What C2 is REALLY telling us!

[Rebel - KGC]

YEP! ALL we had, then... was the TITLE! The CONTENT of the Pamphlet was UNKNOWN... could have been ANYTHING!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Old Silver]

Are you sure? It has been mentioned that the only thing copyrighted by Ward was the title, not the manuscript, nor any description beyond the title that claimed to be "authentic statements", or in other words an original work, nothing more, nothing less.

"The Beale PAPERS, containing authentic statements regarding the treasure buried in 1819 and 1821..."

The PAPERS. PAPERS. That was what contained the authentic statements. The PAPERS.

 

[ECS]

YEP! ALL we had, then... was the TITLE! The CONTENT of the Pamphlet was UNKNOWN... could have been ANYTHING!

Yes that is the main point.
The UNKNOWN pamphlet designated only by the copyrighted title only states it contains "authentic statements"which only means during that time is that the work would be an original work by the author as presented by the agent, free from claims of plaglarism from other parties.
It does not designate that the narrative text is true-which if it were so would have contained "true statements" in the title.

 

[ECS]

While on the subject of the copyright from the Library of Congress for the Beale Papers:
Dr Clarence Williams, a Library of Congress researcher stated in 1934-
"To me, the pamphlet story has all the earmarks of a fake...NO EVIDENCE save the word of the unknown author of the pamphlet that he ver had the papers".

 

[Old Silver]

Yes that is the main point.
The UNKNOWN pamphlet designated only by the copyrighted title only states it contains "authentic statements"which only means during that time is that the work would be an original work by the author as presented by the agent, free from claims of plaglarism from other parties.
It does not designate that the narrative text is true-which if it were so would have contained "true statements" in the title.

Who's been telling you that the word "authentic" meant "true"?

But in the context of the word in the title, it was saying that the authenticity belongs to the one/s telling about the treasure. Now who told about the treasure, according to the story?

 

[bigscoop]

Who's been telling you that the word "authentic" meant "true"?

But in the context of the word in the title, it was saying that the authenticity belongs to the one/s telling about the treasure. Now who told about the treasure, according to the story?

No, afraid not. All that "authentic" is suggesting in the title is that the entire narration contains some authentic statements "by the author" only. In no way should this be taken to mean that the alleged testimonies of those quoted in the publication are true, or even real.

 

[Old Silver]

No, afraid not. All that "authentic" is suggesting in the title is that the entire narration contains some authentic statements "by the author" only. In no way should this be taken to mean that the alleged testimonies of those quoted in the publication are true, or even real.

Can you not see my posts where I keep saying, no one is saying authentic means true or real.
The author simply says the PAPERS CONTAIN authentic statements CONCERNING TREASURE. Now, did he claim that the treasure story came from him (author)? No. He claimed it to come from Robert Morriss, therefore the statements that the author claims to be authentic HAS TO BE those of Robert Morriss. Was the author telling the truth? Who can say. I'm not saying it's true, but that it's GIVEN AS true. If you go by what the story says, it claims to be a history. And it claims to be attempting to discover the missing paper. All this means that the story is GIVEN AS true. Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but it is given as such. The authentic (not true) statements were said to be from Robert Morriss, the one who supposedly told the author about the treasure.

 

[bigscoop]

Can you not see my posts where I keep saying, no one is saying authentic means true or real.
The author simply says the PAPERS CONTAIN authentic statements CONCERNING TREASURE. Now, did he claim that the treasure story came from him (author)? No. He claimed it to come from Robert Morriss, therefore the statements that the author claims to be authentic HAS TO BE those of Robert Morriss. Was the author telling the truth? Who can say. I'm not saying it's true, but that it's GIVEN AS true. If you go by what the story says, it claims to be a history. And it claims to be attempting to discover the missing paper. All this means that the story is GIVEN AS true. Whether it is true or not, I don't know, but it is given as such. The authentic (not true) statements were said to be from Robert Morriss, the one who supposedly told the author about the treasure.

Wrong. Those statements DID NOT HAVE TO COME FROM MORRISS! Those statements could have easily been made up, just as the grand adventure portion of the tale was made up. By the time the pamphlet was printed Morriss was dead so the author is free to claim whatever he wishes in regards to those interviews since there is absolutely nobody to dispute his claims. This isn't saying that those statements weren't those of Morriss, but in no way should one settle on the notion that "authentic" means the alleged statements of Morriss were actually his, or that the interview itself ever took place, for that matter. There are endless treasure legends that are built from the ground up on this same type of he-said she-said so why would anybody accept that the Beale paper treasure story is any different? Just because this author, an author who has already been proven to be an established deceiver, says so?

 

[Old Silver]

Wrong. Those statements DID NOT HAVE TO COME FROM MORRISS! Those statements could have easily been made up, just as the grand adventure portion of the tale was made up. By the time the pamphlet was printed Morriss was dead so the author is free to claim whatever he wishes in regards to those interviews since there is absolutely nobody to dispute his claims. This isn't saying that those statements weren't those of Morriss, but in no way should one settle on the notion that "authentic" means the alleged statements of Morriss were actually his, or that the interview itself ever took place, for that matter. There are endless treasure legends that are built from the ground up on this same type of he-said she-said so why would anybody accept that the Beale paper treasure story is any different? Just because this author, an author who has already been proven to be an established deceiver, says so?

Again, I'm saying ACCORDING TO THE STORY...
Yes, it all could be made up, and nothing have come from Robert Morriss. But we are talking about the context of the story's CLAIM of being true, as opposed to being a claimed work of fiction, which novels are. In the story, the statements definitely came from Morriss, and therefore the authentic statements were his. Did the interviews take place? I don't know. Did the author claim that the interviews took place? Yes. Did Robert Morriss actually make the statements claimed in the Beale Papers? I don't know. Did the author make the claim that Morriss made those statements? Yes, he did. And he claimed them to be authentic.

 

[bigscoop]

Again, I'm saying ACCORDING TO THE STORY...
Yes, it all could be made up, and nothing have come from Robert Morriss. But we are talking about the context of the story's CLAIM of being true, as opposed to being a claimed work of fiction, which novels are. In the story, the statements definitely came from Morriss, and therefore the authentic statements were his. Did the interviews take place? I don't know. Did the author claim that the interviews took place? Yes. Did Robert Morriss actually make the statements claimed in the Beale Papers? I don't know. Did the author make the claim that Morriss made those statements? Yes, he did. And he claimed them to be authentic.

But that's the whole point, nowhere does he make the claim that the statements of Morriss are authentic. All he has done, and this is the only thing he has done, is made the claim that his story contains some authentic statements. He has claimed nothing more. So here again it goes back to that basket of oranges with a couple of apples in it, anyone's guess just how many apples are actually mixed in with all of those colorful oranges.

 

[Old Silver]

But that's the whole point, nowhere does he make the claim that the statements of Morriss are authentic. All he has done, and this is the only thing he has done, is made the claim that his story contains some authentic statements. He has claimed nothing more. So here again it goes back to that basket of oranges with a couple of apples in it, anyone's guess just how many apples are actually mixed in with all of those colorful oranges.

And who made those statements? Remember, he's talking about statement about the treasure. So who?

 

[bigscoop]

And who made those statements? Remember, he's talking about statement about the treasure. So who?

Who knows how it all might have played out? The best we can do is to eliminate what we know isn't true and then go from there. Could be the author made the entire tale up? I don't think that's the actual case, but it could just as easily be that he did, just as ECS believes.

 

[Old Silver]

Who knows how it all might have played out? The best we can do is to eliminate what we know isn't true and then go from there. Could be the author made the entire tale up? I don't think that's the actual case, but it could just as easily be that he did, just as ECS believes.

We don't know. What we do know is what the author claims.

 

[ECS]

We don't know. What we do know is what the author claims.

The author only claims the statements are "authentic , not true, and remember when Ward applied for copyright to the LIBRARY of CONGRESS, Ward only sent the title.
The LIBRARY of CONGRES copyright office did not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction during that time, hene the flood of dime novels with real names and imagined adventures.

 

[Old Silver]

The author only claims the statements are "authentic , not true, and remember when Ward applied for copyright to the LIBRARY of CONGRESS, Ward only sent the title.
The LIBRARY of CONGRES copyright office did not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction during that time, hene the flood of dime novels with real names and imagined adventures.

WCS, have someone explain to you what I've said about the word "authentic." Clearly your understanding won't allow you to see what I have said.

 

[ECS]

Did you miss the "did not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction"?

 

[Old Silver]

Did you miss the "did not differentiate between fiction and non-fiction"?

Don't try to figure it out, you'll just get confused worse. Have someone explain it to you.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

But that's the whole point, nowhere does he make the claim that the statements of Morriss are authentic. All he has done, and this is the only thing he has done, is made the claim that his story contains some authentic statements. He has claimed nothing more. So here again it goes back to that basket of oranges with a couple of apples in it, anyone's guess just how many apples are actually mixed in with all of those colorful oranges.

And it DOES make a WONDERFUL Fruit Salad! Gonna make one for LUNCH!