Rebel - KGC
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2007
- 21,680
- 14,739
WHO do YOU think the "UNKNOWN AUTHOR" was...?From my book:
"Beyond its historical problems, the easiest way to prove the Papers are in fact a fiction, is to simply check the author’s work against his word. In the Beale Papers, the author provides us with what he says was the encoded message contained in Cipher #2, stating he achieved it by using the Declaration of Independence as its key; first numbering the words of the famous document (When (1) in (2) the (3) course (4) of (5) human (6) events (7) etc), followed by a replacement of each of Cipher #2’s numbers with the first letter of the equivalently-numbered words taken from the Declaration. To help the reader follow along, the author provided a number-keyed version of the Declaration in the Papers. According to the author, Beale’s encoded message contained in Cipher #2 stated the following;
“I have deposited, in the county of Bedford, about four miles from Buford’s, in an excavation or vault, six feet below the surface of the ground, the following articles, belonging jointly to the parties whose names are given in number “3” herewith:
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.
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.”
But does it really say this? When Cipher #2’s message is checked against the formal Declaration of Independence (the “official” document engrossed by Timothy Matlack- not the one provided in the Beale Papers or unofficial “versions” produced later), it actually produces in some sections, an almost completely unreadable message; one littered with 141 errors (out of 762 total letters- see below):
“I hare deposcted in the copnty ol Bedoort about four miles from Bulords in an eocaration or rault sio fest below the surlacs of ths gtount ths fotlowing artgciss beaonging joiptlf to the parties whosl namfs ste gireo in number thrfl hatewith
Oha first deposit cootistcd of tgn hpodred and loprteeu pouttr of gold aod tsirtf eight supdted and tweire pounds of silrer deposited Nor eighteen nineteen. The second wao abds Dec fighteen twentf onl bnt aonsintad oh ninetfln husdred and seren pobnda oo gold bod twelre hundted aod eightf eigst of silrer aiso aewels obtained in St. Touit in eochange to sbrs trinsportation aod raluet as thitteeo rhousand dollars.
The abore is secwtflf packsd it ton pots wits wroo corers Tht rault is rougslf lined wtts stone and the resselr rest on solid stone and are corsrfd uish othats. Paper nuaber one descrialr thc aoaat localitf oo tsa rarlt oo that to difoicultf will lc sad to finding it.”
But the evidence which truly, and without question, convicts the Beale Papers as a fictional document occurs however, when the numbers of Cipher #2 are run once again; this time using the version of the Declaration provided with the Papers by its unknown author. And while it’s not mistake-free either, when this Beale-version of the Declaration is used, the amount of errors drops substantially; from a whopping 141 mistakes to just 28; or an 18% error rate to just 3%. This should be impossible for a number of reasons, the primary reason being simply that if the ciphers were produced by Beale in 1821 he could only have produced them using the official version of the Declaration, as there were no unofficial textbook versions which differed from the original, created that early. There is also a substantial amount of numbering and word mistakes found in the Beale-version of the Declaration, and thus by rights, it should not track so closely with the numbered letters of Cipher #2 - and yet it’s very obvious that it does.
Using the Beale Paper-version of the Declaration, the following message is provided; not exactly the error free version contained in the Papers, but close:
“I have deposited in the countf of Bedford about foir miles from Bufords ln an ercavation or vault sir feet below the surface of the grount the following articles belonging jointlf to the parties whose names are given in number three herewith
The first deposit consisted of ten hundred and fourteen pounds of gold and thirtf eight hundred and ttelve pornds of silver deposited Nov eighteen nineteen. The second was made Eec eighteen twentf one and consisted of nineteen hunared and seven pornde of gold and twelve hundred and eightf eight of silver also jewels obtained in St. Louis in erchange to save transportation and valued at thirteen rhousand dollars.
The above is secrrelf packed it ron pots with iron covers. The vault is roughlf lined with stone and the vessels rest on solid stone and are covered uith others. Paper number one describes thc eract localitf of the varlt so that ho difficultf will be had in finding it.”
At a minimum, the version of the Declaration provided with the Beale Papers was clearly patterned after one of any number of unofficial 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century textbook versions of the official document, each of which took a variety of “modernization” liberties with the official wording and format of the original. For example, in most of these later versions, all of the proper nouns capitalized on the official original; such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” have been changed to lower-case and become; “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. This too has occurred on the Beale DOI (“DOI” short for Declaration of Independence).
Additionally, a modernization of spelling evident in these 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century versions is also present in the Beale DOI; “unalienable” becoming “inalienable”, “mean time” becoming “meantime”, “shewn” becoming “shown”, “neighbouring” becoming “neighboring”, “compleat” becoming “complete”, and “endeavours” becoming “endeavored), as well as a dropping of plurals; “migrations” becoming “migration”, “legislatures” becoming “legislature”, and “attentions becoming “attention”. Many of these unofficial 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century versions also divert from the original, by the adding of three words; “a, “made” and “the”, as well changing the word “forms” to “powers”.
But the Beale DOI also has peculiarities unique to itself. It contains ten words which are different from the original DOI, and which are also not found on any later unofficial versions of the DOI; “their” instead of “these”, “when” instead of “whenever”, “now” instead of “more”, “their” instead of “the”, “depositary” instead of “depository”, “of” instead of “for”, “offered” instead of “affected”, “in” instead of “into”, “connections” instead of “connection” and a dropping of an “of”. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, many 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century versions make two additional changes to the original DOI which the Beale DOI did not follow; the removal of a plural (“dangers” to “danger”) and an adding of a hyphen (from “fellow citizens” to “fellow-citizens”).
None of these changes, other than “unalienable” to “inalienable”, “forms” to “powers” “more” to “now” and “affected” to “offered” would affect the message produced by Cipher #2, as the starting letter of these words were never used in the cipher, but the adding of words as well as the deletion of others, should have thrown the numbering of the cipher off completely- and yet it doesn’t. For Cipher #2’s message to have improved by 15% using a highly flawed number-keyed version of the Declaration- with added, deleted and entirely changed words, one can only conclude that the author of the Beale Papers and the author of Cipher #2 are in fact the same person and that the message of #2, supposedly written in 1821, was in fact encoded using the Beale-version of the Declaration in the 1880s; both written to serve the other. There can be no other explanation nor are there any credible alternative conclusions unless one makes considerable excuses for the author’s faulty encoding techniques.
Unfortunately and historically, this is what has occurred. Most researchers today are fully content in giving the author the benefit of the doubt, and accepting of the fact that the version of Declaration included with Papers actually “works” provided the following modifications are made to it first:
1) - a word is added after the word "institute" but before the word "laying"
2) - a word is added after "invariably" but a word is removed before the word “design”
3) - after the word "houses" but before the word "be"- ten more words must be also be
removed.
4) - after the word "eat" another word must be removed before the word “to”
5) -after the word "foreign" but before the word "valuable" a thirteenth word must be removed.
Furthermore, once these modifications have been established, the first letter of the 811th word "fundamentally", must be given the value of "y", while the first letter of the 1005th word "have", must be given the value of "x"- and most incredibly, even after all these modifications there are still four spelling errors in the message of Cipher #2 which cannot be cured and have been chalked up by most credible Beale researchers as simple transcription errors on the part of the author.
And it is this acceptance by the Beale “research community” (such that it is), of these “mistakes” as honest mistakes, and in particular their subsequent corrections, which is the primary cause of why the Papers have remained unsolved. It is much too forgiving as well as assumptive, that these mistakes are in fact accidental, and/or uncaught mistakes. This presumption subsequently provides an incorrect backdrop from which all acceptable work has then been predicated upon as well as accepted by other Beale researchers. The solution to the Papers is actually far simpler- demonstrably so, in fact.
If the Beale ciphers were written in 1821, they could have only been encoded using the official Declaration produced in 1776, as there were none of the later textbook variations of the document available to the layman in 1821. Subsequently, even if we give the unknown author the benefit of the doubt; that he was ignorant of this fact, and incorrectly used a modern version to decode Cipher #2, the 141 mistakes created by using the original, versus the 28 produced by the version included in the Papers, suggests otherwise.
The Beale-version of the DOI contains elements only found in the official original DOI as well as elements found in later unofficial textbook versions of the DOI- meaning Beale in 1821 would also had to have had access to both- an obvious impossibility, thus the unknown author IS Beale. So why didn’t he use the older official one to ensure historical accuracy? Again, the obvious answer is the right one; either he was sloppy, or he purposefully manipulated it."
