Beale Papers "END GAME!"

[Cryptography]

And I might add, if we were drawing three cards from a hat and the order in which they were drawn held no relevance then your odds of chance would be closely correct. However, when we factor in the multiples of possible orders to those odds, as those possible variables are relevant to the presented task, then I believe you will find those odds against success on the first attempt to be much-much higher. Because the correct order is relevant then those odds would have to become factoring variables and thus multiplied by all of the possible combinations.

Wow. ( A set of three papers (labeled 1,2,3) can be shuffled randomly and will have only 6 possible resulting combinations. (1,2,3 - 1,3,2,- 2,1,3 - 2,3,1, - 3,1,2 - 3,2,1 )
So if the pamphleteer were to select and label the three (previously unlabeled) ciphers completely at random he would still have a 1/6 (or 16.6%) chance of matching the original author's selection. But - we don't know for certain he did. We can't know for certain until someone positively breaks at least one more of the codes.In fact, the only thing we know for certain is that both men labeled #2 as "2" and there are two possible combinations that contain that. This means that the pamphleteer has a 2/6 chance based upon the evidence that we currently have. That's a 1/3 probability purely by random chance!)

MPL has this one in the bag BS!
BS you sound like my X wives, sorry your marage to the bale papers ended in divorce but give it a rest.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Cryptography]

MatPoetLaw is king of this thread.
B slappin BigScoop down!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Hoo boy. More shuffling. More distance between the two writings.

HA! The HART PAPERS has the word, "FIGURES", too! FIGURES...? Not NUMBERS...?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

MatPoetLaw is king of this thread.
B slappin BigScoop down!

Such VIOLENCE!

 

[ECS]

...In fact, the only thing we know for certain is that both men labeled #2 as "2" ...

...Unless, of course, it was created by ONE author and the solved cipher was "BAIT" to generate interest and sales of the pamphlet, and the other two remaining ciphers are just a jumble of random numbers "to cloud men's minds".

 

[Cryptography]

Such VIOLENCE!

You got me crying now!

 

[Cryptography]

...Unless, of course, it was created by ONE author and the solved cipher was "BAIT" to generate interest and sales of the pamphlet, and the other two remaining ciphers are just a jumble of random numbers "to cloud men's minds".

Thats what i said about BigScoop's post. LOL

 

[ECS]

Such VIOLENCE!

Must have got bitten on Buzzards Roost!
OH, the humanity!

 

[bigscoop]

You got me crying now!

As you should rightly be...
Your author wasn't playing a single game of chance, as you propose, but rather he had to be dead on the very first try. The actual odds against him would involve three possible selections for "each" of the three positions in the game, so the overall odds against him would actually be calculated as follows:
1x3
2x3
3x3
Much higher then what has been proposed.

You have to remember that our author allegedly numbered the ciphers "before" he ever knew the clear text for C2, not after. So in this regard his chosen arrangement would have to beat the odds of 1x3, 2x3, 3x3, the odds against him compounding after each of his chosen selections....his odds do not get better as he progresses.

 

[MadPoetLaw]

Nobody is suggesting 100% that the author and the writer of the codes were the same person, only 100% that they shared the same knowledge as to the contents and order of the alleged ciphers.

What has to be considered is that the author has already stated that there was no known order to the three ciphers when he came into possession of them and that "he" devised a plan to arrange them according to their length and then assign the numerical values of 1,2, and 3 to the ciphers. But here's the issue.....

"How did the writer of the codes in 1821, when creating the clear text for C2, know that at some later point in the distant future that someone was going to arrange the ciphers according to their length and then assign the numerical values of 1,2, and 3 in that correct order?" Why not A,B,C? What if the author had laid the ciphers out according to their length in reverse order, etc.? So how did the writer of the codes know what exact process someone else was going to use so many years into the future?

We have to remember that the author is telling us that there was no known order to the ciphers when they came into his possession and that it was solely by his own devise that the ciphers came to be arranged in the present order. So, how is it possible that he could be 100% certain that his order is the accurate order?

So you see, there is only one way that the presented order can be the 100% intended order.

One more possibility occurred to me today also. At what point in time did the pamphleteer label the ciphers 1,2,3 ? According to the legend it was him and not Morris who decoded #2 correct ? So if he worked on the ciphers and successfully decoded #2 and had access to it's plain text before labeling the ciphers then there is no mystery here at all. Also you state that the cipher author and the pamphleteer "must have shared the same knowledge as to the contents and order of the alleged ciphers". Well, essentially they did - they both had access to the ciphers and the "note". But again i don't see how this disproves the legend in any way.

And I might add, if we were drawing three cards from a hat and the order in which they were drawn held no relevance then your odds of chance would be closely correct. However, when we factor in the multiples of possible orders to those odds, as those possible variables are relevant to the presented task, then I believe you will find those odds against success on the first attempt to be much-much higher. Because the correct order is relevant then those odds would have to become factoring variables and thus multiplied by all of the possible combinations.

In my example I tried to strictly stay with the parameters of the puzzle as stated within the legend as such:

What is the probability that one man can randomly match a predetermined order of 3 unlabeled objects. = 1/6 = 16.6% and
What is the probability that he can just get #2 in the correct position = 2/6 = 33.3%


There really are no "multiples of possible orders" here to factor unless you change those parameters. 3 objects can only be arranged in 6 combinations.

Perhaps you are thinking of something like - "What are the odds that two separate people can randomly chose the same exact combination of 3 objects". But then you are straying outside the essence of the facts as presented in the legend.

 

[bigscoop]

One more possibility occurred to me today also. At what point in time did the pamphleteer label the ciphers 1,2,3 ? According to the legend it was him and not Morris who decoded #2 correct ? So if he worked on the ciphers and successfully decoded #2 and had access to it's plain text before labeling the ciphers then there is no mystery here at all. Also you state that the cipher author and the pamphleteer "must have shared the same knowledge as to the contents and order of the alleged ciphers". Well, essentially they did - they both had access to the ciphers and the "note". But again i don't see how this disproves the legend in any way.

We can certainly speculate alternatives, but these are not facts as presented in the pamphlet, the only source of information known to us. So according to the author he indeed numbered them according to their length "before" he ever decoded the first cipher. But this is all for not as the really BIG question has yet to be placed before you, but here it comes.

In 1821, how did the coder of C2 know that some decoder in the distant future was going decode C2 first? It is only in C2 that the exact alleged contents of C1 & C3 are revealed in alleged preparation for the final decoding of them.

So you see, and sticking only to the facts presented in the pamphlet, not only did the coder of the ciphers know ahead of time what process some decoder in the distant future was going to use, but, he also knew ahead of time which cipher that distant decoder was going to decode first. And all of this, according to the author, without any instruction or communication whatsoever from the original coder.

Now we can debated the calculating of the overall odds until the cows come home without ever reaching mutual understanding/ground, but when we factor in the compound variables associated with those very same odds, well, I think you'd have to agree that the overall odds against such a feat begin to skyrocket.

 

[MadPoetLaw]

As you should rightly be...
Your author wasn't playing a single game of chance, as you propose, but rather he had to be dead on the very first try. The actual odds against him would involve three possible selections for "each" of the three positions in the game, so the overall odds against him would actually be calculated as follows:
1x3
2x3
3x3
Much higher then what has been proposed.

You have to remember that our author allegedly numbered the ciphers "before" he ever knew the clear text for C2, not after. So in this regard his chosen arrangement would have to beat the odds of 1x3, 2x3, 3x3, the odds against him compounding after each of his chosen selections....his odds do not get better as he progresses.

I think i will have to respectfully disagree with your math at this point. The true possible combinations of 3 objects would be expressed as 3*2*1 = 6

It wouldn't matter how many times he tries each and every try will have the same odds = 1/6. Including his first try.

 

[bigscoop]

I think i will have to respectfully disagree with your math at this point. The true possible combinations of 3 objects would be expressed as 3*2*1 = 6

It wouldn't matter how many times he tries each and every try will have the same odds = 1/6. Including his first try.

This is what I originally thought but this is Wrong! You see, since our author never knew if his first selection was correct then each time he progresses to the next location and selection you have to factor in the odds that he may have already used the correct cipher selection for the next location. So instead of having three choices for location two he now only has 2, and they could both be wrong. At location three he now only has one option instead of 3, and the odds say that that one option is likely to be wrong. So each time he blindly uses up one of his options the odds of success continue to mount against him, not for him.

 

[bigscoop]

The daily three lottery game is much the same blind game as we are debating here. In this game we have 1-9 as our choices, the odds against hitting a straight are 1:1000.


If we reduce these lottery numbers by 2/3 to only the numbers 1-3 then what are our odds against hitting a straight now? Are they 1:3, 1:6, 1:9 or are the odds, as with the game, now likewise reduced by 2/3, and now they stand at 1:333?

 

[ECS]

... The Code Paper Cyphers that Clayton Hart obtained of H. Newton Hazelwood was 8 pages. Maybe these 8 pages were the original cypher papers? Newton was descended from the Otey Family and the ironbox was found in the possession of the Otey Family in Roanoke, Va. by Mrs. Pauline Innis.

Ward's daughter, Adeline McVeigh, said her father WAS the author of the Beale Papers, but had never seen the iron box or the ciphers that were contained therein. It has been established the family connection between the Harts and Oteys, but how did they come into possession of the iron box?

 

[ECS]

Wasn't John William Sherman's mother Harriet P Otey Sherman?
James Beverly Ward married Harriet C Otey.
That would bring us back to the Ward/Sherman connection to the Beale Papers.

 

[bigscoop]

He did not know which code paper was which. He said he had the cypher numbers in his head in their correct order. I could never remember more than one line or two of the cyphers and I worked on them for years. So the author must have worked on them a long time to remember all of the cyphers in their correct order. He says he systematically worked on them one at a time until by accident he found the DOI to break one of them. And the code paper decoded said that the other two were code paper number one and code paper number three. The encoder and the author were not one and the same.

We're only concerned here with the arrangement of the ciphers as they are known as 1,2,3, and how that order came about according to the author. But the real bomb isn't even the holes in his explanation as to how he allegedly numbered them, but rather the real bomb in his ship is C2 itself. If the clear text for C2 was really written in or about 1821 then how did the writer of that clear text know that the decoder in the distant future, our author, would decode C2 first, this clear text then going on to explain what was in C1 and C3? How did the writer of the ciphers in 1821 know that the author was even going to number them 1,2,3 according to their length? Make no mistake, he had have known beforehand. And as for the alleged iron box....absolutely no proof whatsoever that it ever really existed. There is no original iron box. There are no original ciphers. There are no original letters. "Everything" has come after the publication of the pamphlet and/or from the pamphlet, nothing before, not even a rumor.

 

[ECS]

... And as for the alleged iron box....absolutely no proof whatsoever that it ever really existed. There is no original iron box. There are no original ciphers. There are no original letters. "Everything" has come after the publication of the pamphlet and/or from the pamphlet, nothing before, not even a rumor.

Which always brings us back to Ward and Sherman, and the Risqué extended family bloodline, of which they both belong.

 

[bigscoop]

Which always brings us back to Ward and Sherman, and the Risqué extended family bloodline, of which they both belong.

I don't even see the need or reason for an extended family thing....the author could have been anyone but at this point it really doesn't matter. What we do know, and very conclusively I might add, is that the author's details can't possibly be accurate/true as presented, so why place any trust in anything else he has written, especially when there is absolutely zero supporting evidence to any of it?

 

[ECS]

The "author(s)" seemed to have used names and events that involved various members of that extended family bloodline and wove that skein into the fabric in which the Beale adventure and treasure story are clothed.