The question is whether the third part of Kryptos is trustworthy.

My proposition is that it is not.  I suspect we will find a misspelling in K4 but that it will be one letter only and that will or should cast some doubt upon K3.  I don’t know how or what that will mean but if we’re to believe that Ed had an interest in duress ciphers and that even when we have solved K4 we will not be completely done with Kryptos then one of the sections must be fake or untrustworthy.  We will only really know after the plaintext of K4 has been revealed but I have my suspicions.

Now could it mean?  I think it could suggest somehow the visual encoding matrices that Jim Sanborn references.  The unique encoding method he developed.  The stego that was employed.  The over-arching message if you will.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see but is there anything we can elucidate today without the text of K4?  What would it mean for any of the 3 sections we know if one of them was shown to be misleading?  How would it change what we know or think about Kryptos if one of the transmissions was a lie?

Kryptosfan

Advertisements