I think it is possible to use the original ciphers and a DOI from the timeline of the 1820's to decipher the page know as 2. The X's, V's and other letters offset by one number would be easy to find as the author did. To sell a book must be dumb down to reach the people of that time. If in fact the original pamphlet had the errors at 480 used 2 times and the others it would seem that the people simply ajusted it to fit there deciphered text. The Hart's also changed the original ciphers to mach these corrections that were needed to have a good text with the page know as 2. They have changed all the numbers in all three ciphers to reflect the fixes that were in page 2. So do you have an original pamphlet of the Beale Papers or are you just giving an opinion?
First, myself and others worked on the ciphers for years, this including some of the most advanced computer systems/programs available, others were even written and/or altered for more specific search. So I have a great deal of experience and knowledge regarding the construction of the ciphers. Having said this, yes, one can manipulate the existing codes in any seemingly reasonable fashion they want in order to arrive at a possible correct clear text, or in other words, to make things workout. At face value this all seems reasonable process. However, the existing flaw in these seemingly reasonable processes is that, "they are completely blind and random efforts". This includes even those efforts that are deemed to be completely unbiased because they cannot be completely unbiased since something has to be specifically suspected and sought during these efforts. Again, the two remaining ciphers are just two random sets of a series of numbers and we have no possible way of knowing which is cipher 1 and which is 3, nor do we have any possible way to know what the context of those clear text might be, or if they contain any true clear text at all? All you we have to go on is the author's word and that word has already been seriously discredited by his own narration, and on top of this we have absolutely nothing at ever level in support of a single detail he has offered and in many cases quite the opposite.
So, and here is the real issue now,
what provenance do any of us possess that concludes that those ciphers hold any true clear text at all? All we have is the author's word and we already know beyond shadow of doubt that his word cannot be trusted and that much of his narration isn't true. And remember, the computers say that C1 can't possibly hold a grammatically correct clear text, the past 135 years and countless attempts by some of the best and brightest and most sophisticated programs in the business in complete support of that assessment. Sure, you can continue to pursue the C2 & DOI process but it will establish nothing of use other then to establish that the author, once again, did not proceed as he lead readers to believe that he had. We need go no further then his numbering of the ciphers to prove this, and this is just one such case of many.
What do any of us possess to establish that the story is true? Still, to this day, only cold hard fact to the opposite. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Science, research, investigation, it all points to C1 being just randomly selected numbers with no real clear text,
"If all of that code is to be used." The obvious problem here, however, is who gets to decided what code gets removed and what code is kept? So with no provenance to work from the sky becomes the limit once again.
You can't change the original source to create a new original source or you're simply rewriting new code to suit your own desires.
