The Beale Decoder steps through all possible numberings of a keytext, comparing each result to normal English text using a sophisticated statistical test, then displays the results graphically.
Using a specially developed word list of common words and words likely to have been used by Beale, the Beale Decoder scans each decryption result for recognizable words and highlights them.
Simulate a variety of numbering schemes that Beale might have employed, including numbering forwards or backwards, skipping words, using keytext wrapping, and setting different thresholds.
Transfer keytexts quickly and easily through iTunes. The Beale Decoder uses standard text file format so you can use files from a variety of sources (see our FAQ), or create and edit your own.
Fun For All Ages
The Beale Decoder is easy to use and comes complete with the three Beale ciphers, several demo ciphers (to show how the scanning process works), a set of challenge ciphers, simulated solutions, and an assortment of potential keytexts to explore.
See James B. Ward’s solution to Beale No. 2 (ca. 1864) and the infamous Gillogly strings, which have led some to conclude that the Beale ciphers are a hoax (there are equally compelling reasons to believe they are genuine).
A Brief Overview
The story of the Beale ciphers is both fascinating and controversial. The ciphers were presumably created by Thomas J. Beale in 1822, but the original documents have not survived. The only evidence of their existence comes from The Beale Papers,¹ a pamphlet published in 1885 by James B. Ward. Curiously, the pamphlet states that Ward was not the author but merely an agent for the author, who wished to remain anonymous. This has sparked endless theories as to who the real author is, but for the reasons outlined below, we believe Ward is the author.
The pamphlet gives an account of how Beale and a party of adventurers discovered gold and silver in Colorado, which they mined for several years and then secretly buried in Virginia. Ward recounts from an interview with his friend Robert Morriss, how Beale and his men selected Morriss to be their executor, so that in case of their demise, he was to decrypt the ciphers, recover the treasure, and divide it among their relatives. The pamphlet includes reprints of the three ciphers as well as several letters from Beale, and a description of how Ward later solved one of the ciphers using the Declaration of Independence as the key. It also contains several contradictions and (apparent) errors, and one of the ciphers exhibits some nonrandom anomalies which have long been a source of controversy.
The Beale ciphers evidently use a form of homophonic substitution, in which multiple numbers can represent the same letter in order to disguise the distinctive letter frequencies of normal English text. The numbers and their corresponding letters are contained in a key, which either has been created specifically for that purpose as a table of numbers and letters, or has been produced by numbering the words in an existing document or book. In the first case, deciphering is done by looking up a cipher number in the key and writing down the corresponding letter below that number. In the second case, the first letter of the word below the number is selected. It is commonly assumed that the keys to the two remaining unsolved ciphers are of the second variety, in which a pre-existing document has been numbered, as Ward’s numbering of the Declaration suggests.
One of the main problems in the pamphlet is that applying the Declaration to cipher No. 2, as Ward describes, does not reproduce his solution, at least not without significant errors. Overall, it is clear that the cipher was constructed using the Declaration as the key, but the misalignments and mismatches necessitate extensive editing, either to the cipher or to the Declaration, or both, to get a correct or “clean” solution. Are these merely typographical errors? Certainly, typesetting in the late 1800s was a demanding art, but Ward assures us in his pamphlet that “no error is believed to exist” in the ciphers. Had Beale used a particular, odd version of the Declaration? (more than 350 different printings of the Declaration are known.²) Or is there something more fundamentally wrong? Ward makes no mention of it, which has caused some to question his credibility and motives, and even to declare the whole thing a hoax. Years of research have led us to conclude that the errors should instead be attributed to Beale.
Imagine for a moment the practical aspects of enciphering a message in the 1820s, working by candlelight with quill pen and ink. Beale presumably had a printed version of the Declaration at hand. Did he have one of the early broadsides (large-format flyer) printed shortly after 1776, or one of the popular engravings of the early 1800s by Tyler or Binns? Did he have a book containing the Declaration, or a newspaper clipping? We may never know. An examination of the broadsides and reproductions shows that the line spacing is extremely tight and the fonts are very small. There is simply not enough space above the words to add numbering. Likewise, squeezing hundreds of three-digit numbers onto the page of a book or a page of newsprint would have required microscopic handwriting (with quill pen, no less). We find it highly unlikely, therefore, that Beale numbered a printed copy of the Declaration. But in the alternative, if he copied it out to create his key, why would he have written out whole words when all he needed were single letters?
We believe that the key Beale refers to in his last letter to Morriss, therefore, is not a hand-numbered copy of an existing document, but an ordered table of numbers with a single letter below each number, in which the letters are derived from a source document.
So just how did Beale make his key? Using his source document essentially as a pool of random letters³, Beale likely copied out the first letters—but not always, as evidenced by his occasional use of other letter positions such as the ‘y’ from the word fundamentally—and added them, one by one, to his pre-numbered table. In making his key from the Declaration, he occasionally made mistakes. Here and there he picked a letter from above or below the current line, or skipped a word or two, and in one case skipped an entire line. These types of errors, commonly referred to as “typos,” are not surprising, especially under the circumstances in which he worked.
And why does this matter? Because these transcription errors are rendered completely inconsequential by the fact that all encryption was done post hoc, i.e., only after the key had been finished. In fact, once the key was completed, the source document could be discarded. As long as the same key is used in decrypting, the errors remain hidden and irrelevant. In other words, they’re not really errors at all, but features that make his cipher unique.
This completely accounts for the apparent errors in No. 2 (which have unjustly been attributed to Ward). It also renders harmless Beale’s occasional use of alternate letters, since no special instructions to Morriss would have been required for when to select the first letter of a word and when to select an alternate. Finally, it invalidates the arguments for the ciphers being a hoax based on Ward’s misnumbering of the Declaration in his pamphlet.
The upshot of this is that it clears Ward of any suspicion, in our opinion, since he could not have reproduced Beale’s errors by numbering the Declaration he had. He published his pamphlet, preserving the mismatches for all to see. If the pamphlet had been a work of fiction, it makes no sense that Ward, having “solved” a cipher of his own making, would publish such conspicuous errors while at the same time proclaiming the ciphers error-free. And if the errors stem from Beale’s key-making process, as we contend, then there is no need to modify the ciphers; all the corrections can and should be accommodated in the key. We suggest that Ward’s reprints of the ciphers are probably accurate, and by extension, that his account of the Beale story is most likely true. Furthermore, efforts to reproduce the correct numbering for No. 2 with any extant version of the Declaration would be futile, since no such document exists (unless, of course, you make the exact same mistakes Beale did).
So where does this leave us? Finding Beale’s key (or keys) would seem to be impossible—the proverbial needle in a haystack. There is hope, however. If Beale employed a source document for his other keys, in the same way he used the Declaration for No. 2, a trial decryption with that source document would likely result in the appearance of several telltale words or phrases which could not be attributed to chance. We believe that Beale used the same M.O. for the other ciphers, from the evidence of his “signature” in the key-making process as outlined above, but also because Morriss was unfamiliar with ciphers—by his own admission—and multiple or intricate encryption methods would have made his job difficult and error-prone, if not impossible. Finally, we are not looking for Beale’s actual key, but rather for his source document.⁴
We submit that a comprehensive search of potential source documents, i.e., books and documents in print prior to 1822, could yield a partial decryption from which it might be possible to reconstruct the entire key. Today’s desktop computers and hand-held devices are more powerful than the million dollar mainframe computers of only a few decades ago. With so much computing power widely available, and old books and documents just a few clicks away on the internet, the odds of finding that source document are better than ever before. If our analysis is correct, it’s out there just waiting to be found.
In a sense, Ward took the same approach. He checked all the documents and books he could lay his hands on, until one day “the Declaration of Independence afforded the clue to one of the papers, and revived all my hopes.” In all likelihood, his first attempt at decrypting using the Declaration produced a result which was only about 80 percent correct. But just imagine his excitement at seeing whole words and phrases!
1. See our free app, A Beale Primer Lite (click the iPhone Home button above)
or the PDF version (the_beale_papers.pdf) on the Support page.
2. Declaration of Independence Checklist 1776–1825, Stephen M. Matyas, Jr.
3. They would not be random but would reflect the frequencies of the first
letters of the words in the source document.
4. It is conceivable that Beale could have constructed his key from more than
The Beale Cipher Blog
What’s New in Version 1.1
We’ve updated the Beale Decoder with new functionality and improved its performance. This requires that your device is running at least iOS 6.1.
● Updated for iPhone 5 and iPad Retina Display compatibility
● Probable-word search with highlighting!
● Adjustable chi-squared threshold
● Link Tests mode
● Ignore Singletons filter
● Display of Gillogly string locations
● Quick Scanning mode, with up to four times faster scanning
● Keytext Wrapping mode
● Presets displayed on decryption screen
● Additional keytexts, including Ward’s pamphlet version of the DOI
● Refinements to the chi-squared meter and test sensitivity
● Reset buttons in Keytext Offset and Word Skip Interval settings
● Simulated solutions to Beale No. 1 and Beale No. 3!
● 10 Challenge ciphers!
● Sound alerts
We have a winner for Challenge cipher 3!
Challenge cipher 3 has been solved by David G. from Eugene, Oregon. Congratulations, David. The solution is as follows (look for the Challenge 3 screenshot at right, then hover your mouse on the image to stop it cycling):
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool
than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Cipher: Challenge 3
Keytext: Magna Carta
Reverse Numbering: ON
Keytext Offset: 2789
Word Skip Interval: 0
The cipher this time has been transposed to read left-to-right but upwards! Again, the cipher has been padded with random letters to reduce the chi-squared signature. Wordsearch found only two 6-letter words in this case. But they are conspicuous.
The clues we gave for the keytext on Twitter and Facebook were, of course, for the Magna Carta, which dates from 1215. The other clue was an anagram for 'Reverse Numbering'.
Challenge cipher 2 was solved by Steve S. from Ontario, Canada. Who knew there was such cryptanalytic talent in Canada? The solution is as follows:
“I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend
to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.”
Cipher: Challenge 2
Reverse Numbering: OFF
Keytext Offset: 5227
Word Skip Interval: 0
The cipher this time has been transposed to read backwards! (Note that the highlighting is red in this case, indicating words found reading backwards.) The cipher has been padded with random letters to reduce the chi-squared signature. Wordsearch found only two 6-letter words and one 7-letter word. The fact that we have a relatively high chi-squared result (8) combined with three significant words is a good indication of a correct decryption. Closer inspection reveals more words and confirms the correct solution.
The clues we gave for the keytext on Twitter and Facebook were, of course, for the sixth book of the New Testament, Romans. The clues referred to Papyrus 46, which contains the last eight chapters of Romans. A simple search on Wikipedia would have revealed the papyrus in question.
Challenge cipher 1 was solved by Chris P. from Atlanta, Georgia. The solution to Challenge 1 is as follows:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Cipher: Challenge 1
Keytext: Travels Through North America
Reverse Numbering: OFF
Keytext Offset: 8059
Word Skip Interval: 0
As you may have observed, the cipher has been padded with random letters around the core message. This depresses the chi-squared signature and makes the solution a bit trickier to find. (We never said it would be easy!)
Note that wordsearch found very few words in the message, e.g., the words ‘GOVERNMENT’ and ‘INSTRUMENT’ are not highlighted. The word list used in the Beale Decoder is a probable-word list. It contains common words and words likely to have been used by Beale to describe the location of the treasure, so words like ‘government’ and ‘instrument’ are not included.
HINT: Note that the chi-squared result is 8. Determine the settings which will scan to this solution with the fewest number of false positives.
Be sure to follow us on Twitter and Facebook where we will be posting more challenge cipher hints.
Submit a correct solution to any of the remaining challenge ciphers and have your success honored here. Simply take a screenshot* of your solution, then go to your Camera Roll and email it to honor_roll
@bealedecoder.com. Please include your name and address. We won’t disclose or sell your information to anyone, anytime, anywhere, ever. Your name will be posted on this Honor Roll page with first name and last initial only, plus city and state. If you’d like your age disclosed (we have some young cryptanalysts out there) feel free to include it. Happy deciphering!
No purchase necessary! Here are some TXT versions of our Challenge ciphers (right click on the links and “Save Link As...” or, for Safari users, hold down the Option key and click on the link):
Challenge 1.txt (2 KB)SOLVED
Challenge 2.txt (2 KB)SOLVED
Challenge 3.txt (1 KB)SOLVED
● Challenge 4.txt (2 KB)
● Challenge 5.txt (2 KB)
● Challenge 6.txt (2 KB)
● Challenge 7.txt (3 KB)
● Challenge 8.txt (3 KB)
● Challenge 9.txt (3 KB)
● Challenge 10.txt (2 KB)
* Press the Sleep/Wake button and the Home button simultaneously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why is Beale sometimes referred to as Thomas Jefferson Beale?
A: There is no evidence that Beale’s middle name was Jefferson. In the original 1885 pamphlet, Beale signed his letters simply with the initials T.J.B. and Morriss refers to him only once as Thomas J. Beale, otherwise calling him only Beale. The Hart brothers seem to have concocted the notion that Beale’s middle name was Jefferson, presumably because Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, which was used as the keytext for cipher No. 2. Unfortunately, this notion has been perpetuated in books and on TV shows by people who haven’t bothered to look at the evidence, or lack thereof.
Q: Isn’t your approach like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack?
A: Ward solved Beale No. 2 by numbering a copy of the Declaration of Independence. The popular assumption is that Beale made his key in the same way. We believe this is incorrect. Instead, we think Beale created a lookup table filled in with letters from a source document, which in this instance was the Declaration. So what’s the difference, you might ask?
Well, many people have observed that the numbering of the Declaration in Ward’s pamphlet does not produce the solution he claims. In fact, it is impossible to achieve a completely correct solution to Beale No. 2 by a straightforward numbering of any known version of the Declaration. This has caused some people to attribute the errors to Ward and even to accuse him of creating a hoax.
To the contrary, we believe most of the errors should be attributed to Beale and that they are best explained as transcription errors, introduced by Beale during the process of creating his lookup table. The difference is, once completed, the lookup table is independent of the source document and any errors become irrelevant. (The errors become evident only when you try to force the numbering to fit the Declaration, i.e., when you follow the popular methodology.) We contend that such transcription errors, arising from the process of reading from one document and writing on another, are much more likely and plausible than the misnumbering of a single document. To our mind, these errors reveal how Beale constructed his key—his M.O., if you will.
Our approach, then, is not to search for Beale’s missing key directly, but rather to look for traces or hints of the source document from which it was derived. We don’t expect a complete solution to magically “pop out” from this search, we only hope to find a few statistically significant words. Knowing the source of those words, combined with the fact that the ciphers contain many repetitions, could lead to a reconstruction of the original key. Keep in mind that when Beale No. 2 is decrypted with the Declaration without any corrections, the resulting cleartext is only about 60-80 percent correct and reveals only six whole words of eight or more letters. (For more on this, see the analysis on our Facebook or Twitter page.)
If Beale used the same M.O. to create his other key or keys, as we believe he did, then it is a matter of checking books and documents in print prior to 1822. There were an estimated 100,000 books published in the U.S. before that date and probably a similar number of other publicly available documents. The vast majority of these, however, can be ruled out as either too old or too obscure. We have to assume, after all, that Beale’s source document was readily available to him, e.g., from a library or bookstore. So we’re looking at a few thousand, perhaps ten thousand candidate sources. This may have seemed like looking for a needle in a haystack two hundred years ago, but with modern computer technology, checking a few thousand documents and books is absolutely feasible.
Q: Why are words like states, status, bottom, and attack found so often?
A: These relatively short words are produced randomly (usually only as singletons) and result from using keytexts composed of English text in which the most common letters are E, T, A, O, I, N, and S. So words containing these high-frequency letters tend to be produced more often. This is exactly why we have the Ignore Singletons filter and, unless you get many words of this length on one screen, you may safely ignore them.
Q: What is your methodology for using the Beale Decoder?
A: We set our iPhone on its dock, plugged in next to our work area (scanning is very CPU intensive and will drain the battery quickly). A methodical approach is best. Keep a log of keytexts tried, scan ranges, settings etc., and take screenshots of any interesting finds. Keep in mind that we are looking for multiple longer words or sequences that look English-like, not necessarily for a complete solution (remember that decrypting Beale No. 2 with the standard DOI produces a result which is only about 80 percent correct—be sure to look at that result, if you haven’t already). After uploading some new keytexts to test, we’ll work our way down the list, deleting them as we complete scanning each one. We typically start with the Chi-squared Threshold set to 8 and Word Length at 7. You’ll find that some keytexts produce more false positives than others, so be flexible. Starting with Forward Numbering, we’ll do a complete scan for each Word Skip Interval up to about 25 or 30 (we believe it would have been impractical for Beale to have used a greater interval). Then we repeat the process with Reverse Numbering (you’ll notice that the keytext does not need to be reloaded each time you change the Skip Interval, as it does when going from Forward to Reverse Numbering). If there are a lot of false positives, we’ll turn on Ignore Singletons or Link Tests, or both. Link Tests permits you to lower the test thresholds a click or two. Remember that Link Tests only produces results when we get hits on both chi- squared and word search, so scrutinize these with extra care. When working on Beale No. 1 it can be useful to highlight the Gillogly strings to see if any interesting patterns are produced in those areas. And don’t ignore Beale No. 3—it might reveal something that would be applicable to No. 1.
Q: The Decoder is not taking my modified Bill of Rights keytext.
A: The Beale Decoder will not overwrite an existing file. If you modify an existing keytext, just save it with a unique filename, e.g. ‘Bill of Rights 02.txt’. Then drag and drop it on the list of files in iTunes and sync as usual.
Q: What are the Gillogly strings?
A: The Gillogly strings were first documented by James J. Gillogly in April 1980, in Cryptologia magazine. Several alphabetically-ordered sequences appear when the Declaration of Independence (DOI) is applied to No. 1, the longest of which is about 20 letters. Gillogly showed that this sequence could not have occurred by chance and asserted that it must have been placed there by a hoaxer. For a more thorough discussion of this see our publication A Beale Primer (click on the Home button on the iPhone at right).
Q: But aren’t the Gillogly strings proof that the Beale cipher is a hoax?
A: An alternative theory, which we find more persuasive, is that they were placed there deliberately by Beale to deceive a would-be codebreaker into thinking that the DOI was the key. In other words, it’s a classic ruse.
Q: What do you mean by potential keytexts?
A: We know that Beale used the DOI as the source document for the key to cipher No. 2, and that he probably created the ciphers during the winter of 1821–1822. Therefore, any source document for the keys to the other ciphers, or potential keytext, must necessarily have been in print before 1822.
Q: Haven’t all the built-in keytext files been tried already?
A: The possible combinations of numbering direction, offsets, and word skip intervals are too numerous for all of them to have been investigated closely, and the more eyes we get to look at this, the greater the chances of solving it. The included keytexts are intended only as a starting point and the user is encouraged to research what other books or documents were available to Beale (some 100,000 books were published in the United States before 1822).
Q: Where can I find books or documents published before 1822?
A: Project Gutenberg (gutenberg.org) is an excellent source for old books in text format (just right-click on ‘Plain Text UTF-8’, then ‘Save Link As...’). Likewise, Archive.org (look for a ‘Full Text’ link and right-click). Google books is also a good source (books.google.com) but limited for our purposes since most of the books have been scanned into PDF format; getting plain text is a little more involved. There’s a plain text option under settings (gear icon) which converts to text with optical character recognition but it’s not foolproof and on older books you tend to get a lot of errors.
Q: But on the internet it says that the Beale cipher has been solved.
A: To our knowledge, no credible solution has ever been published (and we’ve been at this for a while). Any so-called solution that has not been reviewed by knowledgeable people—of whom there are very few—isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit,* including the pontifications of some silly TV shows.
Q: Why does the DOI need “fixes” to produce a clean solution to No. 2?
A: We believe that the errors were introduced by Beale in transcribing the first letters of words from the DOI when he created the key for No. 2. Once the key was completed, however, these errors became irrelevant. By fixing the DOI we are simply attempting to reproduce Beale’s key, errors and all.
Q: If the ciphers contain errors how can they ever be solved?
A: Even a partially correct decryption of the ciphers should be recognizable as English text, with the appearance of many whole words, if not whole sentences. For example, when No. 2 is decrypted using the standard DOI, the solution is still quite readable even though about 20 percent of the letters are incorrect.
Q: Don’t you have to be a professional cryptanalyst to do this?
A: No. Most researchers agree that the Beale ciphers use a form of homophonic substitution, where each letter of the alphabet can be represented by multiple numbers. We believe that Ward genuinely solved No. 2 using the DOI and that the other ciphers were likely constructed in the same manner. We also think that Beale made errors and/or padded his other keys such that a complete solution may not be readily apparent. And this is why we believe it boils down to word search, which anyone can do.
Q: What is the statistical test used in the Beale Decoder?
A: The Beale Decoder uses Pearson’s chi-squared test to evaluate goodness of fit, i.e., whether or not the observed frequency distribution differs from a theoretical distribution, in this case, that of normal English text. Try the Beale Decoder on the demo ciphers and watch as the chi-squared test finds the solution—it positively leaps out from the background noise during scanning.
Q: What are the challenge ciphers? And what do those symbols mean?
A: We included the challenge ciphers to demonstrate the power of combining the chi-squared test with probable-word search, and to illustrate some of the effects which could potentially be observed in the Beale ciphers. The challenge ciphers start off easy and become progressively more difficult. The symbols are from skiing, where they are used to denote slope difficulty. Green is easiest, blue is intermediate, and black is advanced. Double black diamond means fugeddaboutit.
Q: What is keytext wrapping?
A: Keytext wrapping is a way to simulate if Beale had started numbering toward the end of a document and continued it around to its beginning. Wrapping can also be used to simulate continuation of numbering from a different document.
Q: What do you mean by probable-word search?
A: The word list was developed using word frequencies for common words plus words likely to have been used by Beale to describe the location of the treasure (cipher No. 1), i.e., words describing direction, geographical features, distances, and place names near Montvale, Virginia from the early 1800s.
Q: Do I need to edit a keytext to get rid of numbers and punctuation?
A: No. The Beale Decoder removes all non-alphabetic characters prior to numbering so you do not need to do extensive editing.
Q: Do I need to remove repetitive elements like chapter headings?
A: In general, repetitive elements introduce only a small error rate, but if they are very frequent relative to the amount of text, such as the ‘Sections’ and ‘Articles’ in the US Constitution, it might be a good idea to try it without them.
Q: Why does Beale No. 1 have gaps in it?
A: Those are really not gaps but indicators for locations where the cipher values are too high for the given keytext, e.g., Beale No. 1 has values up to 2906 while the Declaration contains only 1320 words. Those cipher numbers which cannot be accomodated by the keytext are left blank. Notice also that as you near the end of a keytext more and more ‘gaps’ appear.
Q: The app does not seem to be loading my keytexts. What am I doing wrong?
A: After syncing, go into the Settings screen and press Restore Defaults (at the bottom). This reloads all files, including any newly transferred through iTunes.
Q: The app won’t load the Old Testament. The indicator just spins and spins.
A: The Old Testament (Complete) file contains over 600,000 words and is 3.4 MB. On some older devices it may take several minutes to load. You might want to use the individual books of the Old Testament instead. They’re identical, just split up. Also, if you interrupted the loading by closing the app, be sure to start the app fresh by deleting it from the multitasking bar (double-click the Home button).
* Vice President John Nance Garner’s characterization of the Vice Presidency.
“Wow, your premise is a bombshell! All the naysayers out there with their wacko conspiracy theories are going to go nuts!”
Mike W., Richmond VA
“This is the most refreshing analysis of the Beale ciphers I’ve seen in a long time. Just like the climate ‘consensus,’ people seem to jump on the Beale hoax bandwagon just because it’s popular.”
Pat R., Albuquerque NM
“Good app. This kind of scanning of possible keytexts would have been unimaginable in Beale’s day. I like your approach.”
Andrew M., Portland ME
“The Beale Decoder’s new word search feature is really cool and the adjustable threshold is a useful update.”
Steve S., Ottawa, Canada
“This is the ultimate word search. If you’re good at word search, you can do this. And just maybe there’s a jackpot at the end!”
Anne K., Keene NH
“If anyone manages to solve the Beale ciphers, it will probably be done with this tool. This is a great app.”
Alex H., Riverview FL
“A clever and useful tool for cracking this 200 year old riddle! Fascinating!”
Karen L., Seattle WA
We welcome your feedback. Send your questions or comments to: feedback
For your convenience, here are some PDF versions of the Beale Decoder documentation (right click on the links and “Save Link As...” or, for Safari users, hold down the Option key and click on the link):
● background.pdf (82 KB)
● using_the_decoder.pdf (668 KB)
James B. Ward’s 1885 pamphlet:
● the_beale_papers.pdf (2.8 MB)
Mock solutions to B1 and B3 (to demonstrate message length feasibility):
● Beale No. 1 in 520 characters (Twitter link)
● Beale No. 3 in 618 characters (Twitter link)
Updated mock solution to B3 (removed shortened town names):
● Beale No. 3 in 618 characters (Twitter link)
Be sure to follow us on Twitter or Facebook for the latest developments.
And please support us by giving us a positive review on the App Store.