Claudine Fulton Ellis

ECS said:
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.
Click to expand...

ECS, I do not post mis-information. Do you see any mention of Pauline Innis' Estate and what became of it? No you do not. Her brother was in charge of her estate that is why I told bigscoop to get in contact with Pauline Innis' brother if he could find out who it was. Now that you know her brother why don't you contact him and do a little work yourself. You always want us to do the work so you can sit back and post your mis-information about no no no no it can not be? To hell with you and your proof. IF you want proof get out there and find it yourself instead of bothering and misquoting people that are doing the hard part, R & I. You do nothing but ask question and post crap after crap after crap Why don't you show us your proof of the Beale Papers being a dime novel. You have posted that at least one thousand times and you have no provenance to make it true. We have no provenance and you ride the hell of it. Where is your provenance? All you can do is post and belittle every poster that comes on this Beale Thread. I notice you even do other threads as well wanting proof, well all I can say is get the hell out there and find it yourself.
 

Franklin, you need to reread post # 98 on this thread. Pauline Innis DID NOT have a brother, her only living relative who handled the affairs of her estate, was HER COUSIN, so when you told Bigscoop to contact her brother, that, my friend, is MISINFORMATION.

You shouldn't be so quick to judge others and tell them do their own research when much of what you post is considered lore, and not fact, and information that originated in books written by a fortune teller and a psychic s you provenance.
You then rant about others that post the same thing over and over and belittle other posters, when you, Franklin, do exactly the very same thing.

It appears that you expect others to accept what you post without question, but when one presents questionable information from questionable sources, one should accept the fact that that information will be questioned, especially when, as with the misinformation about Innis's non-existent brother, the information can be easily verified.
 

So it was her cousin. You are always technical. He was over her Estate ask him and leave me alone. Read my last post on another thread. Good day.
 

That is what is called accurate information acquired from non haphazard research.
Yes, I read you last post on the other thread.
You revealed in those paragraphs much more than you realize.
 

Last edited:
No, and I am not insulting him as he does me.
I do grow weary of being portrayed as the heavy after inquiring about some of his claims when he won't or can't provide additional information on some of his questionable posts.
He has posted as fact information that is off and not quite right, so it is not unreasonable for one to request additional source material, or in some cases, correct the statement.
Then the insults fly, and you are well that I am not the only TN poster that he has treated in this manner.
 

Last edited:
60 years, it's not that long. The publication was introduced in 1885 and at the time not a single person in the entire region had any recollection of the "universally known" TJB or the members of the alleged party, no friends, family, etc., etc., etc. Now true believers can try to create all sorts of reasons as to why this might be but if TJB and his party of 30 was real then someone would still be living in 1885 with recollection of them, or even with recollection of family stories of such. Now why, dare I ask, do you suppose nobody had any recollections at all about any of it? It's only years after the publication that some profit minded folks started to produce all of the alleged evidences that none of them could actually produce. This should pretty much sum up the true nature of the tale for even the most ardent of believers. :icon_thumleft:
 

bigscoop said:
60 years, it's not that long. The publication was introduced in 1885 and at the time not a single person in the entire region had any recollection of the "universally known" TJB or the members of the alleged party, no friends, family, etc., etc., etc. Now true believers can try to create all sorts of reasons as to why this might be but if TJB and his party of 30 was real then someone would still be living in 1885 with recollection of them, or even with recollection of family stories of such. Now why, dare I ask, do you suppose nobody had any recollections at all about any of it? It's only years after the publication that some profit minded folks started to produce all of the alleged evidences that none of them could actually produce. This should pretty much sum up the true nature of the tale for even the most ardent of believers. :icon_thumleft:
Click to expand...
Especially when one is based on a medium and another being guided by spirits creating a "new" continuation of the story after the original 1885 work, and still, no treasure vault is ever found...
...but still some refer to these after market stories as "evidence".
 

Of all the Beale authors I know of PV played it the smartest, never casting personal opinion/claim because he knew he had no provenance to support those opinions and/or claims. All PV did was to present the wide range of possibilities for people to consider for themselves. That was smart.
 

bigscoop said:
Of all the Beale authors I know of PV played it the smartest, never casting personal opinion/claim because he knew he had no provenance to support those opinions and/or claims. All PV did was to present the wide range of possibilities for people to consider for themselves. That was smart.
Click to expand...

That is what a lot of posters on the forum try to do is post different research and different ideas--------the same as you use to do but you got tired of no provenance. After a long absence trying to find the Forest Fenn Treasure then you come back and do the exact same thing that made you leave in the first place.

You know what they call that on the battlefield right?
 

franklin said:
That is what a lot of posters on the forum try to do is post different research and different ideas--------the same as you use to do but you got tired of no provenance. After a long absence trying to find the Forest Fenn Treasure then you come back and do the exact same thing that made you leave in the first place.

You know what they call that on the battlefield right?
Click to expand...

See Franklin, this is where you're missing the real issue, that being "presenting theories & ideas" VS presenting "claims of certain solve"....HUGE-HUGE difference! It's one thing to present ideas and then to debate and discus them, but it is quite another to present claims of certain solve, solution, remedy, without having any true provenance for making such certain claims. This is why I posted that thread relating to the various terms/definitions so people would understand those important differences. Just way too many folks making claims of certainty that they can't even produce any provenance for and yet in their minds they are absolutely certain that they have the true solve. I mean you're fully aware not a single stitch of provenance can be found to support anything in the narration so how can someone have a certain solve to something they can't even establish as having been real? There's the issue that you keep missing,....:thumbsup:
 

franklin said:
That is what a lot of posters on the forum try to do is post different research and different ideas--------the same as you use to do but you got tired of no provenance. After a long absence trying to find the Forest Fenn Treasure then you come back and do the exact same thing that made you leave in the first place.

You know what they call that on the battlefield right?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you bring up the Forrest Fenn thing again as this might be a good time for you step back and then compare the provenances of each treasure related mystery, Beale VS Fenn.....I think you might discover some stark differences in reality when you do. :icon_thumright:
 

Well why don't you go after a treasure of PROVENANCE and let the fiction treasure of Thomas Beale alone?
 

franklin said:
Well why don't you go after a treasure of PROVENANCE and let the fiction treasure of Thomas Beale alone?
Click to expand...

And now you see the stark differences with the two mysteries. One has provenance, the other has absolutely none. One can be talked and/or pursued about with facts, the other has no known facts to even discus. So my question and point has always been, "How can anyone claim true/accurate solve or remedy from complete unknowns?" It's can't be done....this is all basic 101 real-world stuff. :icon_thumleft: The only way these certain claims of solve and remedy and solution can exist from these complete unknowns is if they are "fabricated & manufactured." PERIOD!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Finding The Real Thomas Beal

⬅️ Previous Thread

Thomas Beale Sr. New Orleans

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top