Beale Papers "END GAME!"

[bigscoop]

The "author(s)" seemed to have used names and events that involved various members of that extended family bloodline and wove that skein into the fabric in which the Beale adventure and treasure story are clothed.

All I can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt is that the author/authors, whatever the case might have been, became really lost in the details he/they were handing out.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rebel - KGC]

Which always brings us back to Ward and Sherman, and the Risqué extended family bloodline, of which they both belong.

"Risque extended family bloodline" (from Maj. James Beverly Risque) includes GRANDSONS, James Beverly Ward & Maj. Ferdinand C. Hutter (PAY-Master of REBELS (CSA) during the CONFEDERATE WAR). Maj. F.C. Hutter was deemed the "Author" of the Beale PAPERS Pamphlet... he just coordinated the various PAPERS submitted by the "family"/Inner Circle as indicated by Robert MORRISS. James Beverly Ward (Hutter's cousin), was the AGENT for copy-right, submitting ONLY the TITLE to the "copy-right office". You see, the FEDS were after the CSA TREASURY, with info about the VIRGINIA portion "hidden" in the Beale PAPERS Pamphlet. SHERMAN...? Dunno...

 

[MadPoetLaw]

The daily three lottery game is much the same blind game as we are debating here. In this game we have 1-9 as our choices, the odds against hitting a straight are 1:1000.


If we reduce these lottery numbers by 2/3 to only the numbers 1-3 then what are our odds against hitting a straight now? Are they 1:3, 1:6, 1:9 or are the odds, as with the game, now likewise reduced by 2/3, and now they stand at 1:333?

Determining the odds is straightforward: it's a ratio of successful outcomes vs. total number of possible outcomes. So in your example of the lottery using 1-9 yes the odds are 1:1000 - one winning combination out of 1000 possible combinations. If you reduce that to a 3 digit number but using only 1-3 it will result in 1:6 (although in my previous statement i noted we have 2 possible qualifying combinations)

If we scaled it down to 6 possible numbers it would be 1: (6*5*4) or 1/120

Attempting to add any additional math is just faulty. You can't simply assume that if you scale down the numbers available by 2/3 that the odds will likewise scale down perfectly - it doesn't work that way.

 

[Doubter in MD]

I believe the story is hokum but playing devil's advocate, the author may have intended that #2 be broken first by using a well known document. #1 and #3 still haven't been deciphered. Perhaps they can't be. Or perhaps no one has found the more obscure text they are related to.

 

[bigscoop]

Determining the odds is straightforward: it's a ratio of successful outcomes vs. total number of possible outcomes. So in your example of the lottery using 1-9 yes the odds are 1:1000 - one winning combination out of 1000 possible combinations. If you reduce that to a 3 digit number but using only 1-3 it will result in 1:6 (although in my previous statement i noted we have 2 possible qualifying combinations)

If we scaled it down to 6 possible numbers it would be 1: (6*5*4) or 1/120

Attempting to add any additional math is just faulty. You can't simply assume that if you scale down the numbers available by 2/3 that the odds will likewise scale down perfectly - it doesn't work that way.

Good, then let's run with 1:6, I'm perfectly fine with that. Now tell me how the alleged writer of the codes and the alleged decoder both managed to hit the exact same 1:6 straight on the very first go-around, many years apart, without any type of collusion whatsoever? And not only did they do it, but with so many years separating them and absolutely no communication between them they were both positive that they would, and that they did. Now what are the odds?

 

[bigscoop]

I believe the story is hokum but playing devil's advocate, the author may have intended that #2 be broken first by using a well known document. #1 and #3 still haven't been deciphered. Perhaps they can't be. Or perhaps no one has found the more obscure text they are related to.

I'm glad you brought this up. Here again, how did the writer of the codes in 1821 know that the decoder in the distant future was going to stumble on the correct version of the DOI when there were several variations floating about?

Going back to all of the "collective odds" against all of the piled up alleged uninformed accuracies that were required in order for the tale to hold water, well, maybe God himself was involved?

 

[bigscoop]

Determining the odds is straightforward: it's a ratio of successful outcomes vs. total number of possible outcomes. So in your example of the lottery using 1-9 yes the odds are 1:1000 - one winning combination out of 1000 possible combinations. If you reduce that to a 3 digit number but using only 1-3 it will result in 1:6 (although in my previous statement i noted we have 2 possible qualifying combinations)

If we scaled it down to 6 possible numbers it would be 1: (6*5*4) or 1/120

Attempting to add any additional math is just faulty. You can't simply assume that if you scale down the numbers available by 2/3 that the odds will likewise scale down perfectly - it doesn't work that way.

And by the way, something you failed to account for in your straight forward ratio, in the lottery you never lose the option of still being able to play 1-9 in all of the three positions, i.e., the player could play #3 in all three positions if he wanted to. However, in our game of cipher numbering our player "only gets to use each number once, not three times." So, each time he plays one of his three numbers the odds begin to compound against him as he progresses. In the lottery the player never loses the option of playing a specific number, but in our game he does each time he lets go of one of them. So in our game, (and if you check on this you will discover that I already have and that what I'm telling you is accurate), you also have to calculate in the odds against the player, not just the game.

 

[ECS]

I believe the story is hokum but playing devil's advocate, the author may have intended that #2 be broken first by using a well known document. #1 and #3 still haven't been deciphered. Perhaps they can't be. Or perhaps no one has found the more obscure text they are related to.

...or the "solved" C2 was used as bait to lure and hook buyers to purchase the job pamphlet.
Sherman, the printer and advertiser of the Beale Papers was in deep debt from purchasing the LYNCHBURG VIRGINIAN newspaper, in which he ran adds for the job pamphlet.

 

[Doubter in MD]

I'm glad you brought this up. Here again, how did the writer of the codes in 1821 know that the decoder in the distant future was going to stumble on the correct version of the DOI when there were several variations floating about?

Going back to all of the "collective odds" against all of the piled up alleged uninformed accuracies that were required in order for the tale to hold water, well, maybe God himself was involved?

Yes, there were variations, but it wouldn't make the deciphered document a pile of gibberish. Most of us could figure out the words that didn't quite add up regardless of which version of the DOI was used.

 

[bigscoop]

Yes, there were variations, but it wouldn't make the deciphered document a pile of gibberish. Most of us could figure out the words that didn't quite add up regardless of which version of the DOI was used.

OK, let's run with that. Then how did the coder in 1821 know many years in advance that a decoder in the distant future was going to figure out the whole DOI thing and decode C2 first? And if we go a step beyond that, how did the coder in 1821 even know that the decoder would get around to trying a DOI at all?

The problem with all of this is that no matter how you want to look at it there's simply far too many human details in the alleged future events that the writer of the codes would have to of known of in advance and controlled in some way. Yet according to our author there was absolutely no guidance at all. That, my friend, just can't be true.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

OK, let's run with that. Then how did the coder in 1821 know many years in advance that a decoder in the distant future was going to figure out the whole DOI thing and decode C2 first? And if we go a step beyond that, how did the coder in 1821 even know that the decoder would get around to trying a DOI at all?

The problem with all of this is that no matter how you want to look at it there's simply far too many human details in the alleged future events that the writer of the codes would have to of known of in advance and controlled in some way. Yet according to our author there was absolutely no guidance at all. That, my friend, just can't be true.

"Future events"...?

 

[Cryptography]

Well that's a wrap on that argument. BS has found himself in a bad position in this thread without a leg to stand on. The truth will come out and win over the darkness every time.LOL

 

[bigscoop]

Well that's a wrap on that argument. BS has found himself in a bad position in this thread without a leg to stand on. The truth will come out and win over the darkness every time.LOL

Crytpto, my friend, I keep hoping that at some point in all of your aimless and uninformed post that you'll actually present even a closely significant counterpoint to what is being debated/discussed. Until then, keep the amusement park entertainment coming.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Crytpto, my friend, I keep hoping that at some point in all of your aimless and uninformed post that you'll actually present even a closely significant counterpoint to what is being debated/discussed. Until then, keep the amusement park entertainment coming.

Well, it's the OLD "Truism" in TH'ing or R & I; "If you have NOTHING to share/offer on the topic... start "attacking" OTHERS." Eh...?

 

[bigscoop]

Well, it's the OLD "Truism" in TH'ing or R & I; "If you have NOTHING to share/offer on the topic... start "attacking" OTHERS." Eh...?

I think trying to arrive at a truth to anything requires full understanding and acceptance of the context and challenge placed before us, even when that understanding and acceptance is less then desirable. But the author himself has presented us with quite the perplexing conundrum. "I wish" things were different, but.....it is what it is.

 

[Cryptography]

I think trying to arrive at a truth to anything requires full understanding and acceptance of the context and challenge placed before us, even when that understanding and acceptance is less then desirable. But the author himself has presented us with quite the perplexing conundrum. "I wish" things were different, but.....it is what it is.

Sir, it is the fact that we do not have all the facts and may never have all the facts about this subject that puts you ideas about this subject in jeopardy. To keep going on about irrelavant subject matter tells me you have no solid fact. The inconsequential fact you give have no way proven your case. That is why you have moved from The Beale Papers Authenticated Without A Doubt to your own thread here. What book do you have ? You keep to your own inconsequential facts as if you are quoting a book somewere and in need of defending it at all cost. Good Luck with that Sir!

 

[releventchair]

Who recovered anything?
Sites have been claimed yet lack verification.

https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/BealePapers.shtml

 

[bigscoop]

Sir, it is the fact that we do not have all the facts and.....

.....that you will forever continue to ignore all the mounting contrary evidence and facts you do have.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I think trying to arrive at a truth to anything requires full understanding and acceptance of the context and challenge placed before us, even when that understanding and acceptance is less then desirable. But the author himself has presented us with quite the perplexing conundrum. "I wish" things were different, but.....it is what it is.

YEP... It IS, what it IS!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Who recovered anything?
Sites have been claimed yet lack verification.

https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/BealePapers.shtml

GREAT info... THANKS!