More Interesting New Findings From The Beale Ciphers

[bigscoop]

More than likely Beale used the the DOI as a basic foundation for his key. The off sets are just a precaution so no one would understand the DOI was used if in fact someone tried to decipher it without the key. The numbers that do not mach the DOI at all tell us this. 1005, 807, 810 and so on. So we have learned from the Professor that the DOI was just used as a base source for the key and not the actual key itself for cipher page 2.

The Professor's work is very interesting and I have seen document's that there is much more information coming!

...uh, the fact that presented DOI was just used as example for the publication and C2 has been known since the day the pamphlet was made public, and has certainly been pointed out endless times since then.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[masterpoe]

Seem a lot of of interesting information has come up of this thread. The ideas that because of the DOI the whole thing must be a HOAX has been put to sleep. Now that we have proof that Beale simply used an adaptation of some of the DOI and not word for word. For if he had used the DOI for his key he would have been exact in his number marking and it would have been easier to decipher, his biggest fear. Seems the key was lost in the flood in the St Louis as the Professor has said.

 

[masterpoe]

The author did so many things wrong and the reason is he never proof read anything and he never worked on the cipher codes for years. There are too many errors pointing to this surmise. Multiple times he would choose the adjoining number beside of each other for his next letter. The author several times was off by one count because he forgot which was on the ten count whether on the left or on the right. Then his miscount of ten and that should have thrown everything out of "sink" just like your one count did but no he got every letter perfect 100% of the time 72 for 72. Now that is an impossibility. To get 72 correct when everything should have been wrong. Then when the author transcribed his words out of the decipherment he gets them wrong also. The author placed ciphers for words that should have been spelled out such as "paper number 1" when it clearly said "paper number one" and then again "paper number 3" when it should have been "paper number three" Then the author abbreviated the month as "Nov" when it should have been "November", the author abbreviated "Dec" when it should have been "December" Then he did the years identically the same wrong way, "1819" when the decoded message said "eighteen nineteen" also "1821" when the decoded message said "eighteen twenty-one" Then we come to the author's mistakes of placing thousands in the decipherment instead of hundreds. The author had "one thousand" when it actually was decoded "ten hundred" the author also had in his decipherment "three thousand" and it was decoded "thirty eight hundred"

There are mistakes enumerable and these mistakes were not intentional they were mistakes because the author never proof read his work, he was in a hurry to get them printed and on the market for sale. Mistakes like that not only suggest the story is made up it proclaims the story as fiction and for sell for fifty cents a copy. It was really done so badly I believe that fourteen year old W.W. Watts was the author of something that has baffled the experts and code breakers for the past one hundred and thirty-two years.

The referenced item above that are changes from the plane deciphered text are just changes made by Ward for appearance only!
You have over worked the evidence into what you wish to see!

1885 English is much different than the 1820's counterpart! Just a the facts nothing more!

 

[bigscoop]

In his mind, I think your professor could manufacture certain proof that a 300lb hog has never eaten. He still can't establish that TJB was real or that the narration is anything other then complete fiction and yet he even knows how the alleged key was lost. He certainly has a pretty wild imagination, should have been a fiction author.

 

[masterpoe]

You really think to highly of your professor. Why does he hid in the shadows claiming he has deciphered C1 over four years ago yet has not dug in Bedford County or anywhere else? You and the professor thought because the "a" was left out of the "author's" DOI that you had made a great historical discovery. Absolutely Nothing.

You have seen documents and there is much more information coming? You do mean dis-information don't you. You are dropping your hook into waters where there is no fish. But continue maybe you like to see the sunrise and the sunset.

I bit strange chap! Did not know you and the Professor to be mate's?

I just read the interweb of all the new stuff about Beale. All I see here is the same repeated info just on a new threads.

 

[Cryptography]

In his mind, I think your professor could manufacture certain proof that a 300lb hog has never eaten. He still can't establish that TJB was real or that the narration is anything other then complete fiction and yet he even knows how the alleged key was lost. He certainly has a pretty wild imagination, should have been a fiction author.

This just proves BS has no idea what he is talking about at all. Wow, just wow!

 

[ECS]

I bit strange chap! ...

What did you bite that was strange?

 

[bigscoop]

This just proves BS has no idea what he is talking about at all. Wow, just wow!

...you guys have been going on and on and on creating all manner of speculative and manufactured evidence to try to convince folks that you've made some great discovery and you still can't even establish the TBJ was real character or that the narration was anything other then a fiction dime novel. The issue is that you guys don't understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and actual proof. You never have understood this and apparently you never will. There isn't a single piece of "proof" that you possess that you could even use in court to get a conviction.....that's what you're still failing to understand. You can't just claim things to be true, you have to be able to prove it. To date, you still can't prove any of it. It's all just he-said-she-said and creative manufacture. And that's a fact, my friend. All you have to do is to produce any type of provenance to the contrary.....and you still can't do that. Informed people aren't stupid, they fully understand this, and why.

 

[masterpoe]

...you guys have been going on and on and on creating all manner of speculative and manufactured evidence to try to convince folks that you've made some great discovery and you still can't even establish the TBJ was real character or that the narration was anything other then a fiction dime novel. The issue is that you guys don't understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and actual proof. You never have understood this and apparently you never will. There isn't a single piece of "proof" that you possess that you could even use in court to get a conviction.....that's what you're still failing to understand. You can't just claim things to be true, you have to be able to prove it. To date, you still can't prove any of it. It's all just he-said-she-said and creative manufacture. And that's a fact, my friend. All you have to do is to produce any type of provenance to the contrary.....and you still can't do that. Informed people aren't stupid, they fully understand this, and why.

Mostly what I see from you guys is the he said she said! I have been just working with a few topics here. You guys are all over the place. I just wanted to talk about something new. I hope I have done so? But it would be nice to not hear all your anti Beale Papers mumbo-jumbo!

 

[bigscoop]

The only things we can prove, or establish, are those "elements" that exist in the narration. These are not the same things as "details offered by author" but rather these are the existing elements in the construction of his narration because these are elements that we actually "know exist", the original narration itself providing us with this "provenance." All else offered by the author still remains to this very day as unverified detail with no provenance whatsoever. The elements/construction of the narration reveal quite a bit, just as they always do. The details offered by the author, to this very day, still reveal nothing.

 

[ECS]

... You guys are all over the place. I just wanted to talk about something new. I hope I have done so? But it would be nice to not hear all your anti Beale Papers mumbo-jumbo!

The only facts concerning the Beale Papers that are true:
James Beverly Ward copyrighted the Beale Papers with only the title as "agent"
His cousin, John William Sherman set the type and printed the pamphlet at the Virginia Print Shop.
It was advertised for sale in the LYNCHBURG VIRGINIAN newspaper, where Sherman as a sub-editor.
Charles W Button owned both the newspaper and print shop.
Max Guggenheimer is the only person mentioned, besides Ward, who was alive at the time of publication and sale.
Originally the pamphlet sold for 50 cents, but latter the price was reduced to 10 cents.

That's it. Everything else, is created mumbo-jumbo gumbo, and two many cooks have added too many extras and spoiled the soup.

 

[masterpoe]

The only facts concerning the Beale Papers that are true:
James Beverly Ward copyrighted the Beale Papers with only the title as "agent"
His cousin, John William Sherman set the type and printed the pamphlet at the Virginia Print Shop.
It was advertised for sale in the LYNCHBURG VIRGINIAN newspaper, where Sherman as a sub-editor.
Charles W Button owned both the newspaper and print shop.
Max Guggenheimer is the only person mentioned, besides Ward, who was alive at the time of publication and sale.
Originally the pamphlet sold for 50 cents, but latter the price was reduced to 10 cents.

That's it. Everything else, is created mumbo-jumbo gumbo, and two many cooks have added too many extras and spoiled the soup.

If you have so many problems with the Beale Papers, why spend all your time talking about them?

 

[masterpoe]

The only things we can prove, or establish, are those "elements" that exist in the narration. These are not the same things as "details offered by author" but rather these are the existing elements in the construction of his narration because these are elements that we actually "know exist", the original narration itself providing us with this "provenance." All else offered by the author still remains to this very day as unverified detail with no provenance whatsoever. The elements/construction of the narration reveal quite a bit, just as they always do. The details offered by the author, to this very day, still reveal nothing.

It just a small book about an event that took place in the past by people trying pass on the story. The people that wrote it weren't professionals by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes simple thing are simple things.

There are no errors in the pamphlet regarding the DOI as all of you have stated. There is just a key based on the DOI. The ciphers are not book ciphers as you guys have tried to state using the DOI. There is no proof that the information in the pamphlet is not true. A lot of interesting fictional opinions you guys put out though!

 

[Cryptography]

It just a small book about an event that took place in the past by people trying pass on the story. The people that wrote it weren't professionals by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes simple thing are simple things.

There are no errors in the pamphlet regarding the DOI as all of you have stated. There is just a key based on the DOI. The ciphers are not book ciphers as you guys have tried to state using the DOI. There is no proof that the information in the pamphlet is not true. A lot of interesting fictional opinions you guys put out though!

There is one funny thing about all these post here on all these threads. They are nothing more people that like to argue that's all. they get off on it and that is why they do it. they are a bunch of sic freaks and master debaters.

 

[franklin]

There is one funny thing about all these post here on all these threads. They are nothing more people that like to argue that's all. they get off on it and that is why they do it. they are a bunch of sic freaks and master debaters.

No sir we are not "sic freaks" or "master debaters"? When I say this I am only speaking for myself but I know the others have went down this same road. Most of the road is the same road that you and others have traveled but at a certain point the road comes to a wide intersection of multiple roads and that is where the disagreements come in. Which road is the right road and many there be that go down the wrong road on a thought or conjecture of their own works. At that intersection the facts of the "Beale Papers" come to and end and everyone starts creating roads with no facts.

I and others have sought after these facts for decades of years and we have found none so we end up back to the intersection. Then along comes others and they say go down this road and another down this road? Many of those roads we have traveled but now others are creating other roads. Some of these roads claim "New Information" but none can verify. Some of these claims even take the "GIVEN" out of the "Beale Papers" and change them to agree with the road they are traveling and we that have been down those roads know that this road leads no where but to destruction.

We as long time researchers "seek the same information" you do. We want very much to prove or disapprove this story and that is why we ask for provenance and no one is delivering any PROVENANCE at all only theories.

 

[bigscoop]

Masterpoe, Crypto,.......there exist "several" areas of provenance in the narration that prove the author wasn't telling the truth, in fact you two guys have even established as much yourselves with many of your alternate remedies. Per example, there is no possible way the length alone can be used to determined which is C1 & C3, so in an attempt to justify the author's claim of such some of you have even gone as far to create other means for which it could done, all the while thus establishing that the author wasn't telling the truth about how they become C1 & C3...so in essence you have established that you believe the author lied about this. And this is just one such example, and by the very minds of those who still want to claim that story is true and factual....too darn funny!

"Every time you guys present alternate remedy in direct conflict with author provided details you are calling him a liar. Period!" This is what you have failed to figure out yet about your completely manufactured certain solutions and remedies, they all discredit the credibility of the story, they don't strengthen it. Basic 101 all over again.....

 

[ECS]

If you have so many problems with the Beale Papers, why spend all your time talking about them?

I provided a list of the only true provable elemental facts of the Beale Papers- so the apparent problem appears to be your acceptance of the ONLY provable evidence concerning the Beale Papers.
I perceive that you are back to stirring an iron pot of mumbo-jumbo gumbo.
Let the good times roll!

 

[masterpoe]

It just a small book about an event that took place in the past by people trying pass on the story. The people that wrote it weren't professionals by any stretch of the imagination. Sometimes simple thing are simple things.

There are no errors in the pamphlet regarding the DOI as all of you have stated. There is just a key based on the DOI. The ciphers are not book ciphers as you guys have tried to state using the DOI. There is no proof that the information in the pamphlet is not true. A lot of interesting fictional opinions you guys put out though!

The key is not the DOI, but Beale just borrowed from it to make his key. Then we now know there are no errors in the Beale key as most state. Now we have a letter that would have been sent if not for a flood. These things above all are were we seem to be at this time!

 

[masterpoe]

No sir we are not "sic freaks" or "master debaters"? When I say this I am only speaking for myself but I know the others have went down this same road. Most of the road is the same road that you and others have traveled but at a certain point the road comes to a wide intersection of multiple roads and that is where the disagreements come in. Which road is the right road and many there be that go down the wrong road on a thought or conjecture of their own works. At that intersection the facts of the "Beale Papers" come to and end and everyone starts creating roads with no facts.

I and others have sought after these facts for decades of years and we have found none so we end up back to the intersection. Then along comes others and they say go down this road and another down this road? Many of those roads we have traveled but now others are creating other roads. Some of these roads claim "New Information" but none can verify. Some of these claims even take the "GIVEN" out of the "Beale Papers" and change them to agree with the road they are traveling and we that have been down those roads know that this road leads no where but to destruction.

We as long time researchers "seek the same information" you do. We want very much to prove or disapprove this story and that is why we ask for provenance and no one is delivering any PROVENANCE at all only theories.

prov·e·nance
ˈprävənəns
noun
the place of origin or earliest known history of something.

You Yanks like the big words eh?

 

[masterpoe]

I guess the only way to clear this up is to give an example of the two DOI's deciphering a line with marker numbers in the 155-255 sequence as an example. A strate number to letter, not 7 out of range.

Now that we have the key that Beale used in just borrowing some parts of the DOI. We now need to look a the page 2 cipher to use for our decipherment. Looking at the Hart's cipher Page 2 we see they have updated all the numbers to reflect the so called errors. That would not work for what we need to do! To bad they have messed that up, but if we knew were there original documents were it may be possible to use them before they corrected all the so called errors.

So after all this we will use the oldest version we can find and check all the numbers for errors against others we can find. Of course we are assuming that the grammar is correct with packed in ton pots?