough, wait a bit  heheheh

There is no other logical reason for their existence.

Don Jose BB de La Mancha

Don Jose,

There is a space between "theory" and your first parenthesis.  That should be filled in for the complete visual fleshing out.

Take care,

Joe

Don Jose,

Ahh, now I see why that space was there.  It was to make room for the rather large holes in your theory....   Probably should have left a few more spaces.....

Take care,

Joe

Shucks  JOE, My wife says that they are to match the holes in my head, sigh

As for the theory, start shooting holes in it, there are many opportunites.

Theory--
--
--
--
--
--
Facts
--
--
--
--
Don Jose de La Mancha

[no facts]

Don Jose,

That will be no problem.

You have placed "Facts" between "Theory" and "Don Jose de La Mancha".  Since there are no facts presented in this theory, the holes are rather obvious.  I assume you did not use this method to verify the location and existance of Tayopa.

Take care,

The Other Jose.......

[why is there no PERALTA name found on the stones?]

Don Jose wrote

As for the theory, start shooting holes in it, there are many opportunites.

OK amigo but remember, you opened the gate...

First objection - why is there no PERALTA name found on the stones? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco
 

HI mi good  buddy ORO     (one must always be nice to the mentally - WORD REMOVED - Some people (parents of hadicapped children for example) find this word offensive.  Please don't use denigrating terms here at TreasureNet.  Thanks.ed, especially if they are sheep lovers)  Our friend from New Mexico has possibly answered that for you.

Horse = Peralta= horse.

Interesting wild card to throw  into the pot.   

Don Jose de La Mancha

[In what language?]

Peralta= horse. ??  In what language?

In the language of the great "Oz".

B

HI ORO:  read the today's post from  our new found friend from New Mexico.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. It is new to me also, but who am I to reject a potential tool.

Beth, go fetch some firewood and drinking water, while yer  up make us some coffee..

Don Jose deLa Mancha

he he h e

Of course, we could stretch it to Peraltar (maybe not a stud, but ................)


I know, I know - coffee is on.....................

B

Peralta means stallion?  I can't find anything to support this idea. Can anyone show me some documentary proof that Peralta means stallion (or even gelding)?  Thank you in advance.
Oroblanco

Beth,

I really like your idea.  Bank, as in Wells Fargo.........?

Take care,

Joe

You realize, of course, that there is someone currently writing a book about finding the treasure of the Peralta Stones in New Mexico?

Unless it is already out - I'm not sure if it is or not.

B

Well this subject <Peralta Stones> never was one I have had any "expertise" in, and I am now totally lost now - Peralta means stallion, Wells Fargo, and the KGC, it is just baffling to me. 

Beth,

Believe I am all done buying new books on the Stone Maps.  Probably would buy Azmula's, if he ever gets it published, but that's just for something to read.  Now if someone writes a book using my map, I expect a signed first edition.

Believe a fellow named Mark.......something just brought out a new book.

Take care,

Joe

CJ,

Are you talking about the New Mexico thing?

B

Beth  You posted -->

(maybe not a stud, but ................)
~~~~~~~~~

Keep 'Roy out of this conversation, he probably can't even find the Naranjo mine, let alone  Zimmerman's  lost small ship loaded with gold bars.

He is even being contaminated by swr -->

"Can anyone show me some documentary proof "     

Sheesh.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. Local ideomatics can definitely change a languages original intent.

what is a Mango ?   Here it can be used to refer to a sexy guy by the gals.

I.E.  ROY is a Mango?

Tee Hee,

In the part of Pa we were raised in - a Mango was a green bell pepper!!!!

B

Beth: I love green Bell peppers,  but,  that is as 'far' as it goes   

Don Jose de La Manacha

Dear group;
Actually, the origins of the surmane PERALTA began in Catalunya and it is a contraction consisting of two words, PETRA and ALTA.  Contrary to popular belief, the word Petra is not Latin, rather it's classical Greek and it means ROCK and as a point of fact, there is an ancient settlement in Jordan named PETRA and it is one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It is believed to have been so named because it was carved from the solid rock face of a cliff.

The world ALTA is a Catalan derrivative of the Latin word ALTUS and it means HIGH or DEEP. Therefore, the name PERALTA can mean either HIGH ROCK (as in a tall cliff) or DEEP ROCK, however it most likely means TALL CLIFF or HIGH CLIFF.
Your friend;
LAMAR

[ROFLMAO]

Don Jose de la Mancha, AKA Tropical Tramp wrote

I.E. ROY is a Mango?

ROFLMAO   heehee - boy considering what your LOCAL definition of a Mango can be, referring to a "sexy guy" there is NO danger that anyone will ever use that term when referring to ME!  

So Peralta meaning "horse" is a local or colloquial meaning.  Lamar posted very much what I found when I tried to find it last night, not sure just why that meaning came about.  Well I will have to take your word for it, and on to the next objection. <Actually a double-edged one>

As Reavis was making a large land claim, and we know that his fake stone inscriptions were more on the ground type not anything portable, what use would such "maps" be?  They do not show land borders or monuments marking a border, and instead have seemingly 'Christian' or PERHAPS intended to look 'Jesuit' symbols, most curious being the "witch".  As some kind of land claim aids, these Peralta Stones seem very inappropriate, having no direct name PERALTA on them, no borders for his land grant claim, only mysterious "treasures" type of marks that seem to lead to some kind of buried treasures or mines. Can you explain this, and show how these stones would have supported Reavis' fraudulent land claims?  

Secondary part objection - if we view the Peralta Stones as an aid to Reavis' false land grant claim, what significance is the "Witch"?   What does it mean, as relating to Reavis' claims?  Thank you in advance,

Contaminated by SWR?  For asking to see some published definition of the meaning of a family surname?  Sheesh!  Next you will be saying I ask too many questions about what exactly is in the camp coffee!    
Oroblanco
 

Evening el Mango de Naranjal:  A delegation of the sheep met me, they are impressed,  so that is established.

The stone tablets were to establish a presence, not boundary lines.

As for asking about what the camp food and coffee may contain, I have eaten enough odd food to stay alive at times, to know better than to ask, just eat and drink .  Curiously enough, sometimes after getting over the initial urp sensation it has tasted good ?

Regarding sources of information for confirmation, many times  I am the only one, as in this case, since no where are there any known documents relating to the factor in hand.

SIR Don Jose de La Mancha   ( a court appointed investigator  rates some perks)

[now there must be a HOLE in the fence]

A presence - okay, but still curious about what the "Witch" would mean for Reavis? Thank you in advance,  


A delegation of sheep met you, you say - sheesh now there must be a HOLE in the fence, and hoo-boy what a time it will be, trying to drive sheep from Mexico to Wyoming!  Oh well, no rest for the wicked, as they say...
Oroblanco

HI swr:   yeppppp   I would tend to agree.   Want some of Oro, el Mango's eggshell coffee?   

Welcome aboard.

(SIR)  Don Jose de La Mancha

So...I guess Jacob Waltz being a sentinel for the KGC, watching over the Lost Dutchman mine and other "Confederate" treasures are outta the question?

Certainly not SWR. What would be the logic in eliminating Jacob Waltz as a sentinel? There are other treasures cached in the area that have nothing to do with the "Confederacy". The Woolsey Depository, the Three Buttes Depository and others are all connected. They use the same signs and symbols and are all laid out on the surface of the ground and form a map after you put the whole mess together. You are required to construct the map based upon the symbols and signs found in the depository area. The Stone Maps must be used in the depository area where they were designed to be used. The maps were designed and intended for those not belonging to this treasure caching group. They were made for us not for them.

The current search area has been determined by legend, book writers and the Stone Maps. The stone maps are loaded with deceit and misinformation if you base your decisions wholly on the maps without searching the area where these stone maps were designed to be used as the maps instruct us. For example; you are new to Arizona and you are looking for the state capitol building with a roof made of gold. Everyone tells you to use this heavily coded Tucson City Stone Map, and you will find the treasure. But, you must use/incorporate the following information provided by the legend/story experts. Heck, the capitol is depicted right there on the map and not a single soul can find it. The rest of us (aka the Cache Force) know exactly where the gold (actually copper) roof can be found and we laugh our booties off because we provided you with a legend, the initial first somewhat believable accounts, documented background information and a couple of old Stone Maps. Hello, does anybody see the deception here? The truth is so simple; if you have the knowledge and can solve the depository site/area by gathering the necessary clues needed to find the caches you would not even need the Stone Tablets. The Stone Maps were designed to keep us away from the real treasures. If you are not a member of the Cache Force you will never decipher the maps unless you have some first- hand knowledge pertaining to this group. You have to become as familiar with the depository site as you are with the Stone Maps.

Have a great week and give a hug to those you love.

EB

peralta (n.)bellimbusto, cicisbeo, damerino, dandy, vagheggino, zerbinotto

 analogic tree 

personne belle (fr)[Classe]

(elegância) — (leggiadria; eleganza; finezza; raffinatezza; sciccheria; signorilità)[Thème]

person (en)[Domaine]

Man (en)[Domaine]

macho — maschio - adulto — adulta, adulto, grande - vestir, vestir-se — coprirsi, mettersi i vestiti, vestire, vestirsi[Hyper.]

manful, manlike, manly (en) - male, manful, manlike, manly, virile (en) - almofadinha, casquilho, fanfarrão, peralta — bellimbusto, cicisbeo, dandy, vagheggino, zerbinotto[Dérivé]

mulher — donna[Ant.]

personne élégante (fr)[Classe]

adult male, man (en)[Hyper.]

vestir-se exageradamente — vestire con eleganza[Dérivé]

 peralta (name.) [Beau Stud]

[/img]

Geoglyphs: geoglyphs Images and motifs set on the land surface using rocks, soil, or cuts into the ground surface. The NASCA LINES are large-scale examples of such things. Geoglyphs also can be carved into a hillside exposing bedrock; Hot Air Balloon was the only possible available technology. Images were constructed so that Gods in the Sky could see them.

Good morning Don ROY,  El REY;  I have solved the sheep problem, I rounded them up and sent them back to Dakota  via the net.  They should be milling around outside by now.  I consider it a pleasure to have helped you in this matter.

I believe that you are now, or should be, convinced that that stones were part of a grand land scheme.  I'll bring Joe around in a short while  snicker.  Our lovely BETH, being a delectable female, is completely unpredictable, as you well know,  sigh..

There only remains Santa Fe & Ellie to work on, to show them the error of their sinful lives and hence distorted reasoning - so far.  As for Djuicy and the others??

Some times it sorta frightens me to be another resurrected BB.

Speaking of BB,  where are you?

Don Jose de La Mancha 

(Joe do you know of a good, cheap, Psychiatrist?  This post deserves to be studied by one)

I propose that one could take virtually every major mountain/butte/mesa out there, look at a satellite photo and draw a bunch of imaginary lines that connect to make a picture that could look like it has a connection to the Peralta Maps.  I'll go one step further and say you could probably do that with any mountain range in the world.

I apologize if that comes off as rude, but when one has seen numerous google images and aerial photos with similar markings made on them put together by people who all believe they are 100% no doubt correct in their interpretation and then see that each location is different, one starts to become a bit jaded to the claims.

unless those theories can be proven to lead to something of value, I can't help but remain skeptical at best.

Its Molina all over again!!! 

Dear group;
And even more important, am I still banned from having a cup o' coffee with Oroblanco & Co. from the Dakotas?
Your friend;
LAMAR

Lamar,

Lively conversation and debates are definitely no reason to stop the Koffee Klatch!  How dull it would be if we all agreed all of the time, don't ya think??


 



B

Lamar, el equivicado one, since when do you, or the rest of our wonderful peeps in here need an invitation?  Beth is at your beck and call for coffee, when she isn't out gathering firewood etc., etc., for our err,  ah,   pow wows

If she is slacking in her woman's work,  I have a few slender rods  that were given to me by the Yaqui Indians precisely  for just such  lack of respect for the Males and their comfort.

You have free access to them for encouraging her to keep her place and do her jobs which we Males have generously allowed her the privilege of doing.

Who ever said the first Americans weren't intelligent?

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. If my Tigre sees this, I am only kidding,  honest.

[may I ask your opinion of it?]

HOLA amigos,
This is a long reply, so I must beg your indulgence. <Thank you>

SWR wrote

So...I guess Jacob Waltz being a sentinel for the KGC, watching over the Lost Dutchman mine and other "Confederate" treasures are outta the question?

That sounds like a fascinating theory, but I just can't buy into it.  The Confederates activities in Arizona seem to have been concentrated in the southern part of the territory, and they were driven out not long after arriving.  Waltz is not likely to have been in the CS military due to his age, and during the war it looks like he was active in the Bradshaws.  There is evidence that his partner may have been in the military, but on the other side.  Of course some folks will take issue with this and state that Weisner was about the same age as Waltz, but I am not convinced this was the case.

There are yet other problems - for one, there is nothing on the stones to link them to Waltz or the CSA.  Waltz never made any mention of any such stones either, and surely if they were his, he would have tried to get them to his friends Julia and Reiney. 

I can't say that no KGC activities occurred in Arizona, but have never found any kind of evidence that they did. Baylor's invasion was quite a feat and it is surprising how far they got before the California column reacted, but did they even have the time to set up "sentinels" much less have treasures hidden there?   If the treasures date to the end of the war, and were for fleeing ex-Confederates, Texas or Florida would have been shorter and considerably safer routes for the fugitives.

As you have brought the theory up SWR, may I ask your opinion of it?  I see that others have already addressed it, but would appreciate reading your views.  Thank you in advance.

Ellie Baba wrote

If you are not a member of the Cache Force you will never decipher the maps unless you have some first- hand knowledge pertaining to this group.

Well that leaves most of us out, and I would wonder how the Cache Force would like it if they found out the secret was out?

Muchas Gracias Santa Fe New Mexican for the explanation, and WELCOME TO TREASURENET!

Don Jose - I am still curious about the 'Witch' figure as it relates to Reavis - if you would rather not say I will take a guess.  Thank you for expounding on the Reavis theory, but I respectfully remain un-convinced.  Muchas gracias for driving those sheep home, now all I have to do is find that hole in the fence where they got out. (heh heh) 

Lamar wrote

Dear group;
And even more important, am I still banned from having a cup o' coffee with Oroblanco & Co. from the Dakotas?

My apologies for having given you the mistaken impression you would not be welcome at the campfire, and the coffee offer is perpetual.  I do not have a bone to pick with you amigo, I realize that being our resident historian/skeptic is your thing.  I don't think I could teach you anything in prospecting or convince you that the sky is blue, but whatever disagreements we have, has no bearing on friendship.  If you should find yourself in the Black Hills I hope you would look us up. 
Oroblanco

Oroblanco wrote:

There are yet other problems - for one, there is nothing on the stones to link them to Waltz or the CSA.  Waltz never made any mention of any such stones either, and surely if they were his, he would have tried to get them to his friends Julia and Reiney.

The Stone Maps were not created until the turn of the century and that is why he never mentioned them. I surely wouldn't give my friends the Stone Tablets and Jacob didn't help Julia or Reiney (his friends?) either. Their lives were ruined. So many have gone to the grave with broken bodies and minds and had nothing to show for their lives after spending them on the LDM. Let's not quit our day jobs boys and girls. The treasures hidden in the mountains are quite safe as most everyone is looking for a gosh dang lost mine.
Grab one of those sheep and head for Arizona (at your convenience of course) my friend Oroblanco, and I will show you sign like you have never seen, KGC and otherwise. And I will bet you that I drink more coffee than most regular folks so we will never run out. The desert is open 24/7 and I need to get some sleep. Five AM will be here soon so I bid you all adieu.

EB

SWR, what are you up to?

I do believe (just from my own investigations) that the Stones were not made during the turn of the century, but rather the turn of the century plus 50 years.

We are not strangers to the Supers, (we lived in Arizona, and still have a place there) nor to the abundance of "signs", in the Supers AND some surrounding areas, but I'm always willing to see more.   



B



"No miner will find my mine"

[I would be rustling!]

Ellie Baba wrote

The Stone Maps were not created until the turn of the century and that is why he never mentioned them. I surely wouldn't give my friends the Stone Tablets and Jacob didn't help Julia or Reiney (his friends?) either. Their lives were ruined. So many have gone to the grave with broken bodies and minds and had nothing to show for their lives after spending them on the LDM. Let's not quit our day jobs boys and girls. The treasures hidden in the mountains are quite safe as most everyone is looking for a gosh dang lost mine.

So you are saying the stones were made after Waltz's death?  Jacob did TRY to give correct directions to his caches of ORE and the mine, but Reiney did not pay attention enough and Julia was practically lost the moment she stepped out of town. I don't know if I would call a cache of ORE, regardless of how rich it may be, a "treasure" and doubt that the Feds would classify it as such under the Treasure Trove law.  As for quitting our day jobs, well I have spent much of my adult life, working just enough to be able to go looking for treasures and prospecting for mines.  My current "employment" is done as a favor for very dear friends of ours, and he has said he is going to retire so I should have much more free time afterwards.  I will get back to the reference to treasures versus lost mine shortly.

Ellie Baba also wrote

Grab one of those sheep and head for Arizona (at your convenience of course) my friend Oroblanco, and I will show you sign like you have never seen, KGC and otherwise. And I will bet you that I drink more coffee than most regular folks so we will never run out. The desert is open 24/7 and I need to get some sleep. Five AM will be here soon so I bid you all adieu.

EB

The sheep do not belong to me, so if I were to abscond with one or more, I would be rustling! I SURE don't need Wyoming lawmen after me AGAIN!    (ha ha) I DO appreciate the offer, but for the time being I have promises to keep here in Dakota & Wyoming.  This brings me to my next point. 

I would far sooner search for a lost MINE than any lost treasure(s) and will explain.  A lost mine generally always has geologic clues which were how the mine was discovered in the first place, so even without any clues other than a name and general area, it is or should be possible for a diligent and careful prospector to re-locate it.  Even the MOST played-out mine always has SOME bits of the ore remaining - it is virtually impossible to remove ALL of the gold (or silver, copper, etc) so it is possible to identify a mine when you do find one.  With a treasure, there is every chance that someone has come along before you and removed it - perhaps to simply move it to a "safer" place, but you and I have no way of knowing when or if the treasure got removed.  A mine can be hidden or covered up, but it cannot be moved or removed. You could have a whole trail of genuine treasure trail markers that lead to an empty hole! 

Ellie Baba also wrote

SWR, what are you up to?

I don't think our friend SWR is "fishing" - from several discussions I have had with him, I believe he just likes to weed out the pure fiction treasure stories from the genuine article. He has no problems with real, documented lost treasures, I think he just wants to see the documents and/or evidence.   Note the little statement at the end of his posts,<EDIT correction> on his ID sidebar  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". 

Having a skeptic in our group is a good thing, it keeps us honest!  We treasure hunters have a bit of the optimist in us, and tend to view every new story, report, bit of evidence as positive proof, when all too often it is more like a red herring.

Good night <Buenos Noches> amigo Ellie Baba, I hope you have a great day tomorrow! 
your friend in 'Dakota Territory'
Oroblanco
 

Good morning Mr sheep herder, archaeologist, lost mine hunter, miner, & author:  You posted -->

Having a skeptic in our group is a good thing, it keeps us honest!
~~~~~~~~~~~

Only IF the sceptic will accept  counter data !!  Just requiring proof of proof, of proof, etc, while contributing nothing constructive in them selves, doesn't actually accomplish anything, or indicate intelligence, anymore than a child that keeps asking "why? but doesn't actually listen.  Especially when dealing in basically intangibles, such as lost mines or treasures.

In themselves, they are nebulous factors based upon legends or stories which cannot be verified, or they would no longer be lost.  El Naranjal for example.

However, we HAVE found Atlantis / Azatlan which may have been  the ultimate present intangibles.


As for the Peralta stones and the witch,  I believe that that type of characterization of a witch is a recent factor, so it must be representative of the Priests (?) of that time. REAVIS  REAVIS

Soo you like to look for lost mines ad treasures eh? Odd?

Don Jose de La Mancha
'

[The more time and energy invested in one's 'working model' of his belief system, the more jealously he clings to those beliefs and the less willing he is to admit that he might be on the wrong track.]

.... Having a skeptic in our group is a good thing, it keeps us honest!  We treasure hunters have a bit of the optimist in us, and tend to view every new story, report, bit of evidence as positive proof, when all too often it is more like a red herring.....

'Treasure hunters' are a bit more than optimists Oro.  The more time and energy invested in one's 'working model' of his belief system, the more jealously he clings to those beliefs and the less willing he is to admit that he might be on the wrong track.  After all, it's human nature to resist admitting you're in error, especially if the emotional stakes are high.  Denial.  A bookcase full of 'supporting evidence' and filing cabinets full of 'documentation' is only used to twist the 'truth' to fit the model.  Case in point - the LDM.  Many have been obsessed with their unmistakable 'knowledge' of its location, and they can cooly prove it to you based on their interpretation of the lore that surrounds the legend, especially 'first-hand' knowledge by experts who themselves are removed from Waltz et al by generations.  The LDM's location has been 'known' by many, all in different places.  Same goes for the Lost Adams Diggings, but in spades.  It all goes back to the beginning - the original events that sparked the rumors.  A house built on sand will surely fall - perhaps, as EB suggested, one might broaden his horizons and consider alternative explanations regarding the secrets of the Superstitions.  A true treasure hunter is seeking the truth, no matter how painful it may be to his well-established beliefs.  Of course, this applies to many other facets of life too.

Springfield,

Having an open mind is a good thing.  However, if someone tells me that Jacob Waltz was actually
Scrooge McDuck, a healthy dose of skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Take care,

Joe

Springfield,

Having an open mind is a good thing.  However, if someone tells me that Jacob Waltz was actually
Scrooge McDuck, a healthy dose of skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Take care,

Joe

Absolutely.  Besides, wasn't Scrooge McDuck Scottish?  I always wondered where he got all the dough to fill that money bin.  Of couse, this legend would then need to be renamed The Lost Scotsman.  Editor's nightmare.

Springfield,

As you have ably demonstrated, it becomes problematic when you slip into and out of reality.  It's probably best to come down on one side or the other........and stick with it.

Take care,

Joe

Springfield,

As you have ably demonstrated, it becomes problematic when you slip into and out of reality.  It's probably best to come down on one side or the other........and stick with it.

Take care,

Joe

Exactly - when one draws lines in the sand, it's easy to stay within those lines, and more comfortable too.  However, if it's reality that we're looking for, then we must be willing to re-draw the lines - this can be difficult.

Springfield,

Ah yes.......Reality changes with the turn of a spade but more often than not, it remains the same.

Take care,

Joe

[aspire]

Greetings friends,
This is a very long reply, so I must beg your indulgence <again>- thank you.

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

Good morning Mr sheep herder, archaeologist, lost mine hunter, miner, & author:  You posted -->

Having a skeptic in our group is a good thing, it keeps us honest!
~~~~~~~~~~~

Only IF the sceptic will accept  counter data !!  Just requiring proof of proof, of proof, etc, while contributing nothing constructive in them selves, doesn't actually accomplish anything, or indicate intelligence, anymore than a child that keeps asking "why? but doesn't actually listen.  Especially when dealing in basically intangibles, such as lost mines or treasures.

In themselves, they are nebulous factors based upon legends or stories which cannot be verified, or they would no longer be lost.  El Naranjal for example.

However, we HAVE found Atlantis / Azatlan which may have been  the ultimate present intangibles.


As for the Peralta stones and the witch,  I believe that that type of characterization of a witch is a recent factor, so it must be representative of the Priests (?) of that time. REAVIS  REAVIS

Soo you like to look for lost mines ad treasures eh? Odd?

Wow amigo plenty of "hats" in your address to me, not sure I if have earned most of them.  Thank you though, I do aspire to fill those titles.    To address your points - I think it is wise for a treasure hunter to try to keep a balance of optimism tempered with healthy skepticism.  I don't mind exploring the wildest theories, pure speculation etc but try to keep one foot on solid ground and realize where fact and theory are separated.  Some of our friends here seem to be rather out in the outer edges of this balance, being either very skeptical or very much into theoretical possibilities.  This is my opinion only, I am sure that each of us has their own standards as to what is being overly skeptical and what is being overly naive. 

El Naranjal, boy Don Jose, you really know what gets me!  From what I have, I could not build a solid case to prove that it ever existed.  There are no specimens of ore (that I know of) which could be compared with anything found, and were we to debate it with a skeptic, I would concede at once that I can NOT prove it exists.  As related to our Peralta Stones, the stones at least can be held in hand and examined. 

As for the "witch" representing a priest, many are convinced this is the case.  However is it a fair representation of priests, as they dressed in the 1880's?  Or the 1840's, as the 'date' implies?  As far as I can tell, it is not a good representation for either period.  I am certainly no expert on the Peralta Stones however, so my opinion doesn't matter on them. 

Hunting lost mines and treasures - well it is one of those thankless jobs, but someone has to do it!    (heh heh)

Springfield wrote

'Treasure hunters' are a bit more than optimists Oro.  The more time and energy invested in one's 'working model' of his belief system, the more jealously he clings to those beliefs and the less willing he is to admit that he might be on the wrong track. 

I have to agree, a few treasure hunters are almost rabidly over-optimistic to the point of fanatical belief.  It can become such an obsession as to destroy a person's life.  However as with any thing in life, whether talking about treasure hunting, religion, politics, drinking, smoking, gambling, almost anything can be carried to the point of being harmful to mental and even physical health.  At the other end of the spectrum are the "sour grapes" pessimistic skeptics, who see no possible chance of anything good, becoming bitter and negative to the point of affecting lifestyle and life.  Fortunately I don't think most of us here fall into either extreme, though some few are perhaps drifting in that direction.  (Like ME for instance, but there is no hope in my case!  )

Cactusjumper wrote

if someone tells me that Jacob Waltz was actually
Scrooge McDuck, a healthy dose of skepticism is not necessarily a bad thing

Mr McDuck was his nephew, which explains his great wealth.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Reality changes with the turn of a spade but more often than not, it remains the same.

This is true, unfortunately some of us too-easily forget that in treasure hunting,<and in simple prospecting>  finding NOTHING is also making progress, if only in learning where "it" is NOT.  A systematic, deliberate and persistent approach wins in treasure hunting, though pure luck beats all.

Oroblanco, the hopelessly-infected gold fever "victim" 
 

'Treasure hunters' are a bit more than optimists Oro.  The more time and energy invested in one's 'working model' of his belief system, the more jealously he clings to those beliefs and the less willing he is to admit that he might be on the wrong track


I think that's a little overstated (imo) - yes, they are, for the most part optimists, but I think (and sure in some cases) that a 'working model' is NOT a prerequisite to being a Treasure Hunter.  In fact, just the opposite.  Most Treasure Hunters I know spend inordinate amounts of time and research to specifically prove or disprove a theory. They don't care which - if one can disprove something, it is as important as if they can prove something.  It gives one the next move - if someone can disprove something, for sure, then, they can move onto the next part of the puzzle.

Just because someone has an "idea" of a possible scenerio, boots on the ground can (along with more research) will/can either enforce or debunk an idea - and, like I said, most folks I know review the information they get, put it where it belongs in the "story", and then try to figure out where it fits - or where it does not fit.  Then they go to the next possibility.

While I do know a few folks who have an idea, and no other scenerio is possible, in their minds, (I would be Mr. Feldman in this category), I do not believe it is the norm.  Most people take new info and follow up on it - deciding whether its true, partly true, false, not an important factor, etc.



B

[never any kind of gold bars, coins or jewelry.]

HOLA amigos,

Concerning treasures hidden and/or buried in the Superstition mountains, and indirectly relating to the Peralta Stones - if I come across as skeptical of such treasures, it is because there seems to be no record(s) of any such treasures ever being hidden there.  What we DO have is a legend of an incredibly rich gold mine of the Dutchman, Jacob Waltz; the "stuff" Waltz was seen trading in various places was gold ore and raw gold as it comes out of the rock, never any kind of gold bars, coins or jewelry.  Attempts to tie in other treasure legends to Waltz strike me as thin at best.  It is almost as if some of the richest gold ore and possibly the richest gold mine ever found is simply not good enough for some treasure hunters, there must be stacks of gold bars in the mix or it is not interesting enough. 

This is NOT to say there are not, or could not be treasures hidden in the Superstition mountains, as it is certainly possible.  I would like to see some kind of documentation to support these treasures having been hidden there, like we have with Ted de Grazia for instance.  The "treasures" hidden by Waltz were simple caches of hand-cobbed rich gold ORE, and he never claimed it was anything else. 

If this attitude makes me overly skeptical, that is my problem - however I keep the door open to possibilities and it is possible to change my mind, with the right evidence. 
Oroblanco
 

[I had never been into that area]

Beth,

Speaking only for myself........Around forty years ago I saw "Superstition Treasures" by Travis Marlowe and the pictures of the Stone Maps.  At that point in time, I was still tied up in other people's projects/claims.  I had no preconceived ideas about the maps or notions of where they might lead someone.

I was, of course, very interested.  At first glance I realized the wavy line at the bottom of the lower map could be the outline of the main mountain.  It followed that the bent arrow could be a canyon.
Pulling out my topo, I quickly saw that two canyons matched that shape.  I picked Hieroglyphic and immediately picked out the dotted trail down the north face of the mountain.

I had never been into that area, and had no biases......yet.  I started laying out the Stone Maps, using my initial premise as a starting point.  While the rest is history, as they say, I found no treasure, or what most folks would call a treasure.  I still have that original map, and very little has changed.

I put both of those Stone Maps on that original topo, without ever having set foot on most of it.

Have to admit, it's been a real adventure.

Take care,

Joe

 

Believe it or not, Joe - we have the original magazine from when the stones were "found".

Funny, the things that catch our eyes.  Back then, I was still following the saga of the diamonds in Arkansas!!!!


B

That's the April, 1973 issue of "Frontier Times".  The McGees tried very hard to make them out as a hoax.

In fact, a copy of that was sent to Bob Brewer in 2000 by a friend of his Bob Tilley, whose wife, Tilley, worked in a library, and brought a whole mess of treasure magazines home.

In fact, Brewer included that information in his book with Warren Getler "Rebel Gold.

B

SWR,

In my opinion...most Treasure Legends are supported by speculation, with large doses of What if and It'd be nice theories. Asking for any sort of documentation only leads to heated accusations when none is available. Repetitive requests for documentation by skeptics only means the previous source received was either laced with bologna, or not forthcoming.

A novel, based around What if, does not make the author an authority on the subject. Excitement, entertainment and drama may be the key to selling action adventure books, but falls way short of being a scholastic publication for the use of education.

We didn't find the treasure because we were chased away by bad men in a helicopter, but we know its there.......................trust me. Read about it in my next book.              Roll Eyes 

Hi SWR,
Documentation is the key. I am assuming you have seen my threads on these forums relating to Archaeological, geological, satellite interpretation, photographic records,  scientific documentation, magnetometer, infra red satellite, archaeoastronomy specialists, astronomers; two with PHD’s, the list goes on and on. I am not relying on anyone’s theories unless they agree with my own and my theories are based on proven documented facts. I will change my mind if the proof exists to do so. I believed for years that the Spanish, Mexicans and Jesuits were involved with these treasure and lost mine legends. They were all involved throughout the centuries, but they each had a part to play in the grand scheme of things; they were just passing through, tools of the powers that be. The confederacy was used as a tool and no one even realized the truth until it was all over. This is where Bob Brewer is coming from; his relatives were betrayed by the KGC and he wants to set things right. The bad men in the helicopter, hell yes they were bad, my Brother-in-law was there and truly believed that they were dead men. Bob Brewer lived through three tours and a helicopter crash in Vietnam and he was the only survivor from the crash. My Brother-in-law was with a Cav unit and I was with the 101st Airborne. Like Kenny Rogers said, “You need to know when to hold up, no when to fold up, know when to walk away, know when to run”. If you have ever been shot at by anyone you know what I mean. This guy walked up and asked a direct question relating to the clues that we had previously found in the area. He asked HHB; “Did you find the keyhole”? We did find it and a lot more. Bob told him we were looking for certain gem stones and this dude tells them to get the hell outa here and never, ever come back or plan to meet your maker. They could not get to their guns if they wanted to cause the big MOFO had his 44 ready boys and his trigger finger was ready. Now, listen carefully; when you are trying to take another Man's riches away from him he will shoot your _ss. This big MOFO was doing the same thing Jacob Waltz did in his day. Protect the depositories with his life. Kenworthy did not believe in this secret society either until they shot a couple rounds in his direction. And did he keep on digging? Uh, uh, momma didn’t raise no fool. Any of you guys ready for this kind of excitement and I will take you to the places where I have been warned numerous times to stay away. The same lonely haunted places where many have died and disappeared. Bob Brewer was there, Brian was there and I was there also. How many people have been killed in the Supers? They aren’t getting me boys as I want to live out the rest of my life. Documentation and common sense rule the day so do not assume that everything that you read is the gospel truth. I’ll bet most of you do not even know who Bicknel was. He started this mess with his first news paper article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Ol Jacob he would say; what a farce! He had mining claims in Cave Creek and on the Agua Fria miles away from the Dutchman tale he wrote about. He was such a believer in his own story yet had no claims himself any here near Weaver’s Needle or Roger’s Trough. Take my advice; the cornerstone must be laid out on solid ground or the house will fall. Most of these people that try to give this legend credence have failed to do so. The ones telling the lies have done a damn good job. The same people who are bringing this United States to destruction are the same ones that have buried all of this great wealth. I know where a number of these depositories are located and it would take a small army to recover if you could successfully remove these caches hidden in the Wilderness Areas, State and National Parks and/or historical sites, private lands, State trust Lands, National Forests or old patented mines with the treasures hidden deep within the tunnels and shafts. Come on out here and let’s take a trip into the desert SWR. I would love to see how you would handle a similar situation. This invitation applies to anyone that is interested; however I’m not footing the bill. I do have a Marine Sniper available for hire as he is a good friend of mine. He watches over my butt while I am doing my thing.
Have a great weekend all,
EB

djui5   Post subject: Re: sworn to secrecy, I found the LDM accidentally TRUE STORYPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:18 pm 
 

Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:57 pm
Posts: 72  Jim Hatt wrote:
Here's a thought to ponder,
Has anyone ever seen a Forest Ranger in the Superstitions after sundown?
I sure haven't!




I haven't seen a Forest Ranger anywhere but the trailhead, ever. 
 

Ellie Baba wrote

Any of you guys ready for this kind of excitement and I will take you to the places where I have been warned numerous times to stay away.

You should get in touch with our friend and member Captain Bill, he has been looking for such adventures.
 

Roy,

Damm!  I had to go and leave my mukluks in Alaska......

Take care,

Joe