More Interesting New Findings From The Beale Ciphers

[masterpoe]

I see!
2=I
108=N
220=T
106=O
353=N
105=P
106=O
60=T
275=S

This is the direct decipherment. So you are changing the numbers to get what you want?
2=I
10=N
8=I
220=T
106=O
353=N
105=P
106=O
60=T
275=S

Looks like ( in 1 Ton Pots ). To me!

Truly a historical find!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[franklin]

If we look at the Hart Papers we must also look at the Declaration they used. At word 150-160 there is no A before new Government. Even in the Declaration I have from the 1830 the A is not there! This would be a problem with every word after the A if you were to keep using the corrupted version of this Declaration for your decipherment of just the Ciphers known as Page 2. There are over 30 words that would have errors in just the first 100 numbers you deciphered if this corrupted Declaration is used.

What corrupted DOI are you referring to? I was using the DOI the author numbered in the Job Print Pamphlet. The DOI the author said he deciphered C2 with? Take what the author gives you and then find out that (220) is an "R" as in IRON not TON

And you have found nothing historical as there is nothing historical about a dime novel.

 

[Cryptography]

What corrupted DOI are you referring to? I was using the DOI the author numbered in the Job Print Pamphlet. The DOI the author said he deciphered C2 with? Take what the author gives you and then find out that (220) is an "R" as in IRON not TON

And you have found nothing historical as there is nothing historical about a dime novel.

The reprints of the pamphlet used a bad DOI, you did not know of this?
This is the original DOI without the infamous (A) word 155 on the corrupted DOI. This A does not exist in the 1850 DOI ether. So if the original man that invented the ciphers used some other DOI than the Man or Woman that deciphered page 2 that would be proof that the author did not make the ciphers and the ciphers are a true original not a hoax.

 

[ECS]

Well that explains how Emma Jean Rose determined that the Beale treasure was in Pennsylvania and not Virginia as the actual narrative text claims.

 

[bigscoop]

Truly a historical find!

Then if we apply your same principles and practices, "historical" can easily become "hysterical"...right?

This is what you fellas fail to understand once you start changing your original source materials to suit, you're simply establishing that the Beale papers can become anything anybody wants them to be. Your logic and applied practice gives equal support to all other manufactured remedies past, current, and future.

 

[bigscoop]

The reprints of the pamphlet used a bad DOI, you did not know of this?
This is the original DOI without the infamous (A) word 155 on the corrupted DOI. This A does not exist in the 1850 DOI ether. So if the original man that invented the ciphers used some other DOI than the Man or Woman that deciphered page 2 that would be proof that the author did not make the ciphers and the ciphers are a true original not a hoax.
View attachment 1476688

.....we already know the ciphers in the narration are the originals. We also know that they can't contain a grammatically correct clear text and that the alleged key is bogus and will only work out by author suggestion, that the author manufactured the C2 clear text.....these are all well established and undisputed facts now.

All you guys are doing is establishing that you believe Starwars to be factual.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Just a "Ploy" to get ppl to go WEST...

 

[ECS]

You are mistaken, but the Hart papers version has with the 10 and 8 separate...

The HART PAPERS should never be used as a comparison to the original Beale Papers copyrighted by James Beverly Ward in 1885, which is the alpha/ omega of this adventure treasure story.

 

[masterpoe]

That is because the Hart Papers are the original copy of the cipher codes with only a few changes made by Clayton I. Hart. As for me being mistaken, NO.

The Hart Papers have changed 30% of the numbers on all three ciphers! Their a damp squid if you look at what they have done.

 

[masterpoe]

What corrupted DOI are you referring to? I was using the DOI the author numbered in the Job Print Pamphlet. The DOI the author said he deciphered C2 with? Take what the author gives you and then find out that (220) is an "R" as in IRON not TON

And you have found nothing historical as there is nothing historical about a dime novel.

This is not my find! The Professor found this. Packed in ten pots.

 

[masterpoe]

I see!
2=I
108=N
220=T
106=O
353=N
105=P
106=O
60=T
275=S

This is the direct decipherment. So you are changing the numbers to get what you want?
2=I
10=N
8=I
220=T
106=O
353=N
105=P
106=O
60=T
275=S

Looks like ( in 1 Ton Pots ). To me!

We know for a fact that Beale used an <1822 Declaration so why would you use a Declaration from 1885.

 

[masterpoe]

.....we already know the ciphers in the narration are the originals. We also know that they can't contain a grammatically correct clear text and that the alleged key is bogus and will only work out by author suggestion, that the author manufactured the C2 clear text.....these are all well established and undisputed facts now.

All you guys are doing is establishing that you believe Starwars to be factual.

It seems for page 2 that if you use the proper Declaration from the event date you have more grammatically correct text. The Beale Papers Declaration has a few additional words than the one used by Beale. Should That Not Worry You Colonists A Bunch!

 

[franklin]

We know for a fact that Beale used an <1822 Declaration so why would you use a Declaration from 1885.

Who said it was a Declaration of 1885. The DOI was made in 1776 and there are various copies. The copy in the Job Print Pamphlet is the one used by the un-named author to decypher C2 so it stands to reason to use the same DOI for C1 and C3. But since reasoning has been thrown out the window by most seekers of the Beale Treasure, why not? Some have even said the story is fiction but there is a real treasure. Some say it is not buried in Virginia but is buried in Pennsylvania or even Kentucky. If you change the story or the DOI you change everything then you end up with something that is made from nothing. If you subtract anything from nothing you end up with nothing. I set out to solve this mystery and I have solved it. It is a good story but it definitely did not happen. If you believe it did happen let us see some proof-------anything. Did the expedition happen? How did they hard rock mine gold without proper tools or furnaces? Where is proof of 30 men missing? When the Glenn Party was believe wiped out and killed it was in all the newspapers. Where is the story of these 30 men being killed by Indians or the Spanish? Nothing in the Spanish Archives. The Spanish Archives recorded everyone captured and Americans were not allowed in their territory without permission from both governments. Where is it stated that these 30 Americans showed up in Sante Fe in the Fall of 1817 without being captured as was Pike's Party, James Purcell, James Beard and Robert McKnight. The later spend over 15 years in prison and were not released until Mexico's Independence in 1822. If you have some proof why this search should continue, let us see it. I have wasted a great many years searching for a myth and I would waste some more if you have any proof? You do not.

 

[bigscoop]

It seems for page 2 that if you use the proper Declaration from the event date you have more grammatically correct text. The Beale Papers Declaration has a few additional words than the one used by Beale. Should That Not Worry You Colonists A Bunch!

"More grammatically correct text"....but still not without it's obvious existing issues. Look, folks can and will continue to try to make things right but has it ever occurred to any of these folks that the code writer "wasn't actually attempting to be super accurate for a reason?" Folks love to point out "the author's mistakes" but it is very-very likely that they weren't actual mistakes at all given all of the other inaccuracies and intentional deceptions that exist in the narration. Right now I'm 100% positive that there are those quietly at work trying to come up with any angle they can to explain how the author knew that there was only one missing paper instead of two, or three, etc., or that there was even a missing paper at all? Only one way he could know, this answer all-too obvious to everyone, and yet they will still try to manufacture any alternate conclusion they can regardless how totally disconnected that conclusion might be. This is why nobody to date has been able to post anything in the provenance thread because nobody has yet to discover any of that provenance other then what they have simply manufactured from all of the existing unknowns in the tale. "Author Mistakes"....not very likely.

 

[ECS]

We know for a fact that Beale used an 1822 Declaration so why would you use a Declaration from 1885.

Actually M Poe, we do not, that is just an assumption as the Beale Papers NEVER mentions a date for the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE utilized by the "unknown author" in his alleged "solve" of C2.
...AND there exists NO FACT that anything in the Beale story ever actually occurred outside of the job print pamphlet, making all three ciphers the creation of the "unknown author".

 

[franklin]

The unknown author found the DOI as a "KEY" he said by accident. It worked on one of the cypher codes but not on the other two. He saw that he had more work to do. Since Robert Morriss supposedly told him about the letter to be sent in 1832, he, the author believed that someone may have that letter with the answer to his problem with the DOI working on C1 and C3.

Every person I know of that wants to find the fabulous Beale Treasure, the first thing they do is try to find different books to use as a "KEY' such as the family Bible or Shakespeare but in the end C1 is all they can work on. Not very many ever looks at C3 because no one cares who buried the treasure---all they want is the treasure.

The copy of the DOI in the Job Print Pamphlet that the author used was from an 1876 school history book.

Also C2 that was deciphered by the author using the 1876 DOI was also encoded by the same DOI of 1876 so I might ask how did Thomas J. Beale use an 1876 DOI to encrypt C1, C2 & C3 in 1819 and 1821, if the encryption came from an 1876 school history book? This means that the author made the C1, C2 & C3. He also made the letters of TJB and the entire story up. End of the road at least end of the search by yours truly. On to more rewarding searches.

 

[masterpoe]

The unknown author found the DOI as a "KEY" he said by accident. It worked on one of the cypher codes but not on the other two. He saw that he had more work to do. Since Robert Morriss supposedly told him about the letter to be sent in 1832, he, the author believed that someone may have that letter with the answer to his problem with the DOI working on C1 and C3.

Every person I know of that wants to find the fabulous Beale Treasure, the first thing they do is try to find different books to use as a "KEY' such as the family Bible or Shakespeare but in the end C1 is all they can work on. Not very many ever looks at C3 because no one cares who buried the treasure---all they want is the treasure.

The copy of the DOI in the Job Print Pamphlet that the author used was from an 1876 school history book.

Also C2 that was deciphered by the author using the 1876 DOI was also encoded by the same DOI of 1876 so I might ask how did Thomas J. Beale use an 1876 DOI to encrypt C1, C2 & C3 in 1819 and 1821, if the encryption came from an 1876 school history book? This means that the author made the C1, C2 & C3. He also made the letters of TJB and the entire story up. End of the road at least end of the search by yours truly. On to more rewarding searches.

Good try, but the 1776-1886 Centennial Memorial has no A before the new Government and 220 is an T not an R!

The other original Beale Pamphlet does no have an A there either!


https://www.google.com/search?q=dec...AUICSgB&biw=601&bih=962#imgrc=3x8zyfDkPOwh3M:

 

[masterpoe]

The reprints of the pamphlet used a bad DOI, you did not know of this?
This is the original DOI without the infamous (A) word 155 on the corrupted DOI. This A does not exist in the 1850 DOI ether. So if the original man that invented the ciphers used some other DOI than the Man or Woman that deciphered page 2 that would be proof that the author did not make the ciphers and the ciphers are a true original not a hoax.
View attachment 1476688

https://www.google.com/search?q=dec...AUICSgB&biw=601&bih=962#imgrc=3x8zyfDkPOwh3M:

This one doesn't have the A at the 155 mark either! You Yanks got something of a problem!

 

[bigscoop]

And the author knew there was just one missing paper, how, exactly? Or that there even was a missing paper? ....this questions seems to continue to cause a complete blackout and a total blank from some..... As have other such questions.....wonder why?

When I first posted the FACT that there was no way possible that length alone could determine the correct order of the ciphers these same folks set out to manufacture a means that they saw as being possible, even claiming it to be factual, however, what these same folks fail to realize that is that by doing so they have just contradicted the very narration they deem to be true........thus establishing that the narration isn't true. And they just keep right on doing it, over and over again..... Even by their own manufactured explanations they are actually discrediting the narration at every turn.....

 

[franklin]

https://www.google.com/search?q=dec...AUICSgB&biw=601&bih=962#imgrc=3x8zyfDkPOwh3M:

This one doesn't have the A at the 155 mark either! You Yanks got something of a problem!

What exactly does that have to do with anything? The author clearly hit every cypher on the correct letter and that my friend should tell you that the cypher codes were made by the author. One letter missing out of the DOI will make no difference in the decypherment. I have went fifteen letters forward and 15 letters backwards. I have skipped one letter and take the next. I have skipped three letters and four letters and I have alternated back and forth skipped one letter all the way to skipping paragraphs. No solution doing any of this. I have used every document from the Magna Carta to the Constitution No luck. The whole thing is just a story for sale for fifty cents. nothing more and any DOI makes no difference.