Coding is time consuming.

[Cappy Z.]

I printed a copy of the DOI and attempted to number the entire document. It appears to have 1322 words.
Interesting that the highest number used in the Beale paper #2(Treasure description) is only 1005. Why number the remain 317?

The page of 'where' aka #1 the highest number used is 2906. And only once. Obviously 'where' is not the DOI. (It only has 1322 words)

And finally the 'name and residences' page #3 the highest number is only 952. Maybe he got tired?

Once you sit down and actually number words..it gets real tiresome and the question arises Why number all they way to 2906 (an actual number used) if the entire alphabet is covered in the first several hundred words? Doesn't make sense UNLESS there is a clue hidden here.
Could it be Beale Code #1 has a maximum of 2906 words? I used the internet and found that some early English law pamphlets keep referring to 2906.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

The four digit code in C2 can be explained and it always remains the same and represents the same thing. So C1 is the only cipher with different four digit coding, and it has 19 of them, with 1100 being used twice. Odds are, these are not letters, but rather they are entire words or even entire sentence segments. This type of thing was quite common, the coders even using this system to represent ley, ies, th, st, ed, etc. There is no limit to how these 19 four digit codes may have been applied. They could have even been entered with no meaning at all.

 

[bigscoop]

Just some fun facts and Yes they are time consuming.

You mean, "decoding is time consuming".....no need for you to be coding, or is there?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Where I went to school---------2007 was MMVII not MMVI?

 

[bigscoop]

I broke it in 5-6 years how long did it take you Big Scooper?
5-6 years is a long time to brake a code.

....OK. As for me, depends on which solution you're referring to? I was just hoping you had buried huge stashes of gold and that you were busy creating secret ciphers to their location.

 

[bigscoop]

You sound lost as a goose to me!

I guess you don't know much about geese. Amazingly accurate migrations over extremely long distances without a map.

 

[bigscoop]

Jean, you're pattern is this.....whenever you've been addressed with evidence to the contrary you avoid it like the plague, dial up the denial to pretend it doesn't exist, perhaps respond with statements of deflection.

"5 or 6 years assembling your solution"....yet "any experienced cryptologist" will tell you that the cipher contains far too many individual codes which allow for the random manufacturing of text. In other words, without "the key" there is "no way" to know for certain if a solution is accurate. Yet, you claim you've solved it. Are you starting to understand "the basics" problem with your "sure fire claim" now?

Basically you're suggesting that if I gave you a 200 code cipher with no repeated values, told you it was about Thomas Jefferson, that you could tell me exactly what it says without use of a key. This is, in effect, what you're claiming.

On January 9th you posted that you had solved the Beale Papers.....and yet you're still working on solving them? You're post contend that you are presenting your own argument.

 

[bigscoop]

After I am finished with all this Beale Cipher I will be looking for another one like it. There is a Rennes-le-Château alleged buried treasure. That may be fun one day.

Well, you keep working on all that Beale Cipher so you'll be done by this past January 9th.

 

[ECS]

After I am finished with all this Beale Cipher...

... but you claim you have already solved it on several of the threads started by you.
Now you are back peddling, WHY?

 

[signal]

Jean Laf, you don't break a running key cipher one piece at a time. Either you find the key, in which case you have it decoded, or you have not found the key. Do you understand how running key ciphers work?

 

[ivan salis]

I miss ole cappy z ...but of course coding takes time --would be much of a code if it didn't ...

 

[signal]

Thank you for the advice. I work very slow and take my time on projects like this.
The academic study of language is conducted within many different disciplinary areas and from different theoretical angles, all of which inform modern approaches to linguistics. For example, descriptive linguistics examines the grammar of single languages, theoretical linguistics develops theories on how best to conceptualize and define the nature of language based on data from the various extant human languages, sociolinguistics studies how languages are used for social purposes informing in turn the study of the social functions of language and grammatical description, neurolinguistics studies how language is processed in the human brain and allows the experimental testing of theories, computational linguistics builds on theoretical and descriptive linguistics to construct computational models of language often aimed at processing natural language or at testing linguistic hypotheses, and historical linguistics relies on grammatical and lexical descriptions of languages to trace their individual histories and reconstruct trees of language families by using the comparative method

Why did you cut and paste from Wikipedia to answer me? Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't break a running key cipher one word, one letter at a time. You break them all at once. You take a corpus, tokenize into sentences, tokenize into words, drop punctuation, etc. Number everything, and then try an alignment. Either it works or it doesn't. The only partial match, would be like in the case of the DOI, where it was a specific version, so some things didn't quite align, in which case the search continues for a version of the corpus that matches better.

Very doubtful you are doing anything but just trolling everyone.