Why C2?

[bigscoop]

Why is there a C2? To me this is most curious, and here's why.
In his alleged letters Beale has already told Morriss everything he could possibly need to know in order to fulfill his task, so why go through all of the trouble telling him again in C2?


In the alleged letters Beale has already told Morriss about the enterprise and the wealth and he has already detailed to Morriss what was expected of him should his services ever be required, which apparently they never were. The amount of the wealth in the alleged vault would certainly have been known once the vault was located. So if this alleged story is true then why C2 when there is absolutely no need of it?


Also curious is why is C2 the obvious first to be known? I could see the need for this if I hadn't already told Morriss everything he needed to know in my letters, so with all of this in mind I would probably arrange things so that he discovered the names first and then the location, the wealth being the thing that needed to be safeguarded the most, I would think. So even without C2 it still appears to me that the names would be the first thing I would want Morriss to know and then the location, not the other way around. I mean, once Morriss had the names he could then secure their help to move all of that hidden wealth instead of having him locate all of that weight by himself. So things just seem to be severely out of order to me, especially C2 which wasn't required at all.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ECS]

In creatingC2, what came first- the narrative and then the DOI numbered to create the cipher?
...and how was the DOI chosen as the "key" for C2?
...and how long did it take to create the ciphers?

 

[franklin]

The thing to me that makes like the story is made up is the given DOI. The author that deciphered C2 made a mistake counting around 480--------he or she renumbered with a miscount of 10. This should have thrown all of the ciphers higher than that off by a count of 10 yet he or she still gets every letter on every cipher. It seems to me like the author was in such a hurry as to not proof read what he had done wrong. And to me this makes this story a story of fiction. Also when he numbered the pages of ciphers and decoded C2 first and it said about C1 containing the location of the treasure and C3 contained the names of his associates again has the earmarks of fiction. If anyone can prove anything in the story with facts I for one would dearly like to see them. And I will help dig up the treasure at no charge. Simply because I believe there is no treasure.

 

[bigscoop]

It just seems to me, that from a practical standpoint, that the order of the ciphers should have been.....1) the contents, 2) the who, and 3) then the location, or 1,2,3 in this order and not in the order presented in the narration which by cipher number is 1) the location, 2) the contents, 3) the who.

Also, if I were going to arrange any type of cipher decoding system by order and C2 was going to be the one I wanted the decoder to decode first then it would be 1, not 2.

But given the information in the alleged letters then there was absolutely no reason to even pen cipher number 2 unless it was solely intended to be the bait in a narration, or, unless those ciphers were never originally intended to go to Morriss.

Now then, if we were to take away the alleged letters, (the ones that are not properly signed), then perhaps the presented order might make some sense, but this is the only way I can see that a C2 might be required. Just another of the many reasons why I'm sure that those letters are bogus and that they were either crafted after the fact or simply created as part of a fictional tale.

 

[Old Silver]

It seems to me that if anyone were going to totally fake a document/letter, they would go to greater pains to dot every I and cross every T.

 

[bigscoop]

Seems to me that if someone were going write a personal and vital business letter that they would go to much greater lengths to dot every I and cross every T, and then sign it as was formal practice back in the day.

 

[Old Silver]

Seems to me that if someone were going write a personal and vital business letter that they would go to much greater lengths to dot every I and cross every T, and then sign it as was formal practice back in the day.

Yes. But a personal letter to a friend, then maybe not.

 

[bigscoop]

Yes. But a personal letter to a friend, then maybe not.

Maybe so.....but I've never seen just initials on any old letter of critically important business before. Personally, I don't think the author of those alleged letters used a signature for obvious reasons.

 

[ECS]

The "letters" serve as an additional vehicle to further the story line presented in the earlier narrative text, and lure "the unwary reader" as referred by Friedman into believing the presented story and accept the two unsolved ciphers as being real after reading the "proffered solved" C2.

 

[Old Silver]

The "letters" serve as an additional vehicle to further the story line presented in the earlier narrative text, and lure "the unwary reader" as referred by Friedman into believing the presented story and accept the two unsolved ciphers as being real after reading the "proffered solved" C2.

When anyone else makes a positive, factual statement such as this, you say there is no proof. Proof is required. Therefore, is this just your opinion, or is it fact? If fact, then you know what you have to produce.

 

[ECS]

To what positive, factual statement" do you refer?
... and why do you constantly stalk my posts?
Am I not allowed to state an opinion?

 

[Old Silver]

To what positive, factual statement" do you refer?
... and why do you constantly stalk my posts?
Am I not allowed to state an opinion?

Okay, opinion. Thank you.

 

[ECS]

Now will you state what the " positive, factual statement" to which you made reference?
Thank you.

 

[Old Silver]

Seems to me that if someone were going write a personal and vital business letter that they would go to much greater lengths to dot every I and cross every T, and then sign it as was formal practice back in the day.

The papers enclosed herewith will be unintelligible without the key, which will reach you in time, and will be found merely to state the contents of our depository, with its exact location, and a list of the names of our party, with their places of residence, &c. I thought, at first, to give you their names in this letter. but reflecting that some one may read the letter, and thus be enabled to impose upon you by personating some member of the party, have decided the present plan is best. You will be aware from what I have written, that we are engaged in a perilous enterprise--one which promises glorious results if successful--but dangers intervene, and of the end no one can tell. We can only hope for the best, and persevere until our work is accomplished, and the sum secured for which we are striving.

It seems Beale gave a reason why he didn't sign his name on the letter.

 

[bigscoop]

Would be pretty impossible for someone to impersonate Beale when Morriss knew exactly who Beale was. We're not talking about the other individuals, we're talking about a missing signature on a personal letter of great importance. Beale had no worries about anyone trying to impersonate him in front of Morriss due to Morriss knowing exactly who he was. So, in my book anyway, that signature should still be there if those alleged letters were indeed the real deal.

 

[franklin]

Don't make sense to me why he would not sign his name to the letters. The letters that were in the box maybe not signed but initials only but the letters from St. Louis, Mo. that Robert Morris received should have been signed. Also if he trusted Robert Morris so much why did he not place the names in the locked iron box that was to be opened in 1832? All the earmarks of a fake.

 

[Old Silver]

Would be pretty impossible for someone to impersonate Beale when Morriss knew exactly who Beale was. We're not talking about the other individuals, we're talking about a missing signature on a personal letter of great importance. Beale had no worries about anyone trying to impersonate him in front of Morriss due to Morriss knowing exactly who he was. So, in my book anyway, that signature should still be there if those alleged letters were indeed the real deal.

Should none of us ever return you will please preserve carefully the box for the period of ten years from the date of this letter, and if I, or no one with authority from me, during that time demands its restoration, you will open it, which can be done by removing the lock.

Beale knew there were people who had found out what they had done in finding the treasure. If he would keep the names of the party secret, then why would he not do the same for his own name?

 

[Old Silver]

Don't make sense to me why he would not sign his name to the letters. The letters that were in the box maybe not signed but initials only but the letters from St. Louis, Mo. that Robert Morris received should have been signed. Also if he trusted Robert Morris so much why did he not place the names in the locked iron box that was to be opened in 1832? All the earmarks of a fake.

Morriss was not to open the box unless Beale or someone with authority from Beale failed to show up within the ten year period. He knew there were people who knew what they had, so he had a pretty good reason for keeping names secret.

 

[Old Silver]

I have been thus particular in my instructions, in consequence of the somewhat perilous enterprise in which we are, engaged, but trust we shall meet long ere the time expires, and so save you this trouble.

 

[bigscoop]

Should none of us ever return you will please preserve carefully the box for the period of ten years from the date of this letter, and if I, or no one with authority from me, during that time demands its restoration, you will open it, which can be done by removing the lock.

Bealeknew there were people who had found out what they had done in finding the treasure. If he would keep the names of the party secret, then why would he not do the same for his own name?

If this is what you wish to believe then that's fine. But the main point of this thread was in questioning why he went to the extra trouble with C2 to tell a man what he already knew? And, of course, why this C2 which should be C1 in a practical order, then just happens to be the only decoded cipher that only "sort of works" with the presented key? Now one can continue to clutch onto the presented story line but it obviously doesn't work and for man-many reasons.