- #1
Thread Owner
the Internet is an amazing thing, a real treasure available to all of us. I hadn't logged on this site for many years (at one time I was intrigued by the supposed Trinidad shipwreck in my neck of the woods) and decided to re-read the thread. One post seemed very familiar, and looking at the author it was indeed "me". 13 years ago, time flies. But enough digression. Another 'supposed' treasure is this topic, the Beale Ciphers. I was also intrigued by these, probably 20 years ago or more. I had a computer, I was good at programming ... voila, I would solve it 
After reading as much as I could on the topic (but apparently not the Ward pamphlet itself), I spent some time writing programs and inputting various famous documents to attempt to decipher the location of the treasure. No success of course ; I re-doubled my effort to learn what others thought, hoping they might provide a clue. Instead, someone provided the jaw-dropping bombshell that quickly ended the endeavor. The poster at a forum noted that the three ciphers, although composed entirely of numbers, were not themselves numbered in any way. How did they arrive then at their infamous numbering of 1, 2, and 3? This is how, quoting Ward directly from his pamphlet:
"To systematize a plan for my work I arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first ..."
They were unnumbered. I repeat: They were unnumbered. Ward says it himself.
So then "by accident" Ward deciphers the code he himself designated as "Number 2", and in which the plaintext mentions paper 1 and paper 3. Yet previously they had no numbers distinguishing them - Ward gave them those designations based on length. Why should Number 2 explicitly reference paper 1 and paper 3 when they had no numbers on them to begin with? Why not (in the plaintext) say "the paper beginning with 71" when referring to the shortest cipher? Or simply refer to the 'shortest cipher' ? Either of those descriptions would make complete sense and require no 'labeling' of the ciphers.
What a colossal blunder by Ward. Yet nobody ever caught it other than the poster. I can only gather that everyone who spent years trying to decipher these codes either: never read the original pamphlet, or, did not 'put 2 and 2 together' (as the saying goes) after reading what Ward wrote.
___________
Beyond that (not that anything more is needed), looking at this once again shows how ridiculously obvious that it was a hoax by Ward. He practically begs people who purchase his pamphlet not to spend much (if any) time on this. He knew it would be wasted time, and Ward does not seem like a sociopath (someone with no empathy) based on his writings. He often mentions how Morriss and others generously helped the poor (and his story that Morriss allowed someone to live as an honored guest in his hotel for years without requiring any payment whatsoever seems a bit over-the-top). The pamphlet was meant to provide entertainment for the buyer, perhaps a few hours trying various famous documents, and then tossed in the trash. No harm done. Although he was very wrong on that, he did provide the warning. Perhaps that was his way to absolve himself from any guilt, in effect he could say to someone who wasted years on this: "I explicitly told you not to do that". A weak confession, but pretty clear in hindsight.
After reading as much as I could on the topic (but apparently not the Ward pamphlet itself), I spent some time writing programs and inputting various famous documents to attempt to decipher the location of the treasure. No success of course ; I re-doubled my effort to learn what others thought, hoping they might provide a clue. Instead, someone provided the jaw-dropping bombshell that quickly ended the endeavor. The poster at a forum noted that the three ciphers, although composed entirely of numbers, were not themselves numbered in any way. How did they arrive then at their infamous numbering of 1, 2, and 3? This is how, quoting Ward directly from his pamphlet:
"To systematize a plan for my work I arranged the papers in the order of their length, and numbered them, designing to commence with the first ..."
They were unnumbered. I repeat: They were unnumbered. Ward says it himself.
So then "by accident" Ward deciphers the code he himself designated as "Number 2", and in which the plaintext mentions paper 1 and paper 3. Yet previously they had no numbers distinguishing them - Ward gave them those designations based on length. Why should Number 2 explicitly reference paper 1 and paper 3 when they had no numbers on them to begin with? Why not (in the plaintext) say "the paper beginning with 71" when referring to the shortest cipher? Or simply refer to the 'shortest cipher' ? Either of those descriptions would make complete sense and require no 'labeling' of the ciphers.
What a colossal blunder by Ward. Yet nobody ever caught it other than the poster. I can only gather that everyone who spent years trying to decipher these codes either: never read the original pamphlet, or, did not 'put 2 and 2 together' (as the saying goes) after reading what Ward wrote.
___________
Beyond that (not that anything more is needed), looking at this once again shows how ridiculously obvious that it was a hoax by Ward. He practically begs people who purchase his pamphlet not to spend much (if any) time on this. He knew it would be wasted time, and Ward does not seem like a sociopath (someone with no empathy) based on his writings. He often mentions how Morriss and others generously helped the poor (and his story that Morriss allowed someone to live as an honored guest in his hotel for years without requiring any payment whatsoever seems a bit over-the-top). The pamphlet was meant to provide entertainment for the buyer, perhaps a few hours trying various famous documents, and then tossed in the trash. No harm done. Although he was very wrong on that, he did provide the warning. Perhaps that was his way to absolve himself from any guilt, in effect he could say to someone who wasted years on this: "I explicitly told you not to do that". A weak confession, but pretty clear in hindsight.
so now I see after reading the pamphlet S L O W L Y, that there was no 
