Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Freaky release

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Zapster View Post

    No offense, but I seriously doubt you have solved the final 97 letters of Kryptos (K4). If you had, it would be self-apparent, and you wouldn't need to spend the $50. You could copyright it, announce it on one of the many public forums (Elonka's, for instance), and cryptanalysts could quickly confirm or disprove your solution. Before opening yourself and your solution to that level of scrutiny, I'd recommend reading these:

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...uscript/?amp=1
    http://www.zodiackillerciphers.com/?p=602

    Beale, Voynich, Zodiac-340, Kryptos, Dorabella, D'Agapeyeff and Fenn's treasure puzzle share a similar allure, and the accompanying propensity for would-be solvers to delude themselves.
    It is self apparent that I solved Kryptos 4. Also solved Zodiac 340, Zodiac my name is letter and the socalled uncipherable part of Zodiacs first cipher and much more from Zodiac. The reason socalled cryptanalyst's cannot solve any of these as their methods are like bean counters. Sure they can solve many prescribed methods of ciphers. But they do not do well with something that requires interpretation. Like I said before. I have a multiple page report on my Zodiac 340 letter solve that was issued by group of ex-military intelligence cryptanalysts and I could show that they just don't understand. Elonka does not understand either when it comes to K4. I really don't need for confirmation from cryptanalysts that have failed for decades on solving anything that I have solved. That would be like asking chase forum if my Where The Treasure Lies solution is correct.

    Do you think these guys would like to be shown up by an average Mason ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_Complex

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centra...ligence_Agency

    You did not answer how you theorize that Beale Cipher #1 is a hoax.
    Last edited by TreasureCodex; 06-18-2019, 01:39 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Click image for larger version

Name:	Beale1_frequencies.jpg
Views:	222
Size:	28.0 KB
ID:	105204 Beale short answer: long monotonic alphabetic strings generated using DoI, proving the DoI was used to encrypt part 1. Couple that with a dearth of E's, N's and R's and an artificially flat frequency distribution from B through I, and too many T's:
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Zapster View Post
        Click image for larger version

Name:	Beale1_frequencies.jpg
Views:	222
Size:	28.0 KB
ID:	105204 Beale short answer: long monotonic alphabetic strings generated using DoI, proving the DoI was used to encrypt part 1. Couple that with a dearth of E's, N's and R's and an artificially flat frequency distribution from B through I, and too many T's:
        That is some interesting bean counting. But does it yield a translation ?

        Comment


        • #34
          TC: the point is that if a string of numbers used as an indexing scheme into a specific document (i.e. a book code) yields ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPP, then it is unlikely in the extreme that the same numbers used with a different document would yield intelligible text. It's been almost 20 years since I messed around with the Beale ciphers, but at that time I considered methods that a skilled cryptographer could employ to generate "decoy" messages like this while simultaneously hiding an actual message -- a bit of steganography. With a long enough source document, it could be done, but the Declaration of Independence is too short, IMO, to pull it off.

          Could there still be a message in there exclusive of the sections that produce these alphabet snippets? Sure, using a different book. But then what's the point of throwing people off by interjecting DoI-based sequences like ABAABADAAABBCDEFF? In essence, a significant fraction of the cipher is wasted on nulls.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Zapster View Post
            TC: the point is that if a string of numbers used as an indexing scheme into a specific document (i.e. a book code) yields ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPP, then it is unlikely in the extreme that the same numbers used with a different document would yield intelligible text. It's been almost 20 years since I messed around with the Beale ciphers, but at that time I considered methods that a skilled cryptographer could employ to generate "decoy" messages like this while simultaneously hiding an actual message -- a bit of steganography. With a long enough source document, it could be done, but the Declaration of Independence is too short, IMO, to pull it off.

            Could there still be a message in there exclusive of the sections that produce these alphabet snippets? Sure, using a different book. But then what's the point of throwing people off by interjecting DoI-based sequences like ABAABADAAABBCDEFF? In essence, a significant fraction of the cipher is wasted on nulls.
            So in your opinion since you could not decipher it must be a hoax. I've seen people do the same thing with Zodiac 340. It's been about fifty years. My method yielded results and they can't believe it so they obfuscate. Some things better left to the better qualified.

            Comment


            • #36
              "Better qualified" -- hah. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, TC. You've provided no evidence other than your say-so that you've solved any of the things you've claimed. If any of your bold assertions were true, we'd all know about it. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but any legitimate solution to any of these famous, long-unsolved ciphers would be there.

              Comment


              • #37
                Turned into a pissing contest
                "It is fun to arrange words in such a way that you have to smile at the end of a sentence." - Forrest Fenn

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Treasure Joe View Post
                  Turned into a pissing contest
                  Agreed. There'll be nothing further from me on the subject as it has no relevance to Fenn's Chase.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TreasureCodex View Post

                    I have my doubts about that. I believe I may be able to solve #3. I did a solve of KRYPTOS 4 which I believe to be accurate. But I won't pay Sanborn $50 to confirm. Heck, if he is making enough money selling solve reviews he may never acknowledge a solve. But please, why do you think you can prove hoax. In a general sense.
                    Doesn't Kryptos 4 refer to something buried somewhere on the Langley campus? Shouldn't a correct solve lead to the burial?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jackrabbit View Post

                      Doesn't Kryptos 4 refer to something buried somewhere on the Langley campus? Shouldn't a correct solve lead to the burial?
                      My Kryptos 4 solve uses Bible quote in CIA Langley lobby. And Berlin Wall Sculpture outside on the grounds of CIA Langley.

                      Do you think those guys would mind TTOTC people searching around CIA Langley ? LOL
                      Here was my final solution.

                      OK

                      And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free

                      To Those

                      Yes it is wonderful

                      To Breakthrough

                      Untruths

                      ( The life of a successful cryptographer)
                      If they could only read it at CIA Langley they would appreciate the sculpture in their garden more.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        What the heck are y'all talking about here - way off target I'd say.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by wwwamericana View Post
                          What the heck are y'all talking about here - way off target I'd say.
                          Looks spot on to me. OP asked opinion of the Deep Throat (Watergate) type video you posted.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X