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.
