The Top Five Decoded Cipher Claims

[Rebel - KGC]

Did you know that the Washington House was used as a town property locator by early deeds in Lynchburg? Do you know to whom the Washington House name is referring to? It was not George Washington.

Well, the house was at the head of Main Street by the cliffs above today's Black Water Creek; tell us about the name, THANKS!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[franklin]

Well, the house was at the head of Main Street by the cliffs above today's Black Water Creek; tell us about the name, THANKS!

Washington Lambeth

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Eh...? Who is THAT...?

 

[franklin]

One of the early land owners in the new town of Lynchburg.

 

[ECS]

Washington Lambeth, born 1778 in King William county, Virginia, married Elizabeth King (1806-1830) in Rustburg, Campbell county, Virginia, moved to Wetumpka, Alabama, where he died in 1850.
Why would the Washington Hotel in Lynchburg be named for Lambeth and not George Washington?
If it was named for him, would it not be called the Lambeth Hotel?

 

[franklin]

Oh, ye of little faith.

 

[bigscoop]

Oh, ye of little faith.

Faith isn't fact. Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it real, or factual. Children have Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc., things they believe in because adults tell them they are real. Adults have treasure legends and conspiracy theories, things they believe in simply because other creative and cunning adults have told them they are real.

 

[franklin]

You are welcome to believe as you see and I can believe the way I believe, whether either of us are right or wrong is yet to be decided.

I have to read Petter Amundsen's book now and I will soon order two more. I usually do not order books but since I know that Petter's research is based on solid ground, I will try to read everything I can get my hands on. Good day. Got to read.

 

[bigscoop]

Just remember, arranging a bunch of details isn't the same thing as actually making those direct connections. Don't let all of the smoke confuse the real issue, the only thing that really matters, making those required direct connections that actually turn baseless manufactured theory into fact. Read all of it that you like but I promise you that you will never encounter those direct connections. However, you are going to encounter "a lot" of tasty bait on the tip of a very sharp hook. Carry your tin-snips with you.

 

[ECS]

...
I have to read Petter Amundsen's book now and I will soon order two more. I usually do not order books but since I know that Petter's research is based on solid ground...

How have you determined that Amundsen's research is "based on solid ground", when true academics and scholars, as Inger Hobbelstad claim the exact opposite, going as far as stating Amundsen "is practicing a fabrication of history".
That is cut from a similar cloth of all those alternative "real story behind the Beale adventure story" fabrications that have been posted on these threads.
While appearing to be based on "solid ground", lose footing and sink under the weight of real evidence.

 

[franklin]

How have you determined that Amundsen's research is "based on solid ground", when true academics and scholars, as Inger Hobbelstad claim the exact opposite, going as far as stating Amundsen "is practicing a fabrication of history".
That is cut from a similar cloth of all those alternative "real story behind the Beale adventure story" fabrications that have been posted on these threads.
While appearing to be based on "solid ground", lose footing and sink under the weight of real evidence.

Because your true scholars and academics such as Inger Hobbelstad think they know everything and anything that changes history is ground jarring, they simply can not see and they can not hear it. You and bigscoop both talk about proof or provenance well Petter Admundsen has the proof and he has math, science and secret codes to substantiate and prove everything he is saying. You need to search out and research before you go around judging others.

 

[bigscoop]

Because your true scholars and academics such as Inger Hobbelstad think they know everything and anything that changes history is ground jarring, they simply can not see and they can not hear it. You and bigscoop both talk about proof or provenance well Petter Admundsen has the proof and he has math, science and secret codes to substantiate and prove everything he is saying. You need to search out and research before you go around judging others.

You're wrong again Franklin, more then you know. Do you realize just how many of these same type of manipulated fantastical works there are out there? There are many, more then you can count, most of them, no doubt, you would believe in simply because, as you say, you choose to. And that is the only thing that brings them to life, gullible people who simply desire to believe in them. "True believers will always believe, regardless." James Jones, WACO, it is the same exact type of manipulation, convincing people to believe in an alternate reality.

 

[ECS]

... You need to search out and research before you go around judging others.

You seem to be very quick on judging others whose research and presented facts prove that some theories lack substantial evidence beyond one's imagination.

 

[masterpoe]

Because your true scholars and academics such as Inger Hobbelstad think they know everything and anything that changes history is ground jarring, they simply can not see and they can not hear it. You and bigscoop both talk about proof or provenance well Petter Admundsen has the proof and he has math, science and secret codes to substantiate and prove everything he is saying. You need to search out and research before you go around judging others.

Did this guy decrypt the Beal Ciphers?

 

[masterpoe]

You seem to be very quick on judging others whose research and presented facts prove that some theories lack substantial evidence beyond one's imagination.

If you are never aware of the facts that something is real. It is foolish to say anything just because you think yourself an expert on everything!

 

[ECS]

If you are never aware of the facts that something is real. It is foolish to say anything just because you think yourself an expert on everything!

You should follow your own advice before advising others, M Poe.

 

[bigscoop]

The ciphers represent a series of random numbers, "random" meaning that they could represent anything, anything at all. One will "always" be able to find correlation to whatever he is looking for in random numbers, no big secret or mystery here. This is why it is so easy to create and claim "code within a code" because these "seemingly accurate correlations" can always be found in completely random numbers. In truth, these claims of code within a code are nothing more then the presentation of selected portions of these completely random numbers that "can be made to workout" in favor of the prior speculation. Pick any subject, any at all, and some measure of seemingly accurate correlation can be found. This is very basic stuff that is easily explained.

 

[masterpoe]

You should follow your own advice before advising others, M Poe.

That's why I only post about topics I believe to be true! Not posting on topics that I don't believe just to create an argument!

 

[masterpoe]

That's why I only post about topics I believe to be true! Not posting on topics that I don't believe just to create an argument!

What Is An "Argument?"
First, one must be familiar with the terminology. In this instance, the term argument refers to "a reasoned attempt to convince the audience to accept a particular point of view about a debatable topic." Looking more closely at this definition, we observe that the argument is not irrational; it does not depend strictly on passion or emotion. Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the audience at hand. Why? The answer to this is that one wants to "convince the audience to accept a particular point of view."

The key concept here is "to convince the audience," that is, you must make them believe your position, accept your logic and evidence. Not only do you want them to accept the evidence, but you want that audience to accept "a particular point of view" -- that point of view, or perspective, is yours. It is your position, your proposition. Understand that all too often the audience may be intrigued by the evidence presented, but that intrigue alone is not enough to convince them of the validity or authority of your position in the matter.

You want the audience to accept your point of view about the topic whether it is gun control, safe sex, or stiffer prison sentences for criminal offenders no matter what age. Finally, there must be "a debatable topic" present for a true argument to develop.

 

[bigscoop]

So, can arguments rationally persist where facts prevail? They shouldn't, and yet they do due to the denial of, or absence of, supporting facts. "The unknown will always be debated and argued."