|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 3, 2007 11:24:49 GMT -5
G'day, For those who haven't seen my relatively few appearances on this board, I'm an amateur cryptanalyst who occasionally speaks up on this board when I think someone's spouting some major BS putting forth assertions that are not necessarily supported by fact. Historical examples include some posters who state as a fact they've solved the Beale ciphers or have determined the enciphering/key basis. You people know who you are. I'm of the personal belief it's all a hoax. In the past I've stated some of the major reasons why (words apparently being used 50+ years before they were ever recorded in any other printed medium if they were written when they're alleged to have been, statisticla analysis suggesting C1 and C3 are entirely different from C2 in that they're just random numbers, etc), but I recently was reading a book on forensic detection of forgery and discovered (coincidentially!) yet-another Beale analysis, this time of the grammar of Ward's pamphlet vs Beale's pamphlet vs similarly educated people of Beale's time. After innumerable doubts in the past, this came to me as the nail in the coffin. I was going to scan/type this in, but I found it online so it'll be easier to just create a link: tinyurl.com/2umq6b. This is a HTML interpretation of a PDF, so your mileage may vary. I urge all people who believe the Beale treasure to be real to read it - if you can turn back to your treasure hunt after all that, you're more credible than I, and I take my hat off to you. NOA As a post-scriptum, I have no doubt some of the more... eager... solvers who find endless patterns in random numbers and initials and locations will not be dissuaded, convinced if they draw enough grids and enough series of conncetions, they'll discover the original hidden message Beale has made: to those people I suggest they create for themselves a hidden message and then hide it by the various methods [initials, number of days in the week etc] they use to decrypt Beale and see how difficult it is to create original plaintext which must meet the necessary preconditions of not violating their many 'concealment of message' rules. In other words, using DOI as your original key, code up a secret message so that the final code is random number gibberish with the Gilloughy string inside it. I personally don't think this is possible using a non-insane decrypt system, but I could be wrong - can anyone produce the goods?
|
|
|
Post by legrand on Oct 3, 2007 13:30:38 GMT -5
Not An Option
Do you agree or disagree that Gillogly finds B1 a hoax? Jim only suggests that B1 is a hoax because he can not entirely prove that it is a hoax. Had Jim found what I found he may not have been so quick to suggest (strongly) that B1 was a hoax cryptogram. Dr. Hammer indicates that B1 was encrypted in the same fashion as B2 was and Jim proves with the letter string that something is going on with the cryptogram via the DOI (corrected copy). The pamphlet DOI (uncorrected copy) is the key to a short plaintext in the first 16 characters of the cryptogram B1. So, aside from the letter string and 16 characters, the entire cryptogram is random gibberish. What does one call it, hoax or valid house for message? Well, it's both.
|
|
David
Senior Member
Moving on to new horizons
Posts: 134
|
Post by David on Oct 3, 2007 15:47:32 GMT -5
This is in response to Not An Options above post...
NOA or NAO which ever you chose to be.
Every one knows what opinions are like and you are dropping your drawers and exposing yours.
I suppose there is a fine line between the Beale papers being described as a hoax or as it is, an unproclaimed game or puzzle. But there is a disconcernable line, if one looks, to help distinguish what The Beale Papers are.
You are very much like the Naysayers of Columbus' time when he set sail.....They said he would sail of the edge of the Flat World. They were educated but ignorant, they read books and writings of other people and that was the way it was. They had no imagination of their own, very much as you are demonstrating. You cite yourself as an amateur cryptanalyst. Your description is probably very near accurate....amateur, but you do not practice the full definition of cryptanalyst. You use the word but it may be you should look up its meaning and possibly then use its concept.
I will agree with you on there are bogus claims about solutions to the Beale Ciphers out there and on this forum.
You cite something about words being used that were 50 or so years ahead of it's time.....can this not be a authors literary license....I was watching a swashbuckle movie made back in the late 1930's or early 40's and it was about events in the 1600's one of the things that happened was The hero had his men STAMPEDE the spanish horses.....the word stampede was used...literary license...just what the author of the Beale papers did.
I will almost agree with you on the statistical analysis of BC1, BC3 seemly being different from BC2. Remove the DOI influence on BC2 then cite a difference. There isn't one, draw as many graphs for analysis you like, all three codes still only consists of numbers distributed in a seemly random pattern.
Here is my analysis of NOA....He can read, but he cannot see, he can see but cannot read, he can follow but cannot lead, he can criticize but not critique. NOA's world is flat and will stay flat, and the heavens will continue to revolve around his world. If he can't see a pattern, there isn't one other than a closed loop that feeds back onto itself.
G'day
David (who describes himself as a problem solver)
|
|
|
Post by TOMm on Oct 3, 2007 16:54:01 GMT -5
Hello Gents And Genius's
This is in reply to Noa,s reply
Dear Sir In All Respect If Ican Put You feet upon a item thats in the codes would you write a change of mind if that doesn't work will put you on top of the vault ONE And its EMPTY the Washington is not in the state of Virginia plus using the proper set up stampede is most definitely in it plus the sypher cypher sifor csi4 is not in Eng lis h in its entire make up.
how cAn i say this and it comes from having some of the treasure and pick and shovel items
if you wanna see you have to drive
THEY ARE in Dutch FRENCH GERMAN SWISS AND POLISH
The strings of yesteryear are replacement letters(ABC) how about nulls and double nulls and the
pamphlet was written posted dated, maybe ward wanted some fame but they as old as the Constitution at least the one jefferson commisioned the young (mooris )to carry out .the legacy.
THE game is a treasure hunt with a drawing of a map thats completes as you get your aces in hand and with out the proper place names of 1787 its not likely any one knows them and if there not in English then what. as With poof TOMm
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 3, 2007 22:25:02 GMT -5
Not An Option Do you agree or disagree that Gillogly finds B1 a hoax? I think the whole Beale tale is just that, a tale to sell pamphlets (which people still do - check out the number of armchair experts with a theory and a book for sale). If you want to read the Beale story as factual and the treasure really exists, then yes, I'd say it's a hoax. Re: B1, the presence of 4 digit codes (showing it's not the same book key as C2) statistical distributions (showing it doesn't even look like a book code anyway), the amazing odds AGAINST it being real due to the Gillogly string [not only would a genuine code need to have an alternative decipherment, but those numbers have to match the alphabetical sequence of the DOI to produce a Gilloughy string], the fact the C1, C2, C3 aren't ordered by length and the fact C2 actually takes pains to say what's contained in C1 suggest B1 isn't a genuine cipher at all. I think the tale's author got the DOI key, encoded C2 to match the story, then put random numbers in C1 and C3 to fill it up (and got the sizes wrong due to carelessness - not only are they not in increasing order of length, but C3 shouldn't be long enough to hold names and contact details for 30 people). Out of boredom or playfulness he put the Gilloughy string in C1 hoping people would practically fall out of their chairs when they saw it - and we're still talking about the joke today. NAO
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 3, 2007 23:01:20 GMT -5
This is in response to Not An Options above post... NOA or NAO which ever you chose to be. Every one knows what opinions are like and you are dropping your drawers and exposing yours. Yeah yeah, everyone has an opinion and they're all equally worthless etc etc. I'm aware of this, which is why I attempt to substantiate my opinion with reasonable logical steps and supporting evidence. Every time someone comes up with an idea or a theory, you can blurt out "Well, that's just your opinion" and be technically correct - but it doesn't go to the merits of their argument. It's the lazy, cowardly way to debate. Let's not do that here. Well, is it fair to say everyone intelligent back then thought the world was flat? What, all the astronomers, religious authorities, teachers, mathematicians et al agreed? I think not. SOME educated people thought so, just like SOME educated people have a problem with evolution etc. These wide generalisations don't do you any good. Onto your further personal comments (I'm going to ignore your comment of having no imagination, because I think you have far too much which is just as bad given how you use it): I call myself an amateur because that's exactly what I am: I'm not a professional cryptanalyst; I don't do the work for a living. It's a hobby and interest of mine, though. I studied it at University, I'm a member of the American Cryptogram Association, I spend my spare time studying and solving ciphers - I know my stuff, which is why I don't need to look it up. No, think about it, it's an anachronism - if the document is being put forward as genuinely coming from date X and using words (stampede, appliance, improvise) that only first appear up to 50 years AFTER X, it means one of the following: 1. The document author invented the words, and no one else used them for 20-50 years. 2. The document author didn't invent the words but was psychic and saw them in the future and decided to record them before their meanings were known to everyone else. 3. The document wasn't from date X. Incorrect. Look at the number of repetitions of numbers in the ciphers [e.g. how many numbers appear more than once in C1?]. Not random, and not consistent across all 3 ciphers. This is cryptanalysis in action, in case you wondered what it looked like. I came here with an opinion based upon author specific grammatical analysis, textual anachronisms, story inconsistencies, statistic analysis, cryptanalysis and some skepticism. If you want to ignore all these and believe there really is a solution and/or treasure, solely because the pamphlet's author says it's true, then respectfully you're the one who reads but cannot see. NAO
|
|
|
Post by beale on Oct 4, 2007 5:07:48 GMT -5
Not an Option,
I think you have stated your analysis and skepticisms quite well and quite honestly with politeness. I can appreciate everything you have stated. I only have one draw back, I believe the story to be true based upon my research not my quest for gold, silver and jewels.
I have found enough verifiable facts to keep me searching. I would give up on the hunt as others have because of the reasons you have stated. I have seen all the reasons or read about most of them. I have even seen one website that said the author and the letters written by TJB was one and the same according to the "English" used in both. I would post the website but I did not retain it.
I will continue my search for the Beale Treasure even if it is not out there to find. I love the hunt and the research. All of your statements make sense and I credit you for posting them, but some of us find it hard to give up especially after forty years in the quest. I hope you can see my point and I definitely see yours. Have a great day and continue to post I love to read it but my sponge has become useless for absorbing any of the data.
|
|
|
Post by legrand on Oct 4, 2007 10:05:09 GMT -5
Not An Option
Is there a difference between "armchair expert" and "amateur cryptanalyst"? I sense a twist of disrespect and sarcasm to [someone?] in your first comment of reply above. You're veiled, but not carefully.
Good topic.....presence of 4 digit codes does not show that the pamphlet DOI (uncorrected copy) is eliminated as the key. There is logical explanation for the use, by the author, of the two(2) four-digit codes inside of the first 16 numbers of B1. There is explanation.
Again, the Gillogly string proves the correct copy DOI is a key to the string itself. Oh! if Jim Gillogly would have known this. The string is more than just author diversion...."boredom".....it contains a "POE" signature. Why would the author present [in the string] "A" through "PP," stopping at "PP"? The Gillogly string makes the odds of the cryptogram being potent, very real. I guess you don't see this....or will it be, choose not to see it?
Really NAO, who are you trying to convince that the cryptogram B1 is empty, me or yourself. Sounds like you're trying to convince thinkers not to think, discover. This smacks of cover-up and there's a lot of that in todays world.
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 4, 2007 11:39:41 GMT -5
Not An Option Is there a difference between "armchair expert" and "amateur cryptanalyst"? I sense a twist of disrespect and sarcasm to [someone?] in your first comment of reply above. You're veiled, but not carefully. Well, I'm always respectful towards those are that are respectful towards me. For those who aren't, well, icy civility is my equivalent of a warning shot, as demonstrated above. Should ne'er-do-wells fail to desist, I'd either stop replying or employ more direct methods (preferably the former - the Internet remembers things forever) This is an interesting idea which I haven't come across before - what's the explanation? Well, try to convince me. I reserve my right to be skeptical, but what's the significance of A through to PP? Isn't it likely he just got bored hunting out a Q, the next logical letter of his alphabet sequence and gave up? Heh, I assure you I'm not of the belief there's an actual treasure and trying to use the Internet to make others stop looking. I mean, really, serious treasure hunters aren't on publically accessible messageboards sharing their theories for free or everyone else would be able to steal the treasure, obviously. My main pursuit is the pursuit of knowledge - even if that knowledge is the anti-climax that there isn't a Beale treasure.
|
|
David
Senior Member
Moving on to new horizons
Posts: 134
|
Post by David on Oct 4, 2007 12:51:44 GMT -5
NAO CHALLENGES;
As a post-scriptum, I have no doubt some of the more... eager... solvers who find endless patterns in random numbers and initials and locations will not be dissuaded, convinced if they draw enough grids and enough series of conncetions, they'll discover the original hidden message Beale has made: to those people I suggest they create for themselves a hidden message and then hide it by the various methods [initials, number of days in the week etc] they use to decrypt Beale and see how difficult it is to create original plaintext which must meet the necessary preconditions of not violating their many 'concealment of message' rules. In other words, using DOI as your original key, code up a secret message so that the final code is random number gibberish with the Gilloughy string inside it. I personally don't think this is possible using a non-insane decrypt system, but I could be wrong - can anyone produce the goods?[/b]
NAO,
I except your challenge in this sense, in the message below I have not included the Gilloughy string, while it is possible it at this time would serve no purpose except to confuse.
The below series of numbers contain a hidden message It is based entirely on the information provided using the pamphlet DOI. It does not contain anything profane or insulting It is solvable using the authors directions It is however in direction the reverse of June 1832 It does not follow a preconceived method of encryption. And it is the basis by which the author relayed his intentions about this puzzle for us to find.
I shall await with much anxiety the development of the mystery.
David Mason
13---463---53---28---32---114---39---584
23---618---91---330---674---193---129---703
193---618---106---28---48---378---764---763
53---122---330---341---KEY
If you succeed Good on You......If not I will post the method and solution after a time.
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 4, 2007 22:37:24 GMT -5
No, you haven't answered my challenge. Let me expand: My belief is: people who think there's a genuine message in C1 AS WELL AS a Gilloughy string don't understand how complicated and difficult it would be to make a message/cipher containing both. My challenge is: create a reasonable cipher [e.g 2 or 3 steps, not 27] that hides a message AND ALSO CONTAINS a Gilloughy string based on the pamplet DOI. I think it's going to turn out to be far too hard to do*, but let's see... NAO * a Gilloughy sequence predetermines a long sequence of numbers in order that you have to use in your code.. but these numbers also need to be part of your original encoded message in the same order.
|
|
|
Post by legrand on Oct 5, 2007 0:24:44 GMT -5
Not An Option, Do you think the presence of a 4 digit code over 1322 precludes the DOI as key? My guess is that you will reason in this manner. I've already published (on this site) the explanation to the above idea that 4 digit codes represent the inability of the author to locate the desired letter from a word in the DOI. In other words, the code numbers over 1322 would be identified as a (?) question mark........ NAO, have you read my prior posts on another thread of this site? Do you know about "ERE FEN DUE RED KNEE"? If not, you have some reading to do which may answer some of your questions. The "POE" signature in the Gillogly string remains to itself for now.....it's in a book. What if you're wrong about an "actual treasure"? There is no Beale treasure, according to my findings, in Bedford County Virginia, but there is suspected to be a national treasure connected with the "Beale Papers" mystery. "Serious treasure hunters" are no more able than anyone else to access the national treasure as both locations are National Historical Landmarks. Not even I can access what might be there. I feel I know where it is yet I can not touch it.....nor can you or anyone else. It's safe - a spectacle. Protect it.....it will give generations of enchantment to many visitors. I've freely shared my ideas and received mostly blatant skepticism. So I published. What of it? "National (Beale) Treasure....At Red Knee" can be ordered at www.rosedogbookstore.com ON OR AFTER 17 October 2007. One can also call 1-800-834-1803 to order. Kenneth Andrew Bauman is the author. Enjoy!
|
|
David
Senior Member
Moving on to new horizons
Posts: 134
|
Post by David on Oct 5, 2007 14:25:42 GMT -5
For NAO
First of all your preconception about BC1 not only containing a Gilloughy string but a hidden message may be in error. It may be since there are 3 codes that code 1 is a tool to use and therefore in itself there is no hidden message to read.
I could generate a completely new code 1 using the DOI and generate a string of alpabet within it, and it would not change either code 2 or code 3.
I could then use code 1 to encrypt you a message inside code 3 but it of course would change what is in code 3 at the present as predetermined by the author, but none the less, I can do it. And again it would be within the confines of the Pamphlet DOI.
The Authors codes are already predetermined, what he has encoded is already there....but using the system by which he has encoded this message I can generate a completely different message dedicated to you.
The Gilloughy string is only a small portion of BC1.
Your preconception of what the author did or must do to make something is in error....And the challenge to decipher that small code I posted earlier based entirely on the authors method, the DOI and the information provided within and about his codes stands. Your preconceived notions about what is, is what will keep you from doing it.....but it is simple and easily accomplished. But I don't think you can, but if you can you may realize where to turn the KEY.....
David Mason.............The Beale Deal is a Game....(or hoax)
|
|
|
Post by TOMm on Oct 5, 2007 15:12:42 GMT -5
Hello Gents
I would like to tell you i also have discovered a string of letters it about 25 *E,s * vertical in the make up i used now whats the chances of that being random and hare the kicker the other letters of the alpha bet have 5 to nine letter strings as well in the same vertical column above and below the *e* string
Gentle men trust me when i tell you its not completely in English thats why he SAID YOU AS IN * YYYYYY* *VY IN SWISS* O* in French and U EA or AE "YOU WILL" YO, U, WI, LL REMEMBER IN THE CIRCLE IN THE DESCRIPTION OF MORRIS. NOW AD THE FRENCH VOWELS. INE SWY TRY FEAR FUMPH PONE TWO THERE FOUR FIVE ZIX SEABEN
p{apere number INE IF THERE BE ne>>>>>> any The Word pound has a u in it pend or paned
the letters not words yet are read in degrees and since the English words most have synonyms one sheet to spell in English and the other to cross over into the replacement letter to make different word from using the same word but throw in a few other letters and you have a knew word and new meaning
you all can find this in the CONSTITUTION it says to read the syphers cypher sifors in a S I N E curve
NOW HOW MUCH MORE OPEN CAN THAT BE
GENTS the keys are buried the box is buried the treasure is in many places some thigs as bens QUILL its Gone by the WAy it was in a cave the police have it
the treasury yes trerasury was moved by morris and Albert in there furniture Beale was the furniture mover from bealsville morris moved his into Maryland
go in to the archives and see for you selves that one reason they stated to mass produce PAPER NUMBER-ONE IS MONEY is it not, the rubies some were found the diamonds as i have stated before are gone the gold and silver remains at least some of the vaults do our friend THOM and the good old boys was making a nother plan why do you think that each of them stayed in a friendly country for some times years, the one reason the moved it is because the British army was kicking but and burning BOSTON PHILA where the Treasury was kept Al's DC partys burnt they were hiding the nations treasury for themselves . gallitan went to trial and exonerated as well as ROB THEM MORRIS , as well as Georgie Boy, went bankrupt,to cover up his part.
aNY OF YOU FELLOWS NNA GO INTO THE KEY DIGGIN aREA AND THEN ON TO THE LETTER DIGGIN AREA ??
TOMm
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Oct 6, 2007 0:46:18 GMT -5
For NAO First of all your preconception about BC1 not only containing a Gilloughy string but a hidden message may be in error. It may be since there are 3 codes that code 1 is a tool to use and therefore in itself there is no hidden message to read. I could generate a completely new code 1 using the DOI and generate a string of alpabet within it, and it would not change either code 2 or code 3. I could then use code 1 to encrypt you a message inside code 3 but it of course would change what is in code 3 at the present as predetermined by the author, but none the less, I can do it. And again it would be within the confines of the Pamphlet DOI. The Authors codes are already predetermined, what he has encoded is already there....but using the system by which he has encoded this message I can generate a completely different message dedicated to you. The Gilloughy string is only a small portion of BC1. Your preconception of what the author did or must do to make something is in error....And the challenge to decipher that small code I posted earlier based entirely on the authors method, the DOI and the information provided within and about his codes stands. Your preconceived notions about what is, is what will keep you from doing it.....but it is simple and easily accomplished. But I don't think you can, but if you can you may realize where to turn the KEY..... David Mason.............The Beale Deal is a Game....(or hoax) You're correct, the entire point to the Gilloughy sequence could be to prompt people to use the numbers in a different context.. the problem as I see it with this is it results in far too many possible outcomes relying upon assumptions: 1. Well, which numbers, all of them? Just the ones before the sequence? Do we include the sequence as well? Why? Why not? 2. What do we do with the numbers? We obviously don't use the same enciphering system as C2 used, so what new system do we use? What key? How does this effect C3? It's exactly this sort of thinking that permitted the authors of the Bible Code to make all their hidden words and sequences appear - they didn't have to justify how many letters to jump ahead or back in each grid, or which direction the letters would appear in, or even what they were looking for - they just said 'let's just keep trying every possible combination' and when prophetic things popped out, they assumed it wasn't just a coincidence, but some divine code they'd just discovered. Cryptographers, mathematicians (and other people who knew what they were talking about) said this was bunk, and the Bible Code authors replied "Oh yeah? Well why don't you find similar prophesies in, say, Moby Dick?". Note how this doesn't answer the query at all, the Bible Code people say "I want you to go away and do an awful lot of work to prove we're wrong" not "This is how we prove we're right". The Bible Code authors hoped no one would bother doing the work, but an Aussie mathematician (Brendan McKay, if I recall correctly) did, found the prophesies and then instead of admitting they'd been proven wrong on their own terms, the Bible Code people just childishly said "Well, your one's nonsense but our one is 'truth'", ending the discussion. This is why you can't reason with idiots. This is also why I'm skeptical of non-standard encryption techniques - as you start to relax the rules on how things are done, as you approach chaos, it becomes much, much more likely to find something that may appear significant. It gets easier to find partial solutions, in other words. For these reasons, I will not attempt to break the supplied non-standard cipher - but I'll be interested to see 'the rules' used to create it when the solution goes up.
|
|