Claudine Fulton Ellis

[franklin]

ECS,When a lady tells you that she got all the people she met in search of the "letter" and the "copy" she herself made. When she talked to each and everyone and they all signed affidavits to confirm that they saw the "letter" that they gave the "letter" to someone else. Then she goes to the next person and they sign an affidavit or affidavits of their children that witnessed this how can you know come in here and deny it. Have you even seen the book? No, you have not. Why comment on something you have not even seen?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ECS]

Franklin, you ae aware that not all these notarized statements and declarations have any mention of this alleged Beale "key" letter.
Since this thread has become based on these "affidavits" as provenance for this addition to the Beale story, please post a few for all to peruse .

 

[franklin]

Franklin, you ae aware that not all these notarized statements and declarations have any mention of this alleged Beale "key" letter.
Since this thread has become based on these "affidavits" as provenance for this addition to the Beale story, please post a few for all to peruse .

ECS, I told you I sold my book by Claudine Fulton Ellis. There is one on Amazon for sale unless you do not spend anything but your mouth. Have you read any books on the Beale Treasure that are not free on the Internet. Have you read the two books of Pauline Innis, the two books of Peter Viemeister, the book of Claudine Fulton Ellis, the book by Ed Easterling or my book. You get on here putting each and everyone of them down yet you have not read them. You know what that makes you right? End of class for today.

 

[bigscoop]

I realize that it is quite natural to defend someone you know, but it also creates a wall of bias that shadows critical analysis of the message presented that hinders the search for more light.

One aspect all these works have in common, the Harts, Innis, Ellis, beginning with the original 1885 Beale Papers is everything stated is based only on the word of the author, and referenced "items", or hard provenance, in each of these works, suddenly no longer exists after the work is published, so one must accept the word of these authors that these items actually existed.

Without any provenance that can be produced for documentation, one then has to suspect that these authors took what was written in the 1885 Beale Papers, realizing that no provenance proof existed, added their own version to the original tale, citing non existent items as proof...
...and the beat goes on...

It's not just the complete absence of said provenance, but one also has to take into account all of the proven untruths in the narration. It still amazes me that even after all the cold hard fact of these untruths in the narration that folks still want to take this author at his "selective" word that there was/is a real treasure, or that C1 & C3 contain actual messages relevant to that alleged treasure. I think this speaks volumes as to the attractiveness of treasure and also to the existing naiveness of those who simply want to believe despite every sound reason and the existing cold hard evidence for not doing so. It's all a pursuit of blind faith.....

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Nothing Wrong with BLIND FAITH... A GREAT Band! Eric C. is G*d! Heh...

 

[ECS]

ECS, I told you I sold my book by Claudine Fulton Ellis. There is one on Amazon for sale unless you do not spend anything but your mouth. Have you read any books on the Beale Treasure that are not free on the Internet...

Franklin, what I have read and not read is not the issue at hand.
What is, are these notary signed affidavits (which may be only notary signed statements) contained in Claudine Fulton Ellis's book that you keep referring to as proof as the once upon a time existence of the Beale "key" letter.
As mentioned, whenever an object is referenced in a work alleged to be connected to the Beale story, once the book is published, the object that this new version is based, DISAPPEARS.
...and with all these after the original pamphlet version, one must accept the word of the author, just like the original "unknown author's" word that the story is true.

Now you keep citing these 16 "affidavits" as proof of Ellis's story, but without providing copies , one must accept your word that they all contain eyewitness accounts of physically see this "alleged" letter, but we both know that is not so.

 

[ECS]

I myself believe Claudine was truthful about the letter. But as to whether the story of gold is true or not I can not say. She did find the letter and made a copy of it and her mother made her replace the letter back into the Bible where it was found and had her return it to the dusty attic where it was found.

Claudine also said there was a "MAP" with the letter and she drew so many times on butter paper but the copy kept smearing and she could never make a good copy. I asked her since she had drawn the "MAP" so many times could she remember what was on the "MAP?" She re-drew the "MAP" and sent me a copy. I researched the copy for over a year. Making about forty trips to Bedford Court House to research the lands on the "MAP" The "MAP" proved to be authentic.

Claudine's "MAP" had circles on it about ten of them about the size of a nickel. Each had letters such as
"CO" "BO" "DO" and others. Only one had just a circle with no letters. Since, these circles all had an "O" except one, Claudine believed that they stood for "ORE" or iron "ORE" mines. I looked them over but I believed they were high elevations or knolls or hills and the "O" stood for land "OWNER" instead of iron "ORE" mines.

Claudine's "MAP" had three small circles smaller than the other ten circles. Where these three circles were it also said "Oak Tree" with an "X" marking a spot...
Claudine Fulton Ellis wanted very much for me to recover the Beale Treasure but circumstances has failed me and I have failed her. She is a real knowledgable lady and I can see no deceptive intent in her motives for misguiding or miss-leading anyone. If the treasure of Thomas J. Beale is real this is one of the places I would like to dig for it...

You mentioned that "her mother replace the letter" where she found it in a dusty attic, but she made a copy of this letter.
In these "affaidavits" that you keep referring as proof, did those who signed these statements claim to have seen this "original" letter that was replaced in the dusty attic, or did they see the copy she made?

 

[franklin]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

 

[ECS]

Claudine Fulton Ellis claims to have found in an attic in 1944, an old Bible. In this Bible was a map, a letter signed by Thomas Jefferson Beall, and an envelope marked, "Not to be delivered until June, 1832" Claudine's sister witnessed seeing these things. The sister signed an affidavit, stating that she saw them. She (the sister) also said that Claudine kept them in the drawer of her (Claudine's) dresser for a short time before returning them to the attic.


Claudine said she made a copy of the letter that was in the Bible. She said she hid this copy behind a fireplace mantle, and when the family moved to another house, the copy was left behind, where she had hidden it. In 1993, a man signed an affidavit that in the 1960s, he and his mother found the copy behind a fireplace mantle. The man stated that he, his mother, and his brother all saw the copy of the letter. They had moved into the house where Claudine had lived.

Years later, Claudine went looking for the copy she had made. She found this family, and they told her about finding the letter behind the mantle, but had taken it to a college to see if someone there could make something of it. They were told the letter would be sent to a computer expert, but nothing else was heard of it, and the letter was never returned to them. This was all stated and signed in the affidavit. Later, Claudine discovered that the man with whom the letter was left had taken a job at another college, but later had been killed in an automobile accident. She spoke with the man's father, but could learn nothing on the whereabouts of the letter.


Also signing affidavits were a Roanoke man and his wife, who stated that the mother and the two sons (above) had discussed with them about finding the letter.
Many signed affidavits about Claudine's activities concerning her Beale (Beall) adventures are recorded in her book, "The Beale Treasure-The Key." ...

This account mentions that only her sister saw the "alleged" original Beale "key" letter.
All others who provided these "affidavits" only saw the copy Ellis made.

Then there is the "signed by Thomas Jefferson Beall", the original 1885 Beale Papers has only a "J" for a middle name, it was the HART PAPERS that introduced "Jefferson" to the story.
The HART PAPERS also mentioned the PLANTERS HOTEL in St Louis that Ellis claimed to have visited and saw a portrait of one George Radar Brugh hanging in the lobby, but building hasn't been a hotel since 1922 when it was converted to an office building, renamed THE COTTON BELT BUIDING.
The Planters Hotel of St Louis did exist during the "Beale years" but Brugh was not the proprietor as claimed.
Early St. Louis Hotels

The above discrepancies concerning the original letter found in the dusty attic and the copied letter "found" by others, and the material "borrowed from the HART PAPERS makes many of these claims, including the notarized statements and declarations referred to as "affidavits", highly suspect.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

ANOTHER wonderful BAND! Carry ON!

 

[ECS]

...but nothing to do with the current discussion, unless of course, YES also provided a notarized statement and called it an "affidavit".

Now back to the subject at hand.

Will someone please explain how Claudine Fulton Ellis could have seen the portrait of someone who was not the proprietor of the hotel during the Beale time period in the lobby of a building that hadn't been a hotel since 1922.
Then explain how this non proprietor received a letter from Thomas Jefferson Beall to deliver to Robert Morriss but was murdered by Ebenezer Nelms at the Blackhorse Tavern, and hiding the letter in a family Bible, which remained hidden in a dusty attic until discovered by Ellis, which eventually had her to travel to St Louis and see this portrait of a non proprietor of a hotel that hadn't existed as a hotel since 1922.

This is just one of the many questionable points in Ellis's tale.

 

[bigscoop]

Nobody saw said letter. Nobody saw said iron box. How do we know this? We know this because nobody saw them prior to the publication and they had 60 years to do so. It's only after the publication that folks started creating the suggestion of existing evidences....and even then they still couldn't produce that created evidence, not so much as an image, not even for their books on the subject. It's all promotional BS.....

 

[Rebel - KGC]

...but nothing to do with the current discussion, unless of course, YES also provided a notarized statement and called it an "affidavit".

Now back to the subject at hand.

Will someone please explain how Claudine Fulton Ellis could have seen the portrait of someone who was not the proprietor of the hotel during the Beale time period in the lobby of a building that hadn't been a hotel since 1922.
Then explain how this non proprietor received a letter from Thomas Jefferson Beall to deliver to Robert Morriss but was murdered by Ebenezer Nelms at the Blackhorse Tavern, and hiding the letter in a family Bible, which remained hidden in a dusty attic until discovered by Ellis, which eventually had her to travel to St Louis and see this portrait of a non proprietor of a hotel that hadn't existed as a hotel since 1922.

This is just one of the many questionable points in Ellis's tale.

Talk with Claudine about THAT! NOT her "Proxy".

 

[Rebel - KGC]

ALL questions about Claudine's book should "go to" Claudine... good Luck to the DD "Tag-Team"... AS! We are NOT her PROXY...

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Nobody saw said letter. Nobody saw said iron box. How do we know this? We know this because nobody saw them prior to the publication and they had 60 years to do so. It's only after the publication that folks started creating the suggestion of existing evidences....and even then they still couldn't produce that created evidence, not so much as an image, not even for their books on the subject. It's all promotional BS.....

SO! WHAT are YOU "promoting"...? Writing a book...? You should... BUT! NO ONE would buy it...

 

[franklin]

Nobody saw said letter. Nobody saw said iron box. How do we know this? We know this because nobody saw them prior to the publication and they had 60 years to do so. It's only after the publication that folks started creating the suggestion of existing evidences....and even then they still couldn't produce that created evidence, not so much as an image, not even for their books on the subject. It's all promotional BS.....

It has been only three post to your post of no one seeing the letter, go back and read post #89. Does it not mention that Pauline Innis and her sister saw the original letter and her sister signed an affidavit affirming said letter. You get carried away with your rhetoric and do not even read the post.

You also say that no one saw the iron box? Pauline Innis saw the box and wrote about it in her new book. I talked to her on the telephone about the ironbox and she said " I will check and see if anything else is left in the ironbox" "Call me back in two or three days" Does that sound like someone that did not see or have the ironbox?

Contact her brother who is over a Church. He was at the funeral and was over her estate. Ask him about the ironbox and what happened to it? I forgot you can not even find out who her brother was?

 

[bigscoop]

It has been only three post to your post of no one seeing the letter, go back and read post #89. Does it not mention that Pauline Innis and her sister saw the original letter and her sister signed an affidavit affirming said letter. You get carried away with your rhetoric and do not even read the post.

You also say that no one saw the iron box? Pauline Innis saw the box and wrote about it in her new book. I talked to her on the telephone about the ironbox and she said " I will check and see if anything else is left in the ironbox" "Call me back in two or three days" Does that sound like someone that did not see or have the ironbox?

Contact her brother who is over a Church. He was at the funeral and was over her estate. Ask him about the ironbox and what happened to it? I forgot you can not even find out who her brother was?

An affidavit means nothing, been many of them signed over the years under false pretenses, you know this. If you and I signed an affidavit swearing that we road in a UFO who is going to prove otherwise? First they have to prove that UFO's don't exist. In order to prove Innis wrong you'd have to prove there was no letter, which she was fully aware that such could never be proven. "Promotional BS." If that letter had ever existed, given its importance and her knowledge of just how important it would be, she would have made certain to produce it in some manner, a picture, whatever, she didn't. However, she did know important it would be to at least make claim that she saw said letter....now didn't she. All an affidavit does is establish what someone said, it does not guarantee that what they said is true or factual. Consult a lawyer, he'll explain it to you.

 

[ECS]

Pauline Bertha Lee-Jones was born December 8, 1917, in Torquay, South Devon, England, and was an only child.
Notables born in Torquay include explorers Richard Burton, Percy Fawcett, writer Agatha Christie, and several on location skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus were also filmed in Torquay.
Walter D Innis was her second husband, first being a gentleman named Coleman, in England.
Pauline Innis lived at the WATERGATE, was a very close friend to Jeanne Dixon, who wrote the introduction to her (Innis) book,"ASTRONUMEROLOGY: The New Way To Tell Your Future".
Pauline Innis would give readings to her guests, many in politics and the military, based on astronumerology.
Innis ONLY surviving relative at the time of her death, was her COUSIN, the Right Rev Lawrence E Luscombe, Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, who presided at her funeral and handled her estate.
There was NO mention of an iron box.

 

[ECS]

... Pauline Innis saw the box and wrote about it in her new book. I talked to her on the telephone about the ironbox and she said " I will check and see if anything else is left in the ironbox" "Call me back in two or three days" Does that sound like someone that did not see or have the ironbox?

Contact her brother who is over a Church. He was at the funeral and was over her estate. Ask him about the ironbox and what happened to it? I forgot you can not even find out who her brother was?

You comments concerning the Ellis "letter" and the Innis "iron box" are based on what they either told you or something you have read, but you have never actually seen either, so if you signed a notarized statement or declaration all you can claim in the statement is that you know they exist because of "what you were told".

Now if you gave the same statement as an official court affidavit that contained the "endorsement paragraph" and was given the Oath Of AFFIRMATION, you could not state that "you know that they exist" based on what you were told, for that would be considered perjury.

 

[ECS]

ALL questions about Claudine's book should "go to" Claudine... good Luck to the DD "Tag-Team"... AS! We are NOT her PROXY...

Franklin introduced the affidavits in Ellis's book as evidentiary proof to support his statements in these discussions, not Ellis.
If he is unwilling or unable to confirm what is in these "affidavits" then they never should have been entered into this discussion as he has posted misinformation, ie, Innis "brother" just recently, as a current example.

The "DD tag-team" is only attempting to separate the lore that is constantly being presented as fact on these threads from the actual limited facts that do exist.