More Interesting New Findings From The Beale Ciphers

[CrypticLibrarian]

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

I feel like you should think out your responses before you post them. None of them really work as coherent "comebacks" as you probably view them.
As for familiar, i feel like the last time i posted on this board must be a distant memory to you, so that is understandable

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[CrypticLibrarian]

Yes, and they can read yours. Cheers!

This comment is useless and redundant.

 

[CrypticLibrarian]

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

He is asking why you find it hard to believe that someone like me who has quietly watched this board, might understand what your views on the subject are.

 

[bigscoop]

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-assistance, 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.

First off, if you have no experience with the ciphers or the in-depth research into the known inaccuracies, intentional deceptions, and out-right lies within the narration, how can you possibly enter into a debate in regards to such issues? Many of these issues are not new issues, having been known and detailed many-many times in recent years. Also, as has been detailed many-many times in recent years, one can turn random numbers into any form or type of clear text they desire, especially when there exist no known limitations to either the process employed or the possible context of the alleged clear text.

A while back, on several occasions, I offered to produce a clear text for C1 containing any subject matter suggested. I offered to do this to prove a point, that point being that any expectation can be satisfied and that the decoder could apply any process he desired in order to get the final result pursued. This, of course, can be accomplished because there are known limitations/restrictions to contain human imagination and creativity. So in essence anyone can create/manufacture any solution they desire or proposed remedy they desire, this only becoming easier and easier to accomplish once we start making necessary changes to the original source materials. Again, if we had some provenance for making those changes then that "might be" worth investigating, but again, there exist no such provenance for doing so other then decoder necessity and/or desire.

All the above is why so many various "certain claims of solution" exist, because those solutions can become anything anybody desires them to be. On the other hand, there exist absolutely nothing to justify/support any of those, "certain claims."

 

[legrand]

CrypticLibrarian:

Thank God!

I am so impressed with your presence here. Finally, one without an agenda.

I'm watching with great interest. You, I will share my findings with.

L

 

[ECS]

He is asking why you find it hard to believe that someone like me who has quietly watched this board, might understand what your views on the subject are.

Well it is highly suspect when one comes on who has only presented 55 posts since January 2016, 14 today just to argue and put down other TN members who have been discussing this topic for many years before you even joined.
You do seem to have some agenda behind this recent flurry of posts., which is very similar to what you posted on the Jan 2016 "TOP FIVE FAILED ATTEMPS AT THE BEALE PAPERS" in which you argued with the same comments about Franklin, Rebel-KGC, and me.
That thread was locked due to the arguments, but still can be read on page 5 of the Beale threads.

 

[bigscoop]

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.

Read the above portion of your post again, especially the part in bold. Now ask yourself how one can proceed to unravel the ciphers without any existing provenance to guide them through the process? As has been already clearly established, you cannot place any trust in anything the author has narrated so you are basically starting with a bunch of random numbers that could represent anything or nothing at all. Per example, what if half of C1 was just bogus coding added to protect a smaller series of code within? Or, what if an entire different decoding process was used? What if no real clear text existed at all? Since length alone cannot determine which cipher is C1 & C3, what if the author has them backwards? And I could go on and on as to the unlimited possibilities that might exist. This is why provenance is required beforehand because without it everything remains in a complete state of unknowns that are only subject to speculation, per-conceived expectations, or personal desire. Operating from these foundations can only deliver results that are products of those foundations.

 

[bigscoop]

Crypticlibrarian, allow me to point something else out to you that you need to realize and since we've already referenced it let us use the order of the ciphers again as example.

When I first disclosed that length alone could not determine the correct order of the ciphers many raced about trying to find alternate answer as to how the author was able to determine that order and some of those folks came up with some pretty creative alternate ways in which they proposed that it could have been done. However, and this is important, in doing so their alternate explanations are in direct conflict with how the author said he did it, so in essence they are only further supporting the conclusion that the author lied about how he had "laid them out and then numbered them according to their length." So, what have they just established about the author and the accuracy/trust in his details and statements? And this is just one such area in which the author has been proven to have used intentional deception so what, dare I ask, can we trust in the author's narration? Not much, in fact.

 

[ECS]

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...
it is self-centered to think that others should listen to you...

You never mentioned that "fancy talk" wasn't allowed on that rules list you posted on the "WHY ARE YOU HERE" thread, but then again it was as self centered rules list "to think that others should listen to you".

 

[masterpoe]

If you say so, but when I use a cyper code I always look two or three letters in each direction just to make sure something like that does not happen. If you would use the author's DOI you would not have a problem. The problem is you and everyone else wants to change the rules when the rules are already layed out.

You get a monopoly board or a card game and change the rules, you change the whole game. "The game is not worth the candle."

You look three letters in both directions! Just in case on all ciphers?

You may wish to look at some of the other DOI's from the Beale pamphlet. The Hart Papers in the Book by Innis don't have the A at the marker 155 and the page link below does not have it either.

The UnMuseum - The Beale Papers - Original Text

 

[franklin]

You look three letters in both directions! Just in case on all ciphers?

You may wish to look at some of the other DOI's from the Beale pamphlet. The Hart Papers in the Book by Innis don't have the A at the marker 155 and the page link below does not have it either.

The UnMuseum - The Beale Papers - Original Text

masterpoe, You take one post and use it as evidence in another post completely out of context? I used only one letter for each cipher number but sometimes the cipher codes were bumped together like the "108' which was "10" and "8" But you will not find seven different letters on any one cipher in my decipherment. So your point is pointless.

As for the "a" in the DOI it was in the author of the Job Print Pamphlet's DOI and he said he used it to decipher C2 so if it worked for C2 it should work for C1 and C3 if not then the author made up the whole story.

You can go back to an original DOI or you can go back to an 1822 DOI but it proves nothing at all because the "AUTHOR" used the DOI in his Job Print Pamphlet and that is what makes the whole Beale Treasure Mystery FICTION. IF you do not get that then leave me alone and bug someone else because I have wasted over fifty years on this made up fiction story and do not plan on wasting any more time explaining anything to the DREAMERS. My DREAM of solving the Beale Treasure Mystery is finished. I acompolished what I set out do as I usually do. The story is nothing but FICTION.

 

[bigscoop]

First letter, fifth letter, last letter, whatever, it's all wild and blind guessing and manipulation in effort to get something, anything that will create any form of intelligible text. But if that process isn't consistent throughout then neither will the clear text be consistent throughout. Hence, "inevitable train wreck."

 

[masterpoe]

masterpoe, You take one post and use it as evidence in another post completely out of context? I used only one letter for each cipher number but sometimes the cipher codes were bumped together like the "108' which was "10" and "8" But you will not find seven different letters on any one cipher in my decipherment. So your point is pointless.

As for the "a" in the DOI it was in the author of the Job Print Pamphlet's DOI and he said he used it to decipher C2 so if it worked for C2 it should work for C1 and C3 if not then the author made up the whole story.

You can go back to an original DOI or you can go back to an 1822 DOI but it proves nothing at all because the "AUTHOR" used the DOI in his Job Print Pamphlet and that is what makes the whole Beale Treasure Mystery FICTION. IF you do not get that then leave me alone and bug someone else because I have wasted over fifty years on this made up fiction story and do not plan on wasting any more time explaining anything to the DREAMERS. My DREAM of solving the Beale Treasure Mystery is finished. I acompolished what I set out do as I usually do. The story is nothing but FICTION.

How can you blame the author for a printing mistake. Do you have a DOI other than a copy that misprinted the DOI?
Here is the NSA Hart Papers DOI

 

[bigscoop]

How can you blame the author for a printing mistake. Do you have a DOI other than a copy that misprinted the DOI?
Here is the NSA Hart Papers DOI

View attachment 1477637

Masterpoe, what you are failing to realize is the existing flaw "within your alleged provenance" from which you work from. You are only assuming that there was a "printing/copy error" when in reality, due to the author's constant intentional deceptions, they are likely not printing/copying errors at all. So in essence, right from the very start, you have no reliable provenance to work from. Each time you designate what you perceive to be "mistakes/errors" you are only confirming that your source materials from which you work are not true. This is why the typical cryptologist practices and processes can never work, because the source itself, the one from which you work, isn't in a true state.

Because you do not know what that true state consist of there is no possible way that you can recreate that true state. Do you understand this fact?

 

[ECS]

...
You may wish to look at some of the other DOI's from the Beale pamphlet. The Hart Papers in the Book by Innis don't have the A at the marker 155 and the page link below does not have it either...

The only DOI that matters is the presented in the original 1885 Beale Papers copyrighted by James Beverly Ward as agent.
Innis and the Harts are not a reliable source because the Harts created their own version of the Beale story with that medium, and Innis used the Hart Papers and George Hart as her source material.

 

[ECS]

This comment is useless and redundant.

"Don't post things onto boards that have no relevance to the subject at hand"
"Don't target members ideas for personal reasons or out of spite"
FROM: THE DO'S AND DON'T OF POSTING by CrypticLibrarian

 

[ECS]

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...

"Do have a friendly debate without disrespecting someone's work and disregarding what they say as foolish"
FROM: THE DO'S AND DON'T OF POSTING by CrypticLibrarian

 

[ECS]

...
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?

"Don't disrespect someone's work by making claims that you yourself cannot accurately back up"
FROM: THE DO'S AND DON'T OF POSTING by CrypticLibrarian

 

[masterpoe]

The only DOI that matters is the presented in the original 1885 Beale Papers copyrighted by James Beverly Ward as agent.
Innis and the Harts are not a reliable source because the Harts created their own version of the Beale story with that medium, and Innis used the Hart Papers and George Hart as her source material.

I do not see an original that anyone can prove the mistake at 155 and 480. All I see is the referenced copy's. And why would someone have to use only the DOI in the copy's of the pamphlet? You can tell someone tried to doctored them just like the Hart's doctored the ciphers.

 

[masterpoe]

If we look at the pure ciphers and use the correct DOI you can see more errors then just 155 marker. At 111 marker we find the number 93 that there is the same one off mistake made. 93 is a W and should be a C .