WN: Are the coded systems you used the same systems that (CIA cryptographer) Ed Scheidt gave you or have they been altered?
Sanborn: Mr. Scheidt basically gave me an outline of historic and contemporary … encoding systems that have been formally used by the agency and were still used by the agency and other people (in 1990). He gave me a whole variety of possible systems to use and ways to modify all of those systems. But as a visual artist, I like to rely on systems that include visual (material) as well as digital material that can be deciphered by machines. It’s also well-known that I did use some matrix codes Ed gave me, and I have also designed visual systems for encoding, which are much harder for cryptographers to crack because they’re individualistic.
(WIRED Interview, 01/20/05)
So it’s all fine and good until we get to the “as a visual artist” part. That’s what worries me. What are the visual systems for encoding that he designed?
It seems to me like he’s out of chronology here. It’s like WN is asking a straightforward Kryptos-specific question and he’s answering by describing his work since 1990. He did that binary thing outside the IRS and the Cyrillic projector…
Ref: http://elonka.com/kryptos/sanborn/list.html, take a look and see if you disagree with my interpretation of his answer.
Dude makes some random crap. I just hope he doesn’t get cancer from all that Atomic Time stuff, radioactivity – especially the way we used to practically roll in the stuff – is no laughing matter. It’s all fine and good to collect old antiques from the Manhattan project but don’t be surprised when you end up glowing in the dark.
Does Kryptos glow in the dark?
How about UV?
Hmm…
Kryptos - Beyond K4 
What visual encryption? Carving letters into a big sheet of metal?
Seriously though… what if the visual aspect was needed for K4. It’s been alluded to in several interviews, in his other work, and even in the plaintext of K1.
Having done straight cryptogrpahic solutions for K1-3 Sanborn may have added his own twist by making the solution involve some visual aspect. Which would make it more difficult for someone outside of the CIA to solve since it could involve looking at it it from different angles in different lighting.
I’m new to this (speaking of amateur hour), but it seems to me that there might be some value in seeing the visual aspect of it, since it is art.
Looking at it in different lighting conditions, from different angles, looking at shadows it makes, looking at it from different angles rather than the traditional full on view.
I like your idea and look forward to the pictures. Unfortunately the Kryptos sculpture is in the courtyard of the CIA installation and there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell they’re going to let me in. It could be something as easy as having the letter shadows fall across different bricks or pieces of sidewalk or rocks and it allows some hidden bit to be revealed. I contemplated having a scale model built out of plastic but the cost was prohibitive. Also, Kryptos outside of the courtyard may not adequately reveal any hidden shadows. Ever since I found out the letters were actually cut all the way through I’ve been thinking exactly what you have described.
“I like to rely on systems that include visual (material) as well as digital material that can be deciphered by machines”. He designed a “visual system of encoding”? What does that mean?