Code Number Two Deciphering And Linguistic Word Studies

[Five]

Interesting , why? What mad hatter tried to source wrought lids for pots?
Wrought iron is not poured into molds to make pot lids. It's impurity and low carbon simply do not suit such works. Slag pockets and inclusions are not characteristics sought in cooking appliances. Add the other qualities of wrought ,and see a housewife frown.

If you insist lids were wrought ,please show peer reviewed industry examples.

Gray , White , Ductile (quite a blend) , are cast. Wrought had it's uses in Beale era. For lids ,not so much.

Simply researching your speculations subjects will avoid fitting non-plausible claims where they don't fit.
You encounter some one no stranger to metallurgy and acid and resin and sand and patterns and molds and amalgamation of varied metals who has both worked in the industry and has studied it's history (hello.) and present such outlandish claim....What do you expect the results to be?

Consistent fabrication does not equal fact. Wild speculation does not either.

A solve has to make more sense than wrought lids anyways . But your track record in regards to sense...... is at least consistent.

Not what I insist, just what the cipher decrypts to say! Interesting that the word wrot is found with the word cover, would you agree?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Five]

Seems sort of like that other great conspiracy called Christendom.

But regardless, have you seen a copy yet in Redneck, Hillbilly, Coonass, maybe Ebonics. Pretty sure 1885 anything is out dated, heck english changes so much just in 20 years.

Yes the English language can change! That is how we can make datelines for words used in the 1820' vs the 1880'.

Very good point!

 

[franklin]

The words you are trying to say existed in 1820 were also used in 1880 so your argument is pointless. What words prove to you that the letters were written in 1820 and were not used in 1880?

 

[Five]

The words you are trying to say existed in 1820 were also used in 1880 so your argument is pointless. What words prove to you that the letters were written in 1820 and were not used in 1880?

And the words you are talking about are?

 

[Rebel - KGC]

And the words you are talking about are?

 

[Five]

And the words you are talking about are?

 

[franklin]

And the words you are talking about are?

The words are in Linguistic Word Studies. Don't you know what you have been talking about?

 

[Five]

The words are in Linguistic Word Studies. Don't you know what you have been talking about?

Improvise is one that Mr Joe Nickell used to say the Beale Papers were a hoax. After his research he found the word not used at the time Beale was to have written the letters. This has turned out to be a total scam by Nickell as the author of one thread proved.

 

[Five]

The words are in Linguistic Word Studies. Don't you know what you have been talking about?

Then we have the usage of cardinal numbers as found in the decryption of the C2 doc?

 

[Five]

The words are in Linguistic Word Studies. Don't you know what you have been talking about?

Most recently is the line;

"packhd in iton pots wits wrot coiers"

 

[franklin]

Most recently is the line;

"packhd in iton pots wits wrot coiers"

All of them are useless just like the Joe Nickell's post you keep driving home. They have nothing to do with anything. YOU HAVE TO FIRST PROVE THE STORY IN THE JOB PRINT PAMPHLET IS TRUE ALL OF THIS OTHER ARGUING WITH PEOPLE ON OTHER WEBSITES IS RIDICULOUS

 

[Five]

All of them are useless just like the Joe Nickell's post you keep driving home. They have nothing to do with anything. YOU HAVE TO FIRST PROVE THE STORY IN THE JOB PRINT PAMPHLET IS TRUE ALL OF THIS OTHER ARGUING WITH PEOPLE ON OTHER WEBSITES IS RIDICULOUS

It has not been proven a fake, and if it can not be proven a fake what then? Joe Nickell is the one who claims it to be fake! Then he turned out to be a fake! LOL Can't help but laugh at that one, but the funniest part is how fast you guys on the dark hoax site cucked Uncle Joe Nickell under your bus!

OFLMAO

 

[releventchair]

Most recently is the line;

"packhd in iton pots wits wrot coiers"

For starters ,the translation of garbled results of a forced by wrong key text result in specualtion as to the results meaning. Per word.
You can agree or disagree , but that is what is being attempted.

Do I agree with the interest of "wrot" covers . No.
I can play a game with it ,(shocking I know but that seems to be the in thing today vs actual words being produced and accepted) and state that based on reasonable logic ,covers would not be wrought iron ,(and again feel free to present examples of wrought iron covers) and instead tie them to Oak Island by being "wrot".

"Wrot" =wrought. Wrought = by hand.
"Coirs"=coconut fibers.
Whence and wherefore , "Wrot coirs =handwoven coconut fiber covers =Oak Island. Unless you have another coconut fiber encrusted treasure site?
Interesting? Not really. Just another forced fit.
Nice quiet unbreakable covers securing tons of preciousness from prying eyes on ship as the caissons (a large watertight chamber, open at the bottom from which the water is kept out by air pressure and in which construction work may be carried out under water) go rolling (working at site of money pit) along prepping the site.

"Wrought and fraught and all for naught .When given much thought tis but a tale to haunt, till caught by haught when more is sought...Which is exactly why you're grabbing for aught ;mongst wrotted pot".

 

[Five]

For starters ,the translation of garbled results of a forced by wrong key text result in specualtion as to the results meaning. Per word.
You can agree or disagree , but that is what is being attempted.

Do I agree with the interest of "wrot" covers . No.
I can play a game with it ,(shocking I know but that seems to be the in thing today vs actual words being produced and accepted) and state that based on reasonable logic ,covers would not be wrought iron ,(and again feel free to present examples of wrought iron covers) and instead tie them to Oak Island by being "wrot".

"Wrot" =wrought. Wrought = by hand.
"Coirs"=coconut fibers.
Whence and wherefore , "Wrot coirs =handwoven coconut fiber covers =Oak Island. Unless you have another coconut fiber encrusted treasure site?
Interesting? Not really. Just another forced fit.
Nice quiet unbreakable covers securing tons of preciousness from prying eyes on ship as the caissons (a large watertight chamber, open at the bottom from which the water is kept out by air pressure and in which construction work may be carried out under water) go rolling (working at site of money pit) along prepping the site.

"Wrought and fraught and all for naught .When given much thought tis but a tale to haunt, till caught by haught when more is sought...Which is exactly why you're grabbing for aught ;mongst wrotted pot".

The wordsmith who decrypted the cipher C2 did not have the proper key. Copy that!

The author did get a response from the DOI as a key, and understood the significance of that! The odds are overwhelmingly high that the key was from the DOI in his decryption, but he even tried to go that one extra step to manipulate the DOI to be a better key. The people who think the problems with the key are errors on Beale's part are just proving their ignorance.

Wrot is a word used at the 1822 timeline for iron, but that iron covers is not far from! I have seen I referenced as a Roman numeral somewhere. 1 ton pots with iron covers if I remember correctly was part of someones theory.

 

[releventchair]

The wordsmith who decrypted the cipher C2 did not have the proper key. Copy that!

The author did get a response from the DOI as a key, and understood the significance of that! The odds are overwhelmingly high that the key was from the DOI in his decryption, but he even tried to go that one extra step to manipulate the DOI to be a better key. The people who think the problems with the key are errors on Beale's part are just proving their ignorance.

Wrot is a word used at the 1822 timeline for iron, but that iron covers is not far from! I have seen I referenced as a Roman numeral somewhere. 1 ton pots with iron covers if I remember correctly was part of someones theory.

Where ,when, (frequency) and how to use a key matters.
One time if it is as long as the message?
Reused if it is not?
Multiple encryptions? , and a whole rabbit hole of host options.

Linguistics and words vs "unintelligible without the key" does not mean words need to be re-written or their meanings changed or interpreted with the right key,keys,key use ,ect...
Depending on cipher type ,and common among more than one , the wrong technique =wrong answer(s). Which explains empty holes , un-confirmed solves by amateur/ambitious on the ground hunters , and multiple claims of solves with no peer reviewed confirmation of accuracy...

Was the (A) D.O.I. the correct key for C2? It was per one author. What makes it right to anyone else? The results being intelligible?

That being accepted as "right/correct" applies to any claimed solve. The more forced the less likely to be accurate ,but the results of applying the intelligible results is what is going to confirm to doubters the authenticity of a treasure claim in this case. As well as the number of people and events in the tale.

Peer reviewed method of solve is another topic. Doable? Possibly. But not by arguing on this site. Or on you and your comrades site. Though I highly doubt it has a public forum to challenge inaccurate claims on.
That tier of peer reviewed confirmation is elsewhere regardless. Though the "five" may not be considered peers by paid career professionals.
And to date nothing has been confirmed by the accredited field , still... Not even wrot coirs. (!)

 

[Five]

Where ,when, (frequency) and how to use a key matters.
One time if it is as long as the message?
Reused if it is not?
Multiple encryptions? , and a whole rabbit hole of host options.

Linguistics and words vs "unintelligible without the key" does not mean words need to be re-written or their meanings changed or interpreted with the right key,keys,key use ,ect...
Depending on cipher type ,and common among more than one , the wrong technique =wrong answer(s). Which explains empty holes , un-confirmed solves by amateur/ambitious on the ground hunters , and multiple claims of solves with no peer reviewed confirmation of accuracy...

Was the (A) D.O.I. the correct key for C2? It was per one author. What makes it right to anyone else? The results being intelligible?

That being accepted as "right/correct" applies to any claimed solve. The more forced the less likely to be accurate ,but the results of applying the intelligible results is what is going to confirm to doubters the authenticity of a treasure claim in this case. As well as the number of people and events in the tale.

Peer reviewed method of solve is another topic. Doable? Possibly. But not by arguing on this site. Or on you and your comrades site. Though I highly doubt it has a public forum to challenge inaccurate claims on.
That tier of peer reviewed confirmation is elsewhere regardless. Though the "five" may not be considered peers by paid career professionals.
And to date nothing has been confirmed by the accredited field , still... Not even wrot coirs. (!)

The Engineers and Mechanic's Encyclopedia

1758 with some trials for melting silver in Wrought iron pots. Just interesting the only Google books that are in this timeline 1815-1835 are taking about melting silver for making large Bar's for more efficient transportation!

Wrot would be used as a term for iron, I hate to say it, but in the Beale timeline. I know, but it just is too perfect a fit!

The key to C2 has been cracked, but only to a point. Because of the muti cipher layer it may be the only decryption that can be done on the top layer cipher of C2. My understanding is that it is possible that this cipher was only a rough or false cipher made to keep the other underlying ciphers safe!

Peer review is slanted quite well, but a peer review is what is needed for certain decryptions to thin out all the creative crap that is out there!

 

[franklin]

The Engineers and Mechanic's Encyclopedia

1758 with some trials for melting silver in Wrought iron pots. Just interesting the only Google books that are in this timeline 1815-1835 are taking about melting silver for making large Bar's for more efficient transportation!

Wrot would be used as a term for iron, I hate to say it, but in the Beale timeline. I know, but it just is too perfect a fit!

The key to C2 has been cracked, but only to a point. Because of the muti cipher layer it may be the only decryption that can be done on the top layer cipher of C2. My understanding is that it is possible that this cipher was only a rough or false cipher made to keep the other underlying ciphers safe!

Peer review is slanted quite well, but a peer review is what is needed for certain decryptions to thin out all the creative crap that is out there!

The words of Rev. John if I ever heard them. Why do you not come clean. The moderators should know if you are using another avatar to further your sponging information from posters?

 

[releventchair]

The Engineers and Mechanic's Encyclopedia

1758 with some trials for melting silver in Wrought iron pots. Just interesting the only Google books that are in this timeline 1815-1835 are taking about melting silver for making large Bar's for more efficient transportation!

Wrot would be used as a term for iron, I hate to say it, but in the Beale timeline. I know, but it just is too perfect a fit!

The key to C2 has been cracked, but only to a point. Because of the muti cipher layer it may be the only decryption that can be done on the top layer cipher of C2. My understanding is that it is possible that this cipher was only a rough or false cipher made to keep the other underlying ciphers safe!

Peer review is slanted quite well, but a peer review is what is needed for certain decryptions to thin out all the creative crap that is out there!

Wrought pot does not a lid make!

Ingot size runs around 100 oz. or just short of 7 pounds.
Depending on customer ,smaller bars are easier to remelt.

Using a pot to melt still requires a mold. Did you find mention of mold material?

 

[Five]

Wrought pot does not a lid make!

Ingot size runs around 100 oz. or just short of 7 pounds.
Depending on customer ,smaller bars are easier to remelt.

Using a pot to melt still requires a mold. Did you find mention of mold material?

Yes, seems the earliest was just a sand mold. It is a interesting book!

 

[releventchair]

Yes, seems the earliest was just a sand mold. It is a interesting book!

Divesting oneself of large bars would mean questions of provenance , and of purity. Beyond being checked for counterfeits.
A furnace and ladle for larger operations , your wrought crucible for smaller.

Bars to where?
Sitting on them gains no interest.
A facility that can digest them would be vulnerable to credibility.
Silver that just "showed up" from an unknown source? Even if claimed to be from "out west" ?
Might be bought at a severe discount. Might.

Currency of the realm was still suspect! Theft and forgery rampant as ever.