More Spoiled Fudge

[bigscoop]

Where, from front to back, does the author ever claim that his story is true? He, doesn't, never does, and this should tell you all something pretty obvious, especially when you consider all of the other pieces of spoiled fudge and "you fill in the all the blanks" in the story.

"Containing Authentic Statements"....lot's of people have been charged with perjury by the courts because they told an authentic lie. In fact, they can't even be charged with perjury unless those lies are authentic. Check with any lawyer and I'm sure he'll verify what I'm telling you here. Your unknown author was obviously educated on such things, completely avoiding telling his readers that his story was true, and with good reason.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[bigscoop]

"Containing authentic statements"..............it's brilliant baiting! Gets everyone assuming that the story is true right out of the gate.

 

[Cryptography]

"Containing authentic statements"..............it's brilliant baiting! Gets everyone assuming that the story is true right out of the gate.

For a con man today yes, but is it not selling books a con mans job today. If you look at the 1820's it was a more Godly time. No publisher or record label ripping you off. A mans word meant something and if someone attacked your credibility they had to prove it. Attacking someone credibility who was from 132 years ago is a shame. So tell me in 132 years will somebody attack your credibility for my credibility? If we take the Beale book at face value, does it not support its own argument? A new book to be sold in such a limited area was not there to make tons of money. But yet has become a treasure of itself. What if there was no treasure? Just three ciphers set as a test by someone we will never know. To say the three ciphers are not real only because we cannot decipher them, is foolish.

According to some the story has been changed in order to make it into a book. In the 1820 people spoke much different than in 1885. 3 to 4 generations it is possible the linguistic qualities have dramatically changed. In 1885 to write about something from 65 years previous would require making sense to who you're writing to. As some have stated all the words of the Beale papers have been changed from the original draft. The notes from 1863 would have been used for the Beale papers but not exactly as written originally. The archaic letters from Beale would not have been legible to someone from 1885. There for updating all linguistic characteristics within the document was needed. And this is what you call into question?

 

[ECS]

The Beale Papers manuscript was not written in the 1820's, but most likely in 1884, which makes the entire premise of you post flawed...
...and the existence of the "unknown author" has never been established, he may be, as with Beale and Morriss, just another character in the storyline.
As Bigscoop mentioned, "Containing authentic statements" makes the unwary reader assume the presented story was true, when for all intents and purposes it means the story is an original work by the author, and not derivative from any previous copyrighted work.

 

[bigscoop]

For a con man today yes, but is it not selling books a con mans job today. If you look at the 1820's it was a more Godly time. No publisher or record label ripping you off. A mans word meant something and if someone attacked your credibility they had to prove it. Attacking someone credibility who was from 132 years ago is a shame. So tell me in 132 years will somebody attack your credibility for my credibility? If we take the Beale book at face value, does it not support its own argument? A new book to be sold in such a limited area was not there to make tons of money. But yet has become a treasure of itself. What if there was no treasure? Just three ciphers set as a test by someone we will never know. To say the three ciphers are not real only because we cannot decipher them, is foolish.

According to some the story has been changed in order to make it into a book. In the 1820 people spoke much different than in 1885. 3 to 4 generations it is possible the linguistic qualities have dramatically changed. In 1885 to write about something from 65 years previous would require making sense to who you're writing to. As some have stated all the words of the Beale papers have been changed from the original draft. The notes from 1863 would have been used for the Beale papers but not exactly as written originally. The archaic letters from Beale would not have been legible to someone from 1885. There for updating all linguistic characteristics within the document was needed. And this is what you call into question?

You're chasing rainbows, simple as that. The author intentionally avoided claiming that his story was true, only asserting that it contained authentic statements, this is NOT the same thing as saying his story is true. 132 years and thousands upon thousands of very qualified researchers later and still not a single hint of any provenance to any portion of the tale. Why do you think this is? The entire story leaves everything to foolish human nature, the human lust and fascination for lost treasure, everything in the tale being left to the blind and convenient filling in of all those unknowns. Do you really believe that you're smarter then all those before you, better in the field of research then all those before you? Do you really still believe in this fantasy even after still having not a single hint of actual provenance today? If so then you will forever believe, exactly the type of audience the author targeted.

 

[Cryptography]

The Beale Papers manuscript was not written in the 1820's, but most likely in 1884, which makes the entire premise of you post flawed...
...and the existence of the "unknown author" has never been established, he may be, as with Beale and Morriss, just another character in the storyline.
As Bigscoop mentioned, "Containing authentic statements" makes the unwary reader assume the presented story was true, when for all intents and purposes it means the story is an original work by the author, and not derivative from any previous copyrighted work.

The Beale letters were written in 1820's remember!

 

[Cryptography]

You're chasing rainbows, simple as that. The author intentionally avoided claiming that his story was true, only asserting that it contained authentic statements, this is NOT the same thing as saying his story is true. 132 years and thousands upon thousands of very qualified researchers later and still not a single hint of any provenance to any portion of the tale. Why do you think this is? The entire story leaves everything to foolish human nature, the human lust and fascination for lost treasure, everything in the tale being left to the blind and convenient filling in of all those unknowns. Do you really believe that you're smarter then all those before you, better in the field of research then all those before you? Do you really still believe in this fantasy even after still having not a single hint of actual provenance today? If so then you will forever believe, exactly the type of audience the author targeted.

The author was simply dictating what Morriss had said. Morriss on his deathbed giving a statement to our unknown author in Morriss nieces house. Someone in that house took Morriss's deposition and created a manuscript from it. Ward taking the manuscript created a book, and published it. You can see where ward added to certain parts of the book referring to the author.

 

[ECS]

You assuming that the "unknown writer" in the story narrative was an actual real person and not just character revealing the story to the reader in first person.
As for the "letters" on whish the story of treasure is based, there is no evidence that these missives ever existed outside of the pages of the job print pamphlet.
Everyone knows that one can not use the "authentic statements" in the Beale Papers as evidentiary proof that the narrative story is about "authentic" events.

 

[bigscoop]

The author was simply dictating what Morriss had said. Morriss on his deathbed giving a statement to our unknown author in Morriss nieces house. Someone in that house took Morriss's deposition and created a manuscript from it. Ward taking the manuscript created a book, and published it. You can see where ward added to certain parts of the book referring to the author.

The only letters known to exist were the present letters in the narration.
The only ciphers known to exist were the ciphers presented in the narration.
The only iron box known to exist was the one presented in the narration.

This is pretty much the same with just about everything detailed in the narration. Not a single hint of provenance to any of the adventure or treasure details, no provenance supporting the ciphers, no provenance supporting the adventure, etc., etc., etc.

 

[ECS]

The Beale letters were written in 1820's remember!

...and you possess evidence outside of the 1885 Beale Papers that will confirm this statement?
...or are you accepting the "word" of this "unknown author" who is another story character in the job print pamphlet as fact?