The BIG Duper

[bigscoop]

Here's a little fact about the remaining Beale ciphers that many true believers fail to recognize and yet it is an undeniable fact that they really need to consider before setting out on the blind chase.

In the Beale pamphlet the unknown author provides copies of ciphers C1 and C3 and yet by his own admission there is no way he can be certain which cipher is C1 and C3 unless he was already privileged to those details. The end result in this apparently confuses and deceives true believers so allow me to point out the stark reality of this situation.

Your unknown author claims that the ciphers had no order until he numbered them according to their length so how in the world could he be so certain that his C1 is in fact C1 and that his C3 is in fact C3? Given his proclaimed situation and numbering process it could easily be that he got them backwards and that his C1 is actually C3 and his C3 is actually C1. And yet he clearly offers his C1 & C3 as being the correct ciphers to each presented challenge.

So what becomes apparent here is that the only way the unknown author can be so certain that he numbered the ciphers correctly/accurately is if his claim about numbering them is false and that he already possessed the accurate knowledge, “in which case this makes our unknown author a big fat liar and a great deceiver.” So what does this mean in regards to the story itself?

Well, it means that the unknown author's tale is seriously flawed and that his deception was by design. Given this established fact it then becomes impossible to place any measure of credibility or accuracy in any of the details offered in the story.

So here's the reality of the pending mystery at hand. If you are one of those true believers who have placed their confidence in the events and details contained in the pamphlet then you have allowed yourself to be easily guided duped. And the sad part, over the years thousands of people have worked on solving a presumed C1 cipher that might actually be C3, and vice-verse, if in fact the two ciphers hold any solvable solution at all, which given the established deception isn't very likely.

Yep, it's a hard pill to swallow but it's still an important reality pill that needs to be taken. Very clearly, the unknown author has knowingly and intentionally deceived his readers. So given the established fact, why in the world would anyone place any confidence in anything this unscrupulous author has written? And yet many still do. Perhaps this is the true provided mystery and purpose contained in the Beale story.

PS: A guy from Walmart caught this deception.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

Keep in mind, that "if" the story maintains any measure of truth despite the obvious discrepancies in the written version, then Jeff of PA might have just provided you with that vital missing link that could offer to explain everything. Question is, can you put those potential missing pieces together?

 

[TN_Guest1523]

(In the Beale pamphlet the unknown author provides copies of ciphers C1 and C3 and yet by his own admission there is no way he can be certain which cipher is C1 and C3 unless he was already privileged to those details. The end result in this apparently confuses and deceives true believers so allow me to point out the stark reality of this situation.)

If I was looking at 3 pages of #s and I arranged them starting with the one with the most #s on it. Then was able to decode the 1st one with 720 #s on it that told me that one of the other two had 30 peoples addresses and kin on it. I just may have made 520 #s C1 and the other C3 last because of its length. And it named the others C1 and C3

 

[franklin]

Explain please how the decoded message from cipher 2 is wrong. You do know that it is wrong don't you? Have you not checked cipher two?

 

[bigscoop]

Look, there is only one way the unknown author could know for certain which cipher was C1 & which one was C3 and that's only if he already possessed that certain information prior to his claim of numbering them simply according to their length. The length of the ciphers offers no assurances as to which cipher would be C1 or which would be C3. And remember, he claimed he did this prior to his claimed decoding of C2 so his actual odds of having all three ciphers in proper order were quite low once you do the math. Yet he supposedly did it with out any direction or instruction at all on his very first attempt. So then he claims that he later decoded C2 and then proceeds to convince his readers that his number 1 and number 3 arrangement is accurate, when in reality there is no possible way he could know this unless he already possessed that certain information. So the deception is crystal clear and easily established by his own admission and error. There is no denying of this obvious fact.

 

[franklin]

bigscoop, You are correct I noticed that the first time I read the Job Print Pamphlet. But I continued just like everyone else does looking for the gold. I also noticed that the deciphered code in the Job Print Pamphlet is incorrect in it's decipherment. Check it out yourself. Not only is there several obvious mistakes. But when he numbered the letters of the DOI--------he numbered them wrong after a certain number and he was off on a count of ten yet every letter higher than that number hit on the exact letter showing the author encoded the story himself.

Look, there is only one way the unknown author could know for certain which cipher was C1 & which one was C3 and that's only if he already possessed that certain information prior to his claim of numbering them simply according to their length. The length of the ciphers offers no assurances as to which cipher would be C1 or which would be C3. And remember, he claimed he did this prior to his claimed decoding of C2 so his actual odds of having all three ciphers in proper order were quite low once you do the math. Yet he supposedly did it with out any direction or instruction at all on his very first attempt. So then he claims that he later decoded C2 and then proceeds to convince his readers that his number 1 and number 3 arrangement is accurate, when in reality there is no possible way he could know this unless he already possessed that certain information. So the deception is crystal clear and easily established by his own admission and error. There is no denying of this obvious fact.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Look, there is only one way the unknown author could know for certain which cipher was C1 & which one was C3 and that's only if he already possessed that certain information prior to his claim of numbering them simply according to their length. The length of the ciphers offers no assurances as to which cipher would be C1 or which would be C3. And remember, he claimed he did this prior to his claimed decoding of C2 so his actual odds of having all three ciphers in proper order were quite low once you do the math. Yet he supposedly did it with out any direction or instruction at all on his very first attempt. So then he claims that he later decoded C2 and then proceeds to convince his readers that his number 1 and number 3 arrangement is accurate, when in reality there is no possible way he could know this unless he already possessed that certain information. So the deception is crystal clear and easily established by his own admission and error. There is no denying of this obvious fact.

HA! Beale Codes/Ciphers 1 & 3 are RUSES; Beale Code/Cipher 2 is a "PLANT"! Heh...

 

[bigscoop]

bigscoop, You are correct I noticed that the first time I read the Job Print Pamphlet. But I continued just like everyone else does looking for the gold. I also noticed that the deciphered code in the Job Print Pamphlet is incorrect in it's decipherment. Check it out yourself. Not only is there several obvious mistakes. But when he numbered the letters of the DOI--------he numbered them wrong after a certain number and he was off on a count of ten yet every letter higher than that number hit on the exact letter showing the author encoded the story himself.

This is the type stuff that presents those tell-tells so many people either fail to notice or simply continue to deny. But it's not all bad news, not really. All this information really offers us is that the unknown author has distorted the details in the story and that he and the writer of the codes and letters are probably the same person or that they have shared information. However, this information alone does not actually discredit the real meat of the tale. All it really establishes is that the author isn't telling the truth.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

This is the type stuff that presents those tell-tells so many people either fail to notice or simply continue to deny. But it's not all bad news, not really. All this information really offers us is that the unknown author has distorted the details in the story and that he and the writer of the codes and letters are probably the same person or that they have shared information. However, this information alone does not actually discredit the real meat of the tale. All it really establishes is that the author isn't telling the truth.

Eh...? "Isn't telling the truth" about WHAT...?

 

[bigscoop]

Here's some additional info about the ciphers that the unknown author has added with certainty.


He claims that after his discovery of the DOI as key that he was able to decode C2 and he then says, “that he no difficulty in mastering the others.” Clearly the author is telling us that he had already decoded C1 & C3 as well as these are the only “others” that remained. And this summary is by his own written admission, “I had no difficulty in mastering the others.”


Question is this – if the author was able to decode the others with the same DOI and decoding process then why can't we? Conclusion – because the unknown author took steps to insure that we couldn't.


As Franklin has already pointed out again, the presented key only works on C2 if we allow for some adjustment in the word count, so clearly the key has been altered and the author's solution has been forced to work for his publishing effort and presentation. But we also have to realize that since this same adjustment doesn't work for the remaining two ciphers then it becomes apparent that the remaining ciphers have been altered beyond solution. Here again, this becomes a fact by the author's own admission/claims.


So here's the real deal – the Beale pamphlet is either a simple dime novel with no true solution, or, the author has presented a true story while taking steps to insure that the solutions to those ciphers could never be known by his presentation alone.

 

[bigscoop]

Eh...? "Isn't telling the truth" about WHAT...?

he isn't telling the truth about the ciphers.......not even close.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

He claims that after his discovery of the DOI as key that he was able to decode C2 and he then says, “that he no difficulty in mastering the others.” Clearly the author is telling us that he had already decoded C1 & C3 as well as these are the only “others” that remained. And this summary is by his own written admission, “I had no difficulty in mastering the others.”


Question is this – if the author was able to decode the others with the same DOI and decoding process then why can't we? Conclusion – because the unknown author took steps to insure that we couldn't.









You are getting an F in this course of study so far.

 

[TN_Guest1523]

A house that is built upon the sand shall come crashing down.

 

[bigscoop]

A house that is built upon the sand shall come crashing down.

Jean, you are in serious denial of the written details before you, a true believer who will forever remain in denial of facts that are contrary to what you want/desire to believe. You are simply cuddling the story without taking the proper measures to insure that the information is accurate and without deception. Now I realize that this information, these facts, are extremely difficult for you to swallow in light of your prior claims and post, but these are undeniable facts as presented by the author of the pamphlet himself, in his own words. You really need to go back to the pamphlet and study the details of the story with unbiased analysis as you will encounter other tell-tells from the author's own voice as well. Until you do this you'll forever be chasing fantasy and rainbows and making false assumptions that are going to continue to expose your true lack of knowledge about this tale. If you were really interested in arriving at the possible truth then this is something you would do, something you must do. Until you do you'll never have any chance at possibly arriving at the truth. Very clearly, your author of the pamphlet has presented obvious deceptions in the tale.

You can continue to try to attack those who present these flaws and deceptions but you fail to realize that those real flaws are going to remain. You can't attack them or or joke them, or insult them away. That's because they are facts and they are "constructive facts" that you need to accept. Only be dealing in facts can you possibly arrive at the truth.

 

[bigscoop]

First we number them according to their length, 1,2,3. Then we decode #2 and it tells us that #1 contains the locality of the vault and that #3 offers us the names and residences of the parties involved.

Wait a minute, how does #2 know that we have arranged #1 & #3 in the correct order?

Later, our unknown author even presents his #1 as being the locality of the vault and his #3 as offering us the names and residences of the parties involved, and yet there is no possible way he could know this for sure, and yet he is certain. This is placing quite a bit of blind confidence in #2, unless you already possessed the knowledge and your claim of numbering them according to their length is pure BS.

This is why you have to pick apart the details in the story so the little deceptions in the details can be exposed. Imagine, with absolutely no instruction at all, our author got these ciphers numbered in correct order simply by numbering them according to their length - and then #2 was smart enough to make the distinction.

I guess #2 contained smart technology beyond its years!

 

[TN_Guest1523]

View attachment 1152483

First we number them according to their length, 1,2,3. Then we decode #2 and it tells us that #1 contains the locality of the vault and that #3 offers us the names and residences of the parties involved.

Wait a minute, how does #2 know that we have arranged #1 & #3 in the correct order?

Later, our unknown author even presents his #1 as being the locality of the vault and his #3 as offering us the names and residences of the parties involved, and yet there is no possible way he could know this for sure, and yet he is certain. This is placing quite a bit of blind confidence in #2, unless you already possessed the knowledge and your claim of numbering them according to their length is pure BS.

This is why you have to pick apart the details in the story so the little deceptions in the details can be exposed. Imagine, with absolutely no instruction at all, our author got these ciphers numbered in correct order simply by numbering them according to their length - and then #2 was smart enough to make the distinction.

I guess #2 contained smart technology beyond its years!

Think about it. Give it some time. Almost there. Did you see it yet or did it escape you?

 

[TN_Guest1523]

View attachment 1152483

First we number them according to their length, 1,2,3. Then we decode #2 and it tells us that #1 contains the locality of the vault and that #3 offers us the names and residences of the parties involved.

Wait a minute, how does #2 know that we have arranged #1 & #3 in the correct order?

Later, our unknown author even presents his #1 as being the locality of the vault and his #3 as offering us the names and residences of the parties involved, and yet there is no possible way he could know this for sure, and yet he is certain. This is placing quite a bit of blind confidence in #2, unless you already possessed the knowledge and your claim of numbering them according to their length is pure BS.

This is why you have to pick apart the details in the story so the little deceptions in the details can be exposed. Imagine, with absolutely no instruction at all, our author got these ciphers numbered in correct order simply by numbering them according to their length - and then #2 was smart enough to make the distinction.

I guess #2 contained smart technology beyond its years!

He decoded #1 that then became #2 for what it said. I'm not sure I can make it more simple but I will need a 1st grader to do so.

 

[bigscoop]

He decoded #1 that then became #2 for what it said. I'm not sure I can make it more simple but I will need a 1st grader to do so.

You are completely lost in what you are suggesting, so let me explain it a different way. "How did the clear text of cipher #2 know that the author was going to number the ciphers according to their length?" You see, the clear text for C2 was already established by the alleged coder "before" the author had assigned any numbers to the ciphers. So how then, is it possible that the clear text of C2 was already certain that the author was going to assign the correct order to the remaining ciphers? Obviously there is only one way this could have been determined beforehand.

Do you get it now? What is being explained to you is that the order of the ciphers and the clear text for C2 had already been determined "before" the author had assigned any order to them, and yet the clear text for C2 is certain that the author's arrangement of the ciphers will be correct. The only possible way this can happen is if the author already knew that the ciphers had to be numbered according to their length before he assigned his numbering of them. You're wanting to suggest that the author went about numbering the ciphers after his discovering of C2, which clearly isn't what he has told you. What he tells you is that the ciphers had no order until he numbered them according to their length, only then did he proceed to decode C2. You can't continue to craft your own flow of the details just so you can continue to cuddle the story.

The error is in the clear text for C2 when it assumes that the unnumbered ciphers will be laid out and then correctly numbered according to their length. So how did the author know this had to be done? This is a slam-dunk deception, my friend. You are allowing yourself to be duped despite the facts in front of you.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

You are completely lost in what you are suggesting, so let me explain it a different way. "How did the clear text of cipher #2 know that the author was going to number the ciphers according to their length?" You see, the clear text for C2 was already established by the alleged coder "before" the author had assigned any numbers to the ciphers. So how then, is it possible that the clear text of C2 was already certain that the author was going to assign the correct order to the remaining ciphers? Obviously there is only one way this could have been determined beforehand.

Do you get it now? What is being explained to you is that the order of the ciphers and the clear text for C2 had already been determined "before" the author had assigned any order to them, and yet the clear text for C2 is certain that the author's arrangement of the ciphers will be correct. The only possible way this can happen is if the author already knew that the ciphers had to be numbered according to their length before he assigned his numbering of them. You're wanting to suggest that the author went about numbering the ciphers after his discovering of C2, which clearly isn't what he has told you. What he tells you is that the ciphers had no order until he numbered them according to their length, only then did he proceed to decode C2. You can't continue to craft your own flow of the details just so you can continue to cuddle the story.

The error is in the clear text for C2 when it assumes that the unnumbered ciphers will be laid out and then correctly numbered according to their length. So how did the author know this had to be done? This is a slam-dunk deception, my friend. You are allowing yourself to be duped despite the facts in front of you.

ALL the Beale Codes/Ciphers are SUPER-DUPERS, b/c they are RUSES! Peter Viemiester was on the CORRECT "Track",when he wrote CONFEDERATE COVERUP: Duty, Honor, & Deceit. He started this "Track" on pg. 168-172 (Chap. 22) in his book, THE BEALE TREASURE: NEW History of a Mystery. I HAVE "SPOKEN"... that is all.

 

[bigscoop]

ALL the Beale Codes/Ciphers are SUPER-DUPERS, b/c they are RUSES! Peter Viemiester was on the CORRECT "Track",when he wrote CONFEDERATE COVERUP: Duty, Honor, & Deceit. He started this "Track" on pg. 168-172 (Chap. 22) in his book, THE BEALE TREASURE: NEW History of a Mystery. I HAVE "SPOKEN"... that is all.

Not necessarily, and here's why. Armed with the evidence we've been discussing there can only be two possible solutions to the tale, A) that it was nothing more then a simple dime novel, or B) that it was written with a specific purpose and agenda aimed at a predetermined audience. There can be no other possibilities.

What Jean Laf pasted from the book in post 17 is possibly telling us something very important, just not what most assume. You see, by his own admission the author is telling us that he has already mastered the other ciphers but that this success still didn't allow him a means to the end. So what he is possibly telling us is that even after decoding all three ciphers he still lacked some other requirement. This is the only scenario that still survives which allows for the described events to be true.

So, if there is any measure of truth in this tale then this publication was never intended to be a mystery for the general public, but rather it was written with purpose and intended for a predetermined audience. This later scenario would also explain why the key and ciphers have been altered beyond possible solution, which in the event that they were once real, they have been. So even with all of the established deceptions in the story they still don't eliminate the possibility that the unknown author was detailing an actual event, these deceptions only establishing that the pamphlet was never presented to the general public with possible solution.