bigscoop
Gold Member
- Jun 4, 2010
- 13,535
- 9,072
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Beyond some of the different perspectives I've already presented let me share with a few others, one of these dealing directly with the remaining two ciphers.
When we first read the clear text of C2 what do most people see? They see the text and what that text presents. However, very-very few ever take the time to study that text for how it is presented, yet they really should.
When we examine the text of C2 we learn a lot about the author of that text. First we learn that he had excellent command over the English language, his presentation being straight forward and right to the point. Not only this but we also learn this presentation is smooth and flawless, his punctuation is accurate and never lacking. His communication is grammatically correct in every respect. In short, he is an excellent writer and communicator. So why then would any practicing decoder expect anything less in the remaining two ciphers? And yet they do.
Is it really practical to assume that this obviously intelligent individual is going to proceed to write the clear text for C1 and C3 in a choppy and sloppy and jumbled up manner? Is it practical to assume that the codes in the remaining two ciphers are going to be full of errors and super complicated schemes? Is it practical to assume that after identifying the remaining ciphers as (1) and (3) in the clear text of C2 that he is going to forget to number them? Is it practical to assume that this obviously intelligent and educated individual is going to suddenly become an illiterate who can't form a proper sentence or paragraph?
This is just one more example of a different perspective and how it has been researched and then applied.
When we first read the clear text of C2 what do most people see? They see the text and what that text presents. However, very-very few ever take the time to study that text for how it is presented, yet they really should.
When we examine the text of C2 we learn a lot about the author of that text. First we learn that he had excellent command over the English language, his presentation being straight forward and right to the point. Not only this but we also learn this presentation is smooth and flawless, his punctuation is accurate and never lacking. His communication is grammatically correct in every respect. In short, he is an excellent writer and communicator. So why then would any practicing decoder expect anything less in the remaining two ciphers? And yet they do.
Is it really practical to assume that this obviously intelligent individual is going to proceed to write the clear text for C1 and C3 in a choppy and sloppy and jumbled up manner? Is it practical to assume that the codes in the remaining two ciphers are going to be full of errors and super complicated schemes? Is it practical to assume that after identifying the remaining ciphers as (1) and (3) in the clear text of C2 that he is going to forget to number them? Is it practical to assume that this obviously intelligent and educated individual is going to suddenly become an illiterate who can't form a proper sentence or paragraph?
This is just one more example of a different perspective and how it has been researched and then applied.