"Defensive Davis,"
Why so bitter?

You're not going to start crying now are you? Let's examine your last post and look at the incredible leaps into the conclusionary gulf that you make, shall we?
First of all in your third quote of my reply you say Thomas J. Beale did not go out West before 1817. (Check out the Missouri Gazette, June 30, 1815.)
Gee, you got me there. There couldn't possibly have been more than one Thomas J. Beale in this country in 1815! Or is it Beall? Because I've noticed that you bounce back and forth between the two spellings.
In your second quote you say how do I know that Thomas J. Beale stayed at the Brown House or at Bufford's Tavern before 1817? In his long letter Beale said they intended burying the treasure in a cave near Bufords which they had knowledge of before the intended burial was planned. Past tense.
"Past tense." Brilliant piece of detective work, Sherlock! Because God knows the entire letter isn't written in past tense!

Actually what Beale's letter to Morriss states is:
It was finally decided that it should be sent to Virginia under my charge, and securely buried in a cave near Buford's Tavern, in the county of Bedford, which all of us had visited, and which was considered a perfectly safe depository.
So, all thirty men (mind you, none of which appear to have been from the county of Bedford, since all of them were said to have come from "Old Virginia", and since historical records do not reveal thirty men of the county of Bedford to have just up and vanished in the years of 1817-1822) just happened to have visited this one little cave behind Buford's Tavern. Now, when might they have possibly had opportunity to do that? That couldn't possibly have happened on the trip out to St. Louis, MO in May of 1817, now could it have? But even if such an unlikely event were to have occured, in just the fourth sentence following that Beale's letter states that
"they stopped at Buford's, where they remained for a month, under pretense of hunting, etc. we visited the cave, and found it unfit for our purpose. It was too frequently visited by the neighboring farmers, who used it as a receptacle for their sweet potatoes and other vegetables. So, all thirty men had visited this cave just two years prior and found it to be the "perfect" place to hide their hoard of treasure and, yet, now, just two years later, a bevy of farmers had descended on the cave to store their sweet potatoes and other vegetables? And why would it have taken ten men a month to discover that their previously perfect hiding spot was now unsuitable, scout and locate a better place, and transfer their treasure to that spot? There's just too much in these statements that doesn't wash.
In your fifth quote, you say that all of my research is public information. Sure it is public information, mostly if you know where to loook and find it?
Actually, I didn't say that. If you'd bother to read my post you'd see that what I ASKED you was
"What is the deal with the secretive nature with which you treat such very public information?" Information regarding names, birth records, death records, etc., is easily located online within a matter of minutes. Sure, knowing where to look for it is 90% of the battle, but this is a discussion forum, Jeff, not a meeting of some secret society. If you're not prepared to discuss your findings then, once again, what are you doing here?
Your sixth quote, you say that the author of the Beale Treasure Story had the "KEY" The "KEY" was lost in a mail robbery, Robert Morriss never received it and it has never resurfaced. Why print a story if you have the "KEY" DIG THE TREASURE UP. Who needs fifty cents a copy when you can get $750,000.
Or $14,000,000?

The problem with the statements contained within the quote directly above, is that it ASSUMES that the story is true, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, and proceeds upon that assumption. You state that the "key" was lost in a mail robbery
as if it is fact. You have no direct knowledge that such a key ever actually existed, and if so, that it was ever lost in a mail robbery. And you still have yet to respond to the logical statement that
If the author of the pamphlet is the individual that numbered the ciphers, and the ciphers themselves contain a mention as to which number they are, then the logical conclusion is that the author of the pamphlet and the author of the ciphers are one and the same. Instead, you just keep plodding along under the assumption that the story is true completely ignoring that logic. So, the answer to your question is if the $750,000 never existed to begin with.
As for your seventh quote, go to your post May 28, 2005; quote number two; line numbers 13 thru 16. Isn't that your words?
Gee, I don't know, Jeff. Why don't you tell me? After all you're the
la plupart d'excellent chercheur here? So, why don't you just go to the place where I wrote that John Otey and Robert Morriss had "bad dealings", cut & paste that sentence into a quote box, and post it for all the world to see? Because, what I recall writing, and what my posting clearly reveals that I wrote, is that John Otey and Robert Morriss
had business dealings in the early 1820's.
In your eight quote the first line was your words, the second line was my response to your line. I was the one that mentioned Robert Morriss having bad dealings in tobacco. You said Robert Morriss had bad dealings with John Otey. (Refer to the seventh quote correction of your quote above.)
Interesting. Let's examine these statements, shall we? You say that
"in the eigth quote the first line was your words" (referring to me, Erick). Well, the first line of the eigth quote is
"Robert Morriss speculated in tobacco heavily and that year was a bad crop for tobacco." Now, anyone with the ability to read and a little common sense can determine that I had quoted you from your posting of May 28, 2005, time stamped 04:43:15 pm, where you wrote
"Where did you get these bad dealings between John Otey his wife and Robert Morriss. Robert Morriss speculated in tobacco heavily and that year was a bad crop for tobacco. I don't buy that one because Robert Morriss had dealings with hundreds of customers." Now, if you would like to kindly cut and paste into a quote box where I ever made that statement in any of my postings,
other than to quote you, then I'll be happy to admit some error on my part. In fact, if you'd kindly cut & paste a quote of me ever having mentioned tobacco in
any of my postings,
other than to quote you, that'd be just great. Next you say that
"I (meaning you, Jeff)
was the one that mentioned Robert Morriss having bad dealings in tobacco." Um...yeah, that's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Last, you said that
"You (referring to me, Erick)
said Robert Morris had bad dealings with John Otey" and then made some lame reference to the seventh quote "correction" of my supposed quote above. I believe that I've already covered this one above, so I'll let it drop. But please do try to follow the conversation more closely in the future, Jeff.
In your ninth quote, you say that there is no evidence that James Beverly Ward went West with Pike. I never suggested that. I only speculated that it could have been a relative. James Beverly Ward was born in 1822; he was not around to go West with Pike in 1805. Your research should have told you this. See we all can make mistakes without looking back at our research.
Ooohhh, good one! Ya got me there, Sherlock! "Another option you may want to look into." No, you couldn't possibly have been any more vague as to what you were talking about.
In your tenth quote, you say that my saying there was an unauthorized buffalo hunt in 1818 is speculation. Wrong again and for the tenth time. This came from the "Spanish Archives". I can give you the name of the book, chapter page and number of entry; if you want me to look it up.
Wrong yet again, Sherlock. If you re-read my post, you'll find that I quoted you as having written "That was the reasons for the early unauthorized Buffalo Hunt in 1818." Presumably, you were referring to this James Pursley (or Purcell, you don't even seem sure of the name!) still being in Santa Fe when Beale and his men arrived, and spouting off about the gold he'd discovered - just as he'd done with Pike and his men in 1805-1807. Whether or not an unauthorized buffalo hunt took place in 1818 is irrelevant. Once again, you have presumed that the Beale story is true and assumed that Beale and his band of 30 merry men must have been the individuals that conducted the illegal, unauthorized buffalo hunt of 1818. Since there's absolutely no direct evidence tying Beale and his men to that event, your theory is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation.
Let's see now, for the count out of your fifteen quotes----------------You say I am correct three times; you say I may possibly be correct two times and you disagree ten times. The ten disagreements stand corrected above; so I am now 15 and 0 and you are 5 and 10; now have I interrupted my research wrong? You can not get the facts right, let along come to a speculation! Good day to you Erick, I have better things to do than to correct your unsubstantiated remarks. However if you make eroneous remarks, I will reply and give you quote and verse again where you are wrong!
Excellent job, Jeff! You couldn't possibly have been more childish in your retort! That was what you were trying for...right?
Once again, Jeff, I'm not attacking you, your research, nor your research ability. The only thing that stands in question is your ability to properly interpret the information that you have gathered. Nothing more.
Regards,
Erick