Mines, Mines, and More Mines.

[bigscoop]

I'm referring to how you had your original theory here, and nothing else could be possible. Then someone sent you something on a different theory and then you did a 180 degree turn, and now the new theory is the only thing possible. It's not the taking of information from other sources, or even the changing of the mind, but the absoluteness of each theory you come up with. Everyone on this forum is subordinate to you when it comes to the truth about the Beale story, no matter how many times you change your theory. Each time, you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, I do take information from other places, I just don't change my mind every time the wind blows, and claim that THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY each time. I like to find things either from near the period in question, or at least things that line up with what I'm saying. That, for some reason, seems to threaten you.

Fresh Ideas, like maybe the treasure consisting of gold and silver ore, instead of pure gold and silver. There's nothing in the Beale story to refute that idea, which is all it is, an idea. I'm not as cock-sure as you are.

There are "a lot" of things that I'm not "cock-sure" about within this mystery, however, there are several constants/facts that I am "cock-sure" about. For instance, I am cock-sure that the adventure portion of the tale never happened as described, because it could not have happened as described, and for several reasons, this also making me cock-sure that those letters are bogus. So, I am therefore also cock-certain, the same as cock-sure, that if the story holds any measure of truth then that truth will be in the form of a completely different solution. And also, I am cock-absolute, the same as cock-certain and cock-sure, that those ciphers have either been manipulated beyond their original form, or, that they were simply created with a designed purpose.

"Ore?".....you've really not fully investigated this notion and thought this through, yet.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

One day last year he said there was a Celeste Beale Diary, and was supposed proof that Captain Beale of New Orleans was dead in 1820 . But to this day no proof of it ever has been produced . He just likes to win to the point, he will make up stuff .

Well Laf, I posted that link on one of my threads.While on the subject of "no proof of it has ever been produced", what has become of the "solved ciphers" you claimed to have accomplished? You haven't mentioned that in quite awhile.
PS: Thomas Beale Sr died Sept 1820
Thomas Beale Jr died Oct 1823
Both in New Orleans, and neither had a "J" as a middle initial.

 

[Old Silver]

There are "a lot" of things that I'm not "cock-sure" about within this mystery, however, there are several constants/facts that I am "cock-sure" about. For instance, I am cock-sure that the adventure portion of the tale never happened as described, because it could not have happened as described, and for several reasons, this also making me cock-sure that those letters are bogus. So, I am therefore also cock-certain, the same as cock-sure, that if the story holds any measure of truth then that truth will be in the form of a completely different solution. And also, I am cock-absolute, the same as cock-certain and cock-sure, that those ciphers have either been manipulated beyond their original form, or, that they were simply created with a designed purpose.

"Ore?".....you've really not fully investigated this notion and thought this through, yet.

The papers have been changed. You can do the decoding for yourself and see that. But for what reason, we don't know. We do know that the papers were published by a publisher, and we know that publishers do edit/change writings. Is that what happened? I'm not cock-sure.

I have indeed investigated the ore possibility, and have found it to be possible, with room to spare. As you well know, I'm not saying this is the way it happened, but when you say it's not possible, well, that's just wrong. It may be impossible if the treasure consisted of pure, refined gold and silver, but we are not told that it consists of pure gold/silver, just the same as we are not told that it's ore. The door of possibility is left open.

 

[bigscoop]

Old Silver, consider this;
In previous post you have stated that "silver to save on transportation" wasn't part of the original clear text of C2. Now if this is true then what does this tell you about the author's presented solution to that alleged cipher, or to the main bait of the tale? Well, it tells you that the clear text presented isn't even real, that's what it tells you, plain and simple. Yet, to no ends, you still believe in that clear text. Why?

In his own words the author clearly describes how he laid the ciphers out according to their length and then numbered them, yet we all know that this presented system would have resulted in a different order, period! And yet, to no ends, you still believe in the presented order of 1,2,3. Why?

In the clear text of C2 an intelligent man details how "gold and silver" was deposited in a secret location, but since we know that there exist obvious refining issues with this claim then "gold and silver" suddenly becomes "Ore." Why?

The story is detailed around a man named "Thomas J. Beale" to which no such man has ever been identified during the period in question or having ever visited Lynchburg or the surrounding region during the described period, and yet we still believe. Why?

Thirty men of means depart for the great American west, they winter in Santa Fe, do business in Saint Louis, and not just once, but at least twice, and yet nobody ever misses them, not their friends, family, associates, etc., when they suddenly disappear off the face of the map, no record of any of them anywhere. And yet we still believe. Why? And I could go on and on.

Nearly 200 years of hard and constant research has passed, a great deal of this research having been conducted by some of the best in the business, and still absolutely nothing....a big fat complete "ZERO!"

Now with just these issues, what do they tell you?

 

[bigscoop]

The papers have been changed....

Exactly my point! You are assuming that they have "been changed" without ever giving any real consideration to the unthinkable, that they were never changed but actually written as such. Why? And on top of this, you still believe 100% that they are the real deal in face of what you already know to be true, that they "are not" the real deal. Why?

 

[ECS]

What have you proved? All you do is make claims that this happened because this one was kin to that one, and these other people did this, etc., etc. What do you have to SHOW of your claims?

I have not claimed to have proof of the Beale treasure, and you know that. I HAVE shown proof that the impossibility claim is wrong. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Really?
Anachronistic anecdotical references that have NOTHING to do with Beale or the perilous adventure is NOT proof of anything in the Beale Papers of actually occurring.
So what have you proved?
That records exists of other people and expeditions, but none exist for the Thomas J Beale expedition of the dime novel job pamphlet.
What I can show for my "claims", are the people and influences behind the creation of the 1885 Beale Papers.
On the subject of kin (from the Beale Papers): "knowledge of this affair was confined to a very limited circle-to the writer's immediate family, and to one old and valued friend".
The "unknown" author is clearly stating that this story is "all in the family".
Sorry if you can't see that".

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Well Laf, I posted that link on one of my threads.While on the subject of "no proof of it has ever been produced", what has become of the "solved ciphers" you claimed to have accomplished? You haven't mentioned that in quite awhile.
PS: Thomas Beale Sr died Sept 1820
Thomas Beale Jr died Oct 1823
Both in New Orleans, and neither had a "J" as a middle initial.

There is no proof of the deaths you speak of for 1820, the 1820 death is the same person as probate in 1823 . Probate for Sr was in 1829 .

 

[Old Silver]

Old Silver, consider this;
In previous post you have stated that "silver to save on transportation" wasn't part of the original clear text of C2. Now if this is true then what does this tell you about the author's presented solution to that alleged cipher, or to the main bait of the tale? Well, it tells you that the clear text presented isn't even real, that's what it tells you, plain and simple. Yet, to no ends, you still believe in that clear text. Why?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why you won't see the parts of my posts that clearly state that I don't necessarily believe in the Beale treasure. I don't know if the story is true or not. For all I know the whole thing could have been made up, and I think I'm made my position pretty clear on that. But where you have seen impossibility, I have seen possibility. None of us have shown proof for anything we believe, though all of us have shown suggestive evidence. So what is the truth of it? WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. So, instead of thinking that I BELIEVE IN the clear text, why not accept that I'm simply saying I believe it POSSIBLE. Now, as I have just agreed with you about the clear text having been changed. Why do you say that it HAS TO BE due to the author baiting? Again, you like to say that there's only one possible explanation for everything, when sometimes that just not the case. The word "silver" was added, but it does say "to save transportation." Until I know for sure why that change happened, I can't say that it could only be for one certain reason. We simply don't know.

In his own words the author clearly describes how he laid the ciphers out according to their length and then numbered them, yet we all know that this presented system would have resulted in a different order, period! And yet, to no ends, you still believe in the presented order of 1,2,3. Why?

Because the papers clearly state it that way. We've been over this a few times. The author says the papers were numbered. Then he says that after failing to decode them by arranging them according to their length, he then had them stuck in his mind IN THEIR REGULAR ORDER. That would be the order they were in originally, when he said they were NUMBERED. That would have been their order BEFORE arranging them according to their length. Proof of this? The papers are not given to the public numbered according to their length, #2 being the longest, and #1 being the shortest. Now I know there are other possible explanations for this, but that brings us back to what I've been trying to say here. POSSIBILITIES. There is more than one possibility.

In the clear text of C2 an intelligent man details how "gold and silver" was deposited in a secret location, but since we know that there exist obvious refining issues with this claim then "gold and silver" suddenly becomes "Ore." Why?

Gold and silver ore IS gold and silver, no matter how you slice it. It's not iron or copper. It's gold and silver. "There's gold in them thar hills" doesn't mean coins, and it doesn't mean refined chunks.
I know you want to refute my evidence, but you know I have posted articles about miners taking out chunks of gold in that area that was so rich they were calling it pure. Evidently it looked pure, although it wouldn't have been pure. Why does it become ore? I'm not sure it does, but I see the possibility there. And since we are not told whether or not the treasure is pure gold/silver, it makes sense as a possibility. Why do you call the author intelligent when it's convenient for your theory, but then when it's not convenient, you try to make him out to be not so intelligent?

The story is detailed around a man named "Thomas J. Beale" to which no such man has ever been identified during the period in question or having ever visited Lynchburg or the surrounding region during the described period, and yet we still believe. Why?

"WE" still believe? Does that mean you and me?
Oh there have been several Thomas Beale's identified as a possibility. Just because you don't always see a middle initial, that doesn't mean anything. Think about all the names you see without a middle initial, including Thomas Beale. Do you think all of these people had no middle name? Now consider your own name. Do you always spell your full name, or otherwise give a middle initial? People just don't always do that. Having said that, there have been a few Thomas J. Beale's found, but no confirmation, as far as I know. And for what it's worth, why do we suppose that a man calling himself Thomas J. Beale had to be using his real name? After all, he did tell Robert Morriss that he was keeping the names of the party secret. And he (Beale) was a member of the party. And we see in his letter that he used only T.J.B., not even signing the name. So if we consider that he carried out the secrecy of the names to the fullest, we might think that he was using a fake name when he visited Lynchburg. But we just don't know for sure, do we.

Thirty men of means depart for the great American west, they winter in Santa Fe, do business in Saint Louis, and not just once, but at least twice, and yet nobody ever misses them, not their friends, family, associates, etc., when they suddenly disappear off the face of the map, no record of any of them anywhere. And yet we still believe. Why? And I could go on and on.

"WE" believe?
You haven't done a lot of genealogy, have you? I have, and I can tell you that most things that happened, that long ago, you simply don't find recorded. I don't have access to newspapers from 1822-1832, so I can't say if there were articles on missing people then, or not. But I can tell you that MOST things such as this is lost to us. I know this by experience. If you think that every event that's ever happened has come down to us as recorded history, then all I can say it do the research.

Nearly 200 years of hard and constant research has passed, a great deal of this research having been conducted by some of the best in the business, and still absolutely nothing....a big fat complete "ZERO!"

Now with just these issues, what do they tell you?

Calling everything "nothing" is not always a correct assessment. You can't take the word of professional skeptics as truth. Skeptics have predetermined that nothing can be true if it's not recorded in a text book, and they are simply wrong. Now you can claim you are referring to open minded researchers, but just about everyone I've seen come against possibilities of anything that's not widely accepted are just skeptic. That's all some people are, because they don't seem to have the ability to believe in anything they were not taught in a classroom. Well, not all truth comes from a classroom. So does this make the Beale story true? No, it doesn't. It just makes the skeptics wrong.

 

[Old Silver]

Exactly my point! You are assuming that they have "been changed" without ever giving any real consideration to the unthinkable, that they were never changed but actually written as such. Why? And on top of this, you still believe 100% that they are the real deal in face of what you already know to be true, that they "are not" the real deal. Why?

Again, you haven't heard me. I do consider what you're saying a possible. The only thing I dispute are some of the things you claim to be Impossible.
I believe 100% that they are the real deal? Are you sure of that statement? I don't know for sure either way, and neither do you. Again, you are claiming something as sure, and I'm not. Why are you doing something that you accuse me of doing?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Keep politics out of thread!

 

[Old Silver]

Really?
Anachronistic anecdotical references that have NOTHING to do with Beale or the perilous adventure is NOT proof of anything in the Beale Papers of actually occurring.
So what have you proved?
That records exists of other people and expeditions, but none exist for the Thomas J Beale expedition of the dime novel job pamphlet.
What I can show for my "claims", are the people and influences behind the creation of the 1885 Beale Papers.
On the subject of kin (from the Beale Papers): "knowledge of this affair was confined to a very limited circle-to the writer's immediate family, and to one old and valued friend".
The "unknown" author is clearly stating that this story is "all in the family".
Sorry if you can't see that".

You seem to have a lot of trouble comprehending what people are saying. Where did I claim proof for the Beale story? Where? Can you SHOW it? What I have been able to prove is that it's possible. Why do you seem to have so much trouble understanding that? But I see you are still stating as fact the it was a dime novel, WITHOUT PROOF. You are guilty of what you falsely accuse me of. You claim to be ably to show this proof, but you never do. All you have is hearsay, or this person was kin to that person. You never SHOW anything significant. Man, do some actual research. Can you SHOW where the families claimed the Beale story to be fabricated? And can you SHOW that they proved a man calling himself Thomas Beale never existed? If you can show these things, can you PROVE that they were correct, or just had their own opinions, as most people do? Can you SHOW any of these things, ECS? SHOW me.

 

[bigscoop]

Years ago I was a true believer in the tale just like most everyone else. In the years to follow I proceeded to churn over the same old dirt that everyone else churned over, and still are to this day. Eventually I came to realize that there was always a discrepancy or inaccuracy in the tale, this type thing constantly being encountered again and again until it had finally reached the point that simply by the accumulated nature of these issues that the tale couldn't possibly be a true or accurate narrative as written.

So from here, and hoping to keep something alive in the tale, anything, in fact, I started to churn new dirt in search of possible alternate solutions to the mystery. Over the course of the next few years I seldom came across any credible alternate solutions but whenever i did I always posted those possibilities, some of them even appearing to be extremely possible alternate solutions. Now here's the thing in all of this.....

A great deal of what I proceeded to post was, in fact, new to these forums and the mystery at hand. However, it wasn't always "pro story" information as so many wanted to see and desired. In fact, a great deal of it has been anti-story information, this perhaps in itself illustrating the unbiased efforts in my personal R&I. You see, here's the thing, the truth can't be created, no matter how hard we try or how desperately we want to believe, so yes, I admit it, my research has sprouted in all directions in search of the possible truth, both pro and con, and I will, and still do, continue to do so. If there was any truth in same old dirt then it would have been cultivated by now.

 

[Old Silver]

Years ago I was a true believer in the tale just like most everyone else. In the years to follow I proceeded to churn over the same old dirt that everyone else churned over, and still are to this day. Eventually I came to realize that there was always a discrepancy or inaccuracy in the tale, this type thing constantly being encountered again and again until it had finally reached the point that simply by the accumulated nature of these issues that the tale couldn't possibly be a true or accurate narrative as written.

So from here, and hoping to keep something alive in the tale, anything, in fact, I started to churn new dirt in search of possible alternate solutions to the mystery. Over the course of the next few years I seldom came across any credible alternate solutions but whenever i did I always posted those possibilities, some of them even appearing to be extremely possible alternate solutions. Now here's the thing in all of this.....

A great deal of what I proceeded to post was, in fact, new to these forums and the mystery at hand. However, it wasn't always "pro story" information as so many wanted to see and desired. In fact, a great deal of it has been anti-story information, this perhaps in itself illustrating the unbiased efforts in my personal R&I. You see, here's the thing, the truth can't be created, no matter how hard we try or how desperately we want to believe, so yes, I admit it, my research has sprouted in all directions in search of the possible truth, both pro and con, and I will, and still do, continue to do so. If there was any truth in same old dirt then it would have been cultivated by now.

And you stand against me for doing a similar thing.

 

[bigscoop]

And you stand against me for doing a similar thing.

I never said I stood against you, I simply have accumulated enough info over the years, both pros and cons, to consider things from a much different perspective, which just happens to result in a very different take on certain issues within the tale regarding their very existence and those real world possibilities. Instead of always asking myself, what would make these things possible, I have learned to often ask myself what would make these things impossible? Two completely different avenues of R&I that often yield completely different results.

 

[Old Silver]

I never said I stood against you, I simply have accumulated enough info over the years, both pros and cons, to consider things from a much different perspective, which just happens to result in a very different take on certain issues within the tale regarding their very existence and those real world possibilities. Instead of always asking myself, what would make these things possible, I have learned to often ask myself what would make these things impossible? Two completely different avenues of R&I that often yield completely different results.

Understood, but sometimes our conclusions are not the only possible explanations. That's as true for me as it is for you, but I'm not claiming anything to be the truth of the Beale story, I'm just claiming possibilities as I see them.

 

[ECS]

Understood, but sometimes our conclusions are not the only possible explanations. That's as true for me as it is for you, but I'm not claiming anything to be the truth of the Beale story, I'm just claiming possibilities as I see them.

Claiming the Beale story is possible by posting third person accounts like the Pike/Pursley story, a story about an iron mine massacre from a company newspaper press release, an 87 oz crystalized flake gold nugget on display in a bank, mining activities in the 1880's, and so on, does not, in anyway prove the Beale story possible, but an irrational attempt to make found unrelated facts fit into the Beale storyline.
You are quick to dismiss the research of Bigscoop and me, while never presenting any evidence of substance that can confirm anything from the Beale storyline narrative, just random unrelated information that you claim makes the story possible.
Being possible is not the same as being true.

 

[Old Silver]

Claiming the Beale story is possible by posting third person accounts like the Pike/Pursley story, a story about an iron mine massacre from a company newspaper press release, an 87 oz crystalized flake gold nugget on display in a bank, mining activities in the 1880's, and so on, does not, in anyway prove the Beale story possible, but an irrational attempt to make found unrelated facts fit into the Beale storyline.
You are quick to dismiss the research of Bigscoop and me, while never presenting any evidence of substance that can confirm anything from the Beale storyline narrative, just random unrelated information that you claim makes the story possible.
Being possible is not the same as being true.

You have managed to thoroughly confuse yourself. If you'd like to take the time to re read the posts I've made, and try to straighten yourself out a little, I'll wait here. Then maybe we can discuss the real issues and the things I've actually said.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

You have managed to thoroughly confuse yourself. If you'd like to take the time to re read the posts I've made, and try to straighten yourself out a little, I'll wait here. Then maybe we can discuss the real issues and the things I've actually said.

I have been were you are now, don't hold your breath Bro .

 

[Old Silver]

I have been were you are now, don't hold your breath Bro .

Believe me, I'm not. Empty claims with nothing to back them up is all he ever posts.

 

[ECS]

What have you proved? All you do is make claims that this happened because this one was kin to that one, and these other people did this, etc., etc. What do you have to SHOW of your claims?...

Let's look at this "kin" thing and how it relates to the 1885 Beale Papers.
One family member was born and raised "four miles from Buford's Inn".
Another had business in Richmond "during the 2nd year of the Confederate War".
Another had a business in "St Louis".
Another was massacred by Indians while inspecting "gold and silver mines" out west.
Another had an "old and valued friend", who was mentioned in the 1885 Beale Papers.

And, another fought a duel with a "Thomas Beale".
"a very limited circle...the writer's immediate family"
This "kin thing" runs throughout the 1885 Beale Papers.