Here's what you guys just are not getting, or completely denying;
Your entire premise is based on the opinion that the story holds truth, and yet you continue to pick and choose at convenient random selection what parts of the story hold that measure of truth. Per example, if the story holds truth then how do you explain away the following directly from the author:
"That they would attach no importance to a seemingly unintelligible writing seems quite natural; but their attention being called to them by the publication of this narrative, may result in eventually bringing to light the missing paper."
This is directly from your source of truth, and that voice of truth has just informed you that you still require a missing paper that will appear to be a seemingly unintelligible writing. The reason you avoid this is because this statement of proposed truth leaves you with a vital but complete unknown, a writing that you could hold in your very hand and never know that you had it. And yet your author, your voice of truth, has unquestionably just told you that you MUST possess it in order find remedy. Do any of you possess it? No! Oh, or is this portion of the tale one of those selected portions that isn't true?
So we don't have this missing paper that the voice of truth says we require, however, we have managed to find a wide variety of remedies without it...