; have YOU...? 
"A lot of codes" only 26 letters in the alphabet, some of these being primary letters, only five vowels, a,e,i,o,u. There are a lot of people in this world with the same name so are you suggesting that they all know each other because their names possess the same letters? "masterpoe" contains e & o so you must know those other two decoders as well.
Have you found a hole in those two ciphers?
Mr. Masterpoe, there are some basic elements within the two remaining ciphers that you clearly do not understand, but need to. SO let's do that, yet again.
Take both ciphers and lay them side by side, C1 on the left, C3 on the right.
Now take notice of the range of code in each cipher, you will discover that C1 has a much larger range of code and that C3 has a much smaller range and also more repeated code. Why?
Now then, the much larger range of code, and also the lack of repeated code in C1, allows for far more freedom in the assigning of letters to these codes, the possible arrangements being "limitless". This is why so many possible arrangements (and methods) have been proposed over the years, none of them standing any chance of being accurate.
C3, a much smaller range of codes and more repeated code, should be easier to decode, right? WRONG! You see we assume that the ciphers are all in English and that any clear text will abide by those English spelling/pronunciation rules, however, consider names can be rooted from many nationalities, i.e., Spanish, English, French, etc., etc., not all of these languages following the same "pronunciation" rules, which in turn can alter the standard English spelling rules. So in essence C3 required no extra measure of protection because names already provide that. So here again, without the proper key any attempt to blindly decode this cipher is fruitless, just as with C1, yet for different reasons.
If you're going to attempt to dabble in the mysteries within these codes then at least try to understand some of the most "very basic" elements of ciphers before you take up that challenge. Otherwise you risk never being taken seriously by those that do understand. What you're attempting at present only shows how little you really understand about the subject.
I have deposited in the county of Bedford, about four miles from Buford's, in an excavation or vault, six feet below the surfaceof the ground, the following articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith: (12)
The first deposit consisted of one thousand and fourteen pounds of gold, and three thousand eight hundred and twelve pounds of silver, deposited November, 1819. The second was made December, 1821, and consisted of nineteen hundred and seven pounds of gold, and twelve hundred and eighty-eight pounds of silver; also jewels, obtained in St. Louis in exchange for silver to save transportation, and valued at $13,000. (23)
The above is securely packed in iron pots, with iron covers. 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. (15)
Masterpoe, the randomly selected but relevant text above contains 159 words, of those 50 begin with the letters i,e,o,a,, or right at 32% of the entire text, which is within the general norm based on the written English language. So what you are proposing is to suggest that any author's text which maintains similar results to the text above probably knew our unknown author? If so then most every author who has ever lived knew each other.
This is the type of basic stuff you're not understanding in a lot of your presented logics. So instead of trying to prove something can be true and/or relevant perhaps you should first spend the time to make basic understanding as to why it isn't and/or can't be. This refusal to research the contrary facts, and/or the continued denial of these contrary facts, has been the downfall of nearly every theory or proposal since day one. Nobody is self checking their own logic beforehand, and mainly due to what they fear/know they might discover.
I have deposited in the county of Bedford, about four miles from Buford's, in an excavation or vault, six feet below the surfaceof the ground, the following articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number "3," herewith: (12)
The first deposit consisted of one thousand and fourteen pounds of gold, and three thousand eight hundred and twelve pounds of silver, deposited November, 1819. The second was made December, 1821, and consisted of nineteen hundred and seven pounds of gold, and twelve hundred and eighty-eight pounds of silver; also jewels, obtained in St. Louis in exchange for silver to save transportation, and valued at $13,000. (23)
The above is securely packed in iron pots, with iron covers. 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. (15)
Masterpoe, the randomly selected but relevant text above contains 159 words, of those 50 begin with the letters i,e,o,a,, or right at 32% of the entire text, which is within the general norm based on the written English language. So what you are proposing is to suggest that any author's text which maintains similar results to the text above probably knew our unknown author? If so then most every author who has ever lived knew each other.
This is the type of basic stuff you're not understanding in a lot of your presented logics. So instead of trying to prove something can be true and/or relevant perhaps you should first spend the time to make basic understanding as to why it isn't and/or can't be. This refusal to research the contrary facts, and/or the continued denial of these contrary facts, has been the downfall of nearly every theory or proposal since day one. Nobody is self checking their own logic beforehand, and mainly due to what they fear/know they might discover.
