Now That Someone Has Decoded The Beale Papers As OF Jan 2014

[ECS]

... What books have you authored ECS?
Are they Fiction or ?

Robert Morriss: Cannibal Slayer free on TN's Nonsense thread.
Some fact spun into fiction, like the Beale Papers.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

An "L"? Now I did know Tom Petty (Mudcrutch) in the late '60's.

I saw in the movie, The Postman, that he use to be famous.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

I saw in the movie, The Postman, that he use to be famous.

Heh...

 

[TN_Guest1523]

So we have someone who has done the impossible and decoded the Beale papers.

My hat is off to you John you proved it to me. I will not post his email to me or even say what he said. But it looks like we have a winner in the race to decode the ciphers.

I seem to miss out on some of the fun here. Thanks Franklin for keeping me up to date with all the goings on. Hope your new book does well!

Thanks cryptography, I have been working on this for some time. There are a lot of people who have said they have done this. I do know that to be true. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who say this is a hoax, the Beale papers that is.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

John and you have suddenly gone quit here since I questioned how you know Laf's cipher solution is the correct message.
Waiting...

Programs, get your programs here. You can't tell one player from the other without a program.
Cryptography's name is Jack.

If we place the ciphers within our hands, we can see they are real.
They themselves are proof of their existence.
From that point, we moved to the code of C2.
The decoding of C2 . We can see the use of the declaration of independence.
This decoding proves C2 not to be a hoax.
At the time of 1820 we find many literary works. The Declaration of Independence being one of many.

 

[bigscoop]

If we place the ciphers within our hands, we can see they are real.
They themselves are proof of their existence.
From that point, we moved to the code of C2.
The decoding of C2 . We can see the use of the declaration of independence.
This decoding proves C2 not to be a hoax.
At the time of 1820 we find many literary works. The Declaration of Independence being one of many.

You forget that we can prove without a doubt that the author wasn't telling the truth as to the decoding of C2 and the arranging of the ciphers. This is an unarguable fact that is clearly established within his own narration. How do you explain this?

 

[ECS]

...
If we place the ciphers within our hands, we can see they are real.
They themselves are proof of their existence.
From that point, we moved to the code of C2.
The decoding of C2 . We can see the use of the declaration of independence.
This decoding proves C2 not to be a hoax...

Or was it included as bait "to lure the unwary reader"-William Friedman

 

[TN_Guest1523]

You forget that we can prove without a doubt that the author wasn't telling the truth as to the decoding of C2 and the arranging of the ciphers. This is an unarguable fact that is clearly established within his own narration. How do you explain this?

No new info will be put out on the decoding .

 

[TN_Guest1523]

explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning

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.

Length may be distinguished from height, which is vertical extent, and width or breadth, which are the distance from side to side, measuring across the object at right angles to the length. Length is a measure of one dimension, whereas area is a measure of two dimensions (length squared) and volume is a measure of three dimensions (length cubed). In most systems of measurement, the unit of length is a base unit, from which other units are defined.

 

[bigscoop]

explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning

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.

Length may be distinguished from height, which is vertical extent, and width or breadth, which are the distance from side to side, measuring across the object at right angles to the length. Length is a measure of one dimension, whereas area is a measure of two dimensions (length squared) and volume is a measure of three dimensions (length cubed). In most systems of measurement, the unit of length is a base unit, from which other units are defined.

But your author already had to know which was C1 & C3 "before he ever numbered them according to their length." This is clearly established by the clear text of C2. You see there is no possible way that the author could be certain that his C1 & C3 had been numbered correctly unless he already knew the correct numbering before he ever decoded C2. C2 is the only source that details that order, or even offers that order. So in essence your author already knew which cipher was C1, C2, C3 before he allegedly numbered them according to their length, otherwise, there is no possible way that he could be certain that his numbering/order was correct, and yet he is. Only one way that can be possible and that is only if he already knew the correct order/numbering beforehand. No way around this cold hard fact.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

But your author already had to know which was C1 & C3 "before he ever numbered them according to their length." This is clearly established by the clear text of C2. You see there is no possible way that the author could be certain that his C1 & C3 had been numbered correctly unless he already knew the correct numbering before he ever decoded C2. C2 is the only source that details that order, or even offers that order. So in essence your author already knew which cipher was C1, C2, C3 before he allegedly numbered them according to their length, otherwise, there is no possible way that he could be certain that his numbering/order was correct, and yet he is. Only one way that can be possible and that is only if he already knew the correct order/numbering beforehand. No way around this cold hard fact.

If I was Beale in 1820 I may have known that someone was going to need to put them in a order of some kind in 1832. C2 is just the one that was to be first needed to be decoded. 20 years is a long time to work on them with C2 as the only page decoded. If I was looking at the ciphers before C2 was decoded I would look at the Number first up on each page. The one with 71, I would make #1, the one with 115, I would make #2 and the one with 317 I would make #3. Just how I would do it . And once he decoded the first cipher ( C2 )he may have made the same discovery . After all he did work with them for 20 years or so.

 

[Cryptography]

If I was Beale in 1820 I may have known that someone was going to need to put them in a order of some kind in 1832. C2 is just the one that was to be first needed to be decoded. 20 years is a long time to work on them with C2 as the only page decoded. If I was looking at the ciphers before C2 was decoded I would look at the Number first up on each page. The one with 71, I would make #1, the one with 115, I would make #2 and the one with 317 I would make #3. Just how I would do it . And once he decoded the first cipher ( C2 )he may have made the same discovery . After all he did work with them for 20 years or so.

SHEAR GENIUS

Just the best work that i have ever seen on this topic.

The Piper Strand

 

[Cryptography]

If I was Beale in 1820 I may have known that someone was going to need to put them in a order of some kind in 1832. C2 is just the one that was to be first needed to be decoded. 20 years is a long time to work on them with C2 as the only page decoded. If I was looking at the ciphers before C2 was decoded I would look at the Number first up on each page. The one with 71, I would make #1, the one with 115, I would make #2 and the one with 317 I would make #3. Just how I would do it . And once he decoded the first cipher ( C2 )he may have made the same discovery . After all he did work with them for 20 years or so.

THE PIPER STRAND


71 ( 1 ) > 115 < ( 3 ) 317


71> <17

115

Roman Numeral 2

DOI Separation=(71) on DOI

 

[bigscoop]

If I was Beale in 1820 I may have known that someone was going to need to put them in a order of some kind in 1832. C2 is just the one that was to be first needed to be decoded. 20 years is a long time to work on them with C2 as the only page decoded. If I was looking at the ciphers before C2 was decoded I would look at the Number first up on each page. The one with 71, I would make #1, the one with 115, I would make #2 and the one with 317 I would make #3. Just how I would do it . And once he decoded the first cipher ( C2 )he may have made the same discovery . After all he did work with them for 20 years or so.

Then why go through the ruse of telling folks that the ciphers were laid out according to their length and then numbered? But either way, the author has demonstrated a very clear intention of misleading his readers by presenting a narration that can't be trusted due to his including details that, and here it comes, "are not true." By doing this he has brought into question an entire text that leaves his readers to only judge as possibly being true, which clearly, by his own hand, isn't the case. Why would he go out of his way to cast this negative light upon himself and his story if his intention was to present a narration that he wanted people to take as gospel?

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Then why go through the ruse of telling folks that the ciphers were laid out according to their length and then numbered? But either way, the author has demonstrated a very clear intention of misleading his readers by presenting a narration that can't be trusted due to his including details that, and here it comes, "are not true." By doing this he has brought into question an entire text that leaves his readers to only judge as possibly being true, which clearly, by his own hand, isn't the case. Why would he go out of his way to cast this negative light upon himself and his story if his intention was to present a narration that he wanted people to take as gospel?

( explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning ) Beale Papers in the Index ( first part) of the papers.

( 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.) Beale Papers

The author did lay them out according to length. Ward or the author sated that and worked with the first only. So if you take the longest page C2 and decode it first.
You now only have two pages left. C2 stated that one is C1 and one is C3 . I only said if I looked at them all three without a decoding of C2 I would lay them out by the first numbers 71, 115 and 317. That would be C1, C2 and C3 as they are. Seems to be a hint there by Beale, but if you have 2 pages left and as C2 stated there were 30 name and addresses on one I can see how he may have made the longest of the two left C3. If you take Thomas Beale New Orleans as one name you have 21 letters used. 30x21 = 620 letters not found in C1 but C3.

The strand as crypto calls it is what I would be looking for. But the author of the Beale Papers said he was working with one page only. C2 is more than 700 numbers possibly he was thinking he had a better chance with more numbers to work with.

According to the Beale Papers he lay the paper with the 700+ then the 600+ and then the 500+ and did the first one with 700+
Then was told by his decoding that it was C2 ( the 700+ ) leaving only C1 and C3 left.
If you take Thomas Beale New Orleans as one name you have 21 letters used. 30x21 = 620 letters not found in C1 but C3.

 

[ECS]

... the author has demonstrated a very clear intention of misleading his readers by presenting a narration that can't be trusted due to his including details that, and here it comes, "are not true." ...

Which leads to the belief that if the narrative contained in the Beale Papers is not true, but contrived by the author, then the unsolved ciphers are not true.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

Which leads to the belief that if the narrative contained in the Beale Papers is not true, but contrived by the author, then the unsolved ciphers are not true.

Funny, that's what the NSA said.

 

[ECS]

Funny, that's what the NSA said.

What else is funny is that on these TN Beale topic threads, there are four current claims of the ciphers solved-You, Enigmatist, Eldo, and Legrand, and ALL four are very different from each other. There have been many others in the past who have also claimed to have solved these ciphers, and their solutions also differ from other solutions.
What does that tell you, Laf?
Those who work the codes find what they expect to find-"diabolical ingenuity, specifically designed to lure the unwary reader"-William Friedman.
It is also funny that the NSA did not take you up on a job offer- sometimes the grapes are not sweet.

 

[bigscoop]

( explanation of the paper marked "2." Unmeaning ) Beale Papers in the Index ( first part) of the papers.

( 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.) Beale Papers

The author did lay them out according to length. Ward or the author sated that and worked with the first only. So if you take the longest page C2 and decode it first.
You now only have two pages left. C2 stated that one is C1 and one is C3 . I only said if I looked at them all three without a decoding of C2 I would lay them out by the first numbers 71, 115 and 317. That would be C1, C2 and C3 as they are. Seems to be a hint there by Beale, but if you have 2 pages left and as C2 stated there were 30 name and addresses on one I can see how he may have made the longest of the two left C3. If you take Thomas Beale New Orleans as one name you have 21 letters used. 30x21 = 620 letters not found in C1 but C3.

The strand as crypto calls it is what I would be looking for. But the author of the Beale Papers said he was working with one page only. C2 is more than 700 numbers possibly he was thinking he had a better chance with more numbers to work with.

According to the Beale Papers he lay the paper with the 700+ then the 600+ and then the 500+ and did the first one with 700+
Then was told by his decoding that it was C2 ( the 700+ ) leaving only C1 and C3 left.
If you take Thomas Beale New Orleans as one name you have 21 letters used. 30x21 = 620 letters not found in C1 but C3.

Correct, the author did say that he laid them out according to their length and then he numbered them. However, this isn't true, can't be, not by any case. You see, the clear text of C2 is the only source he had that specifically detailed what was contained in each remaining cipher, and even more importantly....."C2 clearly states that the remaining ciphers had already been numbered 1 & 3." But let's assume they weren't, just as the author claims, there is no way he could be certain that simply laying them out in order of their length was guarantee that he had the right order, yet he is certain. Given that there are numerous ways names and addresses can be presented, such as several people residing at the same location, there is no way he could be certain his order was correct unless he already knew what that order was. There's just no getting around this very well defined and established fact. Our author didn't tell the truth about his knowledge of the order of the ciphers or the manner in which they were numbered. Period.

Having said all of this, it is possible that he had reason for this deception, and others, but the problem with this is that he is also bringing his credibility and the credibility of his story into serious question.

 

[ECS]

... it is possible that he had reason for this deception, and others, but the problem with this is that he is also bringing his credibility and the credibility of his story into serious question.

...and that is the heart of the matter-if the story contained in the Beale Papers is not credible (it reads good but has no evidence to substantiate that it happened), the credibility of the ciphers is highly questionable.