"Documented Proof: The 30 Million Dollar Beale Treasure Is a Hoax" by Tom Kenny

[bigscoop]

Before you reply with a condesending patronizing retort,please take into consideration those professional code breakers who have had a go at the Beale ciphers.Alan Turing of Bletchley,who broke the Nazi ENIGMA one pad cipher,could not achieve a real message from the Beale ciphers.Neither the CIA and the NSA with their super computers.
Clay Shields,computer science professor at Georgetown University states:"I think is was a hoax.I'd love for someone to prove me wrong...but I don't think it's going to happen... Most decryption of ciphers of this type depends on the fact that languages use letters in different frequencies.And what you do is you examine all of the numbers that repeat.And then based on that,you try to to match those repetitions in the English language".
Once again,when you take into consideration that the Beale Papers "borrowed" the story from other outside sources,the ciphers become suspect-tainted fruit from the poisonous tree.
I don't take the ciphers as "a simple work of a simple man",but the fabrication to enhance the marketing of a simple dime novel.
If that is not a plausible explaination,then please explain how the best in code breaking have not been able to break this code from the 1800's?

I said, "I am not so vein"....as I am fully aware that I can indeed come off as vein and even condescending. Having said that, that is exactly the point of good code creation, to create a code that cannot be broken without the key. And what you say about these other interest not being able to create a real message from the Beale ciphers is wrong.....in fact they were able to create many partial seemingly real messages from the Beale ciphers, which I have said repeatedly is easily achieved.

Clay Shields,computer science professor at Georgetown University states: "I think is was a hoax.I'd love for someone to prove me wrong...but I don't think it's going to happen... Most decryption of ciphers of this type depends on the fact that languages use letters in different frequencies. And what you do is you examine all of the numbers that repeat.And then based on that,you try to to match those repetitions in the English language".A true statement in regard to the basic concept, but only true when working with, "a basic simple substitution cipher". The presence of the Gillogly strings provides conclusive proof that C1 is everything but a basic simple substitution cipher because they had to have been inserted by design rather then by random happenstance, i.e., "with intent". The including of the 19 four digit codes in C1 - also by design rather then by random happenstance. The placement of the non-repeated code strings is another "by design" rather then by happenstance. Point is, weather C1 contains a clear text at all is a mute point - clearly the author of that cipher had to have possessed an experienced working knowledge of good code/cipher construction. If Ward/Sherman had this experience then I would agree that you would indeed have a much stronger theory, but there is simply zero evidence of this in either man's past history as we know them. And as for computers, they can only do what they are assigned to do, i.e. via the written programs designed and utilized. How can you write an effective program for something when you don't even know the soource or makeup or construction of what you're dealing with?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigscoop]

ECS - let me attempt to express what I'm trying to point out in another way. Take a close examination of the C1 & C3 ciphers and take notice of the differences in them. By comparison C1 is far more complicated a code, as I have already said the range of code is much wider, including a total of 19 four digit codes. There is also the intentional insertion of the Gillogly strings as well as long strings of non-repeatable codes, etc. By comparison, at first glance C3 appears to be a very simple code construction but the question is why? In fact it all goes back to what our Mr. Shields said about the use of language - but what he said is only true if the language used is known. C1 has been intentionally safeguarded by extra measures, whereas it appears that C3 maintains the simplest form of code as possible with even a very small range of code, right? Now here's the biggy - what if C3 was in several different language forms? You see, the reason C3 appears to be such a simple code is because "the author of that code" fully recognized that names, especially a list of names containing a variety of language types, needed no extra safeguarding since there would be no conformity in the proper use of the various alphabet rules. Imagine trying to decode a cipher that has been randomly constructed by using a variety of French, Spanish, American, German, languages, etc. Just another reason why it is very clear that the writer of the Beale codes knew exactly what he was doing. Do you really believe Ward or Sherman was capable of all of this? Hope I've explained the point I was trying to make in a much clearer picture now. The Beale story itself is only a portion of the remaining mystery, but it is the codes themselves that also offer us a great deal of evidence.

 

[Justintime]

Justintime, You keep saying the "KEY" was always in the ironbox TJB entrusted with Robert Morris. How can you keep claiming this when the letters TJB wrote, clearly say that the "KEY" or letter containing the "KEY" would be delivered to him in due time.

He had to wait ten years from the date of the letter, 1822-1832, wait ten years, the key sealed in box ,due time, ment wait ten, sounded good to the writers, but is slightly difficult to interpret for Morriss and others. Sealed, in this place. Thanks Justintime

 

[ECS]

ECS - let me attempt to express what I'm trying to point out in another way. Take a close examination of the C1 & C3 ciphers and take notice of the differences in them. By comparison C1 is far more complicated a code, as I have already said the range of code is much wider, including a total of 19 four digit codes. There is also the intentional insertion of the Gillogly strings as well as long strings of non-repeatable codes, etc. By comparison, at first glance C3 appears to be a very simple code construction but the question is why? In fact it all goes back to what our Mr. Shields said about the use of language - but what he said is only true if the language used is known. C1 has been intentionally safeguarded by extra measures, whereas it appears that C3 maintains the simplest form of code as possible with even a very small range of code, right? Now here's the biggy - what if C3 was in several different language forms? You see, the reason C3 appears to be such a simple code is because "the author of that code" fully recognized that names, especially a list of names containing a variety of language types, needed no extra safeguarding since there would be no conformity in the proper use of the various alphabet rules. Imagine trying to decode a cipher that has been randomly constructed by using a variety of French, Spanish, American, German, languages, etc. Just another reason why it is very clear that the writer of the Beale codes knew exactly what he was doing. Do you really believe Ward or Sherman was capable of all of this? Hope I've explained the point I was trying to make in a much clearer picture now. The Beale story itself is only a portion of the remaining mystery, but it is the codes themselves that also offer us a great deal of evidence.

I understand your point.Sherman did use codes in his other dime novels,but the ciphers used were not complicated,and were similar to that used by Poe in "THE GOLD BUG"...but don't dismiss the code breaking abilities of Alan Turing.The belief you stated in the complicated C1 cipher would be on par with what Turing would have created in the 1940's,not what T J Beale would have created in the 1820's.With all that is known about Beale (mentioned on my "WARD" thread),it is very doubtful that Beale could construct such a code.
Yes,there have been partial solutions to the ciphers,but sometimes one finds what they expect to be there,NOT what is really there.
For your consideration is a step by step breakdown of deciphering the Beale codes:
http://rogergambihler.tripod.com/Beale-Hoax.htm

 

[ECS]

TOO much focus on Beale Ciphers 1 & 3; RUSES to distract... stick with FACTS & HISTORY!

...and thats the rub.No one can prove that the Beale story and treasure is indeed real,but facts and history can demonstrate events used to create the Beale pamphlet,but can not totally disprove it.That is where the genius of the BEALE PAPERS lies.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

...and thats the rub.No one can prove that the Beale story and treasure is indeed real,but facts and history can demonstrate events used to create the Beale pamphlet,but can not totally disprove it.That is where the genius of the BEALE PAPERS lies.

YEP! MY "point" was ppl saying "focus" on BC 1 & 3 as "unbreakable", the "story" is a HOAX... SOMETHING is "out there; trying to solve the RUSES that are BC 1 & 3 WILL NOT help (MHO).

 

[bigscoop]

I understand your point.Sherman did use codes in his other dime novels,but the ciphers used were not complicated,and were similar to that used by Poe in "THE GOLD BUG"...but don't dismiss the code breaking abilities of Alan Turing.The belief you stated in the complicated C1 cipher would be on par with what Turing would have created in the 1940's,not what T J Beale would have created in the 1820's.With all that is known about Beale (mentioned on my "WARD" thread),it is very doubtful that Beale could construct such a code.
Yes,there have been partial solutions to the ciphers,but sometimes one finds what they expect to be there,NOT what is really there.
For your consideration is a step by step breakdown of deciphering the Beale codes:
http://rogergambihler.tripod.com/Beale-Hoax.htm

Without the proper key even super computers don't stand a chance of breaking the Beale codes. Why? Because they lack the "input" required to achieve that assignment. To give you an idea by comparison let's use the lottery for example - a much smaller range of numbers with only five of them needing to be matched. This goes back to the same general "frequency" application that our computer science expert mentions - pretty much the same general "algorithm" theory, etc. However, even knowing the full range of numbers, how the game is played, the game's past history, etc., the odds against success are staggering due to the complete randomness of the game. This same thing applies to the ciphers in question, only here we have a much larger range of random code with 26 possibilities "if" just one language is used. In essence, your odds of hitting the lottery are much better. When we look at C1 this is further complicated by the extra safeguards that have been put in place, C3 not needing these safeguards because of the mix of languages. Again, the Gillogly Strings" provide conclusive proof that the remaining ciphers were indeed created by an expert, and "yes" this is vital knowledge to anyone hoping to discover the true source behind the tale. There are a million such breakdowns of the remaining ciphers by all sorts of experts, however, one has to remember that without any prior knowledge as to how they were created these breakdowns are all completely meaningless, i.e., what is the exact language and how was the coding system applied? Did Thomas Beale write the codes? I have to agree that it is extremely doubtful. By the way, this type of code creation/knowledge was practiced during the period in question as there are other older ciphers that still remain unbroken, some of them even older then the Beale ciphers.

 

[tat2guy]

...and thats the rub.No one can prove that the Beale story and treasure is indeed real,but facts and history can demonstrate events used to create the Beale pamphlet,but can not totally disprove it.That is where the genius of the BEALE PAPERS lies.

Agreed!!!!

 

[bigscoop]

...and thats the rub.No one can prove that the Beale story and treasure is indeed real,but facts and history can demonstrate events used to create the Beale pamphlet,but can not totally disprove it.That is where the genius of the BEALE PAPERS lies.

Not going to disagree with this....however, while you are correct in many facets that the Beale Papers & ciphers are indeed a work of "genius" - this is also something that's way over the ability of the average common man of the day, i.e., Ward, J. Sherman, etc. Add to this that the writing style does not match that of J. Sherman, etc., and all of this leaves us with the conclusion that there really did have to be an unknown author involved in the work. As we know their histories today, all of the evidence strongly suggest that there are just too many factors that exclude the abilities of Ward & Sherman, especially involving the ciphers. So where does all of this leave us? This is where we have to take all of those things we can prove and disprove and use them as our only guidance.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Not going to disagree with this....however, while you are correct in many facets that the Beale Papers & ciphers are indeed a work of "genius" - this is also something that's way over the ability of the average common man of the day, i.e., Ward, J. Sherman, etc. Add to this that the writing style does not match that of J. Sherman, etc., and all of this leaves us with the conclusion that there really did have to be an unknown author involved in the work. As we know their histories today, all of the evidence strongly suggest that there are just too many factors that exclude the abilities of Ward & Sherman, especially involving the ciphers. So where does all of this leave us? This is where we have to take all of those things we can prove and disprove and use them as our only guidance.

Unknown author was Albert Einstein, Time/Space Traveler; HE worked with NUMBERS, ALL the time...

 

[bigscoop]

Here's an interesting outcome from andypryke.com

"A testable claim to have cracked 3 - " If you will go to Code #3, Line 37, 38 & 39 You will find the numerals: 34,127,139,34,128,129,74,63,120,11,54,61,73,92,180,66,75,101,124,265,89,96,126, If you will take the Adams/Onis Treaty l8l9 and number it correctly starting with the third article and number each word as you did with the DOI, except now you take the third letter of each word instead of the first letter of each word. If a word has less than three letters you use the last letter of the word [...] decipherment: SECOND EXCAVATION OR VAULT FOUND" - But it's just another small segment of code that was utilized to arrive at a seemingly viable possibility. This same type of thing/situation can be produced in just about any substitution cipher given that it is long enough and it provides enough range of code,etc. Notice there is very little repeated code in this segment.

 

[ECS]

Another look at breaking the Beale code ciphers,which includes the use of the "GILLOGY STRINGS".
Some of what is here is repetitive of what has been already written about the Beale Papers,but take note of the claim of amatuer cryptologist A B Chandler,who in 1971 deciphered C3,which ends with the phrase-"END OF MY JOKE".Interesting in the least!
TINA: *Goldschatz zu vergeben! * Die DOC-Files, http://www.ariplex.com/tina/tbeale05.htm

 

[bigscoop]

Yep, up to a point, without the correct key you can literally make them say anything you want/need them to say. Of course, this is usually a hodgepodge of broken language or mystical segments leading to even more uncertain mystery.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

.....just pointing out that there's more then just the story keeping the Beale mystery alive. The placement of the repeated codes, the amount of repeated codes and the amount and placement of the single code, the use of the four digit coding, etc. After all of his time spent researching the ciphers even William F. Friedman still believed that C1 contained some type of clear text, and he certainly isn't alone in that notion. Now if someone wants to believe that Ward maintained the expertise to construct such a complicated, well constructed cipher, then that is certainly quite the blind leap of faith.

AND! WFF/NSA sent Agents to Lynchburg, VIRGINIA asking "Average Joes" on the streets during WW II (40's) about what THEY knew about the BC's; NOTHING! Why I think AE "did it"...

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Yep, up to a point, without the correct key you can literally make them say anything you want/need them to say. Of course, this is usually a hodgepodge of broken language or mystical segments leading to even more uncertain mystery.

Look for the KEY from the 1940's... FIRST use of COMPUTERS! PROBABLY "Classified Info", tho; FOI...? NSA!

 

[ECS]

Not going to disagree with this....however, while you are correct in many facets that the Beale Papers & ciphers are indeed a work of "genius" - this is also something that's way over the ability of the average common man of the day, i.e., Ward, J. Sherman, etc. Add to this that the writing style does not match that of J. Sherman, etc., and all of this leaves us with the conclusion that there really did have to be an unknown author involved in the work. As we know their histories today, all of the evidence strongly suggest that there are just too many factors that exclude the abilities of Ward & Sherman, especially involving the ciphers. So where does all of this leave us? This is where we have to take all of those things we can prove and disprove and use them as our only guidance.

One reason that the Beale story and treasure can not be proved or disproved is the lack of hard conclusive evidence that either ever happened or ever existed.As for the ciphers,they are what they are,nothing more.

 

[ECS]

Not to doubt you,but is the proof from outside of the Beale pamphlet,and can it be researched in historical records? Or is it just another "human interest" story concerning someone who believes he knows the location of the Beale vault?

 

[bigscoop]

One reason that the Beale story and treasure can not be proved or disproved is the lack of hard conclusive evidence that either ever happened or ever existed.As for the ciphers,they are what they are,nothing more.

Over the long period of years that I have been involved with this mystery I have come across all sorts of details that lead me to believe "simple dime novel", I was nearly convinced and for quite some time, just like you, for about three years I was completely convinced and I put it all behind and never even looked at the subject for about three years. Today, I have my reasons, many of those having already been mentioned, for believing just the opposite, that there is far more to the story then a simple dime novel. So I guess I've come to look at it this way lately - those who have already made up their minds one way or the other can never be expected to turn around no matter what manner of evidence is placed in front of them unless it is something 100% conclusive and unchallengeable. So for the most part the sharing of info in these forums is really quite pointless, and I don't mean this in a condescending manner, I just feel it is an obvious reality.

 

[ECS]

Bigscoop,I have followed and researched all of the connections you have mentioned,many are posted on my "Ward" thread.
Yes,they are intriquing,and provide a coincidence of connection,but as you once posted,where is the beef,where is the smoking gun?I respect the research of you,Tat,Franklin,and Rebel-KGC;we are all seeking the same answer,but we approach the Beale question from very different point of views.Together,we may or may not,come up with a conclusive answer,be it a simple dime novel or a real treasure deposit.I am open to any and all possibilities...,but if you told me that T J Beale had a Missouri mule,I would reply,"Show me".

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Bigscoop,I have followed and researched all of the connections you have mentioned,many are posted on my "Ward" thread.
Yes,they are intriquing,and provide a coincidence of connection,but as you once posted,where is the beef,where is the smoking gun?I respect the research of you,Tat,Franklin,and Rebel-KGC;we are all seeking the same answer,but we approach the Beale question from very different point of views.Together,we may or may not,come up with a conclusive answer,be it a simple dime novel or a real treasure deposit.I am open to any and all possibilities...,but if you told me that T J Beale had a Missouri mule,I would reply,"Show me".

LOL!