Beale Papers "END GAME!"

[bigscoop]

"If" for instance, the author had included instruction from Beale in one of the alleged letters that he would first have to arrange the ciphers according to their length, and then starting with the longest one first he was to number them 1,2,3...well,...then perhaps the author would have known to do this and his story wouldn't be floundering as it is presented. But as the facts are, he failed to include these critical details.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Cryptography]

"If" for instance, the author had included instruction from Beale in one of the alleged letters that he would first have to arrange the ciphers according to their length, and then starting with the longest one first he was to number them 1,2,3...well,...then perhaps the author would have known to do this and his story wouldn't be floundering as it is presented. But as the facts are, he failed to include these critical details.

Wow, What a statement. Read that over untill you see it. Lets see how long before he changes it?

 

[bigscoop]

Wow, What a statement. Read that over untill you see it. Lets see how long before he changes it?

Be careful in what you point out.....it could be taken as an admission that you really do understand the obvious conundrum I've pointed out.

 

[Doubter in MD]

You see Crypto, sometimes you just have to set aside all of the hype and created fabrications and you just have to use some common sense and do a little investigation and reasoning on your own. But being a true believer in the gospel tale, I'm sure you're going to be able to explain to the class how it was possible for the author to be 100% certain he had those ciphers in the correct order simply by arranging them according to their length. And then I'm also certain that you're going to be able to tell us how he knew to do that without any instruction from Beale whatsoever? We're all waiting......

I know next to nothing about this subject. I read some information online. I guess my question is, if the other two ciphers haven't been decoded, who can possibly know which one is which? Maybe the author has it wrong. Am I missing something?

 

[Cryptography]

I know next to nothing about this subject. I read some information online. I guess my question is, if the other two ciphers haven't been decoded, who can possibly know which one is which? Maybe the author has it wrong. Am I missing something?

Beale has stated that there are 30 people with him. If you have 30 addresses and the peoples named that are receiving something on one of the papers. I estamate it to be the one with the most numerals. If we look at a simple address today and multiply by 30, you see the conundrum of it all.


Bob Spooks
Washington, Virginia 27 letters X 30 people in his gang = 810, I think someone must have died in the gang of 30!

 

[Cryptography]

Be careful in what you point out.....it could be taken as an admission that you really do understand the obvious conundrum I've pointed out.

That sounds like a threat! I need to look for the Black helicopters landing on the roof of my Corporate Building?

 

[bigscoop]

I know next to nothing about this subject. I read some information online. I guess my question is, if the other two ciphers haven't been decoded, who can possibly know which one is which? Maybe the author has it wrong. Am I missing something?

You are dead on to the point at hand.
The problem is that the alleged clear text for C2 was written in or about 1821 and only in that clear text it maintains that C3 holds the residences and that C1 holds the location...however...according to our author there was no numerical order to the ciphers until he arranged them according their length so many years later, only then did they have an assigned numerical order, which ironically and against all odds our author claims to be the accurate order.

So, and quite obviously, the author of the pamphlet is asking us to believe that the original coder back in 1821 knew in advance that some decoder in the distant future was going to lay the ciphers out according to their length and then assign the correct numerical order to them without any prior instruction whatsoever. Can we say, "Oopsie!" on the author's part.

The only possible way this could have worked out is if the author and the writer of the codes maintained the same shared knowledge as to the order of the ciphers "before C2 was ever allegedly decoded!" And that, for certain, is a wrap!

 

[Cryptography]

"If" for instance, the author had included instruction from Beale in one of the alleged letters that he would first have to arrange the ciphers according to their length, and then starting with the longest one first he was to number them 1,2,3...well,...then perhaps the author would have known to do this and his story wouldn't be floundering as it is presented. But as the facts are, he failed to include these critical details.

Like a letter to Mr Morriss in 1832 that tells all about how to decode the ciphers? I hope Jean shows me the letter he has one day!

 

[ECS]

Beale has stated that there are 30 people with him...

Once again, that statement is from the 1885 Beale Papers, and has NO outside collaboration to prove it true.

 

[bigscoop]

Like a letter to Mr Morriss in 1832 that tells all about how to decode the ciphers? I hope Jean shows me the letter he has one day!

Right. That's like the three previously undiscovered correspondences that I just sent to ECS, in which "it appears" that Morriss is asking for direction in decoding the ciphers and then another from TJB explaining why he never returned to Morriss' fine establishment. While I could easily claim that these correspondences are authentic I certainly wouldn't dare to claim that they are true.

 

[MadPoetLaw]

I'm most certain it seems that way to you. But the simple truth to the matter is that both your pamphlet author and your writer of the "unmarked" codes knew exactly what the order of the alleged ciphers was going to be before there was ever any order assigned to them. And that, my friend, is a cold and hard and undeniable fact. Only one possible way this could have transpired.

I've enjoyed reading this thread but i think there is actually a reasonable explanation that could be considered.

Let me start by saying that I have no horse in this race. I enjoy reading about the legend purely for entertainment and am certainly not a Beale researcher but I do enjoy probability puzzles.

On the surface your premise looks very sound however there are some things to consider. I don't agree that it is air tight proof that the cipher author and the pamphleteer are the same person.

A set of three papers (labeled 1,2,3) can be shuffled randomly and will have only 6 possible resulting combinations. (1,2,3 - 1,3,2,- 2,1,3 - 2,3,1, - 3,1,2 - 3,2,1 )
So if the pamphleteer were to select and label the three (previously unlabeled) ciphers completely at random he would still have a 1/6 (or 16.6%) chance of matching the original author's selection. But - we don't know for certain he did. We can't know for certain until someone positively breaks at least one more of the codes.In fact, the only thing we know for certain is that both men labeled #2 as "2" and there are two possible combinations that contain that. This means that the pamphleteer has a 2/6 chance based upon the evidence that we currently have. That's a 1/3 probability purely by random chance!

I don't know about you but I don't think that those are unreasonable odds. But there is also more to consider.

Legend states that the box contained a "note" and 3 separate ciphers written on paper. So there are at least three sheets of paper involved but probably 4 or more depending on how much paper was used writing the note. But If the "note" and cipher #1 were written on the same sheet of paper though that changes pamphleteer's odds again up to 50/50 because now he's only guessing at 2 and 3. We can't know for certain about this though as the originals are gone.

One last thought is that we humans are fairly methodical creatures. It's not unreasonable to assume that the original author (Beale ?) would have taken great care of these important papers and placed them carefully in the lock box in (his chosen) order. Is it not also reasonable to assume that upon opening the box that Morriss would preserve the order he found them in ? In turn passing it along to pamphleteer in that same order ? it's quite possible that Beale could "label" the papers in any number of different ways without actually marking them 1,2,3 etc. One easy way would be to use three sheets of paper that are the same width but cut so that each successive page is just slightly but noticeably longer than the previous. They could be mixed thoroughly and almost any adult will reassemble them in the same order with the longest on the bottom "pyramid" style. Lastly to my knowledge no where does it say that the papers were not bound by some means - clip, staples, etc. even just poking a hole in a corner and tying a loop of string around it would preserver the proper order of only a few sheets of paper adequately for the timeline involved with this legend. Of course none of the original characters ever documented something as mundane as staples but. . . . your premise does rest on the fact that these papers were rolling around loose in the lock box which may or may not be true.

A little food for thought -

 

[bigscoop]

Nobody is suggesting 100% that the author and the writer of the codes were the same person, only 100% that they shared the same knowledge as to the contents and order of the alleged ciphers.

What has to be considered is that the author has already stated that there was no known order to the three ciphers when he came into possession of them and that "he" devised a plan to arrange them according to their length and then assign the numerical values of 1,2, and 3 to the ciphers. But here's the issue.....

"How did the writer of the codes in 1821, when creating the clear text for C2, know that at some later point in the distant future that someone was going to arrange the ciphers according to their length and then assign the numerical values of 1,2, and 3 in that correct order?" Why not A,B,C? What if the author had laid the ciphers out according to their length in reverse order, etc.? So how did the writer of the codes know what exact process someone else was going to use so many years into the future?

We have to remember that the author is telling us that there was no known order to the ciphers when they came into his possession and that it was solely by his own devise that the ciphers came to be arranged in the present order. So, how is it possible that he could be 100% certain that his order is the accurate order?

So you see, there is only one way that the presented order can be the 100% intended order.

 

[bigscoop]

And I might add, if we were drawing three cards from a hat and the order in which they were drawn held no relevance then your odds of chance would be closely correct. However, when we factor in the multiples of possible orders to those odds, as those possible variables are relevant to the presented task, then I believe you will find those odds against success on the first attempt to be much-much higher. Because the correct order is relevant then those odds would have to become factoring variables and thus multiplied by all of the possible combinations.

 

[ECS]

Right. That's like the three previously undiscovered correspondences that I just sent to ECS, in which "it appears" that Morriss is asking for direction in decoding the ciphers and then another from TJB explaining why he never returned to Morriss' fine establishment. While I could easily claim that these correspondences are authentic I certainly wouldn't dare to claim that they are true.

You should add these to the Robert Morriss: Cannibal Slayer thread!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

You should add these to the Robert Morriss: Cannibal Slayer thread!

YES!

 

[releventchair]

You should add these to the Robert Morriss: Cannibal Slayer thread!

Oh no, them guys arn't right.

 

[releventchair]

Ciphers may too have been numbered in the box.( I can not speak for all but I number loose pages/sheets that relate to each other.)
Yet were then published with numbers and order omitted.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Oh no, them guys arn't right.

My dad would say ... "They need Worm Medicine"; his "cure" for EVERYTHING!

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Ciphers may too have been numbered in the box.( I can not speak for all but I number loose pages/sheets that relate to each other.)
Yet were then published with numbers and order omitted.

Well, according To Beale PAPERS, there were ONLY three loose sheets with FIGURES, and LETTERS to RM. The REST was "fleshed out" by the AUTHOR. FIGURES...? Not NUMBERS; eh...?

 

[releventchair]

Well, according To Beale PAPERS, there were ONLY three loose sheets with FIGURES, and LETTERS to RM. The REST was "fleshed out" by the AUTHOR. FIGURES...? Not NUMBERS; eh...?

Hoo boy. More shuffling. More distance between the two writings.