|
Post by Rebel KGC on Aug 13, 2006 18:11:00 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: (sunny out...) Beale, I may have... that g looks like a q, doesn't it... try: www.bgsociety.org OR just "google" Bedford Genealogy Society... see ya there!
|
|
|
Post by jake on Aug 21, 2006 21:57:40 GMT -5
Was the site ever located, was the treasure removed when someone (the 2nd) one found it? Or has the site not been found. I know some claim to have found it to, to keep others from looking, any thing offical about it ever being found?.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel KGC on Aug 22, 2006 8:03:20 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: ;D Offical? U mean, like the Feds. or the State?
|
|
|
Post by omg guest on Aug 22, 2006 16:18:34 GMT -5
Omg, all the fools boasting here of solving Beale ciphers forgot to tell you one thing, or it could be that they are too overwhelmed by their wit they even don't know about the thing I'm going to point out. Here, check this out, frequency analysis: bealeciphers.tripod.com/Lmao, no wonder the 1st section was easier to "decipher" than the 3rd, since the former has 179 unique numbers repeated only once through the text (compared to 123)! Does your intelligence allow you to understand the implications of this fact? Ok, I can help you, although this has already been covered by true analysts - such structure of the text allows virtually unlimited number of different decipherments. Depending on what you start from, you can come up with anything - starting from some religious text and ending with a letter from a terrorist. Ridiculous, right? How can someone make such a naive assumption that the text starts with the words "the treasure"? ;D That's cool... The conclusion is - all the allegedly correct decipherments on the internet for Beale ciphers are... equally worthless. This was not supposed to be a competition of who comes up with the most logical "possible" decipherment ;D I challenge you - prove your case by presenting us with the 2 century old text on which the ciphers were made! Thank you. P.S. by the way, through the thread I saw some people claiming they are naturally good at codebreaking - could you please break the final section of Kryptos for me? ;D
|
|
|
Post by kydave on Aug 22, 2006 20:54:27 GMT -5
Beale, This guy probably hasn't done his homework, just another newbie with a lot of questions and "what ifs". Or could he be an educated for real codebreaker that could answer some of our questions for a change? I doubt it!
|
|
|
Post by omg guest on Aug 23, 2006 12:22:28 GMT -5
Now you guys obviously seem to have skipped everything in my post except the offensive words, therefore, I'm forced to repeat myself again. The 1st text has 520 elements and 179 of them are completely unique - used only once in the text! Moreover, 76.3% of all the elements are used no more than 3 times through the text! Could you please answer me if you get what are the implications of this fact.The latter implies that there exist multiple ways how to allegedly solve this puzzle. The most rational way to start would be by substituting the most repeated numbers with letters. When you do that the only thing left is to substitute all the unique elements with letters such that the whole text would make some sense. Of course, it would take some time changing the positions of the letters, but certainly less than three years! In fact, if I would get paid for my wasted time, I could come up with any logical text on any subject which would be based on 1st cipher and where the same number would be substituted by the same letters. Then my second question - how do you tell which decipherment is better, the one by Daniel Cole or the one posted by this guy on the first thread? They are both equally correct if you consider individual elements, but they are both totally worthless if you consider how the outcome was achieved. There are sources (historians) who claim that the guy called Thomas Beale actually existed and he matches some biographical facts. Has anyone bothered to check how many of the people mentioned in the 3rd text (on the first post of this thread) existed? Has anyone done any research, or you think it's unnecessary and you're still correct by any means? If you can't come up with reasonable answers to my questions then please don't bother posting anything at all. P.S. Mr. Beale, what makes you think that your identity as "Beale" gives you more credibility than does mine? Administrators of this forum have as much information about both of us (our IPs) so you're not better than me, huh.
|
|
|
Post by RebelKGC on Aug 23, 2006 19:42:39 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: ;D We also gotta look at a "clue"... Beale's nephew... EMERSON LEE STEVENS... who was to get T.J. Beale's "share" of the good stuff...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 30, 2006 21:55:21 GMT -5
ok tjd stop trying to convince gullible people of ur bs. Yes, if you just check the first line of numbers everything seems ok, they are consistant. However, look at the number 81. It starts as T, becomes F then G, B and some others I think. the numbers 40 appears as A, E, and R. Congratulations on writing something that has a few consistencies. But that is it, this is not a solution.
|
|
|
Post by Rebel KGC on Aug 31, 2006 6:42:04 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: "IN-COMING!" Mike, have YOU solved it... and found it, then? Please share...
|
|
|
Post by Rebel KGC on Aug 31, 2006 20:21:14 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: ;D Ya, Beale... been reading about the Danville, Va. "thingie"; whew! What a MESS! I wanna buy a copy of yer "book" on the CSA Treasury... $ 25.00 wasn't it? Let me know... IF you come up for the Bedford Genealogy "thingie" on Sept. 9th... maybe we can "connect", then...
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Sept 3, 2006 3:15:50 GMT -5
Beale, if you want to convince people your Beale 'solution' is correct, you'll need to do the following: Explain which numbers encode to which letters. If you have 81 becoming T, F, G and B, you're going to need a *very* good explanation of why this is the case because the entire point to a book cipher is the same number will always encode to the same letter. When this doesn't occur, you're working with a new cipher that's entirely different to the one used to encode C2. So it'll be required to explain the logic to the new cipher. Why are only some numbers changing? What's the rule about 'jumping forward and backward'?
Don't forget, if you're allowed to make up the rules as you go along just to get to your intended result, you're doing the equivalent of the Bible Codes that 'predict' word events, which is also a total fraud. Yrs, Not An Option
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Sept 3, 2006 9:24:10 GMT -5
"I could go on and on, but still you would not believe because I can not rationally give you the explanation that you are searching for. So, you either believe it or not."
That's exactly what's going to happen - your 'explanation' poses more questions than it actually answers. Of the 367 repeated characters, you've managed to create a possible solution that only accounts for 268 of them and the rest have to be transcription errors? Think about the implications.. for the rest of the entire message that are made of non-duplicating characters and can't be checked you're saying every character has been transposed correctly.
BUT on the duplicating numbers, the ones we CAN check, you're saying "Oh, 1 in every 3 of those he wrote down he made errors on, but I'm able to fix them".
This is simply insane. Even if you actually believed that this is true (that errors were only made on duplicated characters and you were able to reconstruct without understanding the original key), it doesn't entitle you to groundless claims such as "The beale cipher has been solved". It's good that you've devoted efforts to working on it, but you've found 'a' solution (and a spurious one that that), not 'the' solution.
In all seriousness, I am *positive* I could come up with a possible solution using all sorts of genealogical data from the time - slotting in Beale names, possible locations etc, and get better than 268 matches for repeated characters - but would that mean my 'solution' is more correct than yours? Think carefully before you answer.
Not An Option.
|
|
|
Post by David on Sept 3, 2006 17:48:16 GMT -5
;)Albert, You say you went to Bedford, Botetourt ..etc and found the names you have posted as part of the solutions in wills, deeds and so forth. By any chance did you do background on these names to connect them to a missing individual, then cross index that name to any of the others to find individuals connected to them that went missing. In other words can you connect any of these names you give to individuals that went missing during the Beale time frame to compile a list of the names of the Beale Party? Perhaps that would help NOT AN OPTION DM
|
|
|
Post by RebelKGC on Sept 4, 2006 8:07:30 GMT -5
Yo! Rebel here: ;D "ET, Phone home..."; sorry... couldn't resist...(Security Check... ); Not An Option... David... where R U writing from... U got "solutions" to the codes? Found the "super", yet? Beale and I ARE from this area, and YES, we CAN check on things... can YOU? R the "Codes", the ONLY thing U have to go by? PITY.... this is a BEAUTIFUL area... FULL of history and "mystery"...
|
|
|
Post by Not An Option on Sept 4, 2006 9:28:13 GMT -5
Rebel: YO word UP look at me TYPING LIKE an ILLITERATE JERK. o< quack ;P ;D Seriously, I've offered to create a solution with fewer mistakes than yours, so try that on for size. I can bring it, if you'd like it to be brung. And don't throw a 'super' at me, because if you're talking about a key text, neither of you have anything like one either. If you DID, you wouldn't be allowing identical numbers to become several different letters, smart guys. I may not be 'local', but I'd like to think the Beale codes (if solveable) would have a logical solution based in reason and cryptanalysis - not in what zipcode you have and a set of marriage records from 100+ years ago. Think it over, if you can. Peace out, "homez" Not An Option P.S. Yes, I am mocking you. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
|
|