The Many Avenues Taken

[ECS]

You'll eventually know. Have you got The Pirates Laffite on order yet. Several hundred referenced source materials just waiting for you to explore. A lot of good stuff here, you'll be enlightened a little bit more on Patterson and his involvement with some of the elements referenced. There's often a lot more to a book then just its cover.

Are you saying that Thomas Beale's connexion to Jean Lafitte will be revealed in this book?
...or this another attempt to turn the Beale topic into the Lafitte topic?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Are you saying that Thomas Beale's connexion to Jean Lafitte will be revealed in this book?
...or this another attempt to turn the Beale topic into the Lafitte topic?

Well, I guess if you don't read and then do the follow up research you might never know. I just thought you might want more knowledge concerning the Laffites, the association, Patterson, etc., etc., rather then continually trying to hold debate without the knowledge. Up to you. It was just another in a long line of helpful suggestions. I'm certainly not going to rewrite this source and present those several hundred references here. Do whatever comes easiest for you. Certainly don't want you to get out of your comfort range.

 

[ECS]

Really? The Lafittes, Patterson, French Bonaparte connexions and so on, have no bearing whatsoever on the Beale story, as the many avenues taken you to dead ends and cul de sacs. Bonjour.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Really? The Lafittes, Patterson, French Bonaparte connexions and so on, have no bearing whatsoever on the Beale story, as the many avenues taken you to dead ends and cul de sacs. Bonjour.

OUI! (ALSO a VERY nice magazine... read MOST of the articles)! Heh...

 

[bigscoop]

Really? The Lafittes, Patterson, French Bonaparte connexions and so on, have no bearing whatsoever on the Beale story, as the many avenues taken you to dead ends and cul de sacs. Bonjour.

Post #22, in case you missed it, yet again.

 

[ECS]

Post #22, in case you missed it, yet again.

I didn't miss the post, but purposely ignored it.
Once again, Lafitte, Patterson, and all the rest have nothing to do with Ward's 1885 Beale Papers.
If it were so, Viemeister would have covered that "connexion".
Maybe Elizabeth Smith Friedman, US government codebreaker, addressed your Lafitte "connexion" to the Beale Papers with: "in the same light as the myriad 'treasure maps' which are sold in the southern states purporting to come down from pirate days".

 

[bigscoop]

If it were so, Viemeister would have covered that "connexion".

Are you even listening to yourself. So are we to take it now that only Viemeister, a local, was capable of R&I? Wow! I wonder why PV never discovered the Thomas J. Beale, in Richmond, that was just down the road. You are so caught up in all the local lore and romance that you simply refuse to even leave town. I hate to tell you this but the Patterson "connexion" is all documented, he even considered stopping his involvement with the association but changed his mind. Of course, you can't find this information in Grandpa Risque's fabulous library. "Read the referenced book. Explore all of those referenced source materials." Take a drive out of town. There's a lot to see and to discover out there and the fresh air might do you some good.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Are you even listening to yourself. So are we to take it now that only Viemeister, a local, was capable of R&I? Wow! I wonder why PV never discovered the Thomas J. Beale, in Richmond, that was just down the road. You are so caught up in all the local lore and romance that you simply refuse to even leave town. I hate to tell you this but the Patterson "connexion" is all documented, he even considered stopping his involvement with the association but changed his mind. Of course, you can't find this information in Grandpa Risque's fabulous library. "Read the referenced book. Explore all of those referenced source materials." Take a drive out of town. There's a lot to see and to discover out there and the fresh air might do you some good.

STOP slammng PV; HIS books are what REALLY got ppl interested in the Beale story. HE did the "follow-up" to Pauline's info. NO ONE would have known about it! Have YOU even met/talked with PV...?

 

[bigscoop]

STOP slammng PV; HIS books are what REALLY got ppl interested in the Beale story. HE did the "follow-up" to Pauline's info. NO ONE would have known about it! Have YOU even met/talked with PV...?

Yes, I talked to him and , no, I am not slamming him. Simply pointing out that, just like everyone else, there were things that escaped him. And, yes, PV did follow up on Innis. Interesting that you would point that out at this time. Still waiting to hear from ECS concerning the claims of Innis and his summation that she was a fraud.

 

[ECS]

... Still waiting to hear from ECS concerning the claims of Innis and his summation that she was a fraud.

Once again, you are creating statements that were NEVER made by me. I have NEVER commented of Pauline Innis or her book,"GOLD IN THE BLUE RIDGE", nor will I to satisfy your agenda to misquote my opinions and remarks.
NOWHERE have I ever stated that Pauline Innis was a fraud.

 

[bigscoop]

Once again, you are creating statements that were NEVER made by me. I have EVER commented of Pauline Innis or her book,"GOLD IN THE BLUE RIDGE", nor will I to satisfy your agenda to misquote my opinions and remarks.
NOWHERE have I ever stated that Pauline Innis was a fraud.

Ah, correction. Pauline Innis claimed to have seen the iron box and its contents, confirming its existence. Your summations and theory clearly determine that information to be false, or fabricated. Hence, your summations clearly make her out to be a fraud/liar. There's no way around this, my friend. So yes, this IS what you are saying. On the other hand, when you deny this then you are also trashing your own theory that the story was a simple fabrication by Ward. You can't have it both ways and then still claim that your theory is valid. So which is it? Or in your world of reason are you alone allowed both?

 

[ECS]

Justintime also claimed to have found the iron box that contained a copy of "the" DOI in an old stove.
Does that make him a liar/fraud?
There's no way around this, my friend. So yes, this IS what you are saying.
You can't have it both ways, and then still claim your Lafitte, Girard, Bonaparte, Patterson, international banker theory is valid.
Instead of playing these semantic games, why don't you just lay forth solid undeniable evidence that will prove your Lafitte theory once and for all?

 

[bigscoop]

Justintime also claimed to have found the iron box that contained a copy of "the" DOI in an old stove.
Does that make him a liar/fraud?
There's no way around this, my friend. So yes, this IS what you are saying.
You can't have it both ways, and then still claim your Lafitte, Girard, Bonaparte, Patterson, international banker theory is valid.
Instead of playing these semantic games, why don't you just lay forth solid undeniable evidence that will prove your Lafitte theory once and for all?

I'm not having it both ways. I believe if you will recall I've already said, in these forums, that I don't believe Innis saw the iron box, but, I also leave those doors open because I can not conclusively prove it. But your theory conclusively establishes that Innis never saw the box or its contents and I'm just curious as to how you have obviously proven this? You see, the life of my theory does not live or die on the possible existence that Innis saw that box and its contents, yours does. I find it odd that you would leave the door open to the possibility that Innis saw the iron box and its contents and still lay absolute claim that Ward fabricated the entire story. Innis makes clear that she saw the iron box and its contents so how have you proven that she was lying?

Obviously, you can't prove this, can you? "Game, Set, and Match!"

And by the way, if Innis didn't see the iron box and its contents, so much for all the local lore and romance.

 

[ECS]

Once again, Scoop, I have never mentioned Pauline Innis or her book, "GOLD IN THE BLUE RIDGE", but you do seem to want to make this an issue.
The box and contents Innis claimed she saw was in the possession of the Otey family.
Clayton Hart's wife was an Otey.
The cipher copies and the two pieces of paper with handwritten numbers are quite possibly copies made for Hazelwood with handwritten numerical notes made by the Hart brothers.
The Otey family is also part of that Risqué extended family bloodline that also includes the Bufords, Kennerlys, Hancocks, Hutters, Wards, Shermans, and Earlys.
Be it local "romantic" lore as you redundantly proclaim, the connections to this family bloodline can not be denied.

 

[bigscoop]

Once again, Scoop, I have never mentioned Pauline Innis or her book, "GOLD IN THE BLUE RIDGE", but you do seem to want to make this an issue.
The box and contents Innis claimed she saw was in the possession of the Otey family.
Clayton Hart's wife was an Otey.
The cipher copies and the two pieces of paper with handwritten numbers are quite possibly copies made for Hazelwood with handwritten numerical notes made by the Hart brothers.
The Otey family is also part of that Risqué extended family bloodline that also includes the Bufords, Kennerlys, Hancocks, Hutters, Wards, Shermans, and Earlys.
Be it local "romantic" lore as you redundantly proclaim, the connections to this family bloodline can not be denied.

So what does any of this have to do in regards to Innis claim that she saw the iron box and contents? That's the question, did she actually see them or just make it up? What you say? Fraud or fact?