Length of Cipher B3 Offers Evidence that Beale Treasure Story is True.

Beale's List

Beale's List contains 30 lines, one line for each member in Beale's party, and three columns, where col. 1 contains a member name (first name and surname), col. 2 contains an heir name (first name and surname), and col. 3 contains an heir residency (PO address). Using information that Beale collected from each member, he created a List, line by line. Note that member first names in col. 1 are abbreviated, whereas heir first names in col. 2, thought to be more important, are not abbreviated.

Beale's Tasks:

The steps that Beale would most likely follow to create B3 can be specified:

Beale first created a List, which I will call Paper No. 3. He then made certain changes to Paper No. 3 to remove much of the redundancy. I call the resulting List Retracted Paper No. 3. Let's look at the steps taken to make these changes.

Step 1: Note first that the lines in Paper No. 3 need to be repositioned to allow them to be grouped together according to their post office addresses. In our example, we have eight different PO addresses that must be processed: warrenton (5), fauquierch (3), otterbridge (2), arnoldsoldplace (4), elkmarsh (4), rockyhillmills (3), hillsborough (7), and richmond (2). I found it convenient to arrange the lines so that the 5 lines for warrenton were grouped together and moved to lines 1 through 5, all in col. 3 of the List, followed by the 3 lines for fauquierch, grouped together and moved to lines 6 through 8 of the List, followed by the 2 lines for otterbridge, and so on. Notice that the line with the first occurrence of warrenton (top down in the List) is moved to line 1 with no change made to it, whereas the lines with the remaining 4 occurrences of warrenton are moved to lines 2 through 5 and the post office address in col. 3 is replaced by the letters "do". The line with the first occurrence of fauqurierch (c.h. stands for court house) is moved to line 6 of the List, with no change made to it, whereas the lines with the remaining 2 occurrences of fauqurierch are moved to lines 7 and 8 and the post office address in col. 3 is replaced by the letters "do". The remaining six PO addresses are handled in the same way. When finished with the PO addresses, a period "." is placed at the end of each line.

Step 2: Now, for each of the 30 lines, examine the information in columns 1 and 2. These two columns contain names. If the columns hold surnames that are the same, then the surname in col. 2 is erased so that it is blank or empty, and go to the next line, else do nothing and go to the next line. Finally, remove all blanks so that each line contains lower case alphabetic characters and ends with a period. I call the resulting List Retracted Paper No. 3. This paper is encrypted one letter or period at a time.

Mr. Morriss' tasks can be listed and described:

Step 3: Decrypt B3. The resulting plain text is retracted paper no. 3. The 30 periods in retracted paper no. 3 are used to identify the 30 lines of text in paper no. 3. The first period identifies the end of line 1 and the beginning of line 2; the second period identifies the end of line 2 and the beginning of line 3; and so forth.

Step 4: Retracted paper no. 3 is now used to recover certain redundant PO information in paper no. 3. Start with line 2 in paper no 3. Examine the information in line 2 and col. 3. If that information is letters "do" then replace "do" in line 2 col. 3 with the PO information in line 1 col. 3. But if line 2 col. 3 does not have letters "do", then do nothing and continue with line 3. Examine the information in line 3 and col. 3. If that information is letters "do" then replace "do" in line 3 col. 3 with the PO information in line 2 col. 3. But if line 3 col. 3 does not have letters "do", then do nothing and continue with line 4. Repeat the procedure line by line until line 30 has been processed.

Step 5: Retracted paper no. 3 is now used to recover certain redundant surname information in paper no. 3. Start with line 1. Examine heir surname in line 1 and col. 2. If the heir surname is blank, empty or missing, then make a copy of the member surname in line 1 and col. 1 and put it in the space for heir surname in line 1 and col. 2. Continue until all 30 lines have been processed. Spaces could also be added in paper no. 3 to improve readability.

Summary:

Beale creates a List called Paper No. 3 (see Figure 1). It is a List with 30 member names, 30 heir names, and 30 heir PO addresses. Beale creates a Retracted Paper No. 3 (see Figure 2) by removing a large portion of the redundancy in Paper No. 3. Beale encrypts Retracted Paper No. 3 to create cipher B3, which is stored in Beale's locked box.

Time elapses. Mr. Morriss receives the secret key that Beale left with a friend in St. Louis. Mr. Morriss opens Beale's locked box and recovers cipher B3. The secret key contains brief instructions for recovering Paper No. 3 from B3. Mr. Morriss decrypts B3 to recover his copy of Retracted Paper No. 3. (see Figure 2). Following Beale's instructions, Mr. Morriss uses his copy of Retracted Paper No. 3 to recover Paper No. 3 (see Figure 1). Mr. Morriss uses the information in Paper No. 3 to locate the identified heirs.

Figure 3 shows you what Retracted Paper No. 3 would look like if the lines in the List were concatenated to form a single long line.

Let us have a look at some similarities and some differences between a genuine Beale who operated in a real Beale Treasure Story and a hoaxer who pretends to have operated in a real Beale Treasure Story.

The conjecture put forth here is that the length of B3 can be used as an indicator to predict whether the Beale Treasure Story is genuine or not genuine (a hoax).

Beale actually creates a Paper No. 3 (length=984) and a Retracted Paper No. 3 (length=618), which is encrypted to produce B3 (length= 618). Note that Beale does not specify length as an input parameter to the Retracted Paper No. 3 creation process or as part of the B3 creation process. Instead, the length=618 is determined from information in the List called Retracted Paper No. 3 or by counting the number of cipher numbers in B3.

As a practical matter, a hoaxer has no means to duplicate Beale's B3 "creation-process".The hoaxer is forced to create B3 by randomly generating a specified number of random numbers drawn from thin air. In this case, it is the hoaxer himself who specifies the number of random numbers to be generated. Thus, he would have no trouble in creating a list of numbers of any desired length. But a genuine solution would require 30 names of members, 30 names of heirs and 30 PO addresses of heirs. Suppose the hoaxer said (to himself) I will create phony names and addresses for members and heirs. And, I will create all the necessary papers to fool anyone who may see my phony copy of B3 of length 618 characters. But wait just a minute. How can I create acceptable names of members that do not really exist. If someone were able to decode B3 and recover Retracted Paper No. 3 and Paper No. 3, I am in trouble; they would soon learn that the names and addresses were fake or possibly true names that had no connection to a gold or silver mine near Pike's Peak in Colorado. As a practical matter, a phony Beale cannot duplicate the actions of a genuine Beale. The hoaxer cannot duplicate the Beale Treasure Story. The Beale Treasure Story is too closely linked to actual history. History is history; it cannot be changed.

It seems to me that the missing piece to the puzzle has been found. I have showed you how Beale could have hid or masked the predictable redundancy in Paper No. 3 using a couple of "reversible mapping techniques" that enabled Beale to deliver to Mr. Morriss a B3 with 618 characters rather than 984 characters. One of the mapping techniques makes use of the abbreviation "do" for the word "ditto". I also used abbreviated first names for members of Beale's party, which saved some space as well. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 below:


         tom beale richard beale warrenton.
         tim percy teresa percy warrenton.
         leo jones john jones warrenton.
         sam johnson hannah welsh warrenton.
         tom mitchell jacob mitchell warrenton.
         al barrel allen barrel fauquierch.
         geo webster mary cunard fauquierch.
         wm watt henry watt fauquierch.
         andy henderson anna henderson otterbridge.
         joe stewart lydia stewart otterbridge.
         pat bradlee jack bradlee arnoldsoldplace.
         john gates david gates arnoldsoldplace.
         robt adams sarah adams arnoldsoldplace.
         wm webster james webster arnoldsoldplace.
         nath childs nancy childs elkmarsh.
         jake peterson john peterson elkmarsh.
         jeff offutt mary offutt elkmarsh.
         paul carter polly carter elkmarsh.
         fred northrup ellen northrup rockyhillmills.
         dan edwards luke edwards rockyhillmills.
         nicho nelson amos nelson rockyhillmills.
         mark swift willis swift hillsborough.
         theo marks judith white hillsborough.
         mike riley josephine riley hillsborough.
         ken hobart arthur hobart hillsborough.
         zach clap nora clap hillsborough.
         luke hawes glenn hawes hillsborough.
         ron williams andrew williams hillsborough.
         doug kimball sally kimball richmond.
         alex brooks ruth brooks richmond.

Figure 1.Paper No. 3 with Length=984.


         tom beale richard warrenton.
         tim percy teresa do.leo jones john do.
         sam johnson hannah welsh do.
         tom mitchell jacob do.
         al barrel allen fauquierch.
         geo webster mary cunard do.
         wm watt henry do.
         andy henderson anna otterbridge.
         joe stewart lydia do.
         pat bradlee jack arnoldsoldplace.
         john gates david do.
         robt adams sarah do.
         wm webster james do.
         nath childs nancy elkmarsh.
         jake peterson john do.
         jeff offutt mary do.
         paul carter polly do.
         fred northrup ellen rockyhillmills.
         dan edwards luke do.
         nicho nelson amos do.
         mark swift willis hillsborough.
         theo marks judith white do.
         mike riley josephine do.
         ken hobart arthur do.
         zach clap nora do.
         luke hawes glenn do.
         ron williams andrew do.
         doug kimball sally richmond.
         alex brooks ruth do.

Figure 2.Retracted Paper No. 3 with length = 618.


         tombealerichardwarrenton.timpercyteresado.leojonesjohndo.samjohnsonhannahwelshdo.
         tommitchelljacobdo.albarrelallenfauquierch.geowebstermarycunarddo.wmwatthenrydo.
         andyhendersonannaotterbridge.joestewartlydiado.patbradleejackarnoldsoldplace.
         johngatesdaviddo.robtadamssarahdo.wmwebsterjamesdo.nathchildsnancyelkmarsh.
         jakepetersonjohndo.jeffoffuttmarydo.paulcarterpollydo.frednorthrupellenrockyhillmills.
         danedwardslukedo.nichonelsonamosdo.markswiftwillishillsborough.theomarksjudithwhitedo.
         mikerileyjosephinedo.kenhobartarthurdo.zachclapnorado.lukehawesglenndo.
         ronwilliamsandrewdo.dougkimballsallyrichmond.alexbrooksruthdo.

Figure 3.Retracted Paper No. 3 with length = 618 characters, lines concatenated, spaces removed.

Note: The reader should take note that the definition for Beale's List shown here is an example. There are other definitions that could be used to accomplish the same purpose.

Post Office (PO) names come from a book that gives the names of 468 Virginia post offices, published in 1819.

In the discussion that follows, I will assume that the Beale treasure story was created in its entirety either by Beale or by a hoaxer(s). I assume that the creator of the treasure story was an intelligent person, with all the necessary skills to create such a story. I assume that the hoaxer, acting like an investigator, such as O'haver, Yardley, Kruh, or Nickell, would not create a B3 with as few as 618 characters. The hoaxer, like the investigator, would conclude that B3 with as few as 618 characters would be too short. He would say that the length of B3 should be greater. The hoaxer would opt to generate additional random numbers and add them to the end of B3. Enough additional random numbers should be added to stop any credible investigator from saying B3 is too short.

Beale would say nothing about the length of B3. When he created B3, he accepted whatever length happened to be created, of course within reason, which means that he accepted whatever value for length of B3 that happened to be created as a consequence of the creation process. If the value happened to be 618, so be it, it is what it is.

The evidence makes it easy for me to conclude that a bright hoaxer would reject a length of 618 for B3. The hoaxer would simply start with a value much larger than 618, say in the vicinity of 1200 but not equal to 1200, which is roughly 40 characters for each of the 30 members in the party. But wait a minute. Better not select a length of 1200 pretty much for the same reason that you should not select 1111 or 1234 for the length of B3. The number 1200 looks more like it was created by a hoaxer than it does Beale. If the length of B3 were 1234 it means that the length was picked (picked by the hoaxer), not the result of the creation procedure itself. If the treasure story were genuine there would be no reason for Beale to set the length of B3 to any particular value. The value 1234 indicates that the value 1234 was set by a hoaxer not Beale. If the length of B3 is a multiple of 30, it is likely that this value (multiple of 30) was set by a hoaxer. There are only 11 numbers from 900 to 1200 that are a multiple of 30 and therefore 1200 - 11 = 1189 numbers that are not multiples of 30. Thus, if you randomly select a number from the 300 numbers running from 900 to 1200, you have only a 3.7 percent chance of selecting a number that is a multiple of 30. Thus only a 3.7 percent chance that Beale will accidentally select one of these 11 numbers. Thus, it was likely set by a hoaxer. The hoaxer may have been looking at multiples of 30 to get a feel for how many characters each of the 30 members in the party would have for numbers falling in the range from 900 to 1200, and then used one of these number (without thinking about it too much) as the length for his phony B3.

Decoding Tips

Have we learned anything that might help us decode ciphers B1 or B3? The answer is yes. Keep in mind that even the smallest and most remote clue might be worth while when lumped together with other clues.

If the real B3 makes use of periods, like the example (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), then some of the cipher numbers representing periods may be guessed, especially those near the front and those near the end of B3.

The abbreviation 'do' for ditto, may occur several times in B3 and much fewer times in B1. Now under the assumption that B1 and B3 have been enciphered with the same key and same method of cipher, then for any pair of cipher numbers that occur in both B1 and B3, determine the pairs DD DO OD OO (how many times they each occur) for B1 and separately for B3. The pair DO ought to occur more in B3 than in B1. This technique should be run on the computer, as there could be too many pairs to compute this by hand. Also, the method does not require that we know where in B3 and B1 the 'DO' occurs. If we find some 'DO' then we can also get the location of that DO.

Let me illustrate. Suppose we start with numbers 18 and 96; and then arbitrarily set 18=D and 96=O. This allows us to determine the number of times the pairs (18,96) or (18,18) or (96,18) or (18,96) occur in B1 and B3. We use the counts of the pairs to help tell us whether the initial setting of 18=D and 96=O was good or not so good. You should try all four of the possible initial settings for 18 and 96.

The word 'THE' may occur several times in B1, but it should not occur in B3. Although, I don't see a way to exploit this.

Miscellaneous B3 with Some Repeats

If the treasure story is a hoax, the hoaxer may trip himself. He must take care to prevent this from happening. I will explain. There is no reason that I can think of why the length of B3 should be a multiple of 30 (30 is the number of lines in Beale's List). But 30 x 31 = 930. There is no reason why a real Beale would need to calculate the value 930 using 30 and 31, or any one of the eleven values 30x30 31x30 32x30 33x30 34x30 35x30 36x30 37x30 38x30 39x30 40x30 in the space of 300 values that run from 900 to 1200. Beale would have only a 3.7 percent chance of accidently creating one of these 11 values for length of B3 (assuming that the creation step creates a value in the set of numbers that run from 900 to 1200). A hoaxer who is looking at the number of characters allocated to each member in the Beale party versus the number of characters in the entire B3, may look at one or even all of these 11 values, and may indeed use one of them for the length of B3 (thinking that he has done good). But doing so could signal that the treasure story is a hoax. If an investigator learns that the length of B3 is a multiple of 30 it means that the hoaxer has most likely set the value of the length of B3, which is something that Beale would not need to do. Thus, an investigator who knows or learns of this attack, and investigates the length of B3, can unmask the hoaxer.

In the discussion that follows, I will state and restate certain assumptions about the treasure story. The assumptions can be reviewed. I assume that the treasure story, including the papers and ciphers were created by Beale, and if not by Beale, then by a knowledgeable hoaxer. I will not consider possible cases where the creator was not Beale and not a hoaxer. An example that covers this last case might be the situation where B3 consists of say two sheets of paper and Mr. Ward removes sheet number two before sending the papers to the printer. In any case, if I can show that it is unlikely that B3 was created by a hoaxer, then it follows that it is likely that B3 was created by Beale. Likewise, if I can show that it is unlikely that B3 was created by Beale, then it follows that it is likely that B3 was created by a hoaxer.

I assume that the creator of the treasure story, including papers and ciphers (Beale or hoaxer) is a highly intelligent person, skilled researcher, and capable of handling complex issues. I assume that the hoaxer is smart enough to quickly recognize that a figure anywhere near 618 characters for B3 was unacceptable. The hoaxer would never create a B3 with a length anywhere near 618 characters.

Beale and the hoaxer have different objectives with respect to B3. Beale would like it as short as possible to make Mr. Morriss' job as painless as possible. A hoaxer wouldn't care if the number of characters is on the high side. The hoaxer needs only to assure that the number of characters is enough so there is no question as to whether there is enough or not enough. If the four experts [O'haver, Yardley, Kruh, and Nickell] think 618 is too small, then so will the hoaxer. They are all investigators (researchers).

But, the important point is this: It has been shown how B3 could be created with a length=618, which is long enough to contain the information Beale said it did.

Conclusion: If the treasure story is a hoax, it is extremely unlikely that a hoaxer would create a bogus cipher B3 with only 618 numbers. This conclusion is consistent with statements attributed to four reputable researchers, O'haver, Yardley, Kruh, and Nickell. They believed that 618 was not long enough to contain the information that Beale said it did. Taken together, their arguments provide the best empirical evidence available to show that a hoaxer would be unlikely to create a B3 with a length anywhere near 618 characters. Thus, there is only one remaining conclusion that can be reached: B3 contains 618 numbers because B3 is genuine and the Beale Papers are genuine and because Beale found a way to shorten paper No. 3 by removing the redundant information found in the List of names and addresses that he used to create paper No. 3, and because I have provided a convincing example in which a B3 of length 618 could be constructed.

On No. 3, and because I have provided a convincing example in which a B3 of length 618 could be constructed.

One very good argument supporting a conclusion that the Beale Treasure Story is fact not fiction is based on the short length of cipher No. 3 (B3), which has only 618 cipher numbers. It's "too short" people say. Credible Beale investigators have weighed in on this issue too. Their conclusions are unanimous--B3 is too short to contain the names of 30 members in Beale's party and the names and residences of 30 heirs, as claimed by Beale.

I think it safe to say that if the story is fiction, the hoaxer or hoaxers would never pick a length for B3 anywhere near the number 618. The hoaxer would, in all probability, think like most other people as well as the credible investigators that 618 is too short and thus never pick a number near 618. But if 618 could not have been picked by a hoaxer, then B3 could not have been created by a hoaxer, and the treasure story could not be fiction, it must be genuine. In fact, at least two investigators, myself and a Mr. Holst, have shown how a list of 30 lines (one line per member in Beale's party) with space for 618 characters of information could be constructed with anticipated redundant information deleted.

But, if the treasure story is/was a hoax, there would be no need for the hoaxer to prepare paper No. 3, or to encipher it to produce B3. A hoaxer could omit these steps, as they would serve little or no purpose. Instead, he could directly create bogus cipher B3, e.g., by selecting numbers more or less at "random." The only decision of importance would be to select a length for B3. For practical purposes, there are two ways in which the hoaxer could determine a length for B3, and they are essentially the same.

The first method consists of selecting a trial length for B3, dividing that number by 30, and then asking whether the resulting value seems large enough to hold two names and one address. Depending on the answer, a different length for B3 would be selected, divided by 30, and examined to see if it appears reasonable. The procedure would be repeated until an acceptable value had been obtained.

The second method is similar, except that one works forward instead of backward. In this case, one starts by selecting a length that would accommodate a first and last name (doubling the value as there are two names) and selecting a length that would accommodate a post office address. A person's first name can be abbreviated. The obtained values are then added together and multiplied by 30. The resulting value is the length of B3. A hoaxer might do just what I did in order to estimate the lengths for names and post office addresses. First I made a list of names of my ten closest friends (abbreviated first names and full last names). I added up the number of letters in these ten names (101) and divided by ten to obtain an average length of ten letters. In Beale's day, a post office address was the name of a city, town, or court house. If a town or city by the same name happened to occur in more than one county, the post office address would include the name of the county. In order to simulate the length of a post office address, I selected the names of 20 towns in Virginia, added up the number of letters in these 20 names, and divided by 20 to obtain an average length of 11 letters. On the basis of these fairly simple calculations, I determined that on average two names and one post office address could be expressed in 31 letters. If 31 is multiplied by 30, one obtains a length of 930 for B3. This is a rough estimate, but probably a pretty good one. It does not take into account that B3 could be shortened due to redundancies most likely occurring in the names and addresses, if the treasure story were true. But, even if the hoaxer recognized this, it is unlikely that he would have pursued this line of thinking, for reasons already discussed.

If the hoaxer had selected a length for B3 of about 930, readers of Ward's pamphlet could fairly easily confirm that its length was reasonable. But B3's actual length of 618 is arguably too short. If 618 is divided by 30, one obtains 618/30 = 20.6, which means there are only 20 or 21 letters available to write two names and one address. A number of Beale investigators have voiced concerns that B3, with only 618 numbers, is too short to contain the claimed list of 60 names and 30 addresses. But, I have already shown that the hoaxer must not select a length for B3 that is a multiple of 30, as otherwise a length for B3 which is a multiple of 30 will be a strong indication that B3 is fake and not created by Beale.

There are two good arguments why we may conclude that the treasure story is fact not fiction: One is based on the length of Beale cipher No. 3 (B3), which has 618 cipher numbers. It is not too short to be genuine; it's right on target! The other is based on Ward's conviction that the treasure story was fact not fiction. Ward was an insider, a member of the inner circle. He knew what was going on.

However, if the treasure story is a hoax, the hoaxer(s) had better be quite careful not to select a value for the length of B3 that is a multiple of 30. That would be something unlikely to happen by pure luck. It would be a giveaway that the treasure story is a hoax.

In Beale's letter to Morriss of Jan. 4, 1822, he mentions "a list of the names of our party, with their places of residence." Mr. Morriss would know immediately what Beale meant by use of the words "a list". In that period, a list was composed of "a number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively, typically one below the other." Lists were much used in the composition of advertisements and notices printed in newspapers.

Here is an example of a list of ship arrivals and departures from the Port of New Orleans in 1811 [See The Louisiana Gazette , New Orleans, La., June 14, 1811]. Note that the abbreviation "do" for ditto is used throughout the notice to avoid repeating the longer words: Pensacola, Ft. Stoddert, and Mobile.

Ship News.

Port of New Orleans

ENTERED

Schr. Florida, Orosco, Pensacola

Republican, Robasso, do

Mary, Brullon, Ft. Stoddert

Hope, Lindsey, do

Florida, Hendenberg, Mobile

Mary, Mayor, do

Victoria, Salles, do

Essay, Lisano, do

CLEARED

Ship Aldebaran, Congdon, Baltimore

Schr. Four-Brothers, Davis, Savanna

The next day, January 5, 1822, Beale wrote a second letter to Mr. Morriss, in which he more fully described; the "List." It seems that Beale wanted to give Mr. Morriss more of an idea of how the residences and names of heirs would fit with the "List" of names of the party. Also, Beale made an error in the January 4, 1822 letter. Beale had said that one of the papers contained "a list of the names of our party, with their places of residence." Actually, the letter also contained the names of the heirs and the places of residence of the heirs, not necessarily the same as the places of residence of the members of the party. In the letter of January 5th he corrected the mistake by saying that "You will find in one of the papers, written in cipher, the names of all my associates, who are each entitled to an equal part of our treasure, and opposite to the names of each one will be found the names and residences of the relatives and others, to whom they devise their respective portions."

Beale's explanation of Paper No. 3 sounds like the list consisted of three columns of data: (1) names of members, (2) names of heirs, and (3) residences of heirs. A simple method of representing a residence is by using the name of the post office where the person receives mail. With the person's name and their post office name, the person can be located. However, as Beale did not specifically use the words "post office". it is possible that some of the residences were expressed in more general terms, e.g., as in "the meadows of Goose Creek, Bedford Co., Va." Yet, in Beale's day, I believe that every person in Virginia had a post office where they could receive mail, which seems contradictory.

Besides the obvious explanation that the treasure story is true, there are a number of alternate conjectures that have been advanced to explain the origin and purpose of the Beale Papers. These alternate conjectures are listed and arguments are given to show that all but one of these can be easily ruled out as being unlikely, namely the treasure story is a hoax perpetrated by the anonymous author of Ward's pamphlet. Four different arguments are presented to show it is unlikely that a hoaxer would choose to create genuine ciphers that potentially could be decoded rather than bogus ciphers that could not be decoded. Thus, by a process of elimination, it is shown that the only likely way that genuine ciphers B1 and B3 could have been created is for the treasure story to be true.

Chapter 6 of Beale Treasure Story: New Insights describes a computer test performed on ciphers B1 and B3, which showed that the two ciphers have similar or like frequency distributions. Additional tests were performed using real and bogus ciphers, which led to a conclusion that B1 and B3 were created using the same creative process.

According to Viemeister, a German researcher theorized that the gold and silver buried in Beale's vault was looted from the Mexican government treasury after the American victory in the Mexican War of 1847–48. A more persistent claim is that Beale's treasure is actually the legendary missing Confederate Treasury of the 1860s. It is known that early on April 3, 1865, Jefferson Davis and members of his cabinet of the Confederate States of America boarded a special train in Richmond, bound for Danville, Virginia, bringing with them the assets of their treasury. The missing treasury has never been located. According to the "cover story" theory, The Beale Papers is a "fabrication, published to hide the truth of where the treasure came from and to 'launder' the loot."

However, there is good reason to doubt the "cover story" theory. If the pamphlet had been published to provide a "cover story," then one would expect the Beale treasure to have been located and removed within a reasonable period after the pamphlet's publication by the perpetrators of the "cover story." But, well over a hundred years has now passed, without any confirmed report that the treasure has been recovered, and so, it seems doubtful that the pamphlet was published with an intent to provide a "cover story."

A popular conjecture within the category of "mostly true" is that Thomas J. Beale was in reality the privateer Jean Laffite and Beale's vault contained the treasure of gold, silver, and jewels accumulated by the brothers, Jean and Pierre Laffite. However, there is justification for doubting this conjecture. Jean Laffite would not have known in 1822 that, three decades later, tons of gold would be mined near Pike's Peak, 250–300 miles north of Santa Fé. Unless Laffite made a lucky guess, there are only two ways that this fact could have been known: (1) the treasure story is true, or (2) the treasure story is untrue, but concocted at least in part after gold had been discovered near Pike's Peak. The "Laffite" conjecture is presumably based on a desire by Jean Laffite to have his treasure distributed to the heirs of the men in his band, or to his men posing as the heirs. But it seems unlikely that Laffite's men were Virginians, as stated in the treasure story. If the key to the ciphers had arrived in 1832, and B3 had been deciphered, Mr. Morriss would have realized that the storyline in the Beale Papers could not possibly be true. Few if any of the heirs given in B3 would be Virginians. Thus, the decoded B3 would not agree with the storyline in the Beale Papers. Given this anomaly, Mr. Morriss might have sought legal advice before proceeding, especially if the names Jean or Pierre Laffite appeared somewhere in the list of names.

Despite the fact that Beale or Morriss could have been hoaxers, neither possibility seems likely. The payoff realized from such a hoax could never begin to offset the tremendous effort required to create the Beale Papers. According to Viemeister (pp. 145–46), author of more than a dozen books, "creating a fictional The Beale Papers would be a challenging task." Viemeister says that "a fiction writer would need two or three years to work out this intricate story and the ciphers." Moreover, each man had little reason or incentive to perpetrate a hoax. After all, how much pleasure could Beale derive from leaving the papers in a locked box given to Mr. Morriss, with instructions that it not be opened for ten years? If the key did not arrive, the papers could easily end up in an ash can. If Mr. Morriss created the Beale Papers, how much pleasure could he derive from turning the papers over to an unsuspecting person, apparently a relative or friend, just months before his own death, never to rejoice in the pain and suffering inflicted on the anonymous author and his family? In each case, there was no assurance or even any prospect that the papers would ever receive notoriety, or that either Beale or Morriss might be revered as a clever hoaxer.

Regardless of whom the hoaxer might have been, one thing is certain. If the Beale Papers were fiction, it would require a significant effort and a significant period of time to write the story, just to get everything consistent, including the plot. Someone once asked author Ayn Rand what were the three most difficult things about writing and she replied: "plotting, plotting and plotting." According to Rand, "a plot is a purposeful progression of logically connected events leading to the resolution of a climax." According to Beale researcher Jerry Watt, the mere complexity of the Beale treasure story and the fact that it makes sense, historically, is a powerful argument that the entire story is real—something not very obvious to the average person.

First off, if ciphers B1 and B3 were created as part of a hoax, there would have been no need to create genuine ciphers B1 and B3. Bogus ciphers B1 and B3 could be easily constructed, e.g., by "pulling numbers from thin air." This would be simpler than creating phony messages No. 1 and No. 3 and enciphering them to produce genuine ciphers B1 and B3. Why go to all the work of preparing genuine ciphers when bogus ciphers would do the job? Creating bogus ciphers B1 and B3 would have required far less work.

If it were the hoaxer's intention to make money from the sale of Ward's pamphlet, then sales could, and probably would be negatively impacted if knowledge of a hoax leaked out. The hoaxer would be concerned about protecting his return on investment. If the hoaxer had considered the possibility of creating genuine ciphers B1 and B3, he would also have realized that this would require genuine looking (albeit phony) papers No. 1 and No.3 to be prepared. But there doesn't seem to be any constructive purpose for doing this. In fact, creating genuine ciphers would have a downside. If B1 contained a set of directions to a fictitious burial site, anyone decoding B1 would discover that the burial site was phony. Admittedly, an ambitious hoaxer could create his own burial site lined with stone, but without any gold, silver, or jewels. This might fool an unsuspecting treasure hunter who happened to decipher B1. In fact, upon discovering the empty vault, one might conclude that Beale and his men had indeed returned and removed the treasure long ago. But, what about B3? At best, it could contain a list of real people and real addresses. But upon checking a few of the names, it would be learned that the list had been concocted. There would be no way to perpetuate the masquerade. Eventually, it would be discovered that the names of supposed members of Beale's party had no connection to each other and had never participated in a western hunting expedition. If it was the hoaxer's intention to prevent someone—who decoded Beale's ciphers—from learning that the treasure story was a hoax, then creating messages No. 1 and No. 3 and enciphering them to produce B1 and B3 would undermine this objective. It would be safest to create bogus ciphers that could never be decoded, and thereby protect your return on investment.

It seems certain that family honor and reputation would be damaged if the treasure story was a hoax and knowledge of the hoax leaked out. According to a statement made by George Hart in the Hart Papers (p. 8), "Inquiry among some aged neighbors of Ward showed the high respect they had for him, and brought forth the statement that Ward would never practice deception." It is clear that Ward had a reputation to protect. But what about the anonymous author? Although not a certain fact, the anonymous author is suspected to have been Lynchburg resident, Ferdinand C. Hutter. The unblemished reputations of Hutter, his family, and his relatives could be easily scarred if Hutter was implicated in a hoax. F. C. Hutter had been a major in the Confederate Army. His father had been a U.S. Army officer prior to the Civil War. His wife Mary Lyons was the daughter of Judge James Lyons (1801–82), who attended William and Mary and established a thriving law practice in Richmond, where he served ten years as district attorney and was active in Whig (until 1852) and Democratic politics; he chaired the 1872 convention that nominated Charles O'Conor for president. A prominent civic leader and an early advocate of secession, Lyons was "a pillar of the administration" in his one term in the House, 1862–63. He and his wife were close friends of the [Jefferson] Davises': Varian remembered enjoying their "large and graceful hospitality" at Laburnum, their home in the suburbs, and later said he was "our dear and intimate friend." Lyons addressed Andrew Johnson on [Jefferson] Davis' behalf, volunteered his legal services, was a bondsman in 1867, and kept in touch with [Jefferson] Davis the rest of his life. One of Lyons' sons-in-law was [General] William B. Taliaferro (1822-1898), who married Lyons' daughter Sally, U.S. Army officer, lawyer, legislator and Confederate general in the Civil War. Henry A. Wise was his brother-in-law. James Lyons Taliaferro (1855–1928), son of General William B. Taliaferro and Sally Lyons, was also a Virginia lawyer and Judge. Even if the treasure story were true, allowing F. C. Hutter to be cited as the author of Ward's pamphlet could possibly be embarrassing for the relatives of Hutter's wife. And, this may explain in part why F. C. Hutter (assuming he was the anonymous author) chose to remove his name as author of the pamphlet. (The information about James Lyons was taken from The Papers of Jefferson Davis: June 1865–December 1870, by Jefferson Davis, Lynda Lasswell Crist, Suzanne Scott Gibbs, and Brady L. Hutchison, footnote 22, page 26.)

Imagine the impact that the following (make believe) article might have if printed in the Lynchburg and Richmond newspapers:

It has been reported that Ferdinand C. Hutter together with James B. Ward, both residents of Lynchburg, have been implicated in a scandalous hoax perpetrated on their neighbors and friends, in the city and surrounding area. F. C. Hutter, former major in the Confederate army, is the son of the late George C. Hutter, U.S. Army officer, and is the husband of Mary Lyons, daughter of the late Judge James Lyons of Richmond, lawyer, former Richmond district attorney, and legislator. She is also the daughter-in-law of William B. Taliaferro, U.S. Army officer, lawyer, legislator and Confederate general in the American Civil War. Ward is the son of the late Giles Ward and grandson of the late James B. Risque, both former attorneys practicing in Lynchburg for many years.

[This is followed by a short description of the treasure story.]

[This is followed by a description of how the hoax was uncovered.]

[This is followed by a list of other relatives together with ranks and titles, accompanied with a statement saying "So far relatives of the perpetrators have refrained from commenting on the matter."]

By all accounts, it would be foolish to perpetrate a hoax in the first place. It would be doubly foolish to perpetrate a hoax and not take steps to avoid the inadvertent exposure of the hoax by a person who happened to decode one of the ciphers. Family honor and reputation would seem to be a powerful motivating factor to be considered by the hoaxer. Why create genuine ciphers B1 and B3, and risk the possible exposure of a hoax, and subsequent loss of family honor and reputation, if the ciphers happened to be decoded?

Threat of a lawsuit would be another powerful motivating factor to be considered by the hoaxer. The anonymous author of Ward's pamphlet spent nearly twenty years trying to solve Beale's ciphers. And, according to Ward's pamphlet (p. 3), "regardless of the entreaties of his family and the persistent advice of his friend ... he stubbornly continued his investigations, until absolute want stared him in the face and forced him to yield to their persuasions." This describes a man totally consumed with the task of decoding Beale's ciphers. Suppose that after Ward's pamphlet had been published, a few readers became equally absorbed in the matter, toiling many hours in hopes of recovering the treasure despite the fact that the pamphlet warned against doing so. How might these persons react upon learning that the treasure story was a hoax? They might be downright angry. Could the anonymous author and Ward successfully blame the matter on Beale or Morriss? Perhaps, but that might also be chancy. Under the threat of exposure, someone might talk. In such an event, the anonymous author and Ward may be exposed to a possible lawsuit. Thus, if the treasure story was a hoax, it would be imperative for the anonymous author and Ward to keep their participation in the matter secret. Why create genuine ciphers B1 and B3, and risk the possible exposure of a hoax and a possible lawsuit, if the ciphers happened to be decoded?

Even if the treasure story did not begin as an intentional hoax, but instead began as a fictional story, later turned into a nonfiction narrative and sold in pamphlet form to make money, the perpetrators of the hoax (anonymous author, James B. Ward, and possibly others) would still be concerned about their family's honor and reputation and the risk of a possible lawsuit. However, in this case, ciphers B1 and B3 (included as part of the fictional story) would have been created by the author of the fictional story. And, it may be that the perpetrators of the hoax would have no way to know whether ciphers B1 and B3 were genuine or bogus. In that case, the safest course would be for the perpetrators to discard the inherited ciphers and replace them with newly created bogus ciphers. Thus, even if ciphers B1 and B3 started out as part of a fictional story, it seems likely that they would have been used by the hoaxers only if they were known to be bogus ciphers; otherwise they would have been discarded and replaced by bogus ciphers.

The remarkable thing is that the arguments showing that B1 and B3 are genuine are not based on an analysis of the cipher numbers themselves. The arguments are based on simple observations about the construction of the ciphers. I may have found something that other researchers have overlooked. It is this: A hoaxer acting on behalf of a fictional character confronted with a make-believe situation will not always act in the same way that a real-life character will act when confronted with a similar real-life situation. If this axiom is applied to the Beale treasure story, it is possible to use projected differences in the storyline to make important inferences about the treasure story itself.

If the treasure story is true, then while preparing paper No. 3 Beale recognized that some of the men were brothers or cousins with the same last name and that many of the heirs resided in the same location with the same post office address. First names of members and heirs could be abbreviated. Beale would have recognized that by appropriately arranging the information in paper No. 3, many names and addresses, which would otherwise be repeated, could be replaced by the abbreviation "do" for "ditto." Beale would have discovered that paper No. 3 could be written in as few as 618 letters, a fact that is also confirmed in Ch. 7 of Beale Treasure Story: The Hoax Theory Deflated.

Conclusion: If the treasure story was a hoax, it is extremely unlikely that a hoaxer would create a bogus cipher B3 with only 618 numbers. This conclusion is consistent with statements attributed to four reputable researchers, O'haver, Yardley, Kruh, and Nickell. They believed that 618 was not long enough to contain the information that Beale said it did. Taken together, their arguments provide the best empirical evidence available to show that a hoaxer would be unlikely to create B3 with only 618 numbers. Thus, there is only one remaining conclusion that can be reached: B3 contains 618 numbers because B3 is genuine and because Beale found a way to shorten paper No. 3 by removing the redundant information found in the lists of names and addresses that he used to create paper No. 3. Therefore, B3 is likely to be a real cipher.

B1 is Likely a Genuine Cipher

Several monotonic increasing letter strings occur in the recovered plain text when B1 is deciphered with the key to B2. In a monotonic increasing letter string, each letter is either one greater than the previous letter or equal to the previous letter. The observed deciphered strings and their corresponding locations in B1 are these:

Location String
37 AAAAB
44
AAABBCDEFF
84 AABBCCCCDDE
111 ACBCDDE
188 ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPPP

James Gillogly was the first to draw attention to the letter strings [1]. But, as he could find no explanation for these strings under an assumption that the treasure story was true, his inclination was that at least the first cipher, B1, was a hoax. In Gillogly's own words: "I visualize the encryptor selecting numbers more or less at random, but occasionally growing bored and picking entries from the numbered Declaration of Independence in front of him, in several cases choosing numbers with an alphabetic sequence."

Creating a bogus cipher would be boring. I am sure of that. But it is unclear why the encryptor's boredom would be relieved by interrupting the random number selection process in order to create monotonic increasing letter strings in B1, using the key to B2. In effect, this would constitute an enciphering operation, in which letters in the plain text, or letter string, are replaced by homophones in the key. Don't forget that an enciphering operation may require counting forward or backward from the nearest numbered letter or word in the key text. It would seem that the encryptor would be more apt to relieve his boredom by looking for ways to speed the process up, rather than resort to a more tedious operation of encryption.

Beale researcher, Ronald Gervais, conjectured that the monotonic increasing letter strings in B1 were inserted by a hoaxer, as if to say "Don't take this too seriously folks; it's just for fun." I'm not exactly sure how the letters strings could be interpreted to mean "Don't take this too seriously folks." Except for Gillogly's conjecture that the letter strings were the result of a hoaxer who became bored, I know of no other explanation for the presence of the strings in a bogus cipher B1 under an assumption that the treasure story is a hoax.

But, if it is conceded that a hoaxer did insert such letter strings in B1, then why insert imperfect monotonic increasing letter strings of the form ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPPP (with two clerical errors corrected [2]) when one could as easily insert perfectly formed letter strings of the form ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU. The letters "A" through "U" were available in Beale's key to B2. There seems to be no reason for ending the string with letters 'PPP" when one could move right on to letter "Q." Why insert imperfect letter strings when one could as easily insert perfectly formed letter strings?

To me, the letter strings have the appearance of being created using a process of double encipherment, which of course means that cipher B1 is real and that the strings were created by Beale. It means that the cipher numbers corresponding to the letter strings can be deciphered with the key to B1 and the key to B2 to produce two different meaningful decodings. But as a practical matter, because double encipherment introduces an extra degree of difficulty into the enciphering process, this extra degree of difficulty could explain why Beale was able to create only imperfect letter strings.

As for the first four letter strings, AAAAB, AAABBCDEFF, AABBCCCCDDE, and ACBCDDE, they have the appearance of practice trials in which Beale experimented in order to learn (by doing) how the process of double encipherment could be accomplished. It is supposed that the fifth string ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPPP (with two clerical errors corrected) was a string of sufficient length to satisfy Beale's intended purpose.

Recall that in Beale's letter of May 9th, 1822, Beale gave Morriss several instructions concerning the locked iron box left in his charge. Among other things, Beale said that:

"Should none of us 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."

It is clear from this instruction that Beale intended for someone other than himself to possibly demand the box from Mr. Morriss. This person would most likely be a member of Beale's company, but could and probably would be a person that Mr. Morriss had never met. The letter string ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOOPPP would serve as proof of this person's authority to retrieve the locked box. The recovery process would work as follows: Mr. Morriss would be instructed to number the words in a copy of the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and use the first letter of each word to decipher the 21 cipher numbers beginning with the 188th cipher number in the cipher beginning with cipher number 71 (i.e., B1). Mr. Morriss would be told in advance that a recognizable letter string beginning with the letter "A" and ending with the letter "P" would be produced. Only a person with Beale's authority would know this information. Once the letter string was proven to be correct, Mr. Morriss would know that the person demanding the box had authority from Beale to reclaim the box and the person demanding the box would know that the cipher being examined was the genuine Cipher No. 1.

Of course, the most important paper in the box was B1, as it alone contained the directions to the burial site of the treasure, which explains why Beale chose to insert the required letter string in B1. It also explains why it was unnecessary for Beale to create additional letter strings after once creating a letter string of sufficient length to serve his purpose. However, if the ciphers are bogus, it doesn't explain why the hoaxer's boredom abruptly ended with more than half of the numbers in cipher B1 still to be created.

Without knowing what Beale's key to B1 looked like, it is difficult to judge the degree of difficulty that he may have had in accomplishing the necessary double encipherment steps. There are a couple of "tricks" that Beale might have employed to facilitate the double encipherment process.

One method would be to make use of nulls in the key to B1. Nulls represent "nothing" and can be thought of as spaces or blanks. An easy way to make use of nulls would be for the key to B1 to be based on a book cipher in which the individual letters in the keytext are consecutively numbered, including the spaces between words. In that case, the spaces would represent nulls. And, as there would be many nulls (approximately one for every four or five letters in the keytext) to choose from, there would be no difficulty in forcing the double encipherment process to succeed. Thus, if the usual double encipherment step happened to fail, a recovery could be easily made by inserting one or more nulls into the plaintext (Paper No. 1) at the appropriate point.

The other method works only if the key for cipher B1 is defined by Beale himself. You might think of the key as a table with as many rows as there are letters in the alphabet. The key is populated by assigning cipher numbers or homophones to each letter in the key, by writing the homophones in the proper rows in the key. Thus, the assignment of homophones is a random or haphazard process. If a keytext is involved, the keytext itself determines the assignment of homophones to the letters in the key. In that case, the assignment is deterministic not random. For sake of discussion, suppose that Beale is the one who assigns homophones in the key. In such a case, double encipher works as follows: The process starts with an empty enciphering key. At first, letters in the letter string are produced as a consequence of assigning or adding needed homophones to the empty enciphering key. This extra degree of freedom can be enough to permit double encipherment to succeed. But, as more and more homophones are assigned to letters in the key, it becomes possible in some cases to perform double encipherment in the usual sense, without assigning new homophones to letters in the key. In effect, the process of double encipherment consists of adding homophones to the enciphering key (whenever necessary) or making use of homophones already assigned to the enciphering key (whenever feasible). Once double encipherment has been completed, additional homophones are assigned to letters in the key, to complete the key, and the remaining plain text is enciphered in the usual sense.

Conclusion: If B1 is bogus, then the letter strings are problematic. They have an unexplained purpose, they have an unexplained form, and they were created by a hoaxer for the fun of it, to relieve boredom. If B1 is genuine, the letter strings were created by Beale for a specific and planned purpose; the form of the strings is consistent with a double encipherment operation in which there is enough freedom to permit imperfect monotonic increasing letter strings to be created, but insufficient freedom to permit a perfectly formed letter string or a short English text message of 21 characters to be created. Given the two competing explanations for the existence of the monotonic increasing letter strings, it seems more likely (to me) that B1 is genuine and that the letter strings were created by Beale for a planned purpose. It seems less likely that B1 is bogus and that the letter strings were created by a hoaxer for the fun of it to relieve boredom.

Footnotes and References

[1] James J. Gillogly. 'The Beale cipher: A dissenting opinion." Cryptologia, volume 4, number 2, 116–119, April 1980.

[2] The actual letter string at location 188 is ABCDEFGHIIJKLMMNOHPPO. Cipher number 301 at location 205, which deciphers as letter "H" was probably meant to be cipher number 302, which deciphers as letter "O." Cipher number 680 at location 208, which deciphers as letter "O" was probably meant to be cipher number 681, which deciphers as letter "P." Thus, words "of" and "pretended" at positions 302 and 681 in Beale's numbered copy of the Declaration were undoubtedly misread as numbers 301 and 680. In effect, these were clerical errors made by Beale.