bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,533
- 9,069
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
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?