|
Post by Rockhound on Apr 7, 2004 10:31:39 GMT -5
...He responded "Sir, you have a big mouth and very little ears "... Laughingly I replied, "Yeah,but I also drag alot of ass behind this mouth with all these teeth." Perhaps I'm just being facetious... Perhaps not! lol
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Nov 11, 2005 11:28:27 GMT -5
Hi folks... Just a couple of things, 1: I'm back online now (in case you hadn't noticed, I've been offline for months now!), I've moved house and got a new job so "hooray" for me 2: I couldn't believe my eyes when I checked this today... www.treasurenet.com/forum/treasurehunting/What do you make of that? I think it stops a little before the time I got involved, but interesting nonetheless huh? (Or am I so "out of the loop" that I'm last to learn of this?) OH and one other thing... Thank you all for keeping the forum so active in my absence!! Your enthusiasm is very much appreciated! Rockster
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Apr 1, 2004 14:50:30 GMT -5
My own take on the story is that while I believe the ciphers are real (ie I believe there is an actual message contained within) I don't really believe that there is any treasure to be found. To call the entire story a hoax is too strong because the mystery is far too compelling to dismiss out of hand. If there is a treasure (whether it has been found or not) then I'd be very surprised but delighted at the same time. My personal belief notwithstanding, it is a mystery worth spending a great deal of time over even if the end result is proof that no treasure ever existed. It's like my old Biology teacher used to say... "There's no such thing as a failed experiment, whatever the outcome we learn something from it." I am not saying that those who claim, or indeed believe, that they have solved the enigma are wrong (or even worse that they lie), I'm just saying that I personally don't think that the original story was 100% genuine. Who do I believe came closest or could even be correct? I'm glad you asked! I find Steven's ( bealesolved.tripod.com/ ) the most compelling simply because he includes the deciphered text for all to see on his website. While I remain unconvinced as to the existence/nonexistence of the treasure, this gives me most pause for thought. Wideopenmindedly, Rockster.
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Mar 5, 2004 17:14:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately, as you are probably aware, I'm in Scotland so that kinda lets me out! If you have any links to websites with info about any meetings I would be interested in seeing them!
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 13, 2004 19:23:32 GMT -5
Your wish is my command! Done! (see main page)
Now, about that $50 kickback we were talking about ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 13, 2004 16:55:58 GMT -5
Done, I also sent you an email with your new password. Hopefully it'll work alright now (fingers crossed!)
Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 13, 2004 4:54:02 GMT -5
Hi Charlie. I checked your member info and it is registered to - cmason1@eritter.net In your last post you quote your email address as mason1@eritter.net (without the "c") Could that be the problem? (of course, the discrepancy could be due to having smileys enabled, that can sometimes do funny things to ordinary text)
Anyway, I don't have access to view your original password, however, I am able to change it from my end. If you like I can change it and send it to you, then you can login and change it to whatever you choose. Just let me know what email address is correct...
cmason1@eritter.net or just mason1@eritter.net
Alternatively, if all is correct then perhaps the email is simply delayed and may be waiting for you in your inbox as we speak.
Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 12, 2004 4:34:54 GMT -5
Hi Mel, I'm sorry to see that your website is down... But I'm glad to see that you're still around and posting though. Trust me, you'd be missed if you decided to disappear altogether!
Incidentally, as you are already a registered member here (and have a Username ("Mel") reserved for your own use), I'd recommend logging in whenever you visit. That way you'll have access to private messages left by other forum members etc.
Email me if you're having difficulty logging in for any reason!
Gordon
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Jul 19, 2004 2:05:12 GMT -5
Don't underestimate our Wildcard, he may seem quirky to the uninitiated but he's knowledgeable and consistent! I don't know what he knows or consists of but he's ours and we luvs him!
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Jul 14, 2004 14:44:08 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm "out of the loop", perhaps I don't have the appropriate experience... no offence intended Wildcard but, for me the Beale Ciphers are a doddle to decipher compared to your posts!
"Crosseyed" Rockhound
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 10, 2004 3:15:41 GMT -5
Oxymoron? I'm no kind of moron, rusty or otherwise Actually I feel that my statement holds, "I wouldn't for a second suggest you are wrong..." perhaps you are quite correct and I am wrong, and "...I simply disagree", I don't agree with your assessment but I am willing to admit that you may be correct. Like I said, I do recall an occasion, sometime in the dim and distant past, when I was proved wrong, so you see it does happen Anyway, I'd say that my moron is oxy-free! I didn't know, however, that anagrams were as popular as you suggest. I still prefer to attack the ciphers head on though, using only the information supplied in the leaflet. Now, to answer your question of the day... Q: "When Scotsmen wear their Kilts, being the Rock Hound that you are, Are you a Pointer or a Setter?"... A: Neither, I'm a Rockhunter!, It's cold up here and with cold hands, in cold weather, you'll find that a few nuggets are harder to locate than others!"
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 9, 2004 3:54:05 GMT -5
LOL Nicely written David, most entertaining post I've read in ages. Actually, David & smd, perhaps I should attempt to explain what I meant when I stated that the ciphers "...appeared to me to suggest a level of complexity which I find very hard to believe existed in the original ciphers" I meant that on the face of it the ciphers themselves are indeed complex enough to delude all attempts (allegedly) to break them, however, adding further levels of complexity involving aspects of numerology, codes within codes and confidence tricksterism just seems to me to be a little excessive. I prefer to take them at face value. No offence intended. I realise that many of you have your pet theories and have even pursued them in the fervent belief that they are the only true method to deciphering the codes and I wouldn't for a second suggest that you are wrong, I simply disagree. That's all! "Vive la difference" say I, albeit with an extremely bad French accent
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 8, 2004 15:25:35 GMT -5
Phewwww. After reading that I think I'd be kinda scared to take a Beale pill! I also think that if I'm gonna reach for the dictionary for "initials" then I'll add to my wordlist "tenuous", "obscure" and "surreal". I am, of course, being more than a little ironic in my reply! I mean no disrespect nor insult when I say that your last post appeared to me to suggest a level of complexity which I find very hard to believe existed in the original ciphers. I could be wrong (it has happened a couple of times to my knowledge) so I won't argue the point, but I personally can't subscribe to your interpretation. I'd just like to know how the "J" became "Jefferson" and not "Jones" or "Jeremiah" or even "Jar Jar" for that matter! Was Hart the first one to state it and if so, why did he? What did he know? How did he know it? Was he mistaken? Your thoughts?
Edited to add... Q. "What is the significance of 618, 32, 23, 13, 31?" A. Could that be the ISP of our friend WildCard?
It would certainly qualify as an X-File if that were the case!
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Feb 5, 2004 10:39:19 GMT -5
I seem to recall some argument as to the correct name referred to with the initial "J" in the name "Thomas J. Beale" AsI recall, some thought that the "J" stood for "Jefferson" and others disagreed! Can anyone explain the situation? Does anyone know what the "J" stood for (if not "Jefferson")? Does anyone know how the misunderstanding (if there was one) came about? Your thoughts please.
|
|
|
Post by Rockhound on Jan 11, 2004 15:50:25 GMT -5
Good to have you onboard Stephen. You're welcome (as is everyone else) to post your website in the Links section, for what it may be worth. I'll be checking out your website on and off too.
|
|