doctored cypher

[allenroyboy]

Like many I've been intrigued with the Beale cyphers. Just a few days ago I decided to take a stab at solving them using an excel spread sheet. A goole search found several sites about the beale cyphers. At this URL ( http://bealesolved.tripod.com/ ) I found two sources for the beale cyphers. One is the 1885 Ward pamphlet ( http://bealesolved.tripod.com/id11.html ) and the other is the Hart Papers from 1952 ( http://bealesolved.tripod.com/id10.html ).

I cut cypher two from both sources and pasted them side by side in the spread sheet. Then I googled the Declaration of Independence and entered that into spreadsheet and numbered the words. Then I integrated them into the the two cypthers. The cypher from the 1952 Hart papers gave exactly the interpretation for the cypher as has always been said. "I have deposited....., etc." HOWEVER, the cypher from the 1885 Ward paper gave mostly jibberish!

In looking in to this I found that the 1885 Ward cypher had 142 numbers (out of 763) different from the 1952 Hart cypher. The numbers had been changed by either adding or subtracting 1, or adding or subtracting 10, or doing both, from the numbers found in the Hart cypher. In other words, this is deliberate deception! The Ward cypher was falsified in 1885 and the Hart cypher appears to be genuine.

The cypher published by Ward and Sherman in 1885 has been doctored by them and anyone using the cypher from their book/paper cannot possibly find a correct solution. besides that, the Declaration of Independence supplied in the paper has 3 extra words in it, which throws off the numbering. And, at least two of the words were deliberatly miss-spelled: undivisible for indivisible and serpated for userpated, both of which are used in the cypher. I have also compared cyphers 1 and 3 from both sources and found that in each case the Ward cyphers have been doctored as of 1885. And both 1 and 3 are mis-labeled (i.e. in reverse order) compared to the Hart Papers. It appears that somehow the 1952 Hart Papers have correct versions of the cyphers acquired from a source other than the doctored Ward/Sherman pamphlet.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

"arb", the "source" of the Beale Ciphers (numbers) IS different; just read the HART PAPERS, and you will find that Clayton Hart got the "pages of numbers" from Newton Hazlewood, who indicted that the "BT" was buried near his (Hazlewood) home CLOSER to the Peaks of Otter. It is ALSO indicated that Clayton MAY have changed the numbers "slightly"... LATER, Clayton & his brother tried to find the "BT"; THEY were from Roanoke,Va. and Clayton LATER upset the natives of Montvale "area" by dyamiting a big old oak tree or something... the natives have been PO'ed since. LOL! The GREAT thing is you just have the numbers in the HART PAPERS, w/o being confused by the letters, the story, etc. The FOCUS was PURELY on the "treasure"; HART PAPERS was written in @ 1952, and then Innis wrote HER book in @ 1964; I would "go with" LATER info, YET! Do R & I on ppl in Bedford County, Va., who indicated SUDDEN wealth (ie. Paschal BUFORD). Coffee?

 

[allenroyboy]

Every indicator is that Ward and Sherman falsified the numbers on the number 2 cypher in their 1885 paper by changing 142 numbers by 1 or 10 or both. It is impossible to make any sense from the numbers as they now are, even using their cobbled up Dec. of Ind. On the other hand the the Hart number 2 cypher gets exactly the interpretation that even Ward and Sherman say, but which you cannot get using their cypher 2. The differences between cyphers 1 and 3 of the two sources are 6 numbers on each page, also differing by 1 or 10 or both. The same MO on all three pages indicts Ward and Sherman. Given that Ward and Sherman deliberately falsified cypher 2, (and probably 1 and 3) it makes sense to only use the Hart cyphers.

This doesn't get much closer to a solid solution, but we know what cyphers NOT to use (i.e., from the 1885 Ward Beale Code pamphlet). And to me, it indicates that Ward and Sherman are NOT the authors of the cyphers, because they took such pains to hide the actual cypher. If they made it all up, it would be silly to change any number at all.

What I'd like to know is what documents have others used to try to decipher numbers 1 and 3. I'm not interested in those who have experimented by inserting letters. That's a waste of time.

I'm more interesting in solving the cypher than finding the gold. That in itself is a goal few (none) have ever accomplished.

 

[allenroyboy]

The numbering up to 2909 on sheet one is far beyond DoI. Do you just repeat the DoI? Or does that indicate a different document?

On page 2 the two largest numbers (822, and 944) did not use the first letters of the words. 822 is Y, which is the last letter of fundamentally. And 944 is X, which is the the middle letter of the word sexes. These two letters are some of the least used in the English language. I suspect that the largest several numbers of the other two sheets (such as 2906) are also NOT the first letter of the words and so are also some of the least used letters.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Looking for the KEY? Try VATTEL'S LAW OF NATION (book cipher); ALL ya need is Beale Cipher # 1; # 2 & # 3 (by now...), are redundant. Quit "wasting time" on DOI, etc. Decipherment of # 2 has ALREADY been provided... use HART PAPERS, # 1 Cipher.

 

[allenroyboy]

Why VATTEL'S LAW OF NATION? Intro?, Book 1? 2? 3?.... Do you include section titles? Seems like a rather odd document to use.

 

[bigscoop]

I agree with Franklin......"a key".......not "Keys/the keys". But I'd sure like to get my hands on those reciepts! If it was in that box it was probably there for a reason.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

VATTEL'S LON? Chapter 1 = BC #1... don't NEED anything else.

 

[bigscoop]

Here's something for you to kick around a bit:

In my mind I've buried that treasure a million different ways and I can't think of a single one of those stashes that would require more then a couple of sentences to tell you exactly where it was at. So why so much language in C1?

 

[allenroyboy]

VATTEL'S LON? Chapter 1 = BC #1... don't NEED anything else.

Vattel's LON! Chapter 1 With section titles, but no section numbers and no footnotes.

i s t b i t s A b t e i t s o i t a o h s c a a c o i t b N b s o b s i N b d i s c t o t t o i b i c P i g s t f c d a f w t t s O e i a m t s a p w i a r a p i a v p b t s i t s b a E t o a p b i a w t s i m w w n i t b b t d i r c f A r a a s t c t o e t b i p i t c O t t m o v a a i T s h h t T t a s b i o t A p t o o a r f a S i r a b b e p t t a O b s t w a m t t t t s m E p o w s o N S f a f B t i t a b r b a w m P r o a t a i i e c o P t t A m h w t a t o e a n i o a y t w b o f a b t d w e n t k b a o r E b t i w b t o o e t t p w b t c i i a S d o a e n p h t a a o t h s s s s b c t a s t w a f i m t a b a s a t t a v f t f g p a s h a o a h u o N e p t b o t w p b t a r b i u a a o d i f a w p a i w s e A w i o e i r s k t t t i s p n i i a t t t m e t i t b b b t m k o s b o i w p a t t e s o W o o t s b o s o M t i i t i a t o b a i r i t s s o i v p b a w t b t a n i A s m i c t b b s c t s a t k o b t s b a s a o i a n a v t o a t b i t r b k t g b a g b i e s b f s t t t p o i d r o p a t a a t c o s h s s h

Vattel's LON! Chapter 1 Without section titles, and no footnotes.

t h t 0 i P a i 0 n o t h w i t t t 0 o s a f d b t t r 0 h t o o 0 s e a p t c p h o a a n a t t i f A u t a t w b n a m e D o t A o b a S b t e w i e o t f h c s i u p b p i t t p t s e a a e t t a 0 d w u c e w s t a m p t t t g f o a t I i p b a k l s t o b r t b a c s n a s i a d t a a i w T a o t a 0 a n D v b g a a i i n b t t t P 0 0 a a b a o s t t a e a o d a b c p t s b a t i i h t w t c s d t u b t t e d i t w i b S t a i t n i 0 n N t v t o s w a b w s a i F s d s n 0 p t m s 0 b t e m w g c g d a t s s t i s p n a b n n U s s 0 t a i g v 0 m p d n a — o m d i a t i h t a t S a a a t b w o m o o 0 o h s i c b t F o c c 0 w b t t o o i i i p i p n e s m a 0 p t p a a t p T p d a i t I m i i h d f e w a v i t a n o a a c A i c i t b p e i s p s b h n b t c 0 0 0 t c i a o p n g s e f t d a i a p a p t i b b h a t t o h b i a p b p a t a t t t w i c i w p f e m 0 r k w e i a u i s t 0 0 t s h s S s n 0 0 t w o o w d a a i G f 0 r w d s v i w a S t 0 o m v i t t n t 0 e a N u a h t t b a i a s N F a t s E a a a a r

Nuttun but jibberish...

 

[bigscoop]

In the Beale papers the unknown author claims that there was no order to the three ciphers until he laid them out and then numbered them according to their length, 1,2,3.

However, in the solution to cipher #2 it says, “….belonging jointly to parties whose names are given in “3” herewith.” And also, "Paper number 1 describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it.”

Now the only way this could have happened is if:

A) The unknown author already knew the arrangement of the ciphers and he concocted the explanation of how he laid them out and numbered them,..or…

B) The unknown author actually penned the ciphers.

There can be no other possibility that I can think of. So, if we believe in “A” then we have to ask ourselves how much of the rest of the story might he have concocted? And why? And if we believe “B” then it’s not looking too good for the word “authentic” that’s on the cover of the pamphlet. So when you say that the ciphers were doctored, perhaps all, or some portions of the story were too. Personally, I want to believe in option "A" because if I believe in option "B" then there's probably not much sense in pursuing any of it.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

In the Beale papers the unknown author claims that there was no order to the three ciphers until he laid them out and then numbered them according to their length, 1,2,3.

However, in the solution to cipher #2 it says, “….belonging jointly to parties whose names are given in “3” herewith.” And also, "Paper number 1 describes the exact locality of the vault, so that no difficulty will be had in finding it.”

Now the only way this could have happened is if:

A) The unknown author already knew the arrangement of the ciphers and he concocted the explanation of how he laid them out and numbered them,..or…

B) The unknown author actually penned the ciphers.

There can be no other possibility that I can think of. So, if we believe in “A” then we have to ask ourselves how much of the rest of the story might he have concocted? And why? And if we believe “B” then it’s not looking too good for the word “authentic” that’s on the cover of the pamphlet. So when you say that the ciphers were doctored, perhaps all, or some portions of the story were too. Personally, I want to believe in option "A" because if I believe in option "B" then there's probably not much sense in pursuing any of it.

Unless he correctly guessed the order according to their length, which was then comfirmed by the solution to cipher #2.

 

[bigscoop]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

 

[allenroyboy]

The story in the Hart papers says they were already numbered. ( http://bealesolved.tripod.com/id10.html ). Since we know that Ward (and Co.) doctored the cyphers, it should not surprise us that the story they tells may be also doctored. I don't put much stock in their story.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

Obviously he guessed correctly about #2, unless it's his own concoction. Perhaps he has #1 and #3 reversed. We wouldn't know for sure unless they were deciphered, right? Maybe he's just guessing.

 

[bigscoop]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

Obviously he guessed correctly about #2, unless it's his own concoction. Perhaps he has #1 and #3 reversed. We wouldn't know for sure unless they were deciphered, right? Maybe he's just guessing.

That's why I keep looking for the truth........it's out there somewhere. I hope!

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

Obviously he guessed correctly about #2, unless it's his own concoction. Perhaps he has #1 and #3 reversed. We wouldn't know for sure unless they were deciphered, right? Maybe he's just guessing.

That's why I keep looking for the truth........it's out there somewhere. I hope!

I'm not saying I believe the man, I'm just considering possibilities. If I had guessed the order of the papers, by their length, so that the middle one was #2, and then the deciphered text proved me right about that one, I might be convinced that I was right about the other two.

 

[bigscoop]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

Obviously he guessed correctly about #2, unless it's his own concoction. Perhaps he has #1 and #3 reversed. We wouldn't know for sure unless they were deciphered, right? Maybe he's just guessing.

That's why I keep looking for the truth........it's out there somewhere. I hope!

I'm not saying I believe the man, I'm just considering possibilities. If I had guessed the order of the papers, by their length, so that the middle one was #2, and then the deciphered text proved me right about that one, I might be convinced that I was right about the other two.

I see your point. I just don' t like the odds.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

KK,
The unknown author is telling us which one is 1 & 3, he is identifying them as #1 - the location of the vault, and #3 - the names and residences. How is it that he is so certain which one is which if the original ciphers maintained no order prior to his numbering them by length. Nowhere in C2 does it say, "the long one is #1 and the shorter one is #3". Am I making sense?

Obviously he guessed correctly about #2, unless it's his own concoction. Perhaps he has #1 and #3 reversed. We wouldn't know for sure unless they were deciphered, right? Maybe he's just guessing.

That's why I keep looking for the truth........it's out there somewhere. I hope!

I'm not saying I believe the man, I'm just considering possibilities. If I had guessed the order of the papers, by their length, so that the middle one was #2, and then the deciphered text proved me right about that one, I might be convinced that I was right about the other two.

I see your point. I just don' t like the odds.

Help me out here, I'm trying to find reason the keep hope alive.

Actually, I have my doubts about the treasure. But it is all fascinating, to say the least. I do like the fact that a TJB was found, and he was associated with Lafitte.

 

[bigscoop]

A TJB was found but he was the wrong man. The Captain TJB that fought in the Battle of New Orleans was the right man and he died in Illinois during the Blackhawk War.

Which "found Beale" are we talking about?
And "yes" I really like the Battle of New Orleans connection as well.