Another Not So Obvious Question

[bigscoop]

I realize that this might appear a simple question and answer to most, but is it?

If the narration is true and the ciphers are real then how did the author know that another vital "missing paper" was still required?

As we have seen over and over again throughout the years many hopeful Beale followers have concocted all manner of complicated solutions involving the narration's presented key, so with all of this in mind, how did the author of the narration know that another vital missing paper was still required? What made him so certain that the one key he already possessed wasn't the only required key if only he simply understood how to apply it? In his alleged letter to Morriss, Beale only references the key in singular form, as “key” and not “keys”, so how did the author know that multiple keys were required? How could he be so certain that there was still a single missing paper given that he had, by simple mistake, already discovered, “a working key?”

From this are we to assume that each cipher possibly has its own key, perhaps? Why only “one missing paper” for the remaining two ciphers? Why not possibly two missing papers? So how did the author know that only “a missing paper” was still required? Obviously, as the tale is presented, the presented key only worked for just one cipher, this being C2. But we still have two unsolved ciphers left, not just one, so how could the author be so certain that only singular, "a missing paper", was still required? Why not the offered option of two?

Seems the wily fox may be in the hen-house yet again.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Silver]

I realize that this might appear a simple question and answer to most, but is it?

If the narration is true and the ciphers are real then how did the author know that another vital "missing paper" was still required?

As we have seen over and over again throughout the years many hopeful Beale followers have concocted all manner of complicated solutions involving the narration's presented key, so with all of this in mind, how did the author of the narration know that another vital missing paper was still required? What made him so certain that the one key he already possessed wasn't the only required key if only he simply understood how to apply it? In his alleged letter to Morriss, Beale only references the key in singular form, as “key” and not “keys”, so how did the author know that multiple keys were required? How could he be so certain that there was still a single missing paper given that he had, by simple mistake, already discovered, “a working key?”

From this are we to assume that each cipher possibly has its own key, perhaps? Why only “one missing paper” for the remaining two ciphers? Why not possibly two missing papers? So how did the author know that only “a missing paper” was still required? Obviously, as the tale is presented, the presented key only worked for just one cipher, this being C2. But we still have two unsolved ciphers left, not just one, so how could the author be so certain that only singular, "a missing paper", was still required? Why not the offered option of two?

Seems the wily fox may be in the hen-house yet again.

 

[Old Silver]

Possibly he had deciphered two of them, #2 and #3.

 

[bigscoop]

Possibly he had deciphered two of them, #2 and #3.

Then why the deception of presenting only one decoded cipher and two unsolved ciphers? On the other hand, perhaps he already knew what was in each of the three ciphers from the very beginning? But it really doesn't matter in the big picture of things because either way this is just more supporting evidence that the author wasn't telling the truth in regards to what he really knew about the ciphers and the key/keys. Here again, there's absolutely no way around this cold hard fact - this meaning that there is only one way that he could possibly know that only "a single missing paper" was still required.
This is why stories like this really need to be picked apart piece by piece before folks bite and take up the tempting chase.

 

[Old Silver]

Then why the deception of presenting only one decoded cipher and two unsolved ciphers? On the other hand, perhaps he already knew what was in each of the three ciphers from the very beginning? But it really doesn't matter in the big picture of things because either way this is just more supporting evidence that the author wasn't telling the truth in regards to what he really knew about the ciphers and the key/keys. Here again, there's absolutely no way around this cold hard fact - this meaning that there is only one way that he could possibly know that only "a single missing paper" was still required.
This is why stories like this really need to be picked apart piece by piece before folks bite and take up the tempting chase.

Maybe because he didn't want to give out the plaintext of the paper telling the location of whatever was hid?

 

[bigscoop]

There is absolutely no reason for the party needing Morriss or the ciphers if they had been involved in a legitimate private or commercial enterprise.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I realize that this might appear a simple question and answer to most, but is it?

If the narration is true and the ciphers are real then how did the author know that another vital "missing paper" was still required?

As we have seen over and over again throughout the years many hopeful Beale followers have concocted all manner of complicated solutions involving the narration's presented key, so with all of this in mind, how did the author of the narration know that another vital missing paper was still required? What made him so certain that the one key he already possessed wasn't the only required key if only he simply understood how to apply it? In his alleged letter to Morriss, Beale only references the key in singular form, as “key” and not “keys”, so how did the author know that multiple keys were required? How could he be so certain that there was still a single missing paper given that he had, by simple mistake, already discovered, “a working key?”

From this are we to assume that each cipher possibly has its own key, perhaps? Why only “one missing paper” for the remaining two ciphers? Why not possibly two missing papers? So how did the author know that only “a missing paper” was still required? Obviously, as the tale is presented, the presented key only worked for just one cipher, this being C2. But we still have two unsolved ciphers left, not just one, so how could the author be so certain that only singular, "a missing paper", was still required? Why not the offered option of two?

Seems the wily fox may be in the hen-house yet again.

FOX Mulder...? Nah... he put out an AMBER ALERT for the "Missing"...

 

[ECS]

There is absolutely no reason for the party needing Morriss or the ciphers if they had been involved in a legitimate private or commercial enterprise.

Which is another tell that the story originated from the "unknown author's" imagination, and was just a literary device used to lead the story to the "letters", which is the basis on the entire story.

 

[franklin]

There is absolutely no reason for the party needing Morriss or the ciphers if they had been involved in a legitimate private or commercial enterprise.

You are so right. They would have had relatives they could have trusted. And they could have buried it on their land where it would have been safe without someone lucking up on it and digging it up. Why would they search for a location to bury the treasure? Why would they not get a relative and bury it there until they got back. Don't make any sense to me. That is why I do not believe the story happened as well as other reasons.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Well... RM's involvement in the Pamphlet "story" ended in 1863... he DIED!

 

[ECS]

Then why the deception of presenting only one decoded cipher and two unsolved ciphers? On the other hand, perhaps he already knew what was in each of the three ciphers from the very beginning? But it really doesn't matter in the big picture of things because either way this is just more supporting evidence that the author wasn't telling the truth in regards to what he really knew about the ciphers and the key/keys. Here again, there's absolutely no way around this cold hard fact - this meaning that there is only one way that he could possibly know that only "a single missing paper" was still required.
This is why stories like this really need to be picked apart piece by piece before folks bite and take up the tempting chase.

The Beale treasure story is based on the story of a guy who doesn't want his name reveled, of a story told to him 20 years previously by an old man on his deathbed about events he claimed occurred 40 years previous to that . Then this unknown commits to paper his trials and tribulations of attempts to solve the ciphers to find the treasure.
Failing at the endeavor of solving C1 & C3, he contacts Ward to act as copyright agent to publish this story.
...and this treasure story is based on "letters" that only the old man and the unknown storyteller have claim to have seen.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Agree; I think the letters from TJB to RM are MORE important than Ciphers BC # 1 & 3. TJ used this "method", & so did the REBS (CSA)... NO NUMBERS/"FIGURES"!

 

[ECS]

You are so right. They would have had relatives they could have trusted. And they could have buried it on their land where it would have been safe without someone lucking up on it and digging it up. Why would they search for a location to bury the treasure? Why would they not get a relative and bury it there until they got back. Don't make any sense to me. That is why I do not believe the story happened as well as other reasons.

Another consideration is how many treasure stories involve a deathbed confession of treasure to an unknown person that involves gold and /or silver/ jewels buried in iron pots with no actual proof to back up the story, just legend and local lore?
This one just happened to published as a adventure dime novel with play along ciphers.

 

[ECS]

There is absolutely no reason for the party needing Morriss or the ciphers if they had been involved in a legitimate private or commercial enterprise.

Really there was no reason to involve Robert Morriss in the first place.

30 men had families that would have known of this grand and perilous adventure, and would have them about this great treasure vault.
Remember, two can keep a secret if one is dead, and there is mention of having business in Richmond.
Someone outside of the Beale/Morriss circle would have known if this story was true.

 

[ECS]

The Beale treasure story is based on the story of a guy who doesn't want his name reveled, of a story told to him 20 years previously by an old man on his deathbed about events he claimed occurred 40 years previous to that . Then this unknown commits to paper his trials and tribulations of attempts to solve the ciphers to find the treasure.
Failing at the endeavor of solving C1 & C3, he contacts Ward to act as copyright agent to publish this story.
...and this treasure story is based on "letters" that only the old man and the unknown storyteller have claim to have seen.

...and remember, that copyright was applied for by Ward shortly after the death of the last witness who could confirm or deny Beale's stay at Buford's Tavern.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

...and remember, that copyright was applied for by Ward shortly after the death of the last witness who could confirm or deny Beale's stay at Buford's Tavern.

AND! It was ONLY the TITLE!

 

[ECS]

Maybe Jackson Ward Alderman Thomas J Beale hadn't finished writing the dime novel when asking James Beverly Ward to act as copyright agent!

 

[ARC]

So... who owns the CR now ?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Copy-right? PUBLIC DOMAIN...

 

[bigscoop]

Here's a loaded question for you.......

Can anyone show any verifiable evidence that directly confirms the narration to be fiction? Just saying, to proceed in truly unbiased and informed debate one must weigh equally both sides of that ever-looming debate. So I choose to leave the door open to any reasonable explanation and I still entertain both sides, often supporting both when those sides remain reasonable.