The Answer Rest Here

[Rebel - KGC]

Point is, while interesting, none of this is evenly remotely referenced in the Beale papers, nor is grandpa Risque or his fabulous library.

WRONG! It IS in "BP" (THE DUEL); R & I, MY "boots-on-the-ground" indicated the REST of the info...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

WRONG! It IS in "BP" (THE DUEL); R & I, MY "boots-on-the-ground" indicated the REST of the info...

No, and as a matter of fact, it is not in the Beale papers, no direct mention of that duel or of Risque at all. This is just the result of all the locall lore and romance and sentiment that has resulted from the publication.

 

[ECS]

... Yet, according to ECS these things must be directly referenced in the Beale paper narration to even be considered. So, by his own demanding requirements this fact sort of cans his own theory right out of the gate unless the same requirements, somehow, don't apply to him...

Once again you are playing a semantics game to discredit the obvious connection to the events in that Risqué bloodline that were utilized in creating the Beale adventure, while you continue to make "connexions" to the Beale story that do not exist.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

No, and as a matter of fact, it is not in the Beale papers, no direct mention of that duel or of Risque at all. This is just the result of all the locall lore and romance and sentiment that has resulted from the publication.

Heh...

 

[bigscoop]

Once again you are playing a semantics game to discredit the obvious connection to the events in that Risqué bloodline that were utilized in creating the Beale adventure, while you continue to make "connexions" to the Beale story that do not exist.

Obvious connections to the Risque bloodline? Hardly, but so what? No wait, I forgot, these assumed connections were directly referenced and mentioned in the Beale papers, just as you demand of all other theories, right? Seems to me that you're being extremely hypocritical and extremely biased in your demands these days.

Case in point - your reply to the question regarding your author's knowledge of the dates of the Adams Onis Treaty and the chronological order - funny how you can assume that these dates were discovered in grandpa Risque's library and likewise incorporate them and accept them into your own theory, but not mine, when it was the result of my research and my theory that arrived at that undeniable chronological order in the first place. In my theory they're not allowed to be applied, yet in yours, they suddenly and very conveniently are. "Semantics?"

 

[ECS]

...

Case in point - your reply to the question regarding your author's knowledge of the dates of the Adams Onis Treaty and the chronological order - funny how you can assume that these dates were discovered in grandpa Risque's library and likewise incorporate them and accept them into your own theory, but not mine, when it was the result of my research and my theory that arrived at that undeniable chronological order in the first place. In my theory they're not allowed to be applied, yet in yours, they suddenly and very conveniently are...

That remark that you are so misunderstand and misinterpret was a satiric play on your constant basing the Beale deposit dates on the dates of Adams-Onis signing and ratification, and the dates from Laflin's fraudulent Lafitte Memoirs as the basis from which you constructed your "all outside people and incidents included" theory.
Why haven't you remarked on the "old bullion cube" broth that was mentioned in the same post?
If you can misinterpret a simple satire, and totally miss a play on word parody, how much of your theory is based on misinterpreted historic events to fit your pet theory?

 

[bigscoop]

That remark that you are so misunderstand and misinterpret was a satiric play on your constant basing the Beale deposit dates on the dates of Adams-Onis signing and ratification, and the dates from Laflin's fraudulent Lafitte Memoirs as the basis from which you constructed your "all outside people and incidents included" theory.
Why haven't you remarked on the "old bullion cube" broth that was mentioned in the same post?
If you can misinterpret a simple satire, and totally miss a play on word parody, how much of your theory is based on misinterpreted historic events to fit your pet theory?

"Grandpa Risque."
"The Risque bloodline."
"Ward is the author."
"Dime novel for parlor entertainment."
Your "Witcher, Clays, Coles, Jackson."
"Fiction based on the works/adventures of others."
And I could go on and on....
Please, by the same standards that you continually demand of others at every chance, where are these things directly/specifically referenced in the Beale papers? As you have pointed out I have read the pamphlet many-many times, "analyzed every sentence and word in it to death", and O have never once come across these direct/specific references. Apparently you have an entirely different copy then everyone else?

 

[ECS]

"Grandpa Risque."
"The Risque bloodline."
"Ward is the author."
"Dime novel for parlor entertainment."
Your "Witcher, Clays, Coles, Jackson."
"Fiction based on the works/adventures of others."
And I could go on and on....

You forgot to mention Guggenheimer, a contemporary of Ward who had copies for sale in his store. Why?
Sip a cup of old bullion cube broth with a Graham cracker before you go on and on...

 

[bigscoop]

You forgot to mention Guggenheimer, a contemporary of Ward who had copies for sale in his store. Why?
Sip a cup of old bullion cube broth with a Graham cracker before you go on and on...

And you still refuse to apply the same standards you demand upon everyone else to your own theory....."where are these things/claims directly/specifically referenced in the Beale story narration? News flash! "They aren't!" Oopsie!

"You forgot to mention Guggenheimer, a contemporary of Ward who had copies for sale in his store. Why?" Uh.....because that was the whole point, to place them in stores so they could be sold? I think there's even a string of adds detailing as much.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

And you still refuse to apply the same standards you demand upon everyone else to your own theory....."where are these things/claims directly/specifically referenced in the Beale story narration? News flash! "They aren't!" Oopsie!

"You forgot to mention Guggenheimer, a contemporary of Ward who had copies for sale in his store. Why?" Uh.....because that was the whole point, to place them in stores so they could be sold? I think there's even a string of adds detailing as much.

Heh... The ONLY copy of the Beale PAPERS, that one SHOULD read... is the COPY of the ORIGINAL Beale PAPERS PAMPHLET provided by PV in his book, THE BEALE TREASURE: NEW history of a Mystery; Chapter 3, pg 22-44. (MHO).

 

[ECS]

The Laffite Memoirs came about in the 1940's, supposedly the memoirs of his life written by Laffite himself up to around the mid-1850's...

So you hold the belief that Lafitte faked his death and lived under an assumed name until the 1850's?
That is your evidence to support your theory on the Beale Papers?

 

[bigscoop]

So you hold the belief that Lafitte faked his death and lived under an assumed name until the 1850's?
That is your evidence to support your theory on the Beale Papers?

It doesn't matter who's hand actually penned the memoirs, what matters is the degree of accuracy within text. In recent years it's being discovered that there appears to be "a lot" more accuracy in the memoirs then previously thought. That's what matters. Researching all of this stuff has taken a long-long time, a few things confirmed in the memoirs that at the time would have only been known to someone who had been there or had first hand knowledge of these certain affairs. Did Laffite fake his death and survive until the mid/late 1850's? I don't really care either way, doesn't really matter. What matters is the degree of accuracy within the text.

 

[ECS]

... Did Laffite fake his death and survive until the mid/late 1850's? I don't really care either way, doesn't really matter. What matters is the degree of accuracy within the text.

Who has determined the degree of accuracy in Laflin's Lafitte memoirs?
...and how was this determination made?

 

[bigscoop]

Who has determined the degree of accuracy in Laflin's Lafitte memoirs?
...and how was this determination made?

Certainly not you. And certainly not through the romantic ease of Grandpa Risque's fabulous library.

 

[ECS]

You keep avoiding the important questions of substantiating your "theory" with proof by making light of the messenger, which ,of course, speaks volumes.

 

[ECS]

It doesn't matter who's hand actually penned the memoirs, what matters is the degree of accuracy within text. In recent years it's being discovered that there appears to be "a lot" more accuracy in the memoirs then previously thought. That's what matters...

Actually it does matter because it was claimed that Lafitte was the author, but if penned by another (Laflin), how can any of the content be judged as accurate and true. An example is the meeting between Marx and Engles in 1847, this appears to be the actual writers agenda, not Lafitte's.
Basing a theory of the Beale story on Lafitte's memoirs is picking fruit from the poisonous tree, it is entirely tainted.

 

[bigscoop]

Actually it does matter because it was claimed that Lafitte was the author, but if penned by another (Laflin), how can any of the content be judged as accurate and true. An example is the meeting between Marx and Engles in 1847, this appears to be the actual writers agenda, not Lafitte's.
Basing a theory of the Beale story on Lafitte's memoirs is picking fruit from the poisonous tree, it is entirely tainted.

I'm sure you've personally researched the memoirs and the information within in enough length and depth to pass all these personal judgements and opinions from all that you have learned from Grandpa Riqsue's legendary fabulous library. Straw, hay, fish, fruit, poisonous trees, etc., etc., etc.

 

[ECS]

... In recent years it's being discovered that there appears to be "a lot" more accuracy in the memoirs then previously thought. That's what matters. Researching all of this stuff has taken a long-long time, a few things confirmed in the memoirs that at the time would have only been known to someone who had been there or had first hand knowledge of these certain affairs...

Once again, who has confirmed the accuracy in Laflin's questionable Lafitte memoirs?
Was the meeting of Lafitte with Marx and Engles confirmed as accurate?
Was the black powder given to Peabody, Kingsley, and Ward confirmed for removing boulders and taking care of the railroad as accurate?
Was the name of said railroad ever researched?
Was the names SHERMAN ever confirmed to be Mathew "Mexico" Sherman?
Why don't you share with us what was confirmed as accurate in Laflin's Lafitte memoirs, by whom, and then how this memoir of Lafitte relates to the 1885 Beale Papers.

 

[bigscoop]

....how this memoir of Lafitte relates to the 1885 Beale Papers.

Already done a great deal of this many times over in these forums. All one needs to do is look.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Once again, who has confirmed the accuracy in Laflin's questionable Lafitte memoirs?
Was the meeting of Lafitte with Marx and Engles confirmed as accurate?
Was the black powder given to Peabody, Kingsley, and Ward confirmed for removing boulders and taking care of the railroad as accurate?
Was the name of said railroad ever researched?
Was the names SHERMAN ever confirmed to be Mathew "Mexico" Sherman?
Why don't you share with us what was confirmed as accurate in Laflin's Lafitte memoirs, by whom, and then how this memoir of Lafitte relates to the 1885 Beale Papers.

Are you authoring a book ? Is that why you are needing all of someones research on this topic ?

Most people are only willing to tell you about 10% about they know. As not to give up the other 90%, they may sometimes not look complete with what info they give you.