So in the course of working with the Kryptos Morse Code, I encountered some debate as to whether or not it was interpretatiu or interpretati or interpretatu.  I had hoped that in the course of re-translating it, I would find a clear answer yet I ran into a similar dilemma.  I initially decided it must be interpretatu because interpretatit seemed obnoxious.

I was wrong.

So the space between characters for a letter is the space of one dit (.) and between letters of a word is three dits worth of space (…).  It would not appear that Sanborn stuck to this convention but we can use the spaces he did use to determine which interpretation to use.

Here are some MS paint modified pictures that will help demonstrate my point.


This one is fairly straight-forward.  I used the preceding “A” (. -) as a relative measurement to see if the two dits (. .) are to be taken with the dash (-).  Even with the angled perspective it is fairly reasonable to take this as proof that the two dits are an “I” and the dash is by itself as a “T”.

I like conclusive proof so I tried a different method to see if it showed the same effect.

Kryptos Interpretatit

So the red lines are the space of a dit on the top line.  We can see that Sanborn flaunts tradition by separating his E’s by 5 dit-lengths instead of 7.  We can also see the following along the second line: 1st, the E (first green line) is clearly separate from the following T and while the space is not 3 dit lengths, it is obvious visually and obvious by relative measurement that they are separate symbols for separate letters.  Conversely, our 2nd green line shows the combined “. -” giving us the expected “A”.  The last two green lines show that while the two final dits are to be used together, they are not close enough (relatively) to the final dash to be combined.

I feel pretty confidence that this crude Paint comparison lends enough credence to claim that it is “interpretatit”.

But how does that help anything?