It wouldn’t be wise to not consider the fact that perhaps the Sanborn/Scheidt/Kryptos trifecta are being misunderstood.

If someone talks about masking the English, it could simply be by using a ciphering method that changes letter frequencies.

When Sanborn talks about individualistic design, it could be that he was really intrigued by the idea of being able to pick his own keywords.

It may be possible that since Vigenere ciphers have been vulnerable for quite awhile that Scheidt assumed and assured Sanborn that the CIA would be able to handle them easily. Since military applications of cryptanalysis focus on methods of retrieving the keywords, it may be possible that there never were any clues to finding them and that it is through the process of solving K1 and K2 that we encounter Abscissa and Palimpsest for the first time.

It’s safe to assume that we don’t understand the clues left in the translated text otherwise we’d probably have solved it.

Sanborn definitely did something in the CIA courtyard and once you have all of the clues together, you need to be there to see it. It may be buried or not but he definitely did something and that is the final solution.

I couldn’t quote them for you if I wanted but there were several statements made at other times by the two authors that suggest to me that they’ve hidden clues in the solutions of the ciphertext. This would lead me to believe that Palimpsest and Abscissa do matter in some way still.

I’m sitting here, right now, looking at K3 and I remember from the interview with Sanborn about how the end of one of the sections was a little ambiguous. Re-read the end of K3 with me for a moment:
“X Can you see anything Q?” It’s so simple that I never saw it before. It’s a play on words… “Can you see anything between X and Q?”

I’ve spoked my own line of reasoning with a tangent. I do think the play on words is significant but we should finish the idea I began. It’s very easy to read all of the material online and come away with preconceived notions that do little but conform to a widespread set of opinions. Almost 20 years of grinding away suggests that we may have some fundamental misinterpretations of the statue and what has been said by its creators. Paranoid as it sounds, it will push us to re-evaluate and perhaps come up with something new. What do you really have to lose? A couple months? How many of us have spent years on this only to be foiled and frustrated constantly.

Just a little time, just a moment to reconsider…

Take a breather from your exhaustive attempts to try just one more cipher method…

The joke is on us, it was never meant to be this hard, so where did we go wrong?

What is the clue that is hiding in plain site that we’ve missed over and over again?

What are the clues that we’ve misinterpreted?

What are the interview statements that went unnoticed or were assumed to mean something they didn’t?

What are we missing?

It’s got to be something.

I won’t lie, I’ve had some ideas that I’ve been very attached to and had to let go of reluctantly in the face of a growing understanding that they just don’t work.

I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking we don’t have all of the details in front of us. Logically, if you have all of the clues and all of the evidence you need and completely understand everything Kryptos has revealed so far; do you really think you and all of us would be so stuck for so long?

What are we missing?

Kryptos Fan

Advertisements