The Simpson Papers

[bigscoop]

Conspicuous too...refrain please?
I only write here when I have a second between other important issues.
You must think you have a lot of goats.

Look, Legrand, at this point, every time you post with more evasive maneuvers, unrelated pictures and chat and pleads for continued patience you further damage your credibility. Every time you continue to post more selective evidences that completely lack any direct connection the same takes place. So once again, "What facts did you know about the Beale story and the ciphers before you began your work?" Or, as Eldo pointed out, did you simply ignore all of the old and confirmed facts in favor preconceived notion?" The question is straight forward, so basic and simple to answer, that answer forming the very basis of your workflow. Once again I'll await your reply.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how is it that others of like mind have claimed to have found similar type "codes within the code" using many of the random numbers that you've discarded? Maybe you can answer that, or not. My guess is that you can, but won't, and with good reason. Did you ever bother to test your applied logic in such a way or did you simply put your head down and run full steam ahead in your personal pursuit of "your personal suspicions?"

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[legrand]

Look, Legrand, at this point, every time you post with more evasive maneuvers, unrelated pictures and chat and pleads for continued patience you further damage your credibility. Every time you continue to post more selective evidences that completely lack any direct connection the same takes place. So once again, "What facts did you know about the Beale story and the ciphers before you began your work?" Or, as Eldo pointed out, did you simply ignore all of the old and confirmed facts in favor preconceived notion?" The question is straight forward, so basic and simple to answer, that answer forming the very basis of your workflow. Once again I'll await your reply.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how is it that others of like mind have claimed to have found similar type "codes within the code" using many of the random numbers that you've discarded? Maybe you can answer that, or not. My guess is that you can, but won't, and with good reason. Did you ever bother to test your applied logic in such a way or did you simply put your head down and run full steam ahead in your personal pursuit of "your personal suspicions?"

Nothing. ERE FEN DUE RED KNEE was a pure find.

 

[legrand]

Look, Legrand, at this point, every time you post with more evasive maneuvers, unrelated pictures and chat and pleads for continued patience you further damage your credibility. Every time you continue to post more selective evidences that completely lack any direct connection the same takes place. So once again, "What facts did you know about the Beale story and the ciphers before you began your work?" Or, as Eldo pointed out, did you simply ignore all of the old and confirmed facts in favor preconceived notion?" The question is straight forward, so basic and simple to answer, that answer forming the very basis of your workflow. Once again I'll await your reply.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how is it that others of like mind have claimed to have found similar type "codes within the code" using many of the random numbers that you've discarded? Maybe you can answer that, or not. My guess is that you can, but won't, and with good reason. Did you ever bother to test your applied logic in such a way or did you simply put your head down and run full steam ahead in your personal pursuit of "your personal suspicions?"

Only to your cadre (ECS, releventchair, etc.,etc.) ...no one else supports your "you further damage your credibility" comment.
It matters to me not what you comment...no one supports you other than your clones.

 

[bigscoop]

Only to your cadre (ECS, releventchair, etc.,etc.) ...no one else supports your "you further damage your credibility" comment.
It matters to me not what you comment...no one supports you other than your clones.

You mean all those folks who stick with the, "same old facts." Imagine that.

 

[ECS]

Only to your cadre (ECS, releventchair, etc.,etc.) ...no one else supports your "you further damage your credibility" comment...

...and who supports your constant claims?
Seems that you have your own cadre for support.

Once again, have you read THE SIMPSON PAPERS?
...and how does THE SIMPSON PAPERS relate to your ERE FEN DUE RED KNEE pure find?

Its time to support your own comments, don't you think?

 

[bigscoop]

I wonder if Legrand ever took the time to check his own random discovery against all of the other potential random discoveries that might be found in a set of completely random numbers? I'm guessing, no.

 

[ECS]

... POSTED May 06, 2015
Now back to the documentary we are booked to film this year on the score

I have the land owner's information and the acres looks sweet.
He even parceled out that one section surrounding the 2 troves

Going on 3 years- NO trove, NO proof, NO pudding- just another empty plate.

 

[bigscoop]

Here's what Legrand, and others, simply don't yet understand about the randomness of their claims/discoveries, yet by their own conclusions they establish it to be 100% accurate.

"Their applied scientific process determined the outcome of their findings." Which means, that it is only expected that a differently applied scientific process could easily yield a completely different, yet seemingly relevant, outcome, which by their own logic, must also be "scientifically accurate to only that applied process." However, in no way should any of these outcomes be considered accurate to either the narration or the actual cipher clear text. This is the problem with all of these various applied scientific processes, because the outcome of each is solely depending on each individual applied process, to which their own findings clearly establish this to be a 100% accurate conclusion, as a matter of applied science.

Now Legrand and others know this to be 100% accurate, as they must if they really understand these applied sciences, which makes one wonder why they absolutely refuse to accept these cold hard scientific facts that their own applied processes clearly confirm and concludes?

 

[ECS]

...
Since the facts remain that we have made a breakthrough using the ciphers of a related organization, with me finding the trove and mine location of the first...

Us younger types are more adept to fact finding and tend to dedicate more time in research than the generalizations made by older researchers, repeating the same old facts...

This is something to be talked about.

Where was the major announcement of you finding these alleged trove and mine locations?
The "same old facts" being repeated by "older researchers" is because they are real hard FACTS, not speculation woven from ones imagination and CLAIM as "fact".

That, ELDO, is something that needs to be talked about.

 

[ECS]

...
Now Legrand and others know this to be 100% accurate, as they must if they really understand these applied sciences, which makes one wonder why they absolutely refuse to accept these cold hard scientific facts that their own applied processes clearly confirm and concludes?

As ELDO would say," This is something to be talked about".

 

[bigscoop]

I use to be just like Legrand, Eldo, and others, running with head down in pursuit of what seemed to be reasonable and relevant discoveries, ignoring the contrary. But it wasn't until I took the advice of the more experienced and I started to fact-check my own applied sense of reason of logic against that contrary that I started to realize just how random my seemingly accurate and relevant discoveries really were. It's not an easy thing to accept but if we ever desire to have any chance of actually discovering the truth then we must.

 

[franklin]

If you have already found your proof why do you not move on to another treasure. I mean if there is nothing for you here, why are you trying to convince others of your truth? I would find something more worthwhile.

 

[bigscoop]

If you have already found your proof why do you not move on to another treasure. I mean if there is nothing for you here, why are you trying to convince others of your truth? I would find something more worthwhile.

Franklin, I have, on several different occasions, posted in these forums that, "it is still possible that the narration could hold some measure of truth, we just don't have enough actual facts to pass that judgement." "Facts" are the only thing that can lead to that potential truth, not speculation, he-said-she-said, or false and unsupported claims of solve and solution, or false and unsupported claims of new evidences, etc. Currently I'm still involved in trying to track down the parents of the "only factual" Thomas J. Beale that might be connected to the "Thomas J. Beale" referenced in the narration, though even that is looking pretty hopeless at present. So where you have concluded, and why you have concluded, that I have deemed the entire tale to be 100% hoax is beyond me? All I keep trying to prevent is the addition of more and more of the same type of false and misleading information that keeps getting tossed onto the huge pile of the already false and misleading information relating to the tale. None of that can possibly lead to the truth, it can only prevent that possible truth from ever being found, if that is even possible at all?

 

[ECS]

... why are you trying to convince others of your truth? ...

Franklin, the real question that needs to be addressed is why do some keep posting false and misleading information as FACT?

 

[legrand]

Franklin, the real question that needs to be addressed is why do some keep posting false and misleading information as FACT?

How can you say it's "false and misleading" simply due to the "fact" that I won't tell you?
One should follow their heart and gut to know the Truth.

 

[bigscoop]

How can you say it's "false and misleading" simply due to the "fact" that I won't tell you?
One should follow their heart and gut to know the Truth.

You can't honestly support that statement in reference to searching for the truth. If gut and heart was it took then every treasure legend, or every other mystery for that fact, would have long ago been solved and put to bed simply due to someone's gut feeling or heartfelt emotion. I honestly can't believe that you made that statement as an alternate to cold hard facts. Now I completely understand why you think that your solution and solve is accurate, because you followed your gut feelings and personal emotions instead of just the facts. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ECS]

How can you say it's "false and misleading" simply due to the "fact" that I won't tell you?
One should follow their heart and gut to know the Truth.

Legrand, you have posted enough information on this and other sites about Poe faking his death and moving to France to collaborate with Jules Verne, Rosalie and Muddy selling Poe's "GRAND DIDDLE" to Charles W Button, Poe leaving a signature in cipher B1 and then stating John William Sherman put Poe's signature in B1 as a ruse, the Beale story is a fable, the treasure is nit real, and then "I hope my decipherment will provide sufficient information for someone to locate this Beale treasure".

You have told a lot with much of it in conflict with your previous statements for all to consider it "false and misleading" ,and now you have introduced Petter Amundsen's unproven thesis on Shakespeare codes and Oak Island, and ELDO's endorsement hasn't aided your credibility either.
11+ years of one liners about red knee spiders solutions and the big will reveal will come soon, have patience, wait also doesn't support confidence in your claims.
PS, is Ralph Waldo Emerson still included in your story as another contributor to the Beale Papers?

 

[legrand]

Legrand, you have posted enough information on this and other sites about Poe faking his death and moving to France to collaborate with Jules Verne, Rosalie and Muddy selling Poe's "GRAND DIDDLE" to Charles W Button, Poe leaving a signature in cipher B1 and then stating John William Sherman put Poe's signature in B1 as a ruse, the Beale story is a fable, the treasure is nit real, and then "I hope my decipherment will provide sufficient information for someone to locate this Beale treasure".

You have told a lot with much of it in conflict with your previous statements for all to consider it "false and misleading" ,and now you have introduced Petter Amundsen's unproven thesis on Shakespeare codes and Oak Island, and ELDO's endorsement hasn't aided your credibility either.
11+ years of one liners about red knee spiders solutions and the big will reveal will come soon, have patience, wait also doesn't support confidence in your claims.
PS, is Ralph Waldo Emerson still included in your story as another contributor to the Beale Papers?

Why do you ask, you have the book apparently?
You've been a good pupil.
You likely will be pleasantly surprised when you've waited for a while longer.

 

[ECS]

I wonder if Legrand ever took the time to check his own random discovery against all of the other potential random discoveries that might be found in a set of completely random numbers? I'm guessing, no.

I reckon you're right considering all the unrelated namedropping peppered throughout his undocumented thesis.

 

[bigscoop]

I reckon you're right considering all the unrelated namedropping peppered throughout his undocumented thesis.

It's not even a "reckon"...it's a matter of fact. Take any large group of completely random numbers and there will always appear to be "seemingly relevant segments" produced, the exact nature of these segments simply depending on the process applied. "There are only 26 letters in the alphabet, not several hundred." No doubt many of these letters will have to show up multiple times in various arrangements in say, a set of completely random numbers of 500 or more. No big mystery in any of this, it's simply a matter of exact science, 500 divided by 26 = 19.2..... Now add the variables of various processes, and various languages like Latin for example, and now the range of possible seemingly relevant segments is vastly increased. This is why folks like Legrand, and others, have produced what they have. It has nothing at all to do with any actual accuracy discovered in all of those "complete unknowns."

By the way, Legrand, there's some more "actual factual research" from me that you can place on top of all the rest. Surely you did all of this required research for yourself before you ran straight forward with head down through the Red Knee tunnel, yes?