Beale Treasure Code: A Fraud

[Old Bookaroo]

This probably isn't going to be a very popular post - particularly on this Topic. However, if I can save anyone's time, energy and money I would like to do it.

Some twenty years ago I was sent a copy of a privately-printed book that just blew the Beale Treasure Code story right out of the water (or, off the mountain, if you prefer). I'm sorry to say I do not remember the author's name - and I would like to do his research justice!

The bottom line is that he proved - to my satisfaction, anyway - that the story is a hoax. The author of the chicane did it to sell books - gee, does that have a familiar ring to it?

His proof was based on two main points. The "unsolved" codes are simply not long enough to include all the promised information. However, the devestating part of his contention was the several anachronisms he found in the "solved" text.

It is a fact that every object created - including text - contains clue to the time in which it was created. The author found several words that simply were not in use at the time when the Codes were supposed to have been written - yet were being used when the booklets were prepared (and sold).

There are probably going to be some folks who want to argue about this. That's ok - but it's not the reason I'm posting this. This is a word to the wise - those who wish to continue to believe will do so no matter what proof, evidence, facts or other information is presented.

Good luck to all -

~The Old Bookaroo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Rebel - KGC]

THE story was printed in 1885, which MAY be the reason that "unknown" words like STAMPEDE was used (as an example...); it is just ONE of many theories about the Beale Ciphers/Treasure/story... AND!
It was proven to YOUR satisfaction, that the "story" was a HOAX. That DOES not mean, it is. Let the pp decide... OR... you MAY BE... just "FISHING ".

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Rebel - KC:

I have no personal interest in the Beale Code Treasure. If folks want to waste their time looking for it, so be it. Just leaves more of the real thing for everyone else.

You might be interested in reading George Love's essay at: http://www.myoutbox.net/bealhome.htm

He makes a very good point - the DoI paper can only be correctly de-cyphered if one uses the DoI text found in the pamphlet itself...That pretty much says it all to me!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Re: Beale Treasure Code...

HAVE read it... NOT convinced. Good that YOU believe it... one LESS.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

(aka SAR ILLUMINATI...)

 

[Kentucky Kache]

You might be interested in reading George Love's essay at: http://www.myoutbox.net/bealhome.htm

He makes a very good point - the DoI paper can only be correctly de-cyphered if one uses the DoI text found in the pamphlet itself...That pretty much says it all to me!

That would be one point to make me think that the legend might be true. Is it possible that certain words HAD to be changed to make things come out right? Also, it could have been to keep just anyone from decoding it, using the real DOI.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

sd, define "victim"...

 

[Old Bookaroo]

stilldign:

I don't believe the Beale Code is a fraud because I don't understand it. First of all, there are a great many things in this world I don't understand - but I still believe them to be true. More to the point - I don't believe the Beale Codes are real because I do understand them.

Cache Crazy:

If the Beale Codes require a special version of the DoI to de-code (or de-cypher, we don't yet know which) then the papers would have to include that special edition. And that would take the point out of using a commonly available document.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Cache Crazy:

If the Beale Codes require a special version of the DoI to de-code (or de-cypher, we don't yet know which) then the papers would have to include that special edition. And that would take the point out of using a commonly available document.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

Real or fake, the key turned out to be the DOI. If a couple of words were changed, then is it not possible that the code was made using such a version? And, as far as a few words being off, I doubt that anyone could make (or break) such a code without making at least a couple of mistakes. Even computers make mistakes. That doesn't prove the code to be real (it may not be), but neither does George Love's essay disprove it.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Cache Crazy:

There is no doubt the Beale Code Paper #1 was created with a special version of the DoI. The question is: How could the gentleman who published the papers and de-cyphered Paper #1 get his hands on the precise version of the DoI used by Mr. Beale so many years before to create the Paper?

If Mr. Beale was toting around both his unique version of the DoI and his coded Paper #1, that sort of takes the point out of writing the message in code in the first place.

I think the person who wrote Paper #1 had in his (or her) possession the unique DoI. Mr. Love's essay proves that to my satisfaction. I happen to agree with Mr. Love that the author was not Mr. Beale.

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Kentucky Kache]

If the question is, why would Beale make a code using a "doctored" DOI, fair question. As I understand it, codes were often made changing words or letters.
The thought is, if Morris had to play around with the DOI a little to make things come out right, then he would have been discovering the method used to encode the message.
Now, my question is, why would a hoaxer use a "doctored" version of the DOI? If he was trying to convince people that what he had was real, would he have used an obvious fake document?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

For your information, Old Bookaroo, there was a certain newspaper in a certain town that Mr. Beale passed through between 1819-1822 that had an original copy of the DOI on the front page. What else was on that front page? Could other stories on this front page be the other two keys to the other two Beale cipher codes? I will never tell. I have a copy of that newspaper which I obtained off of Microfich a number of years ago.

Do tell. Or at least give us some hints.

 

[Roadquest]

OK now people. This Beale treasure thing is not real...never was.
Got it. Don't go search for it any more.

Now let me see, am I going to meet my parner on Jan 10th or 11th to do
our search for the treasure

Roadquest

 

[Rebel - KGC]

HA, HA, HA!

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Cache Crazy:

I don't think this particular version of the DoI is an "obvious fake." Clearly it is unique.

As to why it was used, that's an excellent question. One would have to ask the author.

However, it doesn't seem to have slowed down the popularity of the legend...

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo

 

[Rebel - KGC]

HA! NO such thing as GOOSE NECK CREEK... ONLY GOOSE CREEK; where ARE you getting that DISINFORMATION? GEEEZE!

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Dis-information and misinformation are the very things that the Beale Codes are made of. It is these two types of information that have caused treasure hunters to publish their very own mis/dis-information concerning the proper deciphering of these codes.

What is the correct information?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Has anyone pinpointed the exact location of the old Buford's Inn?

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Thanks, Albert.

 

[snake35]

This was a great thread to read. I searched for the Swift silver mines in Kentucky. They were no codes, but quite a lot of disinformation. To the point that I know some older locals who carved signs/markers all over Lawrence county. It was still fun poking around.