Why C2?

[bigscoop]

Morriss was not to open the box unless Beale or someone with authority from Beale failed to show up within the ten year period. He knew there were people who knew what they had, so he had a pretty good reason for keeping names secret.

And just exactly how would Morriss know that the person who showed up claiming to have that authority wasn't an impostor? Clearly something is very wrong in all of these alleged and long winded letters.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Old Silver]

And just exactly how would Morriss know that the person who showed up claiming to have that authority wasn't an impostor? Clearly something is very wrong in all of these alleged and long winded letters.

He probably wouldn't know. All the more reason to keep things as secret as possible. The imposter would at least need to know Beale's name.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

MAYBE, they had a "Masonic-like" PASS WORD, SECRET GRIP, etc., dunno. Marshall Lodge of FreeMasons was the ONLY Lodge in Lynchburg, Va. for the 1817-1822 "era"; chartered in 1793 or so. NEW Lodge (Hill City Lodge) was chartered in 1859. THAT would be the Lodge for "JB" Ward, until he was suspended for non-payment of dues...

 

[franklin]

I have wanted to believe this story for so long-----over 50 years but the more you dig into research and the story itself you become to realize it is fiction.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Yeah... a BUMMER!

 

[Old Silver]

I have wanted to believe this story for so long-----over 50 years but the more you dig into research and the story itself you become to realize it is fiction.

I'm not sure if I believe it or not, but I don't agree with many of the arguments I hear against it.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Going back to C 2; DOI...? What cha think? My thoughts are that the "decoding" was ALREADY done; DOI was just a BROAD SIDE "Blast" at "KING" Abe (Confederate War). How does DOI "fit" with the "new frontier" of the 1817-1822 "era"... (as other "inquiring minds" wanna know...)?

 

[ECS]

I have wanted to believe this story for so long-----over 50 years but the more you dig into research and the story itself you become to realize it is fiction.

The very fact that a Thomas J Beale and the actions of the story can not be established as actually ever happening is the major reason that the 1885 Beale Papers is a work of fiction.
Yes, there are incidents that did happen during the time periods mentioned in the job pamphlet, and that is the brilliance of the work that keeps the perpetual belief that , yes, maybe.
As I detailed on another thread, when analyzing the text, many influences and anachronisms become quite obvious to the wary reader, when one reads the Beale Paper as literature, and NOT as the guide to a treasure yet to be discovered.

 

[ECS]

When anyone else makes a positive, factual statement such as this, you say there is no proof...

Still waiting for you to reference the "positive, factual statement" that you claim I stated 'there is no proof".
You have repeated this refrain over and over on several threads like a mantra, but never expound beyond your very basic statement.
I've stated my position based on years of research of the times, the people involved with the Beale Papers, and the analysis on the construction of the narrative in the Beale Papers.
So, if you have proof, contrary to my presentations, bring it forth.
If not, cease with the stalking pot shot one liners.

 

[Old Silver]

I still have had no one explain to me how that the writer of the fictional story could get away with creating Thomas Beale in 1885, when there were plenty of people still alive in Lynchburg then who would have known Beale in 1820.

 

[Old Silver]

Still waiting for you to reference the "positive, factual statement" that you claim I stated 'there is no proof".
You have repeated this refrain over and over on several threads like a mantra, but never expound beyond your very basic statement.
I've stated my position based on years of research of the times, the people involved with the Beale Papers, and the analysis on the construction of the narrative in the Beale Papers.
So, if you have proof, contrary to my presentations, bring it forth.
If not, cease with the stalking pot shot one liners.

Most of your posts that I see are statements that the Beale story IS A WORK OF FICTION. Just look at your last post before this one:

The very fact that a Thomas J Beale and the actions of the story can not be established as actually ever happening is the major reason that the 1885 Beale Papers is a work of fiction.

 

[ECS]

Most of your posts that I see are statements that the Beale story IS A WORK OF FICTION. Just look at your last post before this one:

...and why does that upset you?
Like I mentioned, if you have proof to the contrary, bring it forth.
You still have avoided the "positive, factual statement" that was such an issue of concern.
Why is that?

 

[Old Silver]

...and why does that upset you?
Like I mentioned, if you have proof to the contrary, bring it forth.
You still have avoided the "positive, factual statement" that was such an issue of concern.
Why is that?

No, I gave you one example, it's not my problem if you can't understand it.

Here's another one:

The Beale "letters" are just a continuation of the story line to induce the unwary reader to believe the tale and have a go at the ciphers.

You positively state that The Beale "letters" are just a continuation of the story line to induce the unwary reader to believe the tale and have a go at the ciphers, just like you positively state that the Beale papers are nothing but a dime novel. You do this without proof of your statements, yet your claim as to why you do it is because there is no proof the other way. Well, shouldn't both sides play by the same rules?

 

[Old Silver]

...and why does that upset you?
Like I mentioned, if you have proof to the contrary, bring it forth.
You still have avoided the "positive, factual statement" that was such an issue of concern.
Why is that?

I never positively claimed anything to be a certain way, like you do, and without proof. As I have said, I have no proof of the Beale story being true, just as you have none of it being false.

 

[ECS]

I never positively claimed anything to be a certain way, like you do, and without proof. As I have said, I have no proof of the Beale story being true, just as you have none of it being false.

I have presented a chain of evidence from those behind the 1885 pamphlet, the influences, and the history of that period.
It is based on solid research. If you can refute my position, please do so. My mind is open to solid research outside of the narrative, but not to quotes from the 1885 Beale Papers submitted as proof.

 

[Old Silver]

I have presented a chain of evidence from those behind the 1885 pamphlet, the influences, and the history of that period.
It is based on solid research. If you can refute my position, please do so. My mind is open to solid research outside of the narrative, but not to quotes from the 1885 Beale Papers submitted as proof.

You keep talking about your chain, but I have done the same thing with a chain of suggestive evidence, and mine is based on solid research as well. All either of us have is suggestive evidence, not proof.
I have no need to refute anything, because you haven't shown anything but someone's theory. It might be the right theory, I don't know. I don't think any of us know for sure.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Thomas Beale, Sr.? HE was DEAD by 1820... WHO would remember HIM...? Even Thomas Beale, Jr. was DEAD by 1823... WHO in 1885, would remember HIM...? MAYBE, the Thomas Beale "name" was "used" BECAUSE, they WERE dead... dunno.

 

[Old Silver]

Thomas Beale, Sr.? HE was DEAD by 1820... WHO would remember HIM...? Even Thomas Beale, Jr. was DEAD by 1823... WHO in 1885, would remember HIM...? MAYBE, the Thomas Beale "name" was "used" BECAUSE, they WERE dead... dunno.

Beale was dead, but many people were still alive in 1885 who were also alive in 1820. With a man of Thomas Beale's physical description and character, I would think everyone alive would remember him. A person of that description would not be easily forgotten, so a writer making up a fictional Thomas Beale would be exposed as false. Remember, the published Beale papers in 1885 claim to be authentic, so whoever the author was, he don't appear to have been offering a work of fiction, such as a simple dime novel.

 

[ECS]

No, I gave you one example, it's not my problem if you can't understand it.

You positively state that The Beale "letters" are just a continuation of the story line to induce the unwary reader to believe the tale and have a go at the ciphers, just like you positively state that the Beale papers are nothing but a dime novel. You do this without proof of your statements, yet your claim as to why you do it is because there is no proof the other way. Well, shouldn't both sides play by the same rules?

...and that is why you stalk my posts?
You still haven't referenced what the "positive, factual statement" was that you claim I denigrated.
Waiting...

 

[Old Silver]

...and that is why you stalk my posts?
You still haven't referenced what the "positive, factual statement" was that you claim I denigrated.
Waiting...

That's all you have? Not surprising.
Actually I did reference your statements. Sorry if you can't see them.