new...

[GB1]

person to the Beal codes can you fill me in thanks

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

person to the Beal codes can you fill me in thanks

It is a treasure tale that was published in 1885. To date, however, non of it has ever been established to be in representation of true events, and in fact, since its publication much of the story details have already been proven to be untrue and inaccurate, and for many reasons. Lot's of internet links to copies of the original text, which I highly recommend you read first as this original story is all the provenance there is in regard to the tale. (i'e., the internet is also full of false claims of solutions, etc., just as with many other tales of treasure.)

 

[GB1]

thank you

 

[masterpoe]

person to the Beal codes can you fill me in thanks

The Beale Papers, is a small book about 30 pages printed in 1885 or so. A man on his death bed in 1862 testified that a man in 1822 gave him a box to hold for 10 years. The man Thomas Beale would be back to pick it up or send someone to pick it up with in the ten year period. One letter was sent from St Louis a short time after Beale left the box giving more details about the box. No person ever came to get the box or the rest of Beale's effects left with this man, Mr Morriss. 1832 was the year to open the box and to follow the instructions held within it, but Mr Morriss did not open the box until 1845. Mr Morriss open the box and found two more letters and three ciphers. The first letter from Beale said someone from St Louis would send a key to Mr Morriss after the 10 years was up, no such letter came.

Mr Morriss on his death bed transferred the whole of the box and the papers to the person who was documenting everything he was saying in his last days. This person, the unknown author of the manuscript gave it a best try to decipher the ciphers, but only could decipher one of them in about a 20 year period. This unknown author then gave up and handed the whole of the manuscript to a Mr Ward a relative of Mr Morriss. Mr Ward formed a small book from the manuscript and sold this book to see if they could smoke out the key to the ciphers that they believe someone must still have in their possession. No key ever was to come forward.

This is what we see today, a mystery with deception and stealth information just waiting for someone to discover what treasurer is just out of reach.

 

[ECS]

...or it was just a period adventure treasure dime novel with added ciphers for parlor entertainment for the sole purpose of making a profit, as no evidence outside of the job print pamphlet has ever been found in the 135 years after it was placed on sale that can confirm anything in the narrative text story.
That is the truth and heart of the matter.

 

[bigscoop]

The Beale Papers, is a small book about 30 pages printed in 1885 or so. A man on his death bed in 1862 testified that a man in 1822 gave him a box to hold for 10 years. The man Thomas Beale would be back to pick it up or send someone to pick it up with in the ten year period. One letter was sent from St Louis a short time after Beale left the box giving more details about the box. No person ever came to get the box or the rest of Beale's effects left with this man, Mr Morriss. 1832 was the year to open the box and to follow the instructions held within it, but Mr Morriss did not open the box until 1845. Mr Morriss open the box and found two more letters and three ciphers. The first letter from Beale said someone from St Louis would send a key to Mr Morriss after the 10 years was up, no such letter came.

Mr Morriss on his death bed transferred the whole of the box and the papers to the person who was documenting everything he was saying in his last days. This person, the unknown author of the manuscript gave it a best try to decipher the ciphers, but only could decipher one of them in about a 20 year period. This unknown author then gave up and handed the whole of the manuscript to a Mr Ward a relative of Mr Morriss. Mr Morriss formed a small book from the manuscript and sold this book to see if they could smoke out the key to the ciphers that they believe someone must still have in their possession. No key ever was to come forward.

This is what we see today, a mystery with deception and stealth information just waiting for someone to discover what treasurer is just out of reach.

You were doing fine until you manufactured the bold in the above, "Morris having formed no such book" that is, nor is there any such evidence that Morriss or Ward were the author of the pamphlet that wasn't even published until long after the death of Morriss and the publication only stating that Ward was the representing agent. This is what folks have to be so weary of, especially new folks to the mystery, people pushing their own agendas without any provenance or facts of evidence to justify those personal agendas and claims.

 

[franklin]

Simple mistake. Masterpoe meant Ward. I have made similar mistakes.

 

[bigscoop]

Gold Boy,
You can read a copy of the original source here: The UnMuseum - The Beale Papers - Original Text

Note that the phrase, "Containing Authentic statements" isn't the same as suggesting that the story is true, this only meaning the story contains authentic "author statements" much like my statements in this post are authentic statements from me. Also note that since it's publication in 1885 no evidence has ever been found to support the story's details, this even including the actual existence of it's main character, Thomas J. Beale. You will, however, find all manner of fabricated and manufactured solution and remedy from the imaginations of modern men that have appeared since the publication's offering to the public. And last, note that much of the details in the narration have already been disproven. So read the tale if you wish to and then take everything else with a grain of salt.

 

[bigscoop]

Simple mistake. Masterpoe meant Ward. I have made similar mistakes.

Where does it say in the original source that Ward formed a small book? It never says this, never even suggest this, it only states that Ward was chosen as the representing agent of that narration. So it's not just his possible mistake in names, but his also inserting of other fabricated details that clearly do not exist.

 

[masterpoe]

Where does it say in the original source that Ward formed a small book? It never says this, never even suggest this, it only states that Ward was chosen as the representing agent of that narration. So it's not just his possible mistake in names, but his also inserting of other fabricated details that clearly do not exist.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J. B. Ward, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

The following details of an incident that happened many years ago, but which has lost none of its interest on that account, are now given to the public for the first time. Until now, for reasons which will be apparent to every one, all knowledge of this affair was confined to a very limited circle -- to the writer's immediate family, and to one old and valued friend, upon whose discretion he could always rely; nor was it ever intended that it should travel beyond that circle; but circumstances over which he has no control, pecuniary embarrassments of a pressing character, and duty to a dependent family requiring his undivided attention, force him to abandon a task to which he has devoted the best years of his life, but which seems as far from accomplishment as at the start. He is, therefore, compelled, however unwillingly, to relinquish to others the elucidation of the Beale papers, not doubting that of the many who will give the subject attention, some one, through fortune or accident, will speedily solve their mystery and secure the prize which has eluded him.

It can be readily imagined that this course was not determined upon all at once; regardless of the entreaties of his family and the persistent advice of his friend, who were formerly as sanguine as himself, he stubbornly continued his investigations, until absolute want stared him in the face and forced him to yield to their persuasions. Having now lost all hope of benefit from this source himself, he is not unwilling that others may receive it, and only hopes that the prize may fall to some poor, but honest man, who will use his discovery not solely for the promotion of his own enjoyment, but for the welfare of others.

Until the writer lost all hope of ultimate success, he toiled faithfully at his work; unlike any other pursuit with practical and natural results, a charm attended it, independent of the ultimate benefit he expected, and the possibility of success lent an interest and excitement to the work not to be resisted. It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others; but this accident, affording so much pleasure at the time, was a most unfortunate one for him, as it induced him to neglect family, friends, and all legitimate pursuits for what has proved, so far, the veriest illusion.

It will be seen by a perusal of Mr. Beale's letter to Mr. Morriss that he promised, under certain contingences, such as failure to see or communicate with him in a given time, to furnishing a key by which the papers would be fully explained. As the failure to do either actually occurred, and the promised explanation has never been received, it may possibly remain in the hands of some relative or friend of Beale's, or some other person engaged in the enterprise with him. That they would attach no importance to a seemingly unintelligible writing seems quite natural; but their attention being called to them by the publication of this narrative, may result in eventually bringing to light the missing paper.

As we see here Ward added to the Manuscript taken from Mr Morriss. Unless Mr Morriss gave a word for word testimony in a book format of a college paper and that is unlikely. The Manuscript was just in a note format documentation. And would need to be changed to make a book format.

A. Notes from Mr Morriss
B. Manuscript fomat from that handed to Ward.
C. A book format with third party inserts from Ward. Just read the first few paragraphs above.

 

[bigscoop]

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1885, by J. B. Ward, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

The following details of an incident that happened many years ago, but which has lost none of its interest on that account, are now given to the public for the first time. Until now, for reasons which will be apparent to every one, all knowledge of this affair was confined to a very limited circle -- to the writer's immediate family, and to one old and valued friend, upon whose discretion he could always rely; nor was it ever intended that it should travel beyond that circle; but circumstances over which he has no control, pecuniary embarrassments of a pressing character, and duty to a dependent family requiring his undivided attention, force him to abandon a task to which he has devoted the best years of his life, but which seems as far from accomplishment as at the start. He is, therefore, compelled, however unwillingly, to relinquish to others the elucidation of the Beale papers, not doubting that of the many who will give the subject attention, some one, through fortune or accident, will speedily solve their mystery and secure the prize which has eluded him.

It can be readily imagined that this course was not determined upon all at once; regardless of the entreaties of his family and the persistent advice of his friend, who were formerly as sanguine as himself, he stubbornly continued his investigations, until absolute want stared him in the face and forced him to yield to their persuasions. Having now lost all hope of benefit from this source himself, he is not unwilling that others may receive it, and only hopes that the prize may fall to some poor, but honest man, who will use his discovery not solely for the promotion of his own enjoyment, but for the welfare of others.

Until the writer lost all hope of ultimate success, he toiled faithfully at his work; unlike any other pursuit with practical and natural results, a charm attended it, independent of the ultimate benefit he expected, and the possibility of success lent an interest and excitement to the work not to be resisted. It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning, as this had hitherto been, it was now fully explained, and no difficulty was apprehended in mastering the others; but this accident, affording so much pleasure at the time, was a most unfortunate one for him, as it induced him to neglect family, friends, and all legitimate pursuits for what has proved, so far, the veriest illusion.

It will be seen by a perusal of Mr. Beale's letter to Mr. Morriss that he promised, under certain contingences, such as failure to see or communicate with him in a given time, to furnishing a key by which the papers would be fully explained. As the failure to do either actually occurred, and the promised explanation has never been received, it may possibly remain in the hands of some relative or friend of Beale's, or some other person engaged in the enterprise with him. That they would attach no importance to a seemingly unintelligible writing seems quite natural; but their attention being called to them by the publication of this narrative, may result in eventually bringing to light the missing paper.

As we see here Ward added to the Manuscript taken from Mr Morriss. Unless Mr Morriss gave a word for word testimony in a book format of a college paper and that is unlikely. The Manuscript was just in a note format documentation. And would need to be changed to make a book format.

A. Notes from Mr Morriss
B. Manuscript fomat from that handed to Ward.
C. A book format with third party inserts from Ward. Just read the first few paragraphs above.

"entered by Ward, the representing agent." You seem to be confusing "the writer" with Ward, "the representing agent." The writer and representing agent are not portrayed in the narration to be the same person, nor is there ever any mention of Ward having anything at all to do with the actual text in any capacity. This is just something you have conjured up in your own mind. The narration makes all of this pretty clear, "the writer of the narration only selecting Ward to be the representing agent of the author's text/narration/book." These, my friend, are the cold hard facts & alleged circumstances as they are presented in the original source of the tale. You have to take this original source as it is presented, not as you desire it to be presented.

Also, as is made perfectly clear in the original source, Morriss only handed over the contents, nowhere in the original source does it ever claim that Morriss handed over any other physical content. The author had simply interviewed Morriss in his alleged gaining of the other alleged details. Nowhere does the original source claim that Morriss had physically contributed to the text. Again, all just more cold hard fact as it is presented in the original and only source.

This is why there are people like myself and ECS in these forums, so new folks don't get hammered and mislead by all of the inaccuracies that exist within all of the romance and lore and myth surrounding the tale.

 

[masterpoe]

"entered by Ward, the representing agent." You seem to be confusing "the writer" with Ward, "the representing agent." The writer and representing agent are not portrayed in the narration to be the same person, nor is there ever any mention of Ward having anything at all to do with the actual text in any capacity. This is just something you have conjured up in your own mind. The narration makes all of this pretty clear, "the writer of the narration only selecting Ward to be the representing agent of the author's text/narration/book." These, my friend, are the cold hard facts & alleged circumstances as they are presented in the original source of the tale. You have to take this original source as it is presented, not as you desire it to be presented.

Also, as is made perfectly clear in the original source, Morriss only handed over the contents, nowhere in the original source does it ever claim that Morriss handed over any other physical content. The author had simply interviewed Morriss in his alleged gaining of the other alleged details. Nowhere does the original source claim that Morriss had physically contributed to the text. Again, all just more cold hard fact as it is presented in the original and only source.

This is why there are people like myself and ECS in these forums, so new folks don't get hammered and mislead by all of the inaccuracies that exist within all of the romance and lore and myth surrounding the tale.

This was not my idea about the modifications made by Ward. This comes from a Beale Expert! I can see how this could be a problem for those of you that believe the Papers to be a Hoax, but it does make logical sense that Ward would make changes to a previous draft. The third person narrative about the author shows this in the for mentioned text. The linguistic manifestation of the participants are overwhelming.

 

[bigscoop]

This was not my idea about the modifications made by Ward. This comes from a Beale Expert! I can see how this could be a problem for those of you that believe the Papers to be a Hoax, but it does make logical sense that Ward would make changes to a previous draft. The third person narrative about the author shows this in the for mentioned text. The linguistic manifestation of the participants are overwhelming.

If your Beale "expert" is changing/twisting the original source text to meet his own desires then you need to find a different Beale expert, one that deals in only facts and not these completely manufactured conveniences you keep referencing. Clearly your expert is only an expert in manufacturing fictitious details.

 

[Cryptography]

If your Beale "expert" is changing/twisting the original source text to meet his own desires then you need to find a different Beale expert, one that deals in only facts and not these completely manufactured conveniences you keep referencing. Clearly your expert is only an expert in manufacturing fictitious details.

So the word for word notes taken from Morriss is what we have for the pamphlet?

Or do we have a pamphlet that was produced from the manuscript given to Ward?

I know you will not be able to answer these questions and you will spin out what you wish to say only like you do always.

 

[bigscoop]

So the word for word notes taken from Morriss is what we have for the pamphlet?

Or do we have a pamphlet that was produced from the manuscript given to Ward?

I know you will not be able to answer these questions and you will spin out what you wish to say only like you do always.

"According to the original & only source".....you have an "unknown author" who "selected Ward to represent his manuscript/story." There is nothing in the narration which makes mention of Ward having anything else to do with the manuscript, nothing at all. There is nothing in the manuscript that mentions Morriss having contributed anything other then verbal recollections and the alleged contents.

How you guys have managed to twist things into Ward having actually contributed in the creating of the manuscript is beyond me as that suggestion is 100% pure blind speculation and wag. The same being said of Morriss. Here again it's just folks spinning non-existing details into an uncertain story in order to arrive at a desired result.

This is also exactly the same process concerning all current cipher solutions, simple manufactures from the wild and creative imaginations of men. We know this due to the obvious lack of provenance required in order to establish these claims. These conclusions are pretty simple, pretty straight forward, and they are all very real and very factual. You can't manufacture the truth.

 

[Cryptography]

"According to the original & only source".....you have an "unknown author" who "selected Ward to represent his manuscript/story." There is nothing in the narration which makes mention of Ward having anything else to do with the manuscript, nothing at all. There is nothing in the manuscript that mentions Morriss having contributed anything other then verbal recollections and the alleged contents.

How you guys have managed to twist things into Ward having actually contributed in the creating of the manuscript is beyond me as that suggestion is 100% pure blind speculation and wag. The same being said of Morriss. Here again it's just folks spinning non-existing details into an uncertain story in order to arrive at a desired result.

This is also exactly the same process concerning all current cipher solutions, simple manufactures from the wild and creative imaginations of men. We know this due to the obvious lack of provenance required in order to establish these claims. These conclusions are pretty simple, pretty straight forward, and they are all very real and very factual. You can't manufacture the truth.

The obvious lack of provenance shown that you are some kind of wizard of the Beale Papers. Just shows you to be just some kind of armchair poster here on this forum. You blindly judge others for what you have no information about. One sick pup! The moronic statements you have made here in these forums show what you are. You just have to go to the 9th page to find them. To bad you do not understand what others see in the Beale Papers. Your loss!

 

[Cryptography]

"According to the original & only source".....you have an "unknown author" who "selected Ward to represent his manuscript/story." There is nothing in the narration which makes mention of Ward having anything else to do with the manuscript, nothing at all. There is nothing in the manuscript that mentions Morriss having contributed anything other then verbal recollections and the alleged contents.

How you guys have managed to twist things into Ward having actually contributed in the creating of the manuscript is beyond me as that suggestion is 100% pure blind speculation and wag. The same being said of Morriss. Here again it's just folks spinning non-existing details into an uncertain story in order to arrive at a desired result.

This is also exactly the same process concerning all current cipher solutions, simple manufactures from the wild and creative imaginations of men. We know this due to the obvious lack of provenance required in order to establish these claims. These conclusions are pretty simple, pretty straight forward, and they are all very real and very factual. You can't manufacture the truth.

There are many steps to publish a book. Anyone can have a free website!

 

[masterpoe]

There are many steps to publish a book. Anyone can have a free website!

The Beale pamphlet is more of a "Research Pamphlet". If you know about this type from the 1800's, there are many. There is no fictional work that can be shown written in such a manner. The whole thing was given to Ward to do with as he wished.

 

[bigscoop]

The obvious lack of provenance shown that you are some kind of wizard of the Beale Papers. Just shows you to be just some kind of armchair poster here on this forum. You blindly judge others for what you have no information about. One sick pup! The moronic statements you have made here in these forums show what you are. You just have to go to the 9th page to find them. To bad you do not understand what others see in the Beale Papers. Your loss!

Pretty simple, instead of always resorting to childish name calling and tantrums, then simply produce some actual provenance in support of the tale. Anyone can make idle claims, been taking place with this story for over 132 years, including just about every conceivable "alternate & substitute theme" under the sun at this juncture. You see, real researchers, unbiased researchers, understand the value and importance of contrary information and facts and they most certainly understand the difference between actual provenance and circumstantial evidence. "You can't fabricate the truth and call it the truth. You can't produce accurate research without provenance." This is something new-comers to the Beale mystery and ciphers, like yourself, never seem to realize until afterwards. But someday you will learn all of this.

 

[masterpoe]

Pretty simple, instead of always resorting to childish name calling and tantrums, then simply produce some actual provenance in support of the tale. Anyone can make idle claims, been taking place with this story for over 132 years, including just about every conceivable "alternate & substitute theme" under the sun at this juncture. You see, real researchers, unbiased researchers, understand the value and importance of contrary information and facts and they most certainly understand the difference between actual provenance and circumstantial evidence. "You can't fabricate the truth and call it the truth. You can't produce accurate research without provenance." This is something new-comers to the Beale mystery and ciphers, like yourself, never seem to realize until afterwards. But someday you will learn all of this.

It would seem to me that all you state above can be applied to your views too! Exept the fact that he has a book claiming something and you don't. And there is a fact that nine years later the newspaper article was talking about the fact that no one yet has found the treasurer or deciphered the text! The peoples of the time regarded it as true.