Possible Alternate Solutions

[bigscoop]

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.

Before you get bent too far out of shape over statements that you're clearly not understanding, read both articles as neither of them are consistent with the original source. In one article you have a writer who has turned the story into a New Mexico thing, with pure gold and silver, and an actual dollar value that he couldn't even begin to calculate with any degree of accuracy unless he knew the exact assay/purity of the gold and silver in question. In the second article you have a writer who has Ward named as the author and his agent as being a partner in the publication. Actually Ward was the agent of the publication and the author of that publication is still unknown to this very day. Now if you wish to put stock in these obviously misleading articles then that's you're choice, just don't get bent out shape when someone takes the time to point out to you that neither are accurate and that both contain misleading information.

As for the ciphers, there are numerous decoded solutions out there, the makeup of the ciphers easily allowing for someone to freely create solutions to their personal taste and desire. This information is well known to anyone who has even dabbled in cryptology....in fact, it is the very principle and purpose of ciphers in the first place, to fool the enemy, if you will. Wouldn't make much sense otherwise, now would it. This is why ciphers have keys, because without it one is open to creating anything and everything, and thus a cipher and key is employed for this very strategic reason.

As for not being able to research everything on my own....you are 100% correct. In many of my earlier post you will find where I have listed associates in Canada, France, Spain, Germany, and the US, this including history professors, various curators, the folks in these forums, accredited and acclaimed authors, etc., etc., etc.

PS: You would be surprised what is out there and how easy some of it is to access if you just take the time to ask the people who can and who are often more then happy to help you find or to understand what you're after. (This isn't always the case as well.)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Old Silver]

Before you get bent too far out of shape over statements that you're clearly not understanding, read both articles as neither of them are consistent with the original source. In one article you have a writer who has turned the story into a New Mexico thing, with pure gold and silver, and an actual dollar value that he couldn't even begin to calculate with any degree of accuracy unless he knew the exact assay/purity of the gold and silver in question. In the second article you have a writer who has Ward named as the author and his agent as being a partner in the publication. Actually Ward was the agent of the publication and the author of that publication is still unknown to this very day. Now if you wish to put stock in these obviously misleading articles then that's you're choice, just don't get bent out shape when someone takes the time to point out to you that neither are accurate and that both contain misleading information.

As for the ciphers, there are numerous decoded solutions out there, the makeup of the ciphers easily allowing for someone to freely create solutions to their personal taste and desire. This information is well known to anyone who has even dabbled in cryptology....in fact, it is the very principle and purpose of ciphers in the first place, to fool the enemy, if you will. Wouldn't make much sense otherwise, now would it. This is why ciphers have keys, because without it one is open to creating anything and everything, and thus a cipher and key is employed for this very strategic reason.

As for not being able to research everything on my own....you are 100% correct. In many of my earlier post you will find where I have listed associates in Canada, France, Spain, Germany, and the US, this including history professors, various curators, the folks in these forums, accredited and acclaimed authors, etc., etc., etc.

PS: You would be surprised what is out there and how easy some of it is to access if you just take the time to ask the people who can and who are often more then happy to help you find or to understand what you're after. (This isn't always the case as well.)

And this is the whole problem with you. Nobody can possibly understand but you. BS, it simply doesn't work that way.

Yes, I know there is a lot out there, as I have found a little of it myself. And with all your history professors, various curators, the folks in these forums, accredited and acclaimed authors, etc., etc., etc., in Canada, France, Spain, Germany, and the US, you still don't know any more than the rest of us. So really I have no reason to get "bent out of shape" over what you say. And I have made no claims of believing anything from the newspaper article I posted. I simply posted it for consideration and discussion. Like I said, since none of us know for sure what the truth is on the Beale story, there's no way you can call me wrong.

 

[bigscoop]

And this is the whole problem with you. Nobody can possibly understand but you. BS, it simply doesn't work that way.

Yes, I know there is a lot out there, as I have found a little of it myself. And with all your history professors, various curators, the folks in these forums, accredited and acclaimed authors, etc., etc., etc., in Canada, France, Spain, Germany, and the US, you still don't know any more than the rest of us. So really I have no reason to get "bent out of shape" over what you say. And I have made no claims of believing anything from the newspaper article I posted. I simply posted it for consideration and discussion. Like I said, since none of us know for sure what the truth is on the Beale story, there's no way you can call me wrong.

I never siad you were wrong. I only pointed out that the information in both of those article was misleading and wrong. were those articles your alternate theory?

 

[Old Silver]

I never siad you were wrong. I only pointed out that the information in both of those article was misleading and wrong. were those articles your alternate theory?

I posted only one of those articles, not both. ECS, and you, wrongfully supposed I was referring to a book review. That tells me you don't know all you think you know about the article. And to call one thing wrong, you'd first have to know what was right, and clearly none of us do.

I didn't say I had a theory. I said I posted these things for consideration and discussion. That's what's needed with treasure leads.

 

[bigscoop]

I posted only one of those articles, not both. ECS, and you, wrongfully supposed I was referring to a book review. That tells me you don't know all you think you know about the article. And to call one thing wrong, you'd first have to know what was right, and clearly none of us do.

I didn't say I had a theory. I said I posted these things for consideration and discussion. That's what's needed with treasure leads.

In essence, they are both, book reviews, both author's informing their readers about the publication, though in different ways. However, it matters not, as both are loaded with inaccuracies and misleading information....."discussion" type details that are certainly worth knowing "and for consideration" in regards to possible treasure leads. Yes? No? I would think a most definite, yes.

 

[Old Silver]

In essence, they are both, book reviews, both author's informing their readers about the publication, though in different ways. However, it matters not, as both are loaded with inaccuracies and misleading information....."discussion" type details that are certainly worth knowing "and for consideration" in regards to possible treasure leads. Yes? No? I would think a most definite, yes.

No sir, the one I posted was in no way a book review. And as for the "inaccuracies," am I to assume you know all the ACCURACIES? If not, then you couldn't know what is accurate and what is not.

 

[bigscoop]

No sir, the one I posted was in no way a book review. And as for the "inaccuracies," am I to assume you know all the ACCURACIES? If not, then you couldn't know what is accurate and what is not.

Good grief, man. "Read the original story" and then compare the information/details in it with the details in these two articles. It's really that simple. Both of these articles/reviews have changed what is said, and how it is said, compared to the original source material. i.e., "Neither of these "re-tales" are consistent with the original narration." "Inaccuracies" and "misleading."

Or, are you suggesting that one or both of these writers knew the real details? Is this, possibly, where we are experiencing some miscommunication?

 

[Old Silver]

Good grief, man. "Read the original story" and then compare the information/details in it with the details in these two articles. It's really that simple. Both of these articles/reviews have changed what is said, and how it is said, compared to the original source material. i.e., "Neither of these "re-tales" are consistent with the original narration." "Inaccuracies" and "misleading."

Or, are you suggesting that one or both of these writers knew the real details? Is this, possibly, where we are experiencing some miscommunication?

Easy, don't get bent out of shape.
But what of the original story? Do we know it's accurate? And have you not claimed that the author changed some things in the story? That's all part of the story, so if ANYTHING changed, then you have changed the story. I know, I know, I'm just not understanding what you said...but actually, I do understand it. I know you are considering the original story to be Beale and Morriss' correspondence, and the ones that came later would not be part of the original. But really, isn't that just another way of choosing which parts you want to believe? I mean, if it's that way for everyone else, then the same rules have to apply for all.

The fact remains, if you don't know what is accurate, then you can't call anything else inaccurate.

 

[bigscoop]

Yes, I agree, you certainly are confused. The original source is all we have to base anything on, and from this source we have been able to draw upon a certain amount of "conclusive" facts regarding the narration that are based on "credible" historical documents and records and the author's own narration, or the only original source. From here we now know, "conclusively", what wasn't possible and what might still remain as possible. We have not drawn upon these conclusions from inaccurate and misleading and sketchy newspaper articles and reviews, or the surrounding romance and lore and the common he-said-she-said. HUGE-HUGE difference, indeed. But, and here's the thing, you can take all of this stuff that has been posted in these forums for "consideration" and you can choose to believe in whatever you wish. That is the purpose of forums, to share, to learn, to discuss, to debate, to provide facts when we have them, and then ultimately to make personal conclusions based on whatever you take away from all of the post and information and misinformation in these forums, and elsewhere. If you think I'm full of it I can certainly and most comfortably and confidently live with that and you can believe whatever you wish, or whatever you feel is the right avenue for you to take. Up to you.

 

[bigscoop]

Old Solver, would you like me to share with you some of those other parameters that have served as guide in all of the referenced research efforts over the years? Perhaps some of this will help to clear the air as to why and how many of the posted conclusions have been formed. Actually, this might even prove interesting in regards to presenting that totally different perspective that has been employed.

 

[Old Silver]

Yes, I agree, you certainly are confused. The original source is all we have to base anything on, and from this source we have been able to draw upon a certain amount of "conclusive" facts regarding the narration that are based on "credible" historical documents and records and the author's own narration, or the only original source. From here we now know, "conclusively", what wasn't possible and what might still remain as possible. We have not drawn upon these conclusions from inaccurate and misleading and sketchy newspaper articles and reviews, or the surrounding romance and lore and the common he-said-she-said. HUGE-HUGE difference, indeed. But, and here's the thing, you can take all of this stuff that has been posted in these forums for "consideration" and you can choose to believe in whatever you wish. That is the purpose of forums, to share, to learn, to discuss, to debate, to provide facts when we have them, and then ultimately to make personal conclusions based on whatever you take away from all of the post and information and misinformation in these forums, and elsewhere. If you think I'm full of it I can certainly and most comfortably and confidently live with that and you can believe whatever you wish, or whatever you feel is the right avenue for you to take. Up to you.

So you are here calling the author's writings the original, yet that's the part you changed. But you say we can't change the original. You'd better reconsider who it is that's confused.

We have not drawn upon these conclusions from inaccurate and misleading and sketchy newspaper articles and reviews, or the surrounding romance and lore and the common he-said-she-said.

Neither have "WE." Had you understood what I have been saying about all this, you wouldn't be so upset. But whatever.

P.S. You seem to be more sure of everyone else being wrong than you are about the story itself. Strange for someone with so much "conclusive" evidence.

 

[Old Silver]

Old Solver, would you like me to share with you some of those other parameters that have served as guide in all of the referenced research efforts over the years? Perhaps some of this will help to clear the air as to why and how many of the posted conclusions have been formed. Actually, this might even prove interesting in regards to presenting that totally different perspective that has been employed.

You can share if you want to. And I promise I won't automatically dismiss it and tell you you are presenting the wrong information, although I don't know what that right information is.

 

[bigscoop]

New thread coming..."perspectives"