The Top Five Decoded Cipher Claims

[releventchair]

What Is An "Argument?"
First, one must be familiar with the terminology. In this instance, the term argument refers to "a reasoned attempt to convince the audience to accept a particular point of view about a debatable topic." Looking more closely at this definition, we observe that the argument is not irrational; it does not depend strictly on passion or emotion. Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the audience at hand. Why? The answer to this is that one wants to "convince the audience to accept a particular point of view."

The key concept here is "to convince the audience," that is, you must make them believe your position, accept your logic and evidence. Not only do you want them to accept the evidence, but you want that audience to accept "a particular point of view" -- that point of view, or perspective, is yours. It is your position, your proposition. Understand that all too often the audience may be intrigued by the evidence presented, but that intrigue alone is not enough to convince them of the validity or authority of your position in the matter.

You want the audience to accept your point of view about the topic whether it is gun control, safe sex, or stiffer prison sentences for criminal offenders no matter what age. Finally, there must be "a debatable topic" present for a true argument to develop.

O.K. :
Convince your audience the Beale code is solved.
Present your supporting evidence and the confirmation ( through evidence) of an accurate solve.

Presenting your belief ,proves only that you believe. Though you can't prove what you believe exists.

Again ,do you believe what you read or are told , without ever questioning why you should?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[masterpoe]

What Is An "Argument?"
First, one must be familiar with the terminology. In this instance, the term argument refers to "a reasoned attempt to convince the audience to accept a particular point of view about a debatable topic." Looking more closely at this definition, we observe that the argument is not irrational; it does not depend strictly on passion or emotion. Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the audience at hand. Why? The answer to this is that one wants to "convince the audience to accept a particular point of view."

The key concept here is "to convince the audience," that is, you must make them believe your position, accept your logic and evidence. Not only do you want them to accept the evidence, but you want that audience to accept "a particular point of view" -- that point of view, or perspective, is yours. It is your position, your proposition. Understand that all too often the audience may be intrigued by the evidence presented, but that intrigue alone is not enough to convince them of the validity or authority of your position in the matter.

You want the audience to accept your point of view about the topic whether it is gun control, safe sex, or stiffer prison sentences for criminal offenders no matter what age. Finally, there must be "a debatable topic" present for a true argument to develop.

The particular problem is that only ECS and BigScoop are the ones debating! The others are just here to talk. This is not a argument forum but a treasure forum!

In all here we see people trying to have fun talking about a subject ( The Beale Papers ) and a few trying to turn it into a debate! Problem is they are not on a debate forum but just using this platform to start a debate because they can't win on a true debate forum. They pick on people they know they can win over, people on a treasure forum.

 

[masterpoe]

So, can arguments rationally persist where facts prevail? They shouldn't, and yet they do due to the denial of, or absence of, supporting facts. "The unknown will always be debated and argued."

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

 

[masterpoe]

O.K. :
Convince your audience the Beale code is solved.
Present your supporting evidence and the confirmation ( through evidence) of an accurate solve.

Presenting your belief ,proves only that you believe. Though you can't prove what you believe exists.

Again ,do you believe what you read or are told , without ever questioning why you should?

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

 

[bigscoop]

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

...I wasn't, just expanding on your post, actually supporting it) by explaining how the absence of actual fact and the presence of the unknown are what allow debate and argument. Why do you feel that is attacking you?

 

[bigscoop]

The particular problem is that only ECS and BigScoop are the ones debating! The others are just here to talk. This is not a argument forum but a treasure forum!

In all here we see people trying to have fun talking about a subject ( The Beale Papers ) and a few trying to turn it into a debate! Problem is they are not on a debate forum but just using this platform to start a debate because they can't win on a true debate forum. They pick on people they know they can win over, people on a treasure forum.

So, are you not now attacking ECS and Bigscoop? Look, presenting contrary fact isn't attacking, it is presenting contrary points of debate VS points of speculation. If that upsets you to the point that you feel the need to start calling people out then maybe forums aren't the best place for you to present your points of speculation while representing them to be fact.

 

[bigscoop]

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

And to your current avenue of conversation, if I may, might I suggest that you do a little self study because here is the big difference between you and I. I don't create threads calling people out and seeking argument and then proceed to whine about it when I get exactly what I set out to gain. "If you don't want argument, then don't set out on the sole mission to generate argument. But if you choose to do so, then simply live with it."

 

[ECS]

The particular problem is that only ECS and BigScoop are the ones debating! ...
They pick on people they know they can win over...

When did the posting of actual established facts become considered as "picking on people"?
Do you expect that everyone should believe all the speculation that is posted as "FACT" without question?

 

[ECS]

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

Do you realize that this and your other posts could be considered as attacking Bigscoop and me?
Once again, you really need to think about what you post, determine if there is a beam in you eye instead of a splinter that may be in another's, and then follow your own advice before casting stones at others.

 

[releventchair]

This is not a debate or argument forum! Quit attacking people as though it was!

Asking if you believe everything you read ,or are told ; and you not answering is an attack?

Beale decoding has always been debatable. And arguable . Reason persuades the gullible in argument. Debate escalating into argument escapes the non gullible when fact and evidence are proofed ( see debatable , despite opposing arguments being presented as a definition of debate. The formality of facts lacking here in Beale codes claimed to be solved makes debate a weak form. Formality being key to debate. )

Beale papers are real. Not a fairy tale in that they exist. Their interpretation (s) however are not real without supporting evidence.

Have you any real evidence? Original thought of your own on the matter? Or are you just here as a proxy to cause disagreement in discussion by bringing up matters removed from the subject being discussed to draw attention elsewhere again?


When did you become a mod here and become authorised to tell others not to debate? Evidence is lacking on your avatar. Perhaps you should notify some one to fix that. Then you can instruct me on what to do. Till then ...Pfffft.

 

[Eldo]

How have you determined that Amundsen's research is "based on solid ground", when true academics and scholars, as Inger Hobbelstad claim the exact opposite, going as far as stating Amundsen "is practicing a fabrication of history".
That is cut from a similar cloth of all those alternative "real story behind the Beale adventure story" fabrications that have been posted on these threads.
While appearing to be based on "solid ground", lose footing and sink under the weight of real evidence.

Petter's research is top notch.....

It's not a full breakdown of the ENTIRE field of clues out there ...... but it is truly the foundation for the reveals of numerous breaks in Shakespeare that are the foundations of modern cryptography as we know it...

Best to have something to write about for later, so I think he is really holding more breaks, but is arranging them to be a sequence of his discoveries which is fine with me....The Organist is amazing I hear.....

 

[Eldo]

Asking if you believe everything you read ,or are told ; and you not answering is an attack?

Beale decoding has always been debatable. And arguable . Reason persuades the gullible in argument. Debate escalating into argument escapes the non gullible when fact and evidence are proofed ( see debatable , despite opposing arguments being presented as a definition of debate. The formality of facts lacking here in Beale codes claimed to be solved makes debate a weak form. Formality being key to debate. )

Beale papers are real. Not a fairy tale in that they exist. Their interpretation (s) however are not real without supporting evidence.

Have you any real evidence? Original thought of your own on the matter? Or are you just here as a proxy to cause disagreement in discussion by bringing up matters removed from the subject being discussed to draw attention elsewhere again?


When did you become a mod here and become authorised to tell others not to debate? Evidence is lacking on your avatar. Perhaps you should notify some one to fix that. Then you can instruct me on what to do. Till then ...Pfffft.

Debates are for Politicians.

What "Party" are you a part of in this debate?

 

[releventchair]

Debates are for Politicians.

What "Party" are you a part of in this debate?

The non affiliate party - party of objective( rather than subjective) epistemically fact based proven belief in written claim party.
Dull ,aesthetic perhaps in debating unproven theory ;but looking for proven solve of Beale codes just the same.

Claims abound. Victory / party cigars few. So far, no hero shots of fish in the boat despite the plethora o claimants of such.

Debate of great benefit in design. Even of purpose.
Even Gustave Eiffel the engineer part ,was beset with debate in life... long before his rigged tower bid. ( A genius work ,the tower. Thoroughly commendable on all accounts of its design and engineering and build,efficiency of build ,speed of build ,profit from pre-planning maybe including debate of what costs for whom and profits after build for whom for how long .)

Debate is part of life. Even when singular.

Have you been excluded from debate outside of politics ?

 

[Eldo]

The non affiliate party - party of objective( rather than subjective) epistemically fact based proven belief in written claim party.
Dull ,aesthetic perhaps in debating unproven theory ;but looking for proven solve of Beale codes just the same.

Claims abound. Victory / party cigars few. So far, no hero shots of fish in the boat despite the plethora o claimants of such.

Debate of great benefit in design. Even of purpose.
Even Gustave Eiffel the engineer part ,was beset with debate in life... long before his rigged tower bid. ( A genius work ,the tower. Thoroughly commendable on all accounts of its design and engineering and build,efficiency of build ,speed of build ,profit from pre-planning maybe including debate of what costs for whom and profits after build for whom for how long .)

Debate is part of life. Even when singular.

Have you been excluded from debate outside of politics ?

Facts remain clear, that after the evidence is presented that there is no argument about the validity of the information

And what remains behind is a long line of direct stabs at researchers that have no bearing on the information presented. The stabs are directed to degrade and continually harass anyone that speaks about these facts, but there is nothing to actually prove that they are wrong.

To begin an argument with this banter is considered rude and disrespectful and the moderation staff has noted that numerous times, yet you continue the denials and the reinforcement of your reasoning for denying the person the chance to speak.

I would be glad to help instruct any of you in the finer aspects of cryptography related to the Beale as it related to the information that is presented, but most seem to assume that nothing is possible, so I will continue to present my info for those that are open to the possibility, instead of remaining closed off to other theories.

Even after all those years of holding onto a chance, you assume that someone can't break a basic cipher down....

 

[ECS]

Petter's research is top notch.....
It's not a full breakdown of the ENTIRE field of clues out there ...... but it is truly the foundation for the reveals of numerous breaks in Shakespeare that are the foundations of modern cryptography as we know it...

If Petter Amundsen's work is so "top notch" , why do professional Shakespearian academics and scholars dismiss his works as 'fabrications of history"?

 

[releventchair]

Facts remain clear, that after the evidence is presented that there is n disrespectful o argument about the validity of the information

And what remains behind is a long line of direct stabs at researchers that have no bearing on the information presented. The stabs are directed to degrade and continually harass anyone that speaks about these facts, but there is nothing to actually prove that they are wrong.

To begin an argument with this banter is considered rude and and the moderation staff has noted that numerous times, yet you continue the denials and the reinforcement of your reasoning for denying the person the chance to speak.

I would be glad to help instruct any of you in the finer aspects of cryptography related to the Beale as it related to the information that is presented, but most seem to assume that nothing is possible, so I will continue to present my info for those that are open to the possibility, instead of remaining closed off to other theories.

Even after all those years of holding onto a chance, you assume that someone can't break a basic cipher down....

You could help me by answering my question. Have you been excluded from debate? ( Meaning you have not,will not ,present your argument for or against something in a discussion with others formally. )
Then you can help by answering another question followed by another.
Where you the Simpson in the desert shop/ station years ago? If so, was there any debate ( that which you write only belongs to politicians) involved in your moving back East? The answers will help your historic credibility trail in factual matter more than rants. ( like your kill the Pope rant. That did not go unnoticed. What was your tool of choice for stabbing? Ahh,right , a sword).

Having seen you banned for denying ,rather than debating ,and lashing out instead; what remains? YOU claiming evidence and valid information?
Show me the money/ gold/ N.S.A. confirmation confirming the validity.
I enjoy your looking ,but see nothing tangible that you did not create. That is not an insult. Nor is it any change in any Beale code being solved.

Once you prove your solve ,then would be the time to give me cryptology lessons. They could be added to my journal from cryptology lessons before. And maybe be even more enlightening .
For now , clear confirmation of a decoding should be your energies direction. By a neutral arbitrator among other claimed solves ,but let's don't hold breaths.

 

[ECS]

I only know of a few!
Three so far that actually deciphered the text, but there are many just digging holes blindly.

You forgot to include the Beale story revisionists who create a new Beale tale to support their "solved" ciphers with "five steps to the Golden Code", or the "official" card carrying members of the ACA.
So many "solved" Beale ciphers, and still no treasure vault recovery.

 

[ECS]

I have been approached by many wanting to know where the treasure is .
They will try to trick you , lie to you and say you have not decoded unless they say you have .
They will claim they are your peers and they are the ones you must show proof to ...

Sounds like you are describing a certain "TEAM" that has recently emerged on these threads.

 

[masterpoe]

Sounds like you are describing a certain "TEAM" that has recently emerged on these threads.

How

 

[releventchair]

No solve confirmed to date either.

[In the more than 100 years since ¥Va.rd recounted these events, there probably have been
thousands of amateur and professional cryptanalysts who have tried to solve the two ciphers
and who have thoroughly dissected and investigated every detail of the story in an effort to find
the treasure. But, despite the massive amount of work, nothing substantial has been added to
Ward's story and the two ciphers are still unsolved.]


https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...assified-documents/beale-papers/doc656729.pdf