I Have Decoded The Beale Ciphers

[chalkoutline]

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

It seems to me TB would have created a readable message in the same style as the decoded message from Cipher2/DOI and then used a complex encryption to protect the message.

Why would TB write in, as you call it, "pirate talk" to create the Cipher 1 message? Makes no sense.

Anyone who has analyzed Cipher 2, knows that when you number the DOI and apply it to Cipher 2, some parts of the decoded message are readable and some parts art gibberish, especially towards the end of the cipher numbers.

When i consider this when looking at johnnyrev's snippets, i would conclude he may be close because it appears some words are readable but the sentence structure indicates he has missing words.

This would seem to support my theory that the ciphers are real but the manually inserted alphabetical strings are used to redact important/key location information which creates missing letters and words in the Cipher 1 decoded message....but would account for "pirate" talk.

 

[johnnyrev]

Anyone who has analyzed Cipher 2, knows that when you number the DOI and apply it to Cipher 2, some parts of the decoded message are readable and some parts art gibberish, especially towards the end of the cipher numbers.

When i consider this when looking at johnnyrev's snippets, i would conclude he may be close because it appears some words are readable but the sentence structure indicates he has missing words.

This would seem to support my theory that the ciphers are real but the manually inserted alphabetical strings are used to redact important/key location information which creates missing letters and words in the Cipher 1 decoded message....but would account for "pirate" talk.

Cipher 2, decoded in the 1800s, contains a misleading message designed to confuse those attempting to break the cipher. This plaintext is actually a simple decoy intended to mislead! In fact, the version found in the Beale Papers is not the original. The English was modified in 1885 to make it understandable for a contemporary reader.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Still waiting to see treasure...

 

[johnnyrev]

Still waiting to see treasure...

I will be sure to call you!

 

[TruthbeTold]

I'll be waiting...

 

[johnnyrev]

Blast From The Past

 

[releventchair]

Like
Dislike

How to Confirm a Source’s Peer‑Reviewed Status​

The most reliable method is to combine at least two checks: the journal’s own peer‑review policy and an independent database or indexing record casrai.org+1.

Step‑by‑Step Verification​

1. Check the journal’s official policy
Go to the journal’s “About,” “Editorial Policies,” “Peer Review Process,” or “Instructions for Authors” page. A credible policy will:

• State whether manuscripts are reviewed by independent external experts.
• Describe the review model (single‑blind, double‑blind, open).
• Name editors or an editorial board with verifiable affiliations casrai.org+1.
  If the page is missing, vague, or only says “all submissions are carefully reviewed” without specifics, treat the status as unconfirmed.

2. Use library or academic database filters
Many university library databases (e.g., EBSCO, ProQuest) have a “Peer Reviewed” or “Scholarly (Peer Reviewed)” filter. Applying this ensures only journals with confirmed peer review appear scienceinsights.org.
For biomedical sources, use MEDLINE indexing in PubMed — this is a strong signal that the journal meets rigorous review standards casrai.org+1.

3. Cross‑check in a refereed journal directory
Search the journal title in:

• Ulrichsweb (look for the “Refereed” indicator) casrai.org+1
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) for open‑access titles fact-proof.com
• Scopus or Web of Science journal records www.scholise.com
  These confirm the journal is a scholarly serial, not a magazine or trade outlet.

4. Look for article metadata
Many peer‑reviewed articles list Received, Revised, and Accepted dates near the title or in the footer. The time gap between “Received” and “Revised” suggests a review cycle occurred casrai.org+1.

5. Watch for red flags
Avoid journals with:

• Extremely fast turnaround (days/weeks)
• No clear peer‑review policy
• Aggressive solicitation emails
• Listing on predatory journal lists fact-proof.com+1

Quick “Two‑Check” Method​

1. Journal site → confirm explicit peer‑review process.
2. Database/directory → confirm journal is indexed as refereed.
   If both agree, you can confidently confirm peer‑review status casrai.org+1.

Tip: Not all items in a peer‑reviewed journal are peer reviewed — editorials, letters, and book reviews often skip the process unanswered.io. Always verify the article type on the landing page or PDF header.

 

[johnnyrev]

I have spent years carefully considering this opportunity. Do I want to be the person who decodes the ciphers or the one who finds the treasure? Many have told me that I cannot do both. Therefore, I have decided to put it in God's hands!

I have a one-page document that explains the process of encryption and decryption. The first step is to have my process verified by someone with the appropriate credentials in the U.S. Once that verification is complete, it will be announced publicly. This announcement will likely trigger a series of subsequent events.

 

[Lestrada]

Hi johnnyrev, i sincerely hope that you have solved this 141yr old mystery and can get your verification soon.

On the subject of verifying, you may find this YouTube link helpful. (Apart from the adverts, Grrr..)

Basics of Cryptology – Part 19 (Cryptanalysis – Unicity Distance & Check and Proof Cipher Solutions)
Channel: Cryptography for Everybody
time stamp : 08m - 15m, Section 3.2

Its where Nils Kopal , cryptologist and developer of 'Cryptool' explains some ideas on
how to check if your solution to a cipher is the correct one.

Section 3.2 no need for item 1. unicity distance, in the Beale ciphers.
2. Is it (the solution ) meaningful text, does it make sense.
3. Are there no or few ambiguities.
4. Is it reproducible:
a. Is there a defined and clear set of encryption / decryption rules that transform ciphertext to plain text and vice-versa
b. Give the key to someone else ; can they decrypt the ciphertext using your key.
c. Give a part of the plaintext to an expert ; are they able to get the same result.

 

[johnnyrev]

Hi johnnyrev, i sincerely hope that you have solved this 141yr old mystery and can get your verification soon.

On the subject of verifying, you may find this YouTube link helpful. (Apart from the adverts, Grrr..)

Basics of Cryptology – Part 19 (Cryptanalysis – Unicity Distance & Check and Proof Cipher Solutions)
Channel: Cryptography for Everybody
time stamp : 08m - 15m, Section 3.2

Its where Nils Kopal , cryptologist and developer of 'Cryptool' explains some ideas on
how to check if your solution to a cipher is the correct one.

Section 3.2 no need for item 1. unicity distance, in the Beale ciphers.
2. Is it (the solution ) meaningful text, does it make sense.
3. Are there no or few ambiguities.
4. Is it reproducible:
a. Is there a defined and clear set of encryption / decryption rules that transform ciphertext to plain text and vice-versa
b. Give the key to someone else ; can they decrypt the ciphertext using your key.
c. Give a part of the plaintext to an expert ; are they able to get the same result.

I am on 4, C at this time

 

[Carl-NC]

The first step is to have my process verified by someone with the appropriate credentials in the U.S.

You've been saying this for over a year. What's the hold-up?

 

[johnnyrev]

You've been saying this for over a year. What's the hold-up?

A number of unqualified individuals have been offering their services, but I will wait for the right one! It would be unwise if the person responsible for verifying my work lacked proper academic credentials. We all know that if someone without an academic background achieves something remarkable, they may be undermined, and their work could be taken and claimed by others.

 

[souce19]

A number of unqualified individuals have been offering their services, but I will wait for the right one! It would be unwise if the person responsible for verifying my work lacked proper academic credentials. We all know that if someone without an academic background achieves something remarkable, they may be undermined, and their work could be taken and claimed by others.

Do you believe the story occurred as written?

 

[robertk]

A number of unqualified individuals have been offering their services, but I will wait for the right one! It would be unwise if the person responsible for verifying my work lacked proper academic credentials. We all know that if someone without an academic background achieves something remarkable, they may be undermined, and their work could be taken and claimed by others.

Well, that, and they might actually try to go dig it up.

 

[johnnyrev]

Do you believe the story occurred as written?

This is my Opinion only !!!! I do not believe it was merely a hunting trip. I think it was a U.S. government expedition to survey the land in preparation for a significant deal with Spain, coinciding with the Adams-Onís Treaty. There are well-documented U.S. expeditions from that time, such as Major Stephen H. Long’s scientific and military survey of the Plains and Front Range of the Rockies in 1819–1820, which included reports on the scientific findings. It’s possible that this group of people got sidetracked from their original mission—after all, stumbling upon large quantities of gold could certainly distract anyone! After the Treaty was signed and ratified 1821.

 

[Lestrada]

The more i think about it , which is probably not a good idea , the less i believe it.

In johhnyrevs decrypt , T.J.Beale talks of 'many of his men had already died by the time the cipher was created' ,
if so, then why is there no mention of this event in The_Locked_box_letter dated Jan 4th 1822 ?

In fact that letter says the 2nd deposit went smoothly,
""..ready to return last Fall with an increased supply of metal, which came through safely and was deposited with the other...""

So when did Beale write the "johhnyrev" cipher ?

Why didn't the remaining guys call it a day and return home to Old Virginny ?

 

[johnnyrev]

• Two men were with him when he checked in in January 1820.
• These two companions stayed for about a week to ten days before leaving for Richmond.

 

[johnnyrev]

The more i think about it , which is probably not a good idea , the less i believe it.

In johhnyrevs decrypt , T.J.Beale talks of 'many of his men had already died by the time the cipher was created' ,
if so, then why is there no mention of this event in The_Locked_box_letter dated Jan 4th 1822 ?

In fact that letter says the 2nd deposit went smoothly,
""..ready to return last Fall with an increased supply of metal, which came through safely and was deposited with the other...""

So when did Beale write the "johhnyrev" cipher ?

Why didn't the remaining guys call it a day and return home to Old Virginny ?

“It was in the month of January, 1820, while keeping the Washington Hotel, that I first saw and became acquainted with Beale. In company with two others, he came to my house seeking entertainment for himself and friends. Being assured of a comfortable provision for themselves and their horses, Beale stated his intention of remaining for the winter, should nothing occur to alter his plans, but that the gentlemen accompanying him would leave in a few days for Richmond, near which place they resided, and that they were anxious to reach their homes, from which they had long been absent.

 

[johnnyrev]

“After this I heard nothing from him until January, 1822, when he once more made his appearance, the same genial and popular gentleman as before, but, if possible, darker and swarthier than ever. His welcome was a genuine one, as all were delighted to see him.


“In the spring, at about the same time, he again left, but before doing so, handed me this box, which, as he said, contained papers of value and importance; and which he desired to leave in my charge until called for hereafter. Of course, I did not decline to receive them, but little imagined their importance until his letter from St. Louis was received. This letter I carefully preserved, and it will be given with these papers. The box was of iron, carefully locked, and of such weight as to render it a safe depository for articles of value. I placed it in a safe and secure place, where it could not be disturbed until such time as it should be demanded by its owner. The letter alluded to above was the last communication I ever received from Beale, and I never saw him again.

 

[johnnyrev]

“It was in the month of January, 1820, while keeping the Washington Hotel, that I first saw and became acquainted with Beale. In company with two others, he came to my house seeking entertainment for himself and friends. Being assured of a comfortable provision for themselves and their horses, Beale stated his intention of remaining for the winter, should nothing occur to alter his plans, but that the gentlemen accompanying him would leave in a few days for Richmond, near which place they resided, and that they were anxious to reach their homes, from which they had long been absent.

The whole party were to accompany me for the first five hundred miles, when all but ten would return, these latter to remain with me to the end of the journey. All was carried out as arranged, and I arrived safely with my charge.

Stopping at Buford's, where we remained for a month, under pretense of hunting, &c., we visited the cave, and found it unfit for our purpose. It was too frequently visited by the neighboring farmers, who used it as a receptacle for their sweet potatoes and other vegetables. We soon selected a better place, and to this the treasure was safely transferred.