1,2,3......Another Bomb IS Dropped!

[ECS]

... None of this means the treasure is real, so there is nothing much to be fascinated over.

...and without any outside collaboration than can confirm anything in the 1885 Beale Papers, everything in the job pamphlet can been questionale as "real".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Silver]

...and without any outside collaboration than can confirm anything in the 1885 Beale Papers, everything in the job pamphlet can been questionale as "real".

Of course it's questionable.

 

[bigscoop]

“and with the exception of the two letters addressed to myself, and some old receipts, found only some unintelligible papers, covered with figures, and totally incomprehensible to me.”

“To systematize a plan for my workI arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first,...”


If the ciphers had already been numbered then why did he have to number them in order to systemize them? Obviously there would be no reason to do this as they were already numbered and systemized, this being clear in the clear text of C2.
If the ciphers were not numbered then how was he able to assign the exact same order to them that was assigned some 40 years earlier by a different hand, and then be absolutely sure that he had them in the correct order? Obviously again, there is no possible way he could do this and know for certain that he had unless he already knew what the clear test was for each of the ciphers.

The point in all of this is that no matter how folks want to keep trying to twist things around the bottom line as detailed by the author himself is that his own narration and provided details completely demystifies the fascination attached to the ciphers, a fascination that in either form cannot be true.

Also, nobody, and I do mean nobody, has even been able to establish that Ward was the anything other then representing agent. When asked about this his own daughter couldn't even reply in certain terms. And Button, owner of the Job Print, I believe he clearly pointed at Sherman. So when we deal in facts, and only the known facts, then there is nothing to even conclude with any certainty who the author was.

All we know for sure is that the author "had to know what the clear text of each cipher was if he was the man who originally numbered them." This is the only possible way that he could be certain that he had them numbered correctly. PERIOD!

The bottom line is that according to details offered in the pamphlet the author "was not telling the truth in regard to the numbering of the ciphers" and this fact is certainly consistent with the fact that he had to know the clear text of each cipher in oder to number them correctly. There's just no possible way around this cold hard FACT.

And one also needs to consider how the author knew that a missing unintelligible piece of paper was still required in order to solve what remained? Obviously, there can be only way in which he knew that there was still a missing paper and that it would be unintelligible to his readers.

 

[Old Silver]

“and with the exception of the two letters addressed to myself, and some old receipts, found only some unintelligible papers, covered with figures, and totally incomprehensible to me.”

“To systematize a plan for my workI arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first,...”


If the ciphers had already been numbered then why did he have to number them in order to systemize them? Obviously there would be no reason to do this as they were already numbered and systemized, this being clear in the clear text of C2.
If the ciphers were not numbered then how was he able to assign the exact same order to them that was assigned some 40 years earlier by a different hand, and then be absolutely sure that he had them in the correct order? Obviously again, there is no possible way he could do this and know for certain that he had unless he already knew what the clear test was for each of the ciphers.

The point in all of this is that no matter how folks want to keep trying to twist things around the bottom line as detailed by the author himself is that his own narration and provided details completely demystifies the fascination attached to the ciphers, a fascination that in either form cannot be true.

Also, nobody, and I do mean nobody, has even been able to establish that Ward was the anything other then representing agent. When asked about this his own daughter couldn't even reply in certain terms. And Button, owner of the Job Print, I believe he clearly pointed at Sherman. So when we deal in facts, and only the known facts, then there is nothing to even conclude with any certainty who the author was.

All we know for sure is that the author "had to know what the clear text of each cipher was if he was the man who originally numbered them." This is the only possible way that he could be certain that he had them numbered correctly. PERIOD!

The bottom line is that according to details offered in the pamphlet the author "was not telling the truth in regard to the numbering of the ciphers" and this fact is certainly consistent with the fact that he had to know the clear text of each cipher in oder to number them correctly. There's just no possible way around this cold hard FACT.

And one also needs to consider how the author knew that a missing unintelligible piece of paper was still required in order to solve what remained? Obviously, there can be only way in which he knew that there was still a missing paper and that it would be unintelligible to his readers.

I don't think he said he HAD TO number them, just that he DID number them. From the story it sounds like he did that to try to figure out something, but then he said he failed. But he said he kept the papers on his mind, IN THEIR REGULAR ORDER. That sound like they had been in a certain order from the start, before he numbered them according to their length. In fact, the agent said that one of the papers was numbered "2". If it didn't mean hat, then what did he mean by "regular order"? Also, I have a Roanoke newspaper from 1893 which recounts the story as follows: "Upon opening the box the letters above referred to were found, and also three unintelligible papers, marked "1," "2," "3," with nothing on them except figures."
I'm left to believe that's what the agent meant when he first said the one paper was marked "2."

 

[bigscoop]

I don't think he said he HAD TO number them, just that he DID number them. From the story it sounds like he did that to try to figure out something, but then he said he failed. But he said he kept the papers on his mind, IN THEIR REGULAR ORDER. That sound like they had been in a certain order from the start, before he numbered them according to their length. In fact, the agent said that one of the papers was numbered "2". If it didn't mean hat, then what did he mean by "regular order"? Also, I have a Roanoke newspaper from 1893 which recounts the story as follows: "Upon opening the box the letters above referred to were found, and also three unintelligible papers, marked "1," "2," "3," with nothing on them except figures."
I'm left to believe that's what the agent meant when he first said the one paper was marked "2."

The "agent" has said nothing as he isn't the one who wrote the Beale papers. The Beale papers states that the author decided to "remove his name from the publication" and that he had selected Ward to be the individual to which readers could direct their questions. So in essence Ward was just acting as the agent, he wasn't the author, at least as the story goes.

When the author claims that the papers were always on his mind "this is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM" and not before, so any reference to the cipher numbers by the pamphlet author is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM and not before. Your 1893 newspaper account actually contains an inaccurate quote from the pamphlet as that information was never stated in the original pamphlet. This, again, is just another example of how there is far too much inaccurate information in circulation regarding the story, and this isn't the only review that contains such errors. Just recently on these forums Jean posted another review containing inaccurate information. So best to stick to the original narration instead of placing trust in these other secondhand sources. There are several online sources that house copies of the original source.

When operating strictly from the original source you'll discover that everything I'm telling you is accurate. No possible way that the author could number those ciphers accurately unless he already knew the exact wording in them. And, if the ciphers were already numbered then the author clearly lied when he said that he numbered them so he could systemize a means of order for his efforts.

But the absolute dagger comes when the author of the original source states that his reason for turning the matter over to the public is that it was his hope that someone would have the required "unintelligible missing piece of paper." What completely slips by most people in these details is that the author is admitting that "he knows" the missing piece of paper is "unintelligible". Only one way he could possible know that a paper was still missing and that the missing paper was unintelligible.

 

[Old Silver]

The "agent" has said nothing as he isn't the one who wrote the Beale papers. The Beale papers states that the author decided to "remove his name from the publication" and that he had selected Ward to be the individual to which readers could direct their questions. So in essence Ward was just acting as the agent, he wasn't the author, at least as the story goes.

When the author claims that the papers were always on his mind "this is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM" and not before, so any reference to the cipher numbers by the pamphlet author is AFTER HE NUMBERED THEM and not before. Your 1893 newspaper account actually contains an inaccurate quote from the pamphlet as that information was never stated in the original pamphlet. This, again, is just another example of how there is far too much inaccurate information in circulation regarding the story, and this isn't the only review that contains such errors. Just recently on these forums Jean posted another review containing inaccurate information. So best to stick to the original narration instead of placing trust in these other secondhand sources. There are several online sources that house copies of the original source.

When operating strictly from the original source you'll discover that everything I'm telling you is accurate. No possible way that the author could number those ciphers accurately unless he already knew the exact wording in them. And, if the ciphers were already numbered then the author clearly lied when he said that he numbered them so he could systemize a means of order for his efforts.

But the absolute dagger comes when the author of the original source states that his reason for turning the matter over to the public is that it was his hope that someone would have the required "unintelligible missing piece of paper." What completely slips by most people in these details is that the author is admitting that "he knows" the missing piece of paper is "unintelligible". Only one way he could possible know that a paper was still missing and that the missing paper was unintelligible.

He said the contents of the papers were on his mind IN THEIR REGULAR ORDER. That would be different from the order in which he numbered them. And why did he have them on his mind in their original order? Because, as he tells us after numbering them according to their length, he failed at making any progress. Whatever you want to call the guy who starts out the writings of the story, whether author, agent, or something else, he did say that the one paper was numbered "2," so the newspaper article may not have been as wrong as you think. It's possible this is wrong, but if, like you say, we need to stick with what the story actually says, then this is what it says.


I agree with you on the author(?) knowing what the codes said. I agree with you on the 4 digit codes, and that the author was fishing for the missing code/s that might have been held by the families of the Beale party. I just don't see how the papers being numbered out of the box is contrary to any of this.

 

[bigscoop]

Can you show me where the author says that the ciphers were already numbered before he numbered them? He never claims this. What he says is that there were letters in the box and other papers covered with numbers that he could not comprehend (as in the codes). From here he claims that he numbered these papers to systemize them, (to give them a recognizable order.) This is why he numbered them according to their length, to give them a recognizable order, (i.e., 1,2,3.) This is what he is detailing in his narration. Had the ciphers already been numbered then they would have already been assigned a systemized order and there would have been no reason for his having to number them so that there would be a recognizible order, or system.

 

[Old Silver]

Had the ciphers already been numbered then they would have already been assigned a systemized order

He tells us they did have a regular order, and that's what his mind was dwelling on after he had failed at numbering the papers according to their length. So if he didn't abandon his test of ordering the papers by length, which he said he did, then why is the longest paper given as #2? Wouldn't the longest be #1 if he was going from longest to shortest, or #3 if he was going from shortest to longest? How could it be #2? Maybe it was #2 in the regular order.


"Until the writer lost all hope of ultimate success, he toiled faithfully at his work; unlike any other pursuit with practical and natural results, a charm attended it, independent of the ultimate benefit he expected, and the possibility of success lent an interest and excitement to the work not to be resisted. It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others; but this accident, affording so much pleasure at the time, was a most unfortunate one for him, as it induced him to neglect family, friends, and all legitimate pursuits for what has proved, so far, the veriest illusion."

Now I know you can say he meant that the paper was marked "2" after he had numbered them according to length, but this was after he had abandoned that idea and reverted back to think on them in their regular order. Everything else I'm reading about it seems to say they were numbered when taken out of the box, which was the regular order that the author couldn't get off his mind, AFTER failing with his own numbering order.

 

[bigscoop]

He tells us they did have a regular order, and that's what his mind was dwelling on after he had failed at numbering the papers according to their length. So if he didn't abandon his test of ordering the papers by length, which he said he did, then why is the longest paper given as #2? Wouldn't the longest be #1 if he was going from longest to shortest, or #3 if he was going from shortest to longest? How could it be #2? Maybe it was #2 in the regular order.


"Until the writer lost all hope of ultimate success, he toiled faithfully at his work; unlike any other pursuit with practical and natural results, a charm attended it, independent of the ultimate benefit he expected, and the possibility of success lent an interest and excitement to the work not to be resisted. It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others; but this accident, affording so much pleasure at the time, was a most unfortunate one for him, as it induced him to neglect family, friends, and all legitimate pursuits for what has proved, so far, the veriest illusion."

Now I know you can say he meant that the paper was marked "2" after he had numbered them according to length, but this was after he had abandoned that idea and reverted back to think on them in their regular order. Everything else I'm reading about it seems to say they were numbered when taken out of the box, which was the regular order that the author couldn't get off his mind, AFTER failing with his own numbering order.

So glad you posted that. Actually, this is "after he had numbered them." But what you have failed to recognize in this line of narration is that the author readily admits that after he had decoded C2 that he also had "little difficulty in mastering the others." If not the ciphers, that all of his work and efforts were being focused and the very subject of this portion of his narration, then "what others?"

This all leads back to those 19 four digit codes and that still "missing unintelligible piece of paper" that he was lacking. What he is telling his "targeted readers" here is that he has already decoded all of the ciphers only to discover that he still lacked that vital missing paper. What you just posted is one of those other bombs that I have posted before that folks like Jean have apparently missed. "Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others;" Clearly he is detailing his success with the decoding of C2 and the others, and the illusion of success that was encountered afterwards. So here again, and in the author's own words, we can conclusively establish that he already knew what was in each cipher clear text.

 

[Old Silver]

So glad you posted that. Actually, this is "after he had numbered them." But what you have failed to recognize in this line of narration is that the author readily admits that after he had decoded C2 that he also had "little difficulty in mastering the others." If not the ciphers, that all of his work and efforts were being focused and the very subject of this portion of his narration, then "what others?"

This all leads back to those 19 four digit codes and that still "missing unintelligible piece of paper" that he was lacking. What he is telling his "targeted readers" here is that he has already decoded all of the ciphers only to discover that he still lacked that vital missing paper. What you just posted is one of those other bombs that I have posted before that folks like Jean have apparently missed. "Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others;" Clearly he is detailing his success with the decoding of C2 and the others, and the illusion of success that was encountered afterwards. So here again, and in the author's own words, we can conclusively establish that he already knew what was in each cipher clear text.

I'm not saying he hadn't deciphered the papers, just that it seems they were numbered out of the box. Obviously it took some time to decode them, and while he was thinking on them he said he was thinking on them in their regular order. Otherwise, how could paper #2 be the longest? It couldn't be the longest according to his numbering them in order of their length, so what does that leave but the regular order, as he said?

 

[ECS]

Once again a reminder, one can not use the text of the 1885 Beale Papers to prove anything in the Beale Papers as true.

 

[Old Silver]

Once again a reminder, one can not use the text of the 1885 Beale Papers to prove anything in the Beale Papers as true.

And you can't finance a $1000.00 hunt with a $200,000.00 estate sale either, right?

 

[bigscoop]

I'm not saying he hadn't deciphered the papers, just that it seems they were numbered out of the box. Obviously it took some time to decode them, and while he was thinking on them he said he was thinking on them in their regular order. Otherwise, how could paper #2 be the longest? It couldn't be the longest according to his numbering them in order of their length, so what does that leave but the regular order, as he said?

In bold, above, your question is yet another "exact" point being made. If he laid them out according to their length and numbered them then C2 couldn't be C2. This is why folks like Laf and others keep producing magical formulas to try to justify the author's obvious errors in his narration. In reality what it leaves is just more hard and cold evidence that the author was lying about how the ciphers became to be numbered 1,2,3 and his involvement with systemizing that order. The author is simply "leading his readers" to believe what he wants them to believe through the simple process of the power of suggestion. The letters, the interview with Morriss, etc., there is never any mention of the ciphers being numbered until the author's introduction of the clear text of C2, only then do we encounter (1) & (3). As a writer I can tell you for a fact that his narration is simply the result of "leading lines" designed around the common literary practice of "the power of suggestion."

 

[Old Silver]

In bold, above, your question is yet another "exact" point being made. If he laid them out according to their length and numbered them then C2 couldn't be C2. This is why folks like Laf and others keep producing magical formulas to try to justify the author's obvious errors in his narration. In reality what it leaves is just more hard and cold evidence that the author was lying about how the ciphers became to be numbered 1,2,3 and his involvement with systemizing that order. The author is simply "leading his readers" to believe what he wants them to believe through the simple process of the power of suggestion. The letters, the interview with Morriss, etc., there is never any mention of the ciphers being numbered until the author's introduction of the clear text of C2, only then do we encounter (1) & (3). As a writer I can tell you for a fact that his narration is simply the result of "leading lines" designed around the common literary practice of "the power of suggestion."

But it explains what he said in the text. He went back to the regular order, where the longest coded paper was #2, meaning he left the idea of numbering by length, having failed. That's what he said happened. Why would he try to tell people that paper #2 was 2nd according to length? They could look and see that was wrong, just as we have.

 

[bigscoop]

But it explains what he said in the text. He went back to the regular order, where the longest coded paper was #2, meaning he left the idea of numbering by length, having failed. That's what he said happened. Why would he try to tell people that paper #2 was 2nd according to length? They could look and see that was wrong, just as we have.

It never says that he went back to the regular order. What he says is that he numbered them according to their length and that after doing this he eventually found success when mistake afforded him the clear text of C2, to which he now fully understood and had little difficulty in mastering the others, but that these successes proved nothing more then an illusion. Nowhere does he claim that ciphers were already numbered prior to his numbering them and nowhere does he claim that he had abandon his assigned cipher order. In reality you are fully recognizing the obvious discrepancies that exist in the author's narration but you're still trying to find an alternate reason for those errors instead of accepting them for what you already know they are...."simple author mistakes in his designed plot."

 

[ECS]

And you can't finance a $1000.00 hunt with a $200,000.00 estate sale either, right?

Thomas Beale of New Orleans has never been proven to be the Beale of the 1885 Beale Papers.

 

[Old Silver]

It never says that he went back to the regular order. What he says is that he numbered them according to their length and that after doing this he eventually found success when mistake afforded him the clear text of C2, to which he now fully understood and had little difficulty in mastering the others, but that these successes proved nothing more then an illusion. Nowhere does he claim that ciphers were already numbered prior to his numbering them and nowhere does he claim that he had abandon his assigned cipher order. In reality you are fully recognizing the obvious discrepancies that exist in the author's narration but you're still trying to find an alternate reason for those errors instead of accepting them for what you already know they are...."simple author mistakes in his designed plot."

I think this guy was too smart to have made a mistake so obvious. Anyone can look at the papers and see which is longest and shortest.

He did say after numbering the papers he failed. And he did say the papers were stuck in his mind, in their regular order, which is obviously not the order according to length. Therefore I have to think he went back to the regular order.

 

[Old Silver]

Thomas Beale of New Orleans has never been proven to be the Beale of the 1885 Beale Papers.

So why not use that as your argument? It sounds better than what you said about the money. I'm saying this to show what lengths some people will go to when they're determined to not believe in something.

 

[ECS]

Once again the money was a response to one of Laf's nonsense leaps of proof, I have presented evidence on many threads supporting my stance. You need to play catch up.

 

[bigscoop]

I think this guy was too smart to have made a mistake so obvious. Anyone can look at the papers and see which is longest and shortest.

He did say after numbering the papers he failed. And he did say the papers were stuck in his mind, in their regular order, which is obviously not the order according to length. Therefore I have to think he went back to the regular order.

Well I can tell you one thing about the author concerning his smarts, he obviously wasn't aware that silver in such amounts could not have been mined from the describe region during the period described in the detailed amount of time.....and this isn't me just saying this, this is all based on cold hard facts and documented records from the many mining companies and individuals who tried this very thing even into the 1860's. You see the processes for separating the silver from the complex matrix of the region weren't even developed until the 1860's. Prior to this even the most efficient mining efforts suffered at least a 50% loss. So even on an extremely high essay strike there is no possible way that the described amount of silver could have been mined from the region in the very short amount of time detailed.....not even anything close.

So it's not a matter of simply not wanting to believe as we all became involved in this mystery because we wanted to believe. But rather it is a matter of cold hard facts that renders a great deal of this story, "positively untrue." And since Beale makes these alleged claims in his letters then what does that tell you about his smarts as well? So if you believe in the accuracy of these letters then you are believing a proven liar. And if you believe in the whole numbering of the ciphers claim then you are believing an established liar as well. The fact that you believe that the author already knew all of the cipher clear text should also tell you that he was liar. Obviously, one needs to decide for himself just how much of the story details he is personally willing to believe on only the author's word after all of this. Me? I'll take nothing he has written for granted after all of this fact finding.