CODEBREAKER COMMENTS ABOUT BEALE CIPHERS

[franklin]

Maybe bigscoop is trying to save others time wasted. I sure wish someone had told me over 50 years ago could have saved me from wasting my time. As the author said if you can not spare the time leave it alone and I surely wished I had. I might have made other discoveries of real treasure which I have done over five years ago.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Old Silver]

Maybe bigscoop is trying to save others time wasted. I sure wish someone had told me over 50 years ago could have saved me from wasting my time. As the author said if you can not spare the time leave it alone and I surely wished I had. I might have made other discoveries of real treasure which I have done over five years ago.

But my post had nothing to do with wasting time. I simply read the Beale Papers the way I said above, I have no ulterior motive in it.

 

[Benjamin Gates]

Posted by franklin;
"There is no record in the newspapers of St. Louis, Mo. or Franklin, Mo. some 200 miles further up the Missouri River about Thomas J. Beale's Party heading West or heading East the four trips he said he made."

franklin, I believe your statement because I believe you have searched for such an event(s). But I would think the party would not want to draw any attention to themselves
in their travels to and from. Keeping a low profile and blending in with everyone else at the time. Probably even had a cover story if anyone asked . . . maybe fur trappers?

 

[bigscoop]

I agree, he doesn't hint at it. He says it. And no, he didn't say he HAD TO number them by length, that's just something you want to believe. And you can look at the papers and plainly see that they are not numbered according to their length, so clearly he didn't keep them that way.

It seems to me that there's no sense in continuing to try to find ANYTHING about the Beale papers if they're nothing but a dime novel, or hoax. So why do you care?

Old Silver, he does say that he numbered them according to their length so he had a systematized means for attacking them....this he is very, very clear in stating. Not sure, but you must be reading a different narration/story?

And "No"....he never says that the ciphers were already numbered, which is why, to date, nobody, including you, has been able to post the exert of that exact statement.

"And you can look at the papers and plainly see that they are not numbered according to their length, so clearly he didn't keep them that way." No, actually, you can see that he made serious error in his statements regarding his alleged numbering of the ciphers, that's the plain and simple truth to the situation. You're simply trying to make this obvious flaw in his story to somehow go away by suggesting conditions and statements that don't exist in his own word-for-word narration.

I've never said that it was a dime novel, or that it is all just a complete hoax, what I am saying is what the author actually said/claims VS what he doesn't say/claim. Once we start putting words in his mouth we can have him saying most anything we desire and we all know how easily that leads folks on all sorts of snipe hunts.

 

[Old Silver]

Old Silver, he does say that he numbered them according to their length so he had a systematized means for attacking them....this he is very, very clear in stating. Not sure, but you must be reading a different narration/story?

And "No"....he never says that the ciphers were already numbered, which is why, to date, nobody, including you, has been able to post the exert of that exact statement.

"And you can look at the papers and plainly see that they are not numbered according to their length, so clearly he didn't keep them that way." No, actually, you can see that he made serious error in his statements regarding his alleged numbering of the ciphers, that's the plain and simple truth to the situation. You're simply trying to make this obvious flaw in his story to somehow go away by suggesting conditions and statements that don't exist in his own word-for-word narration.

I've never said that it was a dime novel, or that it is all just a complete hoax, what I am saying is what the author actually said/claims VS what he doesn't say/claim. Once we start putting words in his mouth we can have him saying most anything we desire and we all know how easily that leads folks on all sorts of snipe hunts.

Nope, it's the same story you've been reading. Did you miss the part where the author said the numbering by length failed? And what about him then saying the papers were kept on his mind in their regular order? And what of the fact that the papers today are numbered differently than by the order of their length? Would you not say he abandoned the idea of length and went back to the original numbered order? He said so.

I have posted where the story says the papers were numbered. Why didn't you see it?

And you can look at the papers and plainly see that they are not numbered according to their length, so clearly he didn't keep them that way." No, actually, you can see that he made serious error in his statements regarding his alleged numbering of the ciphers, that's the plain and simple truth to the situation. You're simply trying to make this obvious flaw in his story to somehow go away by suggesting conditions and statements that don't exist in his own word-for-word narration.

You've come up with many explanations over the years, is this one your final answer? You seem to think I have an ulterior motive in believing what I'm saying about the numbering, but I don't. It's siply the way I read the papers, that's all. It's not what I want it to say, it's what I see it saying. If you see it differently, that's fine.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

"lies rather beyond the range of possibility"- Col George Fabyan
"diabolical ingenuity, specifically designed to lure the unwary reader"- William Friedman
"nothing more or less than a hoax"- Elizabeth Smith Friedman
"the Beale treasure is likely to be a hoax, invented by whomever authored the Beale Papers"-
Dr Todd Mateer

I am a code breaker and it only took me about 4 years to break this code . A great code I hope to move on to the next one soon, well worth my attention . The best part was finding the book that fit the code . A well planed code done by a very smart individual, thank you Mr Beale for a worthy challenge .

The Best Code Breaker In The World JLP

 

[ECS]

I am a code breaker and it only took me about 4 years to break this code . A great code I hope to move on to the next one soon, well worth my attention . The best part was finding the book that fit the code . A well planed code done by a very smart individual, thank you Mr Beale for a worthy challenge .

The Best Code Breaker In The World JLP

Can you say hubris? I knew that you could.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Can you say hubris? I knew that you could.

CODEBREAKER COMMENTS ABOUT BEALE CIPHERS

 

[franklin]

If you have done anything wallow in it.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

If you have done anything wallow in it.

Just speaking the Truth there Sir . If all these people could not do what I have then I am the only one to do it . And a lot have tried and failed .

 

[ECS]

Just speaking the Truth there Sir . If all these people could not do what I have then I am the only one to do it . And a lot have tried and failed .

Just speaking the Truth, there Laf, but we only have your word that you solved the ciphers.
Why should we believe you?

 

[bigscoop]

Nope, it's the same story you've been reading. Did you miss the part where the author said the numbering by length failed? And what about him then saying the papers were kept on his mind in their regular order? And what of the fact that the papers today are numbered differently than by the order of their length? Would you not say he abandoned the idea of length and went back to the original numbered order? He said so.

I have posted where the story says the papers were numbered. Why didn't you see it?



You've come up with many explanations over the years, is this one your final answer? You seem to think I have an ulterior motive in believing what I'm saying about the numbering, but I don't. It's siply the way I read the papers, that's all. It's not what I want it to say, it's what I see it saying. If you see it differently, that's fine.

"in their regular order".....post that exact excerpt.....or....post that exact...."original number order" excerpt. Bet you can't do it. All the author ever claims is that he numbered them according to their length so that he could systematize them. Nowhere does he ever state anything in regards in the ciphers having already been numbered or having an original order or regular order.
By the way, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Just speaking the Truth, there Laf, but we only have your word that you solved the ciphers.
Why should we believe you?

Yes, yes you do .

 

[Old Silver]

"in their regular order".....post that exact excerpt.....or....post that exact...."original number order" excerpt. Bet you can't do it. All the author ever claims is that he numbered them according to their length so that he could systematize them. Nowhere does he ever state anything in regards in the ciphers having already been numbered or having an original order or regular order.
By the way, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

"To systematize a plan for my work I arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first, and devote my whole attention to that until I had either unravelled its meaning or was convinced of its impossibility--afterwards to take up the others and proceed as before.
All of this I did in the course of time, but failed so completely that my hopes of solving the mystery were well nigh abandoned. My thoughts, however were constantly upon it, and the figures contained in each paper, in their regular order, were fixed in my memory."

Notice both times he used the word "order." 1st he said order OF THEIR LENGTH, so what would he have meant by the 2nd use of the word "order"? It's the way the papers were originally ordered, as opposed to the order by length. Numbering them by length failed, so he went back to the way they were originally ordered. When he arranged them according to their length, he NUMBERED them that way, therefore, when he went back to the original order, he went back to the way they were originally numbered. The other way failed.


"The letter, or paper, so often alluded to, and marked "2," which is fully explained by the foregoing document, is as follows..."

"It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2.""

Why would that certain paper be marked #2? It would not be marked #2 by length.


Decoded paper#2: ...articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith:.

...The vault is roughly lined with stone, and the vessels rest on solid stone, and are covered with others. Paper number "1" describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it....

Why are these numbers in quotation? Remember, this is not the author, but rather Beale himself that gave these numbers, and they are in quotation. If the papers had not been numbered, then it would not make sense to allude to them by their numbers, especially when the numbers are in quotation.

 

[Old Silver]

Decoded paper#2: ...articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith:.

...The vault is roughly lined with stone, and the vessels rest on solid stone, and are covered with others. Paper number "1" describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it....

Why are these numbers in quotation? Remember, this is not the author, but rather Beale himself that gave these numbers, and they are in quotation. If the papers had not been numbered, then it would not make sense to allude to them by their numbers, especially when the numbers are in quotation.

Actually, Beale spelled out the word three. It was the author who changed it to the number 3 and put it in quotation marks. So no matter how you slice it, both Beale and the author said the papers were numbered. That's not to say the Beale story is true, but you can't deny that the papers say the coded papers were numbered.

 

[franklin]

Just speaking the Truth there Sir . If all these people could not do what I have then I am the only one to do it . And a lot have tried and failed .

Like he believes a second and third hand story from James B. Ward to Clayton Hart to George Hart as a CHECKMATE. Then yes he can believe himself without any confirmation from any other source. That is what you call self-confidence and 99 percent of the time that is entirely wrong.

 

[franklin]

"To systematize a plan for my work I arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first, and devote my whole attention to that until I had either unravelled its meaning or was convinced of its impossibility--afterwards to take up the others and proceed as before.
All of this I did in the course of time, but failed so completely that my hopes of solving the mystery were well nigh abandoned. My thoughts, however were constantly upon it, and the figures contained in each paper, in their regular order, were fixed in my memory."

Notice both times he used the word "order." 1st he said order OF THEIR LENGTH, so what would he have meant by the 2nd use of the word "order"? It's the way the papers were originally ordered, as opposed to the order by length. Numbering them by length failed, so he went back to the way they were originally ordered. When he arranged them according to their length, he NUMBERED them that way, therefore, when he went back to the original order, he went back to the way they were originally numbered. The other way failed.


"The letter, or paper, so often alluded to, and marked "2," which is fully explained by the foregoing document, is as follows..."

"It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2.""

Why would that certain paper be marked #2? It would not be marked #2 by length.


Decoded paper#2: ...articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith:.

...The vault is roughly lined with stone, and the vessels rest on solid stone, and are covered with others. Paper number "1" describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it....

Why are these numbers in quotation? Remember, this is not the author, but rather Beale himself that gave these numbers, and they are in quotation. If the papers had not been numbered, then it would not make sense to allude to them by their numbers, especially when the numbers are in quotation.

Old Silver, That is all the work of the author. No where does Beale say the code papers were numbered that came from the decipherment by the author. TJB only called them papers that will be unintelligible to you without a key.

 

[Old Silver]

Old Silver, That is all the work of the author. No where does Beale say the code papers were numbered that came from the decipherment by the author. TJB only called them papers that will be unintelligible to you without a key.

No sir, it was Beale who made the code papers, and code paper #2 says, "...articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith..."
Only thing, Beale's coded paper had the word spelled out, "three." The author changed it to the number "3" with quotation marks.

 

[bigscoop]

"To systematize a plan for my work I arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first, and devote my whole attention to that until I had either unravelled its meaning or was convinced of its impossibility--afterwards to take up the others and proceed as before.
All of this I did in the course of time, but failed so completely that my hopes of solving the mystery were well nigh abandoned. My thoughts, however were constantly upon it, and the figures contained in each paper, in their regular order, were fixed in my memory."

Notice both times he used the word "order." 1st he said order OF THEIR LENGTH, so what would he have meant by the 2nd use of the word "order"? It's the way the papers were originally ordered, as opposed to the order by length. Numbering them by length failed, so he went back to the way they were originally ordered. When he arranged them according to their length, he NUMBERED them that way, therefore, when he went back to the original order, he went back to the way they were originally numbered. The other way failed.


"The letter, or paper, so often alluded to, and marked "2," which is fully explained by the foregoing document, is as follows..."

"It would be difficult to portray the delight he experienced when accident revealed to him the explanation of the paper marked "2.""

Why would that certain paper be marked #2? It would not be marked #2 by length.


Decoded paper#2: ...articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith:.

...The vault is roughly lined with stone, and the vessels rest on solid stone, and are covered with others. Paper number "1" describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it....

Why are these numbers in quotation? Remember, this is not the author, but rather Beale himself that gave these numbers, and they are in quotation. If the papers had not been numbered, then it would not make sense to allude to them by their numbers, especially when the numbers are in quotation.

...."and the figures contained in each paper, in their regular order, were fixed in my memory." Dude, he's clearly referring "to the codes in their regular order," and not the order of the ciphers. The sole subject of the above sentence is, "the figures contained in each paper", and not the order of the papers themselves. This he has already detailed when he details how they came to numbered, by his doing so according to their length.

 

[bigscoop]

...."and the figures contained in each paper, in their regular order, were fixed in my memory." Dude, he's clearly referring "to the codes in their regular order," and not the order of the ciphers. The sole subject of the above sentence is, "the figures contained in each paper", and not the order of the papers themselves. This he has already detailed when he details how they came to numbered, by his doing so according to their length.

And one other thing, yes, I do agree with you, "that the author of the pamphlet did in fact have a great deal to do with the ciphers." No doubt that his hand "played very strongly in their preparation and presentation."