Hopeful Decoders Take Note!

[Rebel - KGC]

Maybe, in her book...?

[jhonnz41]

Sir Rebel you seem to know something that I don't please help.

[Eldo]

Jean, Legrand, Masterpoe, Franklin, and others who have dabbled at trying to decode C1, you folks need to read this and understand these existing conditions.

C1, C2, C3, lay them all next to each other and then take note of their differences. In C3 we have no 4 digit codes, in C2 we have only one, this being used for the letter “x” as there are no words in the DOI/key that begin with x so 1000 was used to express the letter x. In C1, however, we find 19 four digit codes. The question you should now ask yourselves is, “why are there 19 four digit codes in C1 and none in the other ciphers?” This question has lead to some profound discoveries that I'm going to share with you now.

C1, computer anaylisis of this cipher has concluded that C1 CAN'T POSSIBLY CONTAIN A GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT CLEAR TEXT as it is presented, 132 years of thousands of trial and error attempts also serving to establish this cold hard fact. However, and due to those 19 four digit codes, this doesn't mean that no grammatically correct clear text can exist in C1. Confused? Then allow me to explain further. THE USE OF A HOMOPHONIC CIPHER, OR A VARIABLE SHIFT ALPHABET CAN, BUT IS A FUTILE CIPHER TO BE USED TO PASS TO ANOTHER TO DECODE, UNLESS THERE IS A KEY. YOU ALSO CAN ACHIEVE THIS BY HAVING A KEYED SHIFT OF AN ALPHABET. JIM GILOGLY DID DISCOVER AN ALPHABETICAL STRAND, AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, IT WAS PLACED AT THE 500TH NUMBER IN THE CIPHER (REMEMBER THE STORYLINE WHERE IT TALKED ABOUT HOW ALL WENT 500 MILES ON THE RETURN TRIPS AND HOW SOME WENT BACK? AS IN A REVERSED USE IN SOME?)

Right from the very start code-breaking hopefuls have ASSUMED that similar C2 process was to be used to decode C1, (NOT EVERYONE BTW) but what if the author of these three ciphers was counting on that very thing? YOU ARE COUNTING ON THAT VERY THING BIGSCOOP. In recent post I have often said that I can't think of a single hiding place that I couldn't tell you about in a single sentence, the average English sentence being between 13 & 20 words. DID YOU BURY THE TROVE AND MAKE THE CIPHERS? THIS LOOK LIKE COMMON SENSE TO YOU? So let us assume that our coder used four digit codes to create that single sentence and then he simply hid that coded sentence within a bunch of randomly selected code “that could never produce a grammatically correct clear text.” In this scenario hopeful decoders would spend the rest of their lives trying to produce a clear text where none can't exist, the coder's real message safe and sound within all of his randomly placed bait, the bait he has even made certain that everyone would continue to chase due to his C2 example. (THIS SOUNDS LIKE ORANCHEK TALKING ABOUT HOW HE SOLVED THE ZODIAC Z340)

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF STENNOS? NOT SONNETS, BUT STENNOS.....REMOVAL OF VOWELS AND OTHER SILENT CONSONANTS? A CLASSIC TECHNIQUE BTW....

Now then, and swallowing our prides for just a moment, if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the other codes in C1 can't possibly contain a grammatically correct clear text, which we do know now, then where else might that clear text be hidden in C1 if it indeed contains such a clear text?

Still doubt this very real possibility? Then consider that other unintelligible missing piece of paper that the author referenced in his narration, what dare I ask, other purpose could it have served if C1 can't possibly contain a grammatically clear text by the same process as C2? Could that unintelligible missing paper have contained random words with four digit codes assigned to each? If there is any hope that true clear text exist in C1 then this is that only hope as all existing evidence points to this very thing. (A BIG HOAX ISLAND WHAT IF?)

How absolutely brilliant would this have been, the hiding of something so short and exact in the midst of so many totally meaningless codes. Of course the only way to know for sure is by finding that unintelligible missing piece of paper the author claims he was hoping to bring to light. And by the way, how did he even know there was another unintelligible missing piece of paper? (YOU MEAN THE DOI THAT JUSTINTIME OWNS?....YOU CALLING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 'UNINTELLIGIBLE' ?)

So it is all of the above that renders all of these proposed solves totally meaningless and completely void of any accuracy or truth, all of them being the simple manufacture of those who created them. Nothing more. Science and cold hard facts simply mandate and expose all of this other none-sense for what they are, “simple human creations.” Your author tells you that you MUST first possess that unintelligible missing piece of paper and none of you have it. How do you explain all of this away?

132 years of thousands of trial and error attempts

Since it was fabricated as a story and published in 1885? That is 136 years, not 132 bud.....just sayin'....you must first be able to count to 500 and not lose your place if you want to find that magic key.....

A PROFESSIONAL TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS THERE FOR A REASON AND YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT TO ASSERT YOUR OWN WANDERING THEORY LEAVING NO DIRECTION FOR OTHERS, STAGING YOUR OWN SIDESHOW MYSTERY IN THE WAKE OF YOUR NEW DISCOVERY

How 'Authentic Statements' about the Beale are so hard to trust these days.....

[Eldo]

Franklin, again, from the narration:

"it may possibly remain in the hands of some relative or friend of Beale's, or some other person engaged in the enterprise with him. That they would attach no importance to a seemingly unintelligible writing seems quite natural; but their attention being called to them by the publication of this narrative, may result in eventually bringing to light the missing paper."

So tell me, Franklin, how is it possible that your author knows of this missing paper and that it will be unintelligible?
Very-very clearly, there is only one way in which he could know. "PERIOD!"

Would he be a part of a splinter group of Masons called the KGC?

Would he be mentioning the Declaration of Independence they had when raiding Jefferson's estate?

Would unintelligible mean that certain parts were erased and some holes were burned in it?

So many questions

[jhonnz41]

C1, computer anaylisis of this cipher has concluded that C1 CAN'T POSSIBLY CONTAIN A GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT CLEAR TEXT as it is presented, 132 years of thousands of trial and error attempts also serving to establish this cold hard fact. However, and due to those 19 four digit codes, this doesn't mean that no grammatically correct clear text can exist in C1. Confused? Then allow me to explain further.

Right from the very start code-breaking hopefuls have ASSUMED that similar C2 process was to be used to decode C1, but what if the author of these three ciphers was counting on that very thing? In recent post I have often said that I can't think of a single hiding place that I couldn't tell you about in a single sentence, the average English sentence being between 13 & 20 words. So let us assume that our coder used four digit codes to create that single sentence and then he simply hid that coded sentence within a bunch of randomly selected code “that could never produce a grammatically correct clear text.” In this scenario hopeful decoders would spend the rest of their lives trying to produce a clear text where none can't exist, the coder's real message safe and sound within all of his randomly placed bait, the bait he has even made certain that everyone would continue to chase due to his C2 example.

Now then, and swallowing our prides for just a moment, if we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the other codes in C1 can't possibly contain a grammatically correct clear text, which we do know now, then where else might that clear text be hidden in C1 if it indeed contains such a clear text?

Still doubt this very real possibility? Then consider that other unintelligible missing piece of paper that the author referenced in his narration, what dare I ask, other purpose could it have served if C1 can't possibly contain a grammatically clear text by the same process as C2? Could that unintelligible missing paper have contained random words with four digit codes assigned to each? If there is any hope that true clear text exist in C1 then this is that only hope as all existing evidence points to this very thing.

How absolutely brilliant would this have been, the hiding of something so short and exact in the midst of so many totally meaningless codes. Of course the only way to know for sure is by finding that unintelligible missing piece of paper the author claims he was hoping to bring to light. And by the way, how did he even know there was another unintelligible missing piece of paper?

So it is all of the above that renders all of these proposed solves totally meaningless and completely void of any accuracy or truth, all of them being the simple manufacture of those who created them. Nothing more. Science and cold hard facts simply mandate and expose all of this other none-sense for what they are, “simple human creations.” Your author tells you that you MUST first possess that unintelligible missing piece of paper and none of you have it. How do you explain all of this away?

This is a good one.

[Eldo]

If this is the two part paper that was torn in two, and the numbers added are unintelligible then it is obvious that he used a coded variable to represent a key for two different sections

But it could just be a form of a planted null to confuse...who knows

[jhonnz41]

If this is the two part paper that was torn in two, and the numbers added are unintelligible then it is obvious that he used a coded variable to represent a key for two different sections

But it could just be a form of a planted null to confuse...who knows

Where did you get this link Eldo? who post this?

[Rebel - KGC]

OLD; from a book. Is it "real"...? Dunno.

[jhonnz41]

I also wonder, is the warehouse fire that destroyed most of the pamphlets an accident?

[Rebel - KGC]

No. It was a LONG, COLD Winter...

[jhonnz41]

So. How did the fire start? did someone purposely start the fire?

[Rebel - KGC]

Fire was in 1883, wasn't it...?

[bigscoop]

Where did you get this link Eldo? who post this?

"You really need to research all of the prior research" that has already been done on this tale over the years. This is a very-very questionable piece of "alleged" evidence from a very-very questionable source. The fact that you've never encountered this before speaks volumes as to your complete lack of prior research efforts prior to your trying to construct this new theory that you're pursuing. "You really need to know the subject very well first before you start trying to build theories." Otherwise you're working backwards and solely on preferential speculation.

[jhonnz41]

"You really need to research all of the prior research" that has already been done on this tale over the years. This is a very-very questionable piece of "alleged" evidence from a very-very questionable source. The fact that you've never encountered this before speaks volumes as to your complete lack of prior research efforts prior to your trying to construct this new theory that you're pursuing. "You really need to know the subject very well first before you start trying to build theories." Otherwise you're working backwards and solely on preferential speculation.

I am trying to figure out the Landmarks and plot it properly. Some research feels irrelevant to the topic, but not all. The fact that the name of Thomas Beale and Thomas J. Beale is questionable, even if we got planter's hotel, or the duel with Risque. It feels so much incomplete, it was not mentioned in page 2 or the Beale papers(Even in page 1 and 3)..

The only thing that I am basing is the page 3 which suggest that Thomas J. Beale was only an alias.."Return to the harbor-like formation in the blueridge, show I named name for I in his called it as Illustrious King. Without hesitation, follow the coast of that isle toward's the west(Sheep creek) to Mary, The majesty who has wonderfully grant us the island located at the end of Santa Maria. Of the Noble's are the owner of the Harkening Hill that our Captain has took posession."

Why not say Show my name? instead of Show I named name(TJB). He also mentioned he used another name in page 3. the Fifth Juana as if a name that has John on it. I don't really mind about the treasure, i just to learn something.

[bigscoop]

I am trying to figure out the Landmarks and plot it properly. Some research feels irrelevant to the topic, but not all. The fact that the name of Thomas Beale and Thomas J. Beale is questionable, even if we got planter's hotel, or the duel with Risque. It feels so much incomplete, it was not mentioned in page 2 or the Beale papers(Even in page 1 and 3)..

The only thing that I am basing is the page 3 which suggest that Thomas J. Beale was only an alias.."Return to the harbor-like formation in the blueridge, show I named name for I in his called it as Illustrious King. Without hesitation, follow the coast of that isle toward's the west(Sheep creek) to Mary, The majesty who has wonderfully grant us the island located at the end of Santa Maria. Of the Noble's are the owner of the Harkening Hill that our Captain has took posession."

Why not say Show my name? instead of Show I named name(TJB). He also mentioned he used another name in page 3. the Fifth Juana as if a name that has John on it. I don't really mind about the treasure, i just to learn something.

Myself and others have been trying to tell you "this cold hard fact"........you can find whatever you desire to find in the cleartext of those ciphers! i.e., if you want them to speak of Christopher Columbus in some way then you can certainly produce those results. If you want them to speak of Walt Disney and Disney World then you can certainly produce those results too. The same can be said of the tale itself as the long history of exactly that has occurred hundreds of times since the narration was published, dozens of such cases in just the last 25 years, everything from the Freemasons to French explorers to the Thomas Beale of China fame, to the KGC, and the list goes on and on and on. If you can imagine it then you can likewise build a new theory around whatever it is that you imagine to be possible, even a Christopher Columbus letter, just one of a thousand other writings that have also been used in exactly the same way. There's a very good reason why this same exact failed process continues to happen.