Possible Alternate Solutions

[Old Silver]

Again, I wouldn't put too much stock in the 1893 article. New Mexico? Where did that come from? "Pure" gold and silver? Secured with the silver? 1/2 million?
When I was in grade school I remember a little exercise where we had to take turns repeating a short sentence and by the time it got all the way around the room it wasn't even the same sentence, or short. This is what happens in these articles, etc.

As you say, people will justify whatever THEY want to believe. That means you as well. Any time you could show old writing in favor of what you believe, you'd call it evidence. Anyone would. Why would any writer give the wrong dollar amount in their article? They knew the amount by weight, just as their readers knew, and just as we know today. It's right there in the story. It would be a simple thing to multiply the weight of the gold and silver by that day's prices. You must think these writers were pretty stupid. It's not at all like a story passed around a dozen times, it's a well known weight of gold/silver at that day's prices. How can you misconstrue that?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ECS]

According to the recounting of the story in the Roanoke times., January 20, 1893: "It is a treasure of more than half a million dollars' worth of pure gold and silver, just as it was taken from the mountains of New Mexico, and thirteen thousand dollars' worth of jewelry, which was secured with the silver, that was burdensome to carry."

Isn't that from the Beale Papers book review in the ROANOKE TIMES?

 

[Old Silver]

Isn't that from the Beale Papers book review in the ROANOKE TIMES?

Having trouble finding it?

 

[ECS]

No. It has been discussed here many times, and has dismissed as being proof that the story contained in the 1885 Beale Papers is true. It is only a book review, nothing more.
I am surprised that you, with your acumen, did not realize that.

 

[ECS]

I, for one, always like to see new theories and thoughts...

I can see that by your replies to my posts, always open to views contrary to your own.

 

[Old Silver]

No. It has been discussed here many times, and has dismissed as being proof that the story contained in the 1885 Beale Papers is true. It is only a book review, nothing more.
I am surprised that you, with your acumen, did not realize that.

Is it? I can see you haven't found it. And you're wrong, it was not posted here until I posted it.

 

[Old Silver]

ECS, if you'd like, post your book review here. I'll compare it with the newspaper article.

 

[bigscoop]

As you say, people will justify whatever THEY want to believe. That means you as well. Any time you could show old writing in favor of what you believe, you'd call it evidence. Anyone would. Why would any writer give the wrong dollar amount in their article? They knew the amount by weight, just as their readers knew, and just as we know today. It's right there in the story. It would be a simple thing to multiply the weight of the gold and silver by that day's prices. You must think these writers were pretty stupid. It's not at all like a story passed around a dozen times, it's a well known weight of gold/silver at that day's prices. How can you misconstrue that?

I take it you've done the required calculations?
I take it the writer is certain that the gold and silver was pure?
I take it the writer is certain, in some way, that it came from New Mexico?

Look, I'm simply pointing out that New Mexico is never referenced as the source of the wealth in the narration and that 350 miles northwest of New Mexico is no longer in New Mexico. I'm also pointing out that there is no possible way that the writer can know that the gold and silver was pure, even far more unlikely if it was mined. Nowhere in the narration does it claim that the silver and gold was pure. So unless someone knows the exact essay/purity of the alleged silver and gold weights then there is no possible way to calculate a value. And no, I do not accept everything for it's face value as easily as most do and this example is just one more example of why.

 

[Old Silver]

I take it you've done the required calculations?
I take it the writer is certain that the gold and silver was pure?
I take it the writer is certain, in some way, that it came from New Mexico?

Look, I'm simply pointing out that New Mexico is never referenced as the source of the wealth in the narration and that 350 miles northwest of New Mexico is no longer in New Mexico. I'm also pointing out that there is no possible way that the writer can know that the gold and silver was pure, even far more unlikely if it was mined. Nowhere in the narration does it claim that the silver and gold was pure. So unless someone knows the exact essay/purity of the alleged silver and gold weights then there is no possible way to calculate a value. And no, I do not accept everything for it's face value as easily as most do and this example is just one more example of why.

There are certain other things that are not told in the story, things that you claim happened. And that you do take at face value. You say the story is a deception because the author had actually figured out the codes, etc. And I think you're probably right about that. But anything else mentioned that MIGHT have been changes in the story, you think it's not possible? Let's say the treasure story is true, and that the author did change some things, to try and find the missing code paper, and keep the treasure location for himself. Is it possible that he changed other things too? There's just too much we don't know about it, to say that everything else is wrong.

Note: the writer of the newspaper article didn't have to prove the purity of the gold, because it was lost. He didn't have anything to lose.

 

[bigscoop]

Old Silver, there aren't too many avenues of "possibility" that myself and others haven't thoroughly researched over the years in regards to this particular mystery and in that time certain details and facts have since reduced these many possibilities to a very few remaining plausible avenues.

Santa Fe. is in New Mexico, according to the original source the party traveled 350 miles northwest of that point, this being no longer in New Mexico. This is all clearly detailed in the original source. Now some 70 years later a writer is reporting that the wealth came from New Mexico and he has likewise turned gold and silver into pure gold and silver and he has even attached a dollar amount to this alleged wealth when he has no possible way of doing so. Now you ask me why it's Ok for me to accept certain proposed changes in the original narration and why not others? In this case, per example, it's simple, because it's perfectly clear that this writer either didn't read the story himself or he has purposely sensationalized the original narration for his own benefit. Believe me, I would love for this article to be something fresh and new and accurate and supported but it just isn't any of these things. It's not possible or even plausible.

 

[Old Silver]

I take it you've done the required calculations?

Actually, I have, and it looks good for the article. I'm sure the writer is only assuming the purity, but was evidently going by the weight given.

 

[Old Silver]

Old Silver, there aren't too many avenues of "possibility" that myself and others haven't thoroughly researched over the years in regards to this particular mystery and in that time certain details and facts have since reduced these many possibilities to a very few remaining plausible avenues.

Santa Fe. is in New Mexico, according to the original source the party traveled 350 miles northwest of that point, this being no longer in New Mexico. This is all clearly detailed in the original source. Now some 70 years later a writer is reporting that the wealth came from New Mexico and he has likewise turned gold and silver into pure gold and silver and he has even attached a dollar amount to this alleged wealth when he has no possible way of doing so. Now you ask me why it's Ok for me to accept certain proposed changes in the original narration and why not others? In this case, per example, it's simple, because it's perfectly clear that this writer either didn't read the story himself or he has purposely sensationalized the original narration for his own benefit. Believe me, I would love for this article to be something fresh and new and accurate and supported but it just isn't any of these things. It's not possible or even plausible.

So the author of the Beale papers couldn't have changed anything but what you say he changed, huh. Okay.

 

[bigscoop]

Look, my point is this. Every state has treasure stories and in every state you can find newspapers stories, both old and new, that retell these stories. However, it is seldom that these stories are ever told in their original form. This is just human nature and the nature of treasure stories. I would absolutely love to come across something truly new and exciting "and reliable and documented" that is directly connected to this tale, just as I think everyone would, but until that day comes, if it ever comes, then "possible" and "plausible" is all I really want to entertain these days and sadly there's just not too much of that remaining.

 

[bigscoop]

So the author of the Beale papers couldn't have changed anything but what you say he changed, huh. Okay.

Look, Old Silver, if you want to take them at face value and believe newspaper articles and book reviews and he-said-she-said, etc., then do so. Up to you. I just prefer to pick the original source material apart piece by piece until I have discovered what may have been possible and what wasn't possible so that I have some defined parameters to work from. Been the other route many times only to discover that this treasure hunting world is full of fiction and sensationalism and lore and romance. But that's just me. A lot of cold hard lessons learned along the way so these days I'm a much harder sell.

 

[Old Silver]

Look, Old Silver, if you want to take them at face value and believe newspaper articles and book reviews and he-said-she-said, etc., then do so. Up to you. I just prefer to pick the original source material apart piece by piece until I have discovered what may have been possible and what wasn't possible so that I have some defined parameters to work from. Been the other route many times only to discover that this treasure hunting world is full of fiction and sensationalism and lore and romance. But that's just me. A lot of cold hard lessons learned along the way so these days I'm a much harder sell.

What book review? If you're referring, incorrectly, to the newspaper article I posted about, I never said it was factual. Let's not get too carried away with that one thing, as I'm only saying I think a treasure hunter should look at everything he can find, and think outside the box.

I too have many years with hunting and researching treasure leads. And I have learned that it takes not only the original source, but also sources that support, or back up the original source.

 

[masterpoe]

Having trouble finding it?

 

[Old Silver]

View attachment 1288580


View attachment 1288581

That's not the one I have.

 

[bigscoop]

That's not the one I have.

If we take the information provided in both of those articles then they have effectively rewritten the original Beale narration. The misinformation is numerous in both. This is why I only operate from the original source material and then go from there.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

If we take the information provided in both of those articles then they have effectively rewritten the original Beale narration. The misinformation is numerous in both. This is why I only operate from the original source material and then go from there.

No one has the time to research something to its full potential, like your false assumptions about the possibility of a true decoding .

 

[Old Silver]

If we take the information provided in both of those articles then they have effectively rewritten the original Beale narration. The misinformation is numerous in both. This is why I only operate from the original source material and then go from there.

The misinformation is numerous in both? That is a direct statement. That would require proof, just like if we said the Beale treasure story is 100% real, right? You don't know the whole truth of it, just as I don't, so why keep telling me how wrong I am when you don't know what's right?

As for rewriting the Beale story, you sort of did that yourself when you told us that the story says certain things that were not true, and then you gave us the real story. And I'm not saying you were wrong.