CODEBREAKER COMMENTS ABOUT BEALE CIPHERS

[ECS]

Character names, employed as a literary device in a novel does not provide evidence that the events in the job pamphlet ever occurred. In fact the entire Beale story is a second hand account made by the "unknown author". There is a term for this in a court of law.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Silver]

Character names, employed as a literary device in a novel does not provide evidence that the events in the job pamphlet ever occurred. In fact the entire Beale story is a second hand account made by the "unknown author". There is a term for this in a court of law.

You said NO conclusive evidence has ever been found or presented that can prove anything in the Beale Papers text narrative ever occurred.

 

[ECS]

They are all in the same field. But you separate them into those who believe in the Beale Papers, and those who don't. How do you reconcile this?...

Let us return to the topic, without the diversion of explaining how names can be used as a literary fictional device, or that the "unknown author's" account would be considered hearsay.
I have listed names and their credentials in the intelligence field along with their quotes on the Beale ciphers.
Why haven't you presented the names and quotes of those "in the same field" with an opposing view?

 

[ECS]

You said NO conclusive evidence has ever been found or presented that can prove anything in the Beale Papers text narrative ever occurred.

...and none has.

 

[Old Silver]

Let us return to the topic, without the diversion of explaining how names can be used as a literary fictional device, or that the "unknown author's" account would be considered hearsay.
I have listed names and their credentials in the intelligence field along with their quotes on the Beale ciphers.
Why haven't you presented the names and quotes of those "in the same field" with an opposing view?

You are the first, AND ONLY one who said anything about names being used as a literary fictional device. I agree, get back to the topic.
I have names and credentials, and in the same field as those you mention. But I know why you want me to name them.

 

[ECS]

It would provide a credible rebuttal instead of the usual one liners.

 

[Old Silver]

...and none has.

None has? So you're saying there wasn't a Robert Morriss from Lynchburg, who was married to Sarah. And they didn't own the house of entertainment spoken of in the papers?
Are you saying there actually were no Indian massacres in the time of 1817-1822?
Are there no gold and silver mines 250-300 miles north of Santa Fe?
NOTHING in the story was true?

 

[Old Silver]

It would provide a credible rebuttal instead of the usual one liners.

Rebuttal. Thank you for proving me right. See, you already have it in your mind, no matter what I post, you're going to rebut it. This is just more evidence of who the real trouble makers are.

 

[ECS]

None has? So you're saying there wasn't a Robert Morriss from Lynchburg, who was married to Sarah. And they didn't own the house of entertainment spoken of in the papers?
Are you saying there actually were no Indian massacres in the time of 1817-1822?
Are there no gold and silver mines 250-300 miles north of Santa Fe?
NOTHING in the story was true?

Robert Morris (notice the single "S" )was married to Sarah, was once the Mayor of Lynchburg (which was NOT mentioned in the "Morriss" description in the job pamphlet), and owned a house that was briefly mentioned. That is known as literary license. It is not proof of truth for the story.
As for the Indian massacres and mines, once again, NO direct connection to the Beale story, just pure hopeful speculation.

 

[ECS]

Rebuttal. Thank you for proving me right. See, you already have it in your mind, no matter what I post, you're going to rebut it. This is just more evidence of who the real trouble makers are.

Trouble maker? I post names and quotes to support my position, and you post a statement that others" in the same field" have opposing views, you should be able provide the same to support your statement.
If you intend to rebut my posts with one liners lacking substance, you should be able to back them up with real facts.
By the way who are the "REAL TROUBLE MAKERS"?
...or is that just another one of your one liners?

 

[Old Silver]

Robert Morris (notice the single "S" )was married to Sarah, was once the Mayor of Lynchburg (which was NOT mentioned in the "Morriss" description in the job pamphlet), and owned a house that was briefly mentioned. That is known as literary license. It is not proof of truth for the story.
As for the Indian massacres and mines, once again, NO direct connection to the Beale story, just pure hopeful speculation.

Did you not see the census I posted of Robert Morriss? Yes, he and his wife is spoken of in the Beale Papers, with the EXACT spelling that it uses in the census of 1800, 1820, 1830, and 1850. And if something is just BRIEFLY mentioned, then it doesn't count? What kind of logic is that? That is definitely proof of THAT PART of the story, and you said there wasn't ANYTHING in it that's been proved.
I said nothing about DIRECT proof of a Beale massacre, I simply said that the Beale Papers told of such massacres occurring at that time period. THAT has been proved.

 

[Old Silver]

Trouble maker? I post names and quotes to support my position, and you post a statement that others" in the same field" have opposing views, you should be able provide the same to support your statement.
If you intend to rebut my posts with one liners lacking substance, you should be able to back them up with real facts.
By the way who are the "REAL TROUBLE MAKERS"?
...or is that just another one of your one liners?

Another post to prove me right.

 

[ECS]

Did you not see the census I posted of Robert Morriss? Yes, he and his wife is spoken of in the Beale Papers, with the EXACT spelling that it uses in the census of 1800, 1820, 1830, and 1850. And if something is just BRIEFLY mentioned, then it doesn't count? What kind of logic is that? That is definitely proof of THAT PART of the story, and you said there wasn't ANYTHING in it that's been proved.
I said nothing about DIRECT proof of a Beale massacre, I simply said that the Beale Papers told of such massacres occurring at that time period. THAT has been proved.

And means absolutely nothing in relation to the Beale Papers as no dates were given for these massacres, only "rumors of".

 

[ECS]

Another post to prove me right.

How does this prove you right? About what?
That you won't or can't provide quotes of others "in the field" or you are unwilling to name "THE REAL TROUBLE MAKERS".
These one liners of your can be somewhat confusing to their actual meaning.
Please clarify.

 

[Old Silver]

And means absolutely nothing in relation to the Beale Papers as no dates were given for these massacres, only "rumors of".

Did you read the post? Nothing has been claimed about being in relation to the Beale papers, as far as a Beale massacre. But it's in relation to the part in the Beale papers that tells us this:

"During this period rumors of Indian outrages and massacres were current..."

THAT PART of the Beale papers have been proved correct.

 

[Old Silver]

How does this prove you right? About what?
That you won't or can't provide quotes of others "in the field" or you are unwilling to name "THE REAL TROUBLE MAKERS".
These one liners of your can be somewhat confusing to their actual meaning.
Please clarify.

I can provide the names and credentials. And you have provided proof that the only reason you want me to show them is so you can rebut. Change your attitude and I will gladly provide the names. But then you would have no reasons to want to see them, would you.

 

[ECS]

I can provide the names and credentials. And you have provided proof that the only reason you want me to show them is so you can rebut. Change your attitude and I will gladly provide the names. But then you would have no reasons to want to see them, would you.

Now what is wrong with my attitude?

 

[Old Silver]

Now what is wrong with my attitude?

You are here for rebuttals. You pretty much said so in your post. Actually, you SHOW that in almost all of your posts, but this time you asked me to provide something FOR you to rebut.

 

[Old Silver]

You are here for rebuttals. You pretty much said so in your post. Actually, you SHOW that in almost all of your posts, but this time you asked me to provide something FOR you to rebut.

That's called a closed mind, and you'll never see past your nose as long as you choose that way. But, that is your choice.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Robert Morris (notice the single "S" )was married to Sarah, was once the Mayor of Lynchburg (which was NOT mentioned in the "Morriss" description in the job pamphlet), and owned a house that was briefly mentioned. That is known as literary license. It is not proof of truth for the story.
As for the Indian massacres and mines, once again, NO direct connection to the Beale story, just pure hopeful speculation.