It requires some extrapolation, but as far as I can tell, the logic goes like this:
Thomas Gates is accused in our present day of being a co-conspirator, with the "proof" being that his name is in the Booth diary in a list of people known to have collaborated with Booth.
The story Patrick was told by his grandfather (Thomas's son) is that which we saw, i.e. Thomas was forced to decode a puzzle leading to a treasure which would fund the Confederate war effort, and when the assassination took place, he tried to destroy the code to thwart the Confederacy.
There are two different, inconclusive, pieces of evidence and conclusions. 1) Thomas was a co-consipirator; the Puzzle Man, as it were. OR 2) Thomas was innocent, and the diary page is just a list of people the assassins needed; sort of like if a criminal stopped a stranger on the street to ask directions and that encounter was caught on tape. Does that make the innocent person an accomplice to the crime, or is it just a chance encounter?
Since the City of Gold was considered a legend or a myth, by following the clues and finding it, Ben hopes to make it clear that Thomas's attempt to destroy the page was done because he wanted to destroy the code; not because he wanted to destroy evidence of his involvement. Remember, he tore more than just one page out of the diary. The page with the code was actually burned. The remaining page had a ghost image from the facing page that revealed the code, enabling Ben to continue the quest.
It's convoluted, and not made really clear in the movie, but if you re-watch it and look for these indications, it makes a little more sense.
reply
share
priestly-nichols
9 years ago
Since the City of Gold was considered a legend or a myth, by following the clues and finding it, Ben hopes to make it clear that Thomas's attempt to destroy the page was done because he wanted to destroy the code; not because he wanted to destroy evidence of his involvement. Remember, he tore more than just one page out of the diary. The page with the code was actually burned. The remaining page had a ghost image from the facing page that revealed the code, enabling Ben to continue the quest.
It's convoluted, and not made really clear in the movie, but if you re-watch it and look for these indications, it makes a little more sense.
But again, finding the City of Gold in no way vindicates Thomas Gates. Claiming that Thomas Gates tried to destroy the pages to prevent the KGC from finding the City of Gold and not trying to cover up his involvement would be just that, a claim. And it would be a extremely biased opinion at that, coming from Thomas Gates' descendant. But the movie makes the ending out as: "We found the City of Gold, so of course Thomas Gates is innocent!"
reply
share
9 years ago
[deleted]
priestly-nichols
9 years ago
Well, what exactly vindicates Thomas Gates? Do you know a better way to vindicate him?
There is no way to vindicate Thomas Gates. There is no evidence to counter Mitch's claim, but again, proving the city of gold exists doesn't, in any way, prove Thomas Gates' innocence. So it really comes down to Ben and Patrick having faith in their convictions.
All you're blabbering about is that Ben's plan does not ENTIRELY vindicate his lineage. May be not ENTIRELY, but it certainly gives credibility that Thomas Gates was trying to stop the KGC from finding wealth.
But it doesn't give any credibility to that at all! The city of gold existing doesn't give any credence to an unsubstantiated story that Ben and Patrick have about why Thomas Gates threw a diary page into the fire.
And that's all Ben wanted. So, before you talk foolishly.. please take a minute and think!
Yeah, I did. And there is still zero vindication. So before you decide to be a dick, just don't.
reply
share
mariondowning-427-469344
8 years ago
With legal needs for evidence in a criminal case, none of it would prove him innocent. Since it is only the word of a small child that his father threw a piece of paper in a fire. I agree with you it all is absurd and based on us seeing what happened. It wouldn't prove to an audience of his peers (who didn't see a flashback) that his great grandfather wasn't involved. His whole expedition seems like a narcissistic act of clearing his own name and giving himself back his story about his great grandfather that he can tell to fawning audiences. All he seems to care about is appearing a good guy as a character anyway (including him just leaving his own house because his girlfriend told him to leave and him not accepting any of the treasure in both movies- how did he get such a big house with such selflessness lol).
reply
share
irishm
8 years ago
I only saw it once, but was Thomas even "forced" to decode the puzzle? I thought the guy just walked up to him in the pub and handed it to him... I recall making fun of the fact that he just took it and started working on it like he had nothing better to do than take whatever a total stranger handed to him when he was on his own time and with his kid.
reply
share
ExTechOp (2742)
3 years ago
I only saw it once, but was Thomas even "forced" to decode the puzzle? I thought the guy just walked up to him in the pub and handed it to him... I recall making fun of the fact that he just took it and started working on it like he had nothing better to do than take whatever a total stranger handed to him when he was on his own time and with his kid.
I got that EXACT impression, but not as a joke. Gates was a cypher expert; it's a trope going back beyond Sherlock Holmes that these sorts of genius characters can never turn down an intriguing puzzle placed before them.
It also explains why Gates was listed as "artifex," not as the "architect" but as the puzzle-solving "mastermind."
So THAT is how the City of Gold supposedly exonerates him. It proves his role in the conspiracy was more likely that of a decoder, not the architect.
reply
share