Page 8 : Beale Ciphers Analyses
This is original, well-researched material. It provides a detailed analysis of the C2 errors and a logical explanation for these. It also reviews the Gillogly strings and other mathematical analyses. The final conclusions are reproduced below:
Conclusions/Observations:
1) The original DOI was the key for B2; numbering errors all occur at line break boundaries of the original DOI.
2) A side table arranged alphabetically was prepared before B1 or B2 were encoded. The Gillogly strings contain elements that do not appear in B2.
3) All 3 ciphers show a bias for multiples of 5.
4) A shift of 5 for elements >600 will create/extend the Gillogly strings in B1.
5) X=1005 in B2, but no word near 1005 contains an X.
6) The Ward pamphlet contains the words 'for silver' as the cleartext for B2, but the cipher contains no such set of numbers.
7) J. B. Ward was not the author of "The Beale Papers".
Comments
The first conclusion contradicts the "knock-out proof" proposed by George Love (see Page 1, 3rd item). It provides a logical explanation for the coding of C2 with the original DOI, and explains the errors.
In my own polyalphabetical test, referenced on Page 6, I found the prime number "5" to predominate. This is supposed to indicate a key length of 5 for polyalphabetical substitution.
This analysis extends credibility to the Beale Ciphers.
