The Only One To Have Deciphered The Beale Ciphers Correctly

[Cryptography]

Don't talk to nobody. As such a person has not been proven to exist , how could a nonentity speak? Now ,someone may in their mind believe they have solved correctly . That would = "They".
But they are not real either. (See proof test.)

But you got time , so let's chat.
Read any good claims lately? Any peer reviewed ones?

Does any of this look familiar to your masters reasoning expressed in the past?
[The reviewers strongly reject your work with no justification and they do not state why the result is wrong. Examples of reviewer comments include:

"The proof must be wrong."
"You cannot achieve such a result."
"You do not understand well the notion of ..."
My question is what to do in this situation? Where to go? If your advisor accepts the work, but the reviewers from the top journal reject the work without even explaining the mistakes, what should you do?]

https://academia.stackexchange.com/...pen-problem-how-do-i-convince-people-in-the-f

Interesting, let me see if I have this scam down correctly.

A person deciphers a famous hidden treasure code, but must get your approval before it is actually excepted?
A person hunting for a treasure must prove to you it is real first, before searching for it?
What a bunch of A........!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[ECS]

...
Does any of this look familiar to your masters reasoning expressed in the past?...

Well, does it, Cryptography?


How about you, masterpoe?

 

[releventchair]

Interesting, let me see if I have this scam down correctly.

A person deciphers a famous hidden treasure code, but must get your approval before it is actually excepted?
A person hunting for a treasure must prove to you it is real first, before searching for it?
What a bunch of A........!

Your missing the point.
Peer review trumps public sentiment. Even when the work is inaccurate , being reviewed by qualified "peers" (those whose professions center on the work/study) is where confirmation of a claim is solidified , or dismissed.

So far ....Nothing has proven any solve. When a peer reviewed document is presented it adds substance to claim/disclaim. Till then only speculation exists.
(In many areas ,not just ciphers).

Claiming some one has done something with no proof ,and directing traffic elsewhere is a scam. Smells like a#@ too!
Rejecting non peer reviewed claims as inaccurate presentation of data ,is common sense.
Not only an accurate science for science sake , but for social science's sake as well.

You want to believe anything you are told , go ahead.
You want to chase unproven theories of treasure ,go ahead.
Let us know your return on investment.....

Do you believe all claims of Beale solves ,or just one?
What basis do you have for your belief in one?
Do you have a chicken out point where capitol is involved? If you don't ,you will; after chasing some one else's unproven theories.
Till then you only have speculation.
Or....You are part of a scam to generate hits online. Without proof of a claimed solve that you support , what do you think is more apparent?

 

[ECS]

Interesting, let me see if I have this scam down correctly...
What a bunch of A........!

Yes, amazingly, you got it!

 

[Cryptography]

Your missing the point.
Peer review trumps public sentiment. Even when the work is inaccurate , being reviewed by qualified "peers" (those whose professions center on the work/study) is where confirmation of a claim is solidified , or dismissed.

So far ....Nothing has proven any solve. When a peer reviewed document is presented it adds substance to claim/disclaim. Till then only speculation exists.
(In many areas ,not just ciphers).

Claiming some one has done something with no proof ,and directing traffic elsewhere is a scam. Smells like a#@ too!
Rejecting non peer reviewed claims as inaccurate presentation of data ,is common sense.
Not only an accurate science for science sake , but for social science's sake as well.

You want to believe anything you are told , go ahead.
You want to chase unproven theories of treasure ,go ahead.
Let us know your return on investment.....

Do you believe all claims of Beale solves ,or just one?
What basis do you have for your belief in one?
Do you have a chicken out point where capitol is involved? If you don't ,you will; after chasing some one else's unproven theories.
Till then you only have speculation.
Or....You are part of a scam to generate hits online. Without proof of a claimed solve that you support , what do you think is more apparent?

No, nothing needs to be told to anyone regarding this particular topic. Who do you think would be peer's for this topic, yourself and ECS, what a joke. Just because you fools can't think someone has done what you could not, doesn't make them a fake. This is not a peer review site, you are not looking at a coin that was dug up. We are looking at ton's of GOLD. No one in there right mind is going to show you their map or deciphering. You should be happy they are here at all.

 

[Ammoman]

So when did he actually do it?

2014?
2013?
2012?

Masterpoe...snatch this pebble from my hand! When you have done that, the question will be answered!

 

[releventchair]

No, nothing needs to be told to anyone regarding this particular topic. Who do you think would be peer's for this topic, yourself and ECS, what a joke. Just because you fools can't think someone has done what you could not, doesn't make them a fake. This is not a peer review site, you are not looking at a coin that was dug up. We are looking at ton's of GOLD. No one in there right mind is going to show you their map or deciphering. You should be happy they are here at all.

[No, nothing needs to be told to anyone regarding this particular topic.] Yet you persist.
One unsubstantiated claim after another. What value has that to anyone?

If you are looking at gold ,why are you here and not swimming in it? Kinda makes you read as full of caca.

Parlors are outdated. So are unsubstantiated claims for entertainment purposes.

If you have to ask what a peer review consists of ,you don't have a reason(proof of a solve) to need one then. No surprise though.
Good luck convincing anyone that you have anything.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Cryptography will be unable to answer any replies. Members can not continue to insult members with out consequences.

 

[ECS]

So the greatest person to have ever correctly decipher the Beale Ciphers, doesn't even talk to this group of three people? Must not have time for you eh?

Well it appears that you have the time for this group of people, so what is your opinion of whom declare is "the greatest person to have ever correctly decipher the Beale Ciphers", Jean Laf's deciphered Beale solutions, and how do you know that it is correct?
You have previously mentioned that you only give opinions on things that you have studied, and that you have seen Laf's solved cipher message, so you are qualified to state an opinion.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

LOL!

 

[ECS]

Well it appears that you have the time for this group of people, so what is your opinion of whom declare is "the greatest person to have ever correctly decipher the Beale Ciphers", Jean Laf's deciphered Beale solutions, and how do you know that it is correct?
You have previously mentioned that you only give opinions on things that you have studied, and that you have seen Laf's solved cipher message, so you are qualified to state an opinion.

Masterpoe, why do you bump old threads by Laf, Cryptography, and even Young Jack Sparrow with minimal comment, yet avoid answering this very basic question to support the statements you made of a tread you started?
How did you come to this conclusion on which this thread is based?

 

[masterpoe]

The only one!