Why C2?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can appreciate your desire to still want to believe in the whole mining possibility but "prior to 1827" isn't exactly in the described period as this could also easily mean sometime in 23,24,25,26? And on top of this documented mining history clearly rebuts any chance that a highly successful SILVER mining operation was in operation in the region in the described region. And if one determines to settle on ores then this brings into a play an entire array of other highly unlikely circumstances which pretty much scraps that notion. 10 ox and 10 wagons? Even with empty wagons this would bring about extremely slow travel into the already highly questionable travel time detailed, and all of this over very rough and rugged terrains to boot. And so on and so on. So in the end the whole notion of a highly successful mining operation as described in the Beale papers just wasn't possible during the era described.
 

bigscoop said:
I can appreciate your desire to still want to believe in the whole mining possibility but "prior to 1827" isn't exactly in the described period as this could also easily mean sometime in 23,24,25,26? And on top of this documented mining history clearly rebuts any chance that a highly successful SILVER mining operation was in operation in the region in the described region. And if one determines to settle on ores then this brings into a play an entire array of other highly unlikely circumstances which pretty much scraps that notion. 10 ox and 10 wagons? Even with empty wagons this would bring about extremely slow travel into the already highly questionable travel time detailed, and all of this over very rough and rugged terrains to boot. And so on and so on. So in the end the whole notion of a highly successful mining operation as described in the Beale papers just wasn't possible during the era described.
Click to expand...


Before 1827 is not in the Beale period? You might want to rethink that. Anyway, I didn't say this was a Beale mine, now did I? This was about the existence of the mines. They existed before they were discovered.
 

Old Silver said:
Before 1827 is not in the Beale period? You might want to rethink that. Anyway, I didn't say this was a Beale mine, now did I? This was about the existence of the mines. They existed before they were discovered.
Click to expand...

1817-1822, so no, 1827 is not the Beale period. In fact, many-many things started to change after 1821 in that region of the country as those borders were now clearly detailed and confirmed and western expansion was starting to be further debated, frequently encouraged, and challenged. So I just don't think those years after 1821 can be compared to those years prior.
 

bigscoop said:
1817-1822, so no, 1827 is not the Beale period. In fact, many-many things started to change after 1821 in that region of the country as those borders were now clearly detailed and confirmed and western expansion was starting to be further debated, frequently encouraged, and challenged. So I just don't think those years after 1821 can be compared to those years prior.
Click to expand...

I didn't say 1827, I said BEFORE 1827.
 

Old Silver said:
I didn't say 1827, I said BEFORE 1827.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but like I said, you have no specific period "of before" so this could simply mean "a couple of years before", or say, in 1823, 24,25,26? But even if it was an already worked mine this doesn't even nullify the biggest obstacle/obstacles that still remain in the tale, and there are many.
 

bigscoop said:
I understand that, but like I said, you have no specific period "of before" so this could simply mean "a couple of years before", or say, in 1823, 24,25,26? But even if it was an already worked mine this doesn't even nullify the biggest obstacle/obstacles that still remain in the tale, and there are many.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about whether or not the mines existed.
This mine being associated with Thomas Beale is a question mark, but it's also a possibility, obstacles notwithstanding.
 

bigscoop said:
I can appreciate your desire to still want to believe in the whole mining possibility but "prior to 1827" isn't exactly in the described period as this could also easily mean sometime in 23,24,25,26? And on top of this documented mining history clearly rebuts any chance that a highly successful SILVER mining operation was in operation in the region in the described region. And if one determines to settle on ores then this brings into a play an entire array of other highly unlikely circumstances which pretty much scraps that notion. 10 ox and 10 wagons? Even with empty wagons this would bring about extremely slow travel into the already highly questionable travel time detailed, and all of this over very rough and rugged terrains to boot. And so on and so on. So in the end the whole notion of a highly successful mining operation as described in the Beale papers just wasn't possible during the era described.
Click to expand...
Beale Treasure
This addresses some of what Bigscoop mentioned.
 

ECS said:
As Bigscoop has pointed out, those" mines in the area" did not exist until 50 years after the alleged Beale story expedition.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, there was mining from 1500's on in the area by Spanish and French !
 

John Pickerel Risque, brother of James Beverly Risque, was an inspector of mines in Arizona, etc (ALL American territories), until he was killed by Indians in 1882 or so. PV, in his book, THE BEALE TREASURE: NEW History of a MYSTERY wrote, "Hutter heard that his 33-year old cousin, John Pickerel Risque (ACTUALLY, a Grand Uncle, since JB Risque was his Grand-Father), had been killed by Indians in Arizona. His death came as he was returning home with a party that had been inspecting some sort of mine. This news came as a shock. Hutter had always found John's adventures fascinating." (p. 162).
 

Rebel - KGC said:
John Pickerel Risque, brother of James Beverly Risque, was an inspector of mines in Arizona, etc (ALL American territories), until he was killed by Indians in 1882 or so. PV, in his book, THE BEALE TREASURE: NEW History of a MYSTERY wrote, "Hutter heard that his 33-year old cousin, John Pickerel Risque (ACTUALLY, a Grand Uncle, since JB Risque was his Grand-Father), had been killed by Indians in Arizona. His death came as he was returning home with a party that had been inspecting some sort of mine. This news came as a shock. Hutter had always found John's adventures fascinating." (p. 162).
Click to expand...

This is still "many years" past the alleged Beale adventure.
 

Yes it was, and another influence utilized in the 1885 Beale Papers, and later, the Hart Papers, another connection to that intertwining family bloodline that began with James Beverly Risqué and that duel with Thomas Beale.
 

ECS said:
Yes it was, and another influence utilized in the 1885 Beale Papers, and later, the Hart Papers, another connection to that intertwining family bloodline that began with James Beverly Risqué and that duel with Thomas Beale.
Click to expand...

Do you know that for a fact? That is a positive statement and requires proof.
 

ECS said:
Yes it is, and you are free to research that information.
Click to expand...

I don't need to research it. You're the one who made the statement, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Proof Positive

⬅️ Previous Thread

Mines, Mines, and More Mines.

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top