More Interesting New Findings From The Beale Ciphers

[CrypticLibrarian]

It's amazing that to some the author, their lying, deceptive, inaccurate voice of truth and reason, got it all wrong except the part about there being a fabulous treasure.....
"Can't see the entire forest due to being focused on a single tree."

Those are what we call in the business: contradicted idealist!
Though i cannot wholeheartedly agree with you as something like this with a mysterious history cannot be treated with a "black and white" view of the large spectrum of possible theories and hypothesis about said history. Someone does not simply believe or not believe. Viewing ones ideas as such can lead to a superiority complex specific to the subject. This sadly happens often in the scientific community aswell!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

... Viewing ones ideas as such can lead to a superiority complex specific to the subject...

...and you have proven that point with the above four posts!

 

[bigscoop]

The hypothetical situation described has no correlation to the argument that the author of the pamphlets was a "liar".

It simply references a previous argument in which says that their are discrepancies between historical printed documents that would bring about different outcomes. This is like a computer: Different inputs WILL get a different output.

This can also be applied not only to the Declaration of Independence, but also previous arguments on the subject of how through reprinting and digitization of the cipher itself can be changed drastically from the original pamphlets if you are not careful about your sources. This concept can be related to the child's playground game "Telephone"

It is like a computer: Different inputs WILL get a different output.

So, you're basically supporting the notion that truth can be derived from complete unknowns? Can you show me just one example of such a case? I doubt it. What you can show me is a progression of results which lead to hypothetical answers supported by no verifiable materials. The problem is that many posters are simply presenting their "theories and subsequent conclusions" to be a matter of fact when there is no possible way for them to confirm such allegations. This, my shadow jumping friend, is flawed logic. And sure, change a single code or method or process and everything changes, but, "YOU MUST HAVE SOME MEASURE OF PROVENANCE FOR MAKING THOSE CHANGES." Data patterns will always exist, always, so are you suggesting that all of them hold direct relevance in the discovering of an accurate clear text? It might surprise you, but didn't just jump off the boat yesterday. So convince me that you can derive truth from complete unknowns. I promise you, it can't be done.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

...and you have proven that point with the above four posts!

If you feel threatened by me in any way that is not my intention.
I am simply pointing out that the inhabitants of this board seem to be of a single unwavering mindset, and a tad too stubborn to hold a insightful conversation.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

So, you're basically supporting the notion that truth can be derived from complete unknowns? Can you show me just one example of such a case? I doubt it. What you can show me is a progression of results which lead to hypothetical answers supported by no verifiable materials. The problem is that many posters are simply presenting their "theories and subsequent conclusions" to be a matter of fact when there is no possible way for them to confirm such allegations. This, my shadow jumping friend, is flawed logic. And sure, change a single code or method or process and everything changes, but, "YOU MUST HAVE SOME MEASURE OF PROVENANCE FOR MAKING THOSE CHANGES." Data patterns will always exist, always, so are you suggesting that all of them hold direct relevance in the discovering of an accurate clear text? It might surprise you, but didn't just jump off the boat yesterday. So convince me that you can derive truth from complete unknowns. I promise you, it can't be done.

Your argument seems to be that within the misleading changes between historical documents, you believe that provenance dictates that the outcome will still become relatively close to the original intended outcome? May i assume this statement as your general argument? Could you elaborate on specific unknowns you are referencing, as your terminology does not seem to parallel the topic at hand.

 

[masterpoe]

So you're admitting that the author wasn't telling the truth, yet again. Good for you! Has it dawned on you yet?

All I am seeing is the 1864> attempt at deciphering page two was a successful undertaking. If indeed the author have understood the timeline in the usage of the DOI. It would seem the copy of the printing of the pamphlet had errors in the referenced DOI. If this is used the errors would be realised on each number over 155. Have you done your page two with the errors as Mr Franklin?

 

[franklin]

All I am seeing is the 1864> attempt at deciphering page two was a successful undertaking. If indeed the author have understood the timeline in the usage of the DOI. It would seem the copy of the printing of the pamphlet had errors in the referenced DOI. If this is used the errors would be realised on each number over 155. Have you done your page two with the errors as Mr Franklin?

There was no errors above the 155 count due to a word being added or missing. There was no errors above the 480 count even though the author made the count two times throwing every thing above off by a count of 10. Yet the author hit all 72 of the ciphers above 480 exactly on the letter out of the DOI printed in 1876. Can you not see that this makes the encryption of C2 after 1876 and not in 1821 or 1822? This my friend makes the entire treasure story nothing but a story. There is no evidence anywhere that this excursion out West occurred? If you can verify anything, anything at all let us see it

And CyrpticLibrarian, if you are what you say you are you should verify my post. If not you are not what you say you are?

 

[ECS]

If you feel threatened by me in any way that is not my intention.
I am simply pointing out that the inhabitants of this board seem to be of a single unwavering mindset, and a tad too stubborn to hold a insightful conversation.

Not feeling threatened at all by a Johnny come lately making remarks based on limited knowledge of what was discussed on these threads over the years.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

There was no errors above the 155 count due to a word being added or missing. There was no errors above the 480 count even though the author made the count two times throwing every thing above off by a count of 10. Yet the author hit all 72 of the ciphers above 480 exactly on the letter out of the DOI printed in 1876. Can you not see that this makes the encryption of C2 after 1876 and not in 1821 or 1822? This my friend makes the entire treasure story nothing but a story. There is no evidence anywhere that this excursion out West occurred? If you can verify anything, anything at all let us see it

And CyrpticLibrarian, if you are what you say you are you should verify my post. If not you are not what you say you are?

What have i ever said i was? I have made no remarks other than that i am simply a fan of the board who watches but rarely post until something must be said.
As for your arguments in your post, try to be a bit more descriptive, quote your reasonings and sources. Half of an argument is in the concept, the other half is in the way it is presented.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

Not feeling threatened at all by a Johnny come lately making remarks based on limited knowledge of what was discussed on these threads over the years.

And how might you know of any sort of my knowledge on the subject?
You have only spoke to me today and at a time long previous to now.
Your attempts at establishing yourself as some sort of intellectual alpha seem to be just as littered with failure as your career as a self-proclaimed "treasure-hunter"

Have you ever tried to perform REAL historical archaeology? Or are you simply another fish in the pond of people that read a few half-baked books and decided to waste their life away pretending to be something they couldn't truly become because they would have to put their pride/ego on the line?

 

[bigscoop]

Your argument seems to be that within the misleading changes between historical documents, you believe that provenance dictates that the outcome will still become relatively close to the original intended outcome? May i assume this statement as your general argument? Could you elaborate on specific unknowns you are referencing, as your terminology does not seem to parallel the topic at hand.

What, you can't provide a simple example of when truth was ever discovered from complete unknowns? "Provenance" dictates everything, right from the very start, and since you fellas are attempting to find truth in the Beale narration's grand adventure details then you must first have provenance that said events actually ever took place, provenance which to this very day is still nonexistent at every level. For all you know you are grabbing hold of a complete work of fiction and two completely random sets of numbers and then trying to turn that fiction and those random numbers into a reality, yet in doing so all you are really doing is justifying the conclusion that the narration itself holds little if any truth at all each time you "make adjustments" in those original source materials.

Now if you actually had some provenance prior to your investigations that certain aspects of the grand adventure were true then you would no longer being trying to discover truth in complete unknowns as you would have some verified knowns/facts to begin your work from. But this just isn't the case regarding the Beale narration. You guys are trying to ride the horse before you ever posses it, building stables for your winged Unicorn before you have proven/established that said creature exit. "You have no knowns to work with. None." All you have is one cipher, one proposed key, and one clear text that couldn't have possibly arrived from the presented cipher or key in the manner in which the author outlined. You have two remaining ciphers where length has absolutely no relevance in determining which is a list of names and residences and which provides a location, this again turning the author's claim of the opposite into yet another lie. And I could go on and on, as there is no possible way in which the author could know that there was still a missing paper as there could just as easily be two or three, or none at all. So in fact, what little knowns you do have to work with are all established inaccuracies and intentional deceptions. So what knowns are you from, exactly?

Truth is, the only knowns you do possess lies in the knowledge that there is an alleged treasure involved and that alone is the true drawing card from which all else gets manufactured from all of the complete unknowns. So when you say that this stuff isn't relevant to the topic of this thread you are wrong, way wrong, as one cannot even proceed to discover truth within the codes without first establishing provenance that said truth truly exist at all. Failing to do this first only provides obvious flaw and illusion to everything else.

 

[masterpoe]

There was no errors above the 155 count due to a word being added or missing. There was no errors above the 480 count even though the author made the count two times throwing every thing above off by a count of 10. Yet the author hit all 72 of the ciphers above 480 exactly on the letter out of the DOI printed in 1876. Can you not see that this makes the encryption of C2 after 1876 and not in 1821 or 1822? This my friend makes the entire treasure story nothing but a story. There is no evidence anywhere that this excursion out West occurred? If you can verify anything, anything at all let us see it

And CyrpticLibrarian, if you are what you say you are you should verify my post. If not you are not what you say you are?

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.

 

[ECS]

And how might you Cryptic Librarian know of any sort of others knowledge on the subject?
You are just like many others who have come on these threads, not to engage in the discussion, but just to insult various posters.

That "alpha" comment and your sentence structure has made several on here wonder if you have employed several different "screen names" on these threads with variations on the same delivered comments.
Why are you pretending to be a self-proclaimed something on these threads?
Pride/ego?

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

And how might you Cryptic Librarian know of any sort of others knowledge on the subject?
You are just like many others who have come on these threads, not to engage in the discussion, but just to insult various posters.

That "alpha" comment and your sentence structure has made several on here wonder if you have employed several different "screen names" on these threads with variations on the same delivered comments.
Why are you pretending to be a self-proclaimed something on these threads?
Pride/ego?

It seems a common theme between the inhabitants of this board is the accusation of being someone else's alternate account.
Yet as i highly doubt you have been in contact with SEVERAL people about my appearance in the mere 12 hours i have been posting, i will humor your attempt at undermining me. Exaggerating facts to try and prove a point can denote all credibility to every claim one has ever made.

I have not proclaimed anything in these threads, at all. Nor have i insulted anyone in particular. I have simply claimed observations i have made about the board as a whole in the years i have followed it's evolution. The only person here throwing around insults here is you.

 

[masterpoe]

]And how might you Cryptic Librarian know of any sort of others knowledge on the subject?[/COLOR]
You are just like many others who have come on these threads, not to engage in the discussion, but just to insult various posters.

That "alpha" comment and your sentence structure has made several on here wonder if you have employed several different "screen names" on these threads with variations on the same delivered comments.
Why are you pretending to be a self-proclaimed something on these threads?
Pride/ego?

You realize that people can read your posts here, right! All the threads and all the post can be printed and revewed by others. Cheers!

 

[ECS]

It seems a common theme between the inhabitants of this board is the accusation of being someone else's alternate account...
... The only person here throwing around insults here is you.

Yes, your posts are very familiar.
As for "throwing around insults" that is your attempt at exaggerating facts to prove a point.

 

[ECS]

You realize that people can read your posts here, right! All the threads and all the post can be printed and revewed by others. Cheers!

Yes, and they can read yours. Cheers!

 

[masterpoe]

Yes, and they can read yours. Cheers!

So why would you think it odd for someone to know of what you believe?

 

[ECS]

Please expound upon and explain that comment. It really makes no sense.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

What, you can't provide a simple example of when truth was ever discovered from complete unknowns? "Provenance" dictates everything, right from the very start, and since you fellas are attempting to find truth in the Beale narration's grand adventure details then you must first have provenance that said events actually ever took place, provenance which to this very day is still nonexistent at every level. For all you know you are grabbing hold of a complete work of fiction and two completely random sets of numbers and then trying to turn that fiction and those random numbers into a reality, yet in doing so all you are really doing is justifying the conclusion that the narration itself holds little if any truth at all each time you "make adjustments" in those original source materials.

Now if you actually had some provenance prior to your investigations that certain aspects of the grand adventure were true then you would no longer being trying to discover truth in complete unknowns as you would have some verified knowns/facts to begin your work from. But this just isn't the case regarding the Beale narration. You guys are trying to ride the horse before you ever posses it, building stables for your winged Unicorn before you have proven/established that said creature exit. "You have no knowns to work with. None." All you have is one cipher, one proposed key, and one clear text that couldn't have possibly arrived from the presented cipher or key in the manner in which the author outlined. You have two remaining ciphers where length has absolutely no relevance in determining which is a list of names and residences and which provides a location, this again turning the author's claim of the opposite into yet another lie. And I could go on and on, as there is no possible way in which the author could know that there was still a missing paper as there could just as easily be two or three, or none at all. So in fact, what little knowns you do have to work with are all established inaccuracies and intentional deceptions. So what knowns are you from, exactly?

Truth is, the only knowns you do possess lies in the knowledge that there is an alleged treasure involved and that alone is the true drawing card from which all else gets manufactured from all of the complete unknowns. So when you say that this stuff isn't relevant to the topic of this thread you are wrong, way wrong, as one cannot even proceed to discover truth within the codes without first establishing provenance that said truth truly exist at all. Failing to do this first only provides obvious flaw and illusion to everything else.

First off, your "high-and-mighty" grammar doesn't help for one to want to listen to your arguments. If you truly want people to listen, it is my advice to act more humble, and with more reserve.

Secondly the entire concept behind your arguments are based off of not just opinion, but off of personal research that you have not accurately laid out and described in an organized way. This is something many on this board have failed to achieve. Even the ones i have seen who have laid out there theories as such, don't base their theories on provenance. They base them on third-party research littered with discrepancies, opinions displayed as facts, and mislead conclusions.

If you want to disprove something, you yourself must present the information in an orderly manner so that one might be able to understand your argument and where your views on the matter come from. Even then if you are not fully willing to hear out what others have to say, it is self-centered to think that others should listen to you.

I will agree that when working with such, provenance it the absolute key. But when the information related to provenance seems non-existent, you keep searching. When you can't find something you look for it. Otherwise, you have given up and lost the game. Just because your research and your battles wound up short, that does not mean you should impose on others your opinionated ideas that working with the code is useless.

As for provenance, the arguments made on this board leave me to personally believe that there is a story here worth searching for, but one that many on this thread and this board are not willing to uncover. Though i myself do not work on the ciphers, the information leads me to believe that whoever does and is successful, will discover something worth more than a simple materialistic value.