Understanding "Authentic" in a literary sense

[ECS]

...or if those letters actually existed or are just another created literary device by the "unknown author".

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cryptography]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), edited by Noah Porter. About

hEnglish - advanced version



----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
authentic
\au*then"tic\ (&?, a. [oe. autentik, of. autentique, f. authentique, l. authenticus coming from the real author, of original or firsthand authority, from gr. &?;, fr. &?; suicide, a perpetrator or real author of any act, an absolute master; a'yto`s self + a form "enths (not found), akin to l. sons and perh. orig. from the p. pr. of e'i^nai to be, root as, and meaning the one it really is. see am, sin, n., and cf. effendi.]
1. having a genuine original or authority, in opposition to that which is false, fictitious, counterfeit, or apocryphal; being what it purports to be; genuine; not of doubtful origin; real; as, an authentic paper or register. to be avenged on him who had stole jove's authentic fire.
2. authoritative. [obs.]
3. of approved authority; true; trustworthy; credible; as, an authentic writer; an authentic portrait; authentic information.
4. (law) vested with all due formalities, and legally attested.
5. (mus.) having as immediate relation to the tonic, in distinction from plagal, which has a correspondent relation to the dominant in the octave below the tonic

 

[Cryptography]

Understood, but the problem is that we can't even validate those letters as being genuine or just pieces of additional bait constructed by the author in an otherwise fictional tale.

If they are fictional ( The Beale Papers ) no one can decode them for there is nothing to decode right?
There are people out there working on them for years, just wasting there life away when they could be on Facebook. LOL
But if they are decoding them, that alone tells us they are real right?

 

[bigscoop]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), edited by Noah Porter. About

hEnglish - advanced version



----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
authentic
\au*then"tic\ (&?, a. [oe. autentik, of. autentique, f. authentique, l. authenticus coming from the real author, of original or firsthand authority, from gr. &?;, fr. &?; suicide, a perpetrator or real author of any act, an absolute master; a'yto`s self + a form "enths (not found), akin to l. sons and perh. orig. from the p. pr. of e'i^nai to be, root as, and meaning the one it really is. see am, sin, n., and cf. effendi.]
1. having a genuine original or authority, in opposition to that which is false, fictitious, counterfeit, or apocryphal; being what it purports to be; genuine; not of doubtful origin; real; as, an authentic paper or register. to be avenged on him who had stole jove's authentic fire.
2. authoritative. [obs.]
3. of approved authority; true; trustworthy; credible; as, an authentic writer; an authentic portrait; authentic information.
4. (law) vested with all due formalities, and legally attested.
5. (mus.) having as immediate relation to the tonic, in distinction from plagal, which has a correspondent relation to the dominant in the octave below the tonic

Correct. But you are failing to understand the still legal and alternate application of the word, this meaning that if the entire pamphlet only contained two true statements then the author is justified in using the word. Doesn't matter that the rest of the story could be complete fabrication, all he has to accommodate is two or more true statements in the entire text to justify his plural use of the authentic and the statement in which he applied this word. Hence, here again, if I handed you that basket packed full of eggs with just two apples in it I could legally justify my having told you that the basket contained apples, because it did.

In the movie industry, per example, we often see "Based on a true story" instead of "this is a true story". Why do you think they make this legal distinction?

 

[ECS]

If they are fictional ( The Beale Papers ) no one can decode them for there is nothing to decode right?
There are people out there working on them for years...
But if they are decoding them, that alone tells us they are real right?

Not necessarily so- the adventure/treasure dime novel provided the DOI "solved" C2 as an inducement of belief that C1 & C3 are also solvable as a drawing room parlor entertainment for the gentleman of Lynchburg, Virginia.

 

[bigscoop]

But if they are decoding them, that alone tells us they are real right?

Not at all. Couldn't be further from the truth. What you have are list of numbers, those numbers being able to accept whatever alphabetical value the decoder desires, so naturally you are going to have solutions, lots of them. Without a defining key then you are absolutely free to construct whatever solution you desire, which is the whole purpose behind the use ciphers in the first place. It is a means of decoding messages that without a defining key leaves the decoder to create solutions based upon his best guess. And there are, and will continue to be, as we have witnessed in these forums many-many times, "a lot" of people out there taking their best guess. So "NO", the production of solutions in no way assures that the ciphers are real.

 

[Cryptography]

Not at all. Couldn't be further from the truth. What you have are list of numbers, those numbers being able to accept whatever alphabetical value the decoder desires, so naturally you are going to have solutions, lots of them. Without a defining key then you are absolutely free to construct whatever solution you desire, which is the whole purpose behind the use ciphers in the first place. It is a means of decoding messages that without a defining key leaves the decoder to create solutions based upon his best guess. And there are, and will continue to be, as we have witnessed in these forums many-many times, "a lot" of people out there taking their best guess. So "NO", the production of solutions in no way assures that the ciphers are real.

So were and who has the keys? Funny I only know one person on here that said they have them!

 

[bigscoop]

So were and who has the keys? Funny I only know one person on here that said they have them!

Really. Perhaps you should look again. There have been numerous claims over the years that the key in the pamphlet was the actual key, if only someone could figure out just how to apply it. One poster here claims to have discovered the key in the form of a map found hidden in an old box they had purchased at a market. The writings of Edger Allen Poe, Dorthea Beale, Thomas Jefferson, Vitals Law Of Nations, and so on and so on....all of these having been claimed to be the key at one time or another, this including many others. Over the years the ciphers themselves have taken on many manifestations, numbers being changed and/or manipulated to accommodate the proposed applications of these various alternate keys, and so on and so on. So who has the actual key? Probably nobody, and yet probably many.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Really. Perhaps you should look again. There have been numerous claims over the years that the key in the pamphlet was the actual key, if only someone could figure out just how to apply it. One poster here claims to have discovered the key in the form of a map found hidden in an old box they had purchased at a market. The writings of Edger Allen Poe, Dorthea Beale, Thomas Jefferson, Vitals Law Of Nations, and so on and so on....all of these having been claimed to be the key at one time or another, this including many others. Over the years the ciphers themselves have taken on many manifestations, numbers being changed and/or manipulated to accommodate the proposed applications of these various alternate keys, and so on and so on. So who has the actual key? Probably nobody, and yet probably many.

Well, when I FIRST did R & I on the Beale PAPERS, I thought it was a REAL Key to open the LOCKED Box; then BOX was broken open into, exposing THREE sheets of papers with NUMBERS on 'em, one sheet of paper with "treasure points", & several letters from TJB to RM... JEEPERS!

 

[releventchair]

It's simple Reb..

Key backwards.
yek=(cardinal) one.
There it is.
Show me the money! Cah, prizes and notoriety. Ohh Yaaaaa.

 

[releventchair]

C-1.
Cardinal. One.
D.O.I. from Pa..
Barbebinl Benedictus 10/22/1788- 4/?/1863 Pittsburg, Pa.
Authentic!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

C-1.
Cardinal. One.
D.O.I. from Pa..
Barbebinl Benedictus 10/22/1788- 4/?/1863 Pittsburg, Pa.
Authentic!

"Breaker, Breaker...", Eh...?

 

[Cryptography]

Someone needs to see what the historical etymology of this word is for the time it was used. Than you may see the truth of this word used at the time it was used.

Authentic | Define Authentic at Dictionary.com
authentic - definition of authentic in English from the Oxford dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authentic

For someone to say authentic dose not hold as true is a fool.

 

[bigscoop]

Someone needs to see what the historical etymology of this word is for the time it was used. Than you may see the truth of this word used at the time it was used.

Authentic | Define Authentic at Dictionary.com
authentic - definition of authentic in English from the Oxford dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authentic

For someone to say authentic dose not hold as true is a fool.

Then, to your sense of reason, if the statements in the Beale Papers are all true, all of these theories containing contrary details are untrue. If then, to your sense of reason, then the Beale party was just as described, a simple party of 30 adventurers who, by pure happenstance, discovered gold and silver in the west while on a hunting trip. No exceptions, no alterations. So for every theory that presents even the slightest difference in detail you are proclaiming them to be untrue. Thank You! for helping me to establish my point. You see, you guys can't have it both ways and still call your summations true. So for your own sake, you would be much wiser to accept my explanation of the application of the word, "authentic" so you can still be free to pick and choose from the story only those statements you want to be true. Otherwise all of your speculative theories are dead, dead, dead, and by your own inaccurate sense of reason.

You do realize, by your own belief that the use of the word authentic is to mean that all of the statements in the Beale Pamphlet are true, that you have openly invalidated all of the theories of those you have referenced to be experts in these forums? Thank you!

 

[bigscoop]

For all of you who have supported the notion that "containing authentic statements" is to mean that all of the statements in the Beale Pamphlet are true, then you must also accept your own summation that any deviation from the described details in that pamphlet, "can't possibly be true."

This is the irony that YOU have unknowingly presented yourself with every time you post conflicting detail because your own conclusion in regards to authentic directly contradicts the very details you continue to try to sell as being alternate truths.

So by your own conclusions YOU have pushed YOUR OWN THEORIES AND SENSE OF LOGIC into your own manufactured coffins from which there is no escaping. Now then, would anyone care for an apple? I have two remaining in my basket full of eggs.

 

[treasure1822]

For all of you who have supported the notion that "containing authentic statements" is to mean that all of the statements in the Beale Pamphlet are true, then you must also accept your own summation that any deviation from the described details in that pamphlet, "can't possibly be true."

This is the irony that YOU have unknowingly presented yourself with every time you post conflicting detail because your own conclusion in regards to authentic directly contradicts the very details you continue to try to sell as being alternate truths.

So by your own conclusions YOU have pushed YOUR OWN THEORIES AND SENSE OF LOGIC into your own manufactured coffins from which there is no escaping. Now then, would anyone care for an apple? I have two remaining in my basket full of eggs.

The "Authentic Statements" pertained only to Morriss statements which are noted in Quotes in the "Beale Papers". Do I believe everything in the papers at face value? No. Do I believe that the author spoke to a man that claimed to be Robert Morriss? Yes.

 

[bigscoop]

The "Authentic Statements" pertained only to Morriss statements which are noted in Quotes in the "Beale Papers". Do I believe everything in the papers at face value? No. Do I believe that the author spoke to a man that claimed to be Robert Morriss? Yes.

But those who claim that all of the statements in the Beale Papers are true also include the letters and all of the other publication's details, all of which are vital to the story's credibility and claims. They resign to the notion that "every statement in the Beale Papers are true", this including the statements made in those letters, the process in which the ciphers were to become known as C1,C2, C3, etc., etc., etc. However, in believing all of this they have then proceeded to contradict themselves by manufacturing solutions that do not conform to these otherwise alleged true statements presented in the pamphlet. This condition, in itself, cannot exist based on their prior claims that the entire story is true.

What you are proposing is simply this, and wisely so, that the entire publication is to be left to subjective and speculative reasoning. However, in this scenario it also leaves the door wide open to a completely subjective and speculative and convenient process of selection that has forever failed to produce a single piece of directly implicating source material to support the various resulting summaries, this leaving all of them as just manufactured theories based on no directly implicating fact.

And you also forget, the process in which the author claims he numbered the ciphers. How did the original coder of the alleged real ciphers know in 1822 that some unknown individual in the distant future would apply that exact process without any direction to do so whatsoever? The clear text of the alleged C2 cipher represents and demands that the original coder must have known the exact process that this completely unknown decoder was going to use in that distant future. So was the unknown author telling the truth in regards to his completely uninstructed process for numbering those ciphers? Of course not. He could have just as easily applied a different process or proceeded to number them A,B,C....so how did the original coder know so many years in advance? This is only one undeniable sign that something is seriously wrong with the unknown author's presentation. So which statements in the pamphlet, exactly, are true and which ones are not? Who is to decide from a purely blind process of selection?

The scope of this thread was to explain what you just posted, that not everything in Beale papers should be taken as a true statement simply because the unknown author pasted, "containing authentic statements" on the cover of his publication.

And let me add that, you know all-too well that I have not completely shut the door on the possibility that this mystery may contain some measure truth, you know this through previous contact and through previous shared information that has been passed along through certain channels. So all I am doing here is clearing the air on what is perceived or claimed to be fact when in fact it is pure speculation based on circumstantial evidence and nothing more. You know all-too well that I am, from time to time, still in search of that most illusive smoking gun that we all seek.

 

[ECS]

...or authentic statements contained in an authentic dime adventure/treasure novel.

 

[bigscoop]

...or authentic statements contained in an authentic dime adventure/treasure novel.

Could very easily be the case?

 

[ECS]

But those who claim that all of the statements in the Beale Papers are true also include the letters and all of the other publication's details, all of which are vital to the story's credibility and claims. They resign to the notion that "every statement in the Beale Papers are true", this including the statements made in those letters, the process in which the ciphers were to become known as C1,C2, C3, etc., etc., etc. However, in believing all of this they have then proceeded to contradict themselves by manufacturing solutions that do not conform to these otherwise alleged true statements presented in the pamphlet. This condition, in itself, cannot exist based on their prior claims that the entire story is true.

What you are proposing is simply this, and wisely so, that the entire publication is to be left to subjective and speculative reasoning. However, in this scenario it also leaves the door wide open to a completely subjective and speculative and convenient process of selection that has forever failed to produce a single piece of directly implicating source material to support the various resulting summaries, this leaving all of them as just manufactured theories based on no directly implicating fact...

Which can also be applied to "THE SIMPSON PAPERS"-authentic statements made by the author, J Simpson, but lacking supporting solid source evidence to establish validity.