Cipher 1 solve using DOI

[chalkoutline]

For those of you who have studied the Beale Chiphers.
How positive are you on the words "Buford's"?
... there are several other "xxxford's"
I asked because I've located three map references to three different Buford and as I said other xxxFord

A different xxxford makes more sense to me than Buford.
But I haven't looked a the decoding.

There definitely two Bufords in the 1864 map.

https://www.loc.gov/item/gvhs01.vhs00340/

One i located to the west just south of Bufords depot which is now Montvale and the second is further east just past the zion church. I think isaw a video indicating that the one by the Zion church burned down and moved to the Montvale location. I don't know the year.

I also used my decoder to shift the cipher numbers 1 through 10 positions left and right simulatind skipped words or numbers when creating Cipher 2. I got...Bifords, Bafords, and Bofords.

 

[chalkoutline]

There definitely two Bufords in the 1864 map.

https://www.loc.gov/item/gvhs01.vhs00340/

One i located to the west just south of Bufords depot which is now Montvale and the second is further east just past the zion church. I think isaw a video indicating that the one by the Zion church burned down and moved to the Montvale location. I don't know the year.

I also used my decoder to shift the cipher numbers 1 through 10 positions left and right simulatind skipped words or numbers when creating Cipher 2. I got...Bifords, Bafords, and Bofords.

You will find the three Bufords in TNET post...

True Location of Bufords Tavern​

Here is what Franklin said...
The brick building owned by the Howell Family sits along side US 460 on the right as you enter Montvale going East towards Lynchburg from Roanoke. This brick building was built by Paschal Buford in 1822 after his father Henry died. The old tavern that TJB would have visited is located immediately behing the brick building. The old chimney still stands and the Buford Cemetery is across the left fork of Goose Creek. Now before TJB came to Buford's. The Buford's had a tavern further up towards Buford's Gap near where the Spring Pipe is still beside the road. This was on the old Indian Trail Road. It crossed the Blue Ridge Mountains toward Obenchain's Tavern.

 

[Lestrada]

For those of you who have studied the Beale Chiphers.
How positive are you on the words "Buford's"?
... there are several other "xxxford's"
I asked because I've located three map references to three different Buford and as I said other xxxFord

A different xxxford makes more sense to me than Buford.
But I haven't looked a the decoding.

The decode of the word "Buford's" at cipher B2 index[53:59] is almost certain.
In the Beale papers Buford is mentioned( M ) 3 times:
M1
"securely buried in a cave near Buford's tavern, in the county of Bedford, which all of us had visited".
M2
"Stopping at Buford's, where we remained for a month, under pretense of hunting, &c., we visited the cave".
M3
"I have deposited, in the county of Bedford, about four miles from Buford's".
-- M3 is the actual decode of B2 by the "The writer" given in the Beale papers.

Now if you do the decoding of B2 yourself, you instantly run into an issue based on the misnumbering of the DOI.
The DOI given in the Beale papers has some words numbered, the numbers should match the word count of the DOI text
but there are errors, for example the number 480 occurs twice.

One fix is to make 2 changes starting from the Original Beale version of the DOI to get to a spelling of "Bufords".
BULOTTS <-- Original DOI, no changes.
BTFORDS <-- Change SELF-EVIDENT at DOI index77 to SELF EVIDENT.
BUFORDS <-- One extra word between DOI index240 to index250, change by removing an unused word within this range.

Luckily because of the way the cipher works, a single code number ( which decodes into a single letter )
can be used in the spelling of multiple words, this can used as a kind of cross-check.
the B in Bufords is code 77 and this code is used in 4 different words.
If this code points to a wrong letter then the 3 other words would also be spelt wrong.
Decoded words with code 77: [BUFORDS, BELOW, BELONGING, OBTAINED]
All 7 codes for the letters in BUFORDS ( 77, 250, 196, 56, 96, 118, 71 ) are used in multiple other words.
So we can be certain that BUFORDS is the correct decoding.

{data from wikisource: The_Beale_Papers}

 

[potsherd_creek]

Before 1880, roanoke was called big sick. Bedford va was liberty.

According to the 1885 pamphlet, TB went to Lynchburg to meet Robert Morriss and confirm he was as honest and trustworthy as he was told by other members of the party.

Big Lick

Mark Evans and Tasker Tosh came from Pennsylvania and took up land near the salt licks where Native American and animal trails crossed in the center of the valley.

For generations, those salt marshes, or licks as they were called, had been a gathering place for buffalo, elk and deer, as well as for the Indians who hunted them.

The salt marshes were to lend their name to the first village in the Roanoke Valley, which started on the east-west path as Gainsborough in 1834. The town soon came to be known as Big Lick.

 

[achanceforgold]

The decode of the word "Buford's" at cipher B2 index[53:59] is almost certain.
In the Beale papers Buford is mentioned( M ) 3 times:
M1
"securely buried in a cave near Buford's tavern, in the county of Bedford, which all of us had visited".
M2
"Stopping at Buford's, where we remained for a month, under pretense of hunting, &c., we visited the cave".
M3
"I have deposited, in the county of Bedford, about four miles from Buford's".
-- M3 is the actual decode of B2 by the "The writer" given in the Beale papers.

Now if you do the decoding of B2 yourself, you instantly run into an issue based on the misnumbering of the DOI.
The DOI given in the Beale papers has some words numbered, the numbers should match the word count of the DOI text
but there are errors, for example the number 480 occurs twice.

One fix is to make 2 changes starting from the Original Beale version of the DOI to get to a spelling of "Bufords".
BULOTTS <-- Original DOI, no changes.
BTFORDS <-- Change SELF-EVIDENT at DOI index77 to SELF EVIDENT.
BUFORDS <-- One extra word between DOI index240 to index250, change by removing an unused word within this range.

Luckily because of the way the cipher works, a single code number ( which decodes into a single letter )
can be used in the spelling of multiple words, this can used as a kind of cross-check.
the B in Bufords is code 77 and this code is used in 4 different words.
If this code points to a wrong letter then the 3 other words would also be spelt wrong.
Decoded words with code 77: [BUFORDS, BELOW, BELONGING, OBTAINED]
All 7 codes for the letters in BUFORDS ( 77, 250, 196, 56, 96, 118, 71 ) are used in multiple other words.
So we can be certain that BUFORDS is the correct decoding.

{data from wikisource: The_Beale_Papers}

Thank you sir.
This is very helpful.

 

[Captain Donger Sullivan]

I use an Excel workbook to decode the Beale ciphers and i have attached 2 files: my Cipher 2 solve using the numbered DOI to reveal the treasure description described in the 1885 pamphlet and my Cipher 1 solve using the same numbered DOI.

As shown in my Cipher 1 solve, it looks like gibberish which typically means i have the wrong document: however, you will see there are four alphabetical strings embedded in the Cipher 1 solution with the most obvious string occurring at position 188 where "A through P" are shown in alphabetical sequence.

Since these alphabetical sequences are intentional, this mostly likely means the ciphers are a hoax. One could also conclude the solution is a two step process where the first step to solving the Cipher 1 location is to convert Cipher 1 using the DOI and the second step is to decode the Cipher 1 Solve attachment to the final message using some a deciphering method i am not aware of.

So if the ciphers are real, and uses the 2 step process, one doesn't need to find the correct document to make Cipher 1 readable but rather a Cipher method to use on step 2.

You are close. The strings you see indicate that it is a real cipher though. It’s a two step process +3 shift

 

[chalkoutline]

You are close. The strings you see indicate that it is a real cipher though. It’s a two step process +3 shift

Can you give an example of using a two step process that produces a alphabetical string.
I haven't been able to do it. The closest I came was with a viginere cipher with a lot of contortions.

 

[chalkoutline]

You are close. The strings you see indicate that it is a real cipher though. It’s a two step process +3 shift

I decided to run a test. If the alphabetical string is a result or by-product of the two step encryption method used, then i would expect similar strings/artifacts to show up when other documents are used.

Attached is a comparison of 25 documents i have recently deciphered using Cipher 1. I used green to highlight forward strings and yellow to highlight backward strings.

At best I got 2 character strings where as the DOI had 21. Only 16 are shown in the attached doc.

I can only conclude the alphabetical string, AKA Gillowby string, was intentionally added and did not occur as part of the encryption process or method.

 

[Juskevicius]

I can only conclude the alphabetical string, AKA Gillowby string, was intentionally added and did not occur as part of the encryption process or method.

Yes, as I said before.

 

[chalkoutline]

I decided to run a test. If the alphabetical string is a result or by-product of the two step encryption method used, then i would expect similar strings/artifacts to show up when other documents are used.

Attached is a comparison of 25 documents i have recently deciphered using Cipher 1. I used green to highlight forward strings and yellow to highlight backward strings.

At best I got 2 character strings where as the DOI had 21. Only 16 are shown in the attached doc.

I can only conclude the alphabetical string, AKA Gillowby string, was intentionally added and did not occur as part of the encryption process or method.

I should explain my two step process.
1. Write a message
2. Encrypt that message using a method that produces an unreadable with letters.
For example: a ceasar cipher or a vigenere cipher will produce an unreadable message of scrambledletters..
3. Convert the letters in the encrypted, unreadable message to numbers using a number document.

Therefore, the first step to reverse engineer the message is to use a document to convert the numbers back to letters shown in the table of 25 documents to reveal the scrambled letters/message of the first encryption step.

Since Cipher 1 requires a document with at least 2906 words, I know the DOI is the wrong document for Cipher 1 because it only has 1324 words. Therefore, converting the numbers of Cipher 1 to letters using the DOI should produce similar gibberish as when using any other "wrong" document as supported by the 24 of 25 "wrong" documents in the table.

The fact that the DOI produces such a long alphabetical string while the other 24 can only produces string lengths of 2, indicates the Gillowby string in not natural and only exists through the fabrication of Cipher 1 to do so.

 

[chalkoutline]

Yes, as I said before.

If your theory that the alphabetical strings identify where to use a second document and ignore the string is true, then i would claim that Cipher 1 is impossible since finding just 1 document improbable let alone reverse engineer the first encryption method.

 

[chalkoutline]

If your theory that the alphabetical strings identify where to use a second document and ignore the string is true, then i would claim that Cipher 1 is impossible since finding just 1 document improbable let alone reverse engineer the first encryption method.

Juskevicius,​

I wanted to let you know that I did consider your theory of multiple documents separated by the alphabetical strings. I used an 1864 Bedford County map to create a Cipher 1 message using a similar writing style as that of the Cipher 2 message to understand how much information can be conveyed in the 520 character cipher. I picked a spot at the 4 mile limit mentioned in the pamphlet.

startatbufordsheadwesttowardssionchurchfortwomileswhenyoureachwilliamstaketheroadnorthforoneandonehalfmilesalongoteysfarmgorightattheforkuntilyoureachthewestbrachofgoosecreekfollowthecreekoneeigthofamilewherethewestbranchmeetsthewestbrachofgoosecreekfollowtheeastbranchnorthforonequartermilewhereyouwillfindalargerockoutcropgosoutheastfollowingtheterrainetowardsthetwolargepeaksforahalfmileHeadeastbetweenthetwolargepeaksonthefarsideofthetwopeaksheadsouthtoagraniteoutcropandlocatearockmarkerdigsixfeetdownforthetreasure 520

start at bufords
1. head west towards zion church for two miles
2. when you reach williams take the road north for one and one half miles along oteys farm
3. go right at the fork until your each the west branch of goose creek
4. follow the creek one eigth of a mile where the west branch meets the west branch of goose creek
5. follow the east branch north for one quarter mile where you will find a large rock out crop
6. go southeast following the terrain towards the two large peaks for a half mile
7. Head east between the two large peaks on the far side of the two peaks
8. head south to a granite out crop and locate a rock marker
9. Dig six feet down for the treasure

Based on this analysis, the direction to the treasure could contain 6 direction changes; fewer if closer to Bufords. There are actually 4 alphabetical strings of which I focused on the longest starting at location 188. So it is reasonable that the directions contain 5 direction changes separated by the alphabetical strings and protected by 5 different documents. The majority of the cipher numbers ocurr after the long string at 188. This could be the final leg of the trip requiring more information to describe landmarks leading to “X”.

Assuming this theory is correct, you would still need to find the 5 documents which is highly unlikely.