Re:200-year-old ciphers may reveal the location of treasure ...
by DoctorOetker on Sunday June 17, 2018 @05:33AM
(#17331608)
Your frequency plot is very peculiar and almost unexplainable:
1) while it can be explained if the author was intelligent enough to understand letter frequency cryptanalysis, but how widespread would that idea have been in his day and age?
2) even though the symbol frequencies match up, the text seems gibberish, which for now I can only explain as follows:
The author of the pamphlet somehow obtained the 3 original ciphertexts and sincerely believed in their authenticity. (even if his source may or may not have scammed him). He identified the DOI as the correct key for ciphertext 2 (this insight too may have come from the potential source). Trivially the same key is tried on ciphertext 1. The author notices the quasi alphabet and otherwise gibberish. Unable to solve the puzzle he notes that if he cuts up decipherable ciphertext 2 in say 7 letter chunks, they clearly form random parts of english phrases. Similarily he cuts up ciphertext 1 in say 7 letter chunks (but leaves the alphabet part intact), and publishes it, in the hope that someone will find a "weird convincing but failed decoding", such that he only has to restore the ordering of the letters (since he knows how he reordered the 7 letter chunks).
I.e. the pamphlet author might sincerely believe in the authenticity of the originnal ciphertext, but is trying to scam his audience into solving the puzzle for him!
1) while it can be explained if the author was intelligent enough to understand letter frequency cryptanalysis, but how widespread would that idea have been in his day and age?
2) even though the symbol frequencies match up, the text seems gibberish, which for now I can only explain as follows:
The author of the pamphlet somehow obtained the 3 original ciphertexts and sincerely believed in their authenticity. (even if his source may or may not have scammed him). He identified the DOI as the correct key for ciphertext 2 (this insight too may have come from the potential source). Trivially the same key is tried on ciphertext 1. The author notices the quasi alphabet and otherwise gibberish. Unable to solve the puzzle he notes that if he cuts up decipherable ciphertext 2 in say 7 letter chunks, they clearly form random parts of english phrases. Similarily he cuts up ciphertext 1 in say 7 letter chunks (but leaves the alphabet part intact), and publishes it, in the hope that someone will find a "weird convincing but failed decoding", such that he only has to restore the ordering of the letters (since he knows how he reordered the 7 letter chunks).
I.e. the pamphlet author might sincerely believe in the authenticity of the originnal ciphertext, but is trying to scam his audience into solving the puzzle for him!