Talk:Beale ciphers

message: I just finished listening to the audiobook of Simple Genius by David Baldacci... and in an authors note at the end he specifically mentions this Wikipedia article as a reference for the Beale cipher.  Worth a mention? PageantUpdater 10:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting reference to this article 

message: Beale used a version of 'Declaration of Indepedence' different from the original. To extract the hidden message, the following 5 modifications must be applied to the original DOI text:
* 1. after word 154 ('institute') and before word 157 ('laying') one word must be added (probably "a")
* 2. after word 240 ('invariably') and before word 246 ('design') one word must be removed
* 3. after word 467 ('houses') and before word 495 ('be') ten(!) words must be removed
* 4. after word 630 ('eat') and before word 654 ('to') one word must be removed
* 5. after word 677 ('foreign') and before word 819 ('valuable') one word must be removed
Furthermore:
* The first letter of the 811th word of the modified text ('fundamentally') is always used by Beale as a 'y'
* The first letter of the 1005th word of the modified text ('have') is always used by Beale as a 'x'
Finally, in the decoded text there are 4 errors, probably due to wrong transcription of the original paper:
* 1st error ---> ... 84(should be 85) 63 43 131 29 ... ---> consistcd ('consisted')
* 2nd error ---> ... 53(should be 54) 20 125 371 38  ... ---> rhousand ('thousand')
* 3rd error ---> ... 84(should be 85) 575 1005 150 200 ... ---> thc ('the')
* 4th error ---> ... 96(should be 95) 405 41 600 136  ... ---> varlt ('vault')
After these modifications, I successfully decoded the exact text. ;-)
Mirko  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.193.128 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that Beale didn't actually use a different version of the DOI, but rather misnumbered the words when encoding the cipher. He probably numbered two consecutive words with the same number, or skipped a number, or in the case of #3, skipped 10 numbers (467, 468, 469, 480, 481 ....). Web1X (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The exact method to decipher Beale paper no.2 

message: Someone - probably someone to do with the recently released (2010) short film "The Thomas Beale Cipher" - had inserted a reference to a non-existent "Dr White" in the "Truth or Hoax?" section here (which I removed). While I wish them every luck with their film, I don't think that subtly vandalizing a Wikipedia page is the best way to achieve wider public awareness of their work. Perhaps go and do some interviews instead? Nickpelling (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a spurious reference to a fictitious "Dr White" 

message: If you assume that it is a hoax then there must be a "joke" somewhere in it. I took Jim Gillogly's decipherment of cypher one where he used the Declaration of Independence.
there are 26 x 20 letters and at 26 x 7 =182 or 183 =1 ="A"
P N R B A B F D E F G H I I J K L M M N O 
Then subtract the alphabet in order starting with P-A =16-1=15 etc.
you will get 15, 12, 15, 2, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6.
On a 26x26 alphabet square;
G intersect G = M M-A= 12
O intersect O =c  C-A =2
L intersect L = W  W +4=A
D intersect D = G  G-A =6
With this code you only get even numbers so, odd numbers are "null"
This would spell "Gollllllllddd.
You can argue about the plus 4 equals L but I think it works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark stahley (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Beale cipher 1  solution  

message: Not sure who should be told about this, so I'm placing the info here. One of the three images of the Beale Ciphers embedded in the article has at least one error.
Image 2, line 18 at the end, the last digit (2) does not have a comma following, and so anyone (such as me) attempting to replicate the decryption will obtain a value that is wrong (2270, the result of 2 being concatenated with the next value, 270) when copy/pasting the values into a spreadsheet. AncientBrit (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error Noted 

message: It is not in the s:en:Beale Papers.--Inspector (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the middle name of Beale come from? 

message: gold is valued in the article at $63m ... $63m = $63,000 ... I think you mean $63MM, $63,000,000
same issue with the silver, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  gold value (silver too) 

message: I came across this website that makes a pretty strong case for Thomas J Beale and the Beale Ciphers being true.  The website also talks about why the ciphers didn't need to be decoded.
http://www.bealetreasurestory.com/index.html
Qewr4231 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website with extensive evidence about Thomas J Beale and the Beale Ciphers 

message: See http://www.angelfire.com/pro/bealeciphers/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.87.37 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorship of the Beale Papers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beale ciphers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230080207/http://www.simonsingh.com:80/Beale_Treasure_Ciphers.html to http://www.simonsingh.com/Beale_Treasure_Ciphers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060126085231/http://members.fortunecity.com:80/jpeschel/gillog3.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/jpeschel/gillog3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060420134206/http://www.myoutbox.net:80/blove.htm to http://www.myoutbox.net/blove.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719221317/http://www.archives.gov:80/genealogy/census/1790-1840.html to http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/census/1790-1840.html
*Added  tag to http://www.imgprogramming.com/media/360402/Myth%20Hunters%20Series%203.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can 'someone' do a 'modern equivalent figure' for a more recent date than September 2011? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treasure values 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beale ciphers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060126085231/http://members.fortunecity.com/jpeschel/gillog3.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/jpeschel/gillog3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I tried locating the pamphlet which was supposedly entered in Library of Congress in 1885, but I am unable to coax a good query that actually shows me such a thing was entered in the Library of Congress at all...
"A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE KEY TO BEALE CIPHER
NUMBER TWO" by John C. King DOI:10.1080/0161-119391867971
states:
"When a copy of the pamphlet [31] was discovered in 1979, Matyas [25] determined how the keytext should be renumbered so that B2 can be cleanly decrypted."
So it seems that all research prior 1) was based on the Hart papers (with differences in ciphertext!), or 2) that between 1885 and 1979 any other originals had been suppressed (by whom? librarians at the Library of Congress?). 3) Another possibility is that this 1979 "original" is a fake, but I find no other mention of this notable discovery of this original pamphlet, other than in the paper by John C. King mentioned above. All other sources, including wikipedia take as fact that the pamphlet was and since 1885 always has been part of the Library of Conguress...
Could this Beale treasure story have been a recruitment exercise? A recruitment hoax from 1885, or later?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.97.92 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original pamphlet 

message: This section apparently makes the assumption Beale enciphered the three texts, e.g. 'Beale used a version of United States Declaration', 'is always used by Beale as a "y"' etc. Paragraph 'Background' in the first sentence makes it quite clear that the only source for the story is a pamphlet published by Ward 60 years after the alleged events, but progressively this is lost sight of, so that some way in, the average reader has probably forgotten it. It cannot be said Beale 'did' anything; I suggest 'Beale' is changed to 'the pamphlet'. Which brings me to the point. 'The Friend' is alleged to have deciphered the second text about 50 years after the alleged events, using a (unique) modified version of the DOI, with several numbering mistakes. ***How then could Beale, 50 years earlier, have used the same modified DOI with the same numbering mistakes to encipher the text?***. In my opinion this proves the whole thing was a money making scam by Ward.
86.187.230.228 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Deciphered Message'

message: In March of 2023, cryptographer James Simpson made a breakthrough in decoding the B1 and B2 ciphers. By discovering that the key was formed by numbering a series of repeating alphabets, he broke down the numbers and converted them to plaintext.  The page of plaintext of B1 was arranged to deliver Old English Block ciphers, encasing letters from words on multiple lines in the proximity of each other.  These formed shortened and abbreviated stennos, and left areas filled in spaces between them with low frequency nulls used as filler.  Taking notice of the patterns of specific numbers and their placement in the cipher, he was able to locate a map from their mines to the depositories in Virginia within the matrix of the numbered cipher. The B2 cipher was also concealing a message using the same key, as well as a local map of the KGC depositories formed using an array of number patterns.  The B2 was said to have been broken by the author, JB Ward, but in reality the statements made in the Beale about using the Declaration of Independence as a book code would lure researchers and cryptographers off into a dead end search for a book code for B1 and B2 for decades.  The real key was found by merely listing a series of alphabets and their corresponding placement in a numerical sequence.
Is this a possible addition even though it is published by Ron Gervais on his Angelfire web page about the Beale Papers?  The ciphers are found there on links to a page with copies of worksheets and resulting information that has never been seen, so its a new break in the ciphers and I think it deserves merit here. GLDNONE (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Break in B1 and B2 Ciphers 

message: Como poderia divulgar se realmente encontrasse a mensagem esse é uns dos maiores problemas 138.99.199.211 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decifrado Cifra de Beale 

message: I think I may have decrypted it, though it isn't what you would think, I may be wrong but there's nothing wrong with giving it a try
“The sunshine was warm, the breeze gentle, as they strolled along the beach, contemplating life’s mysteries and the beauty of the vast ocean.” Tectumargenti (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decrypted the first cryptogram 

message: Most of the article is unsourced or uses low-quality sources including dictionaries and IMDb, huge chunks look like original research (if we can call paragraphs of speculation that), and the writing switches freely between taking the claims at face value and acknowledging that this may be a hoax.
I don't know if anyone's deeply invested in the article, but I will start cutting back most of the unsourced speculation and superfluous information in the coming weeks unless the situation improves. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is an absolute mess