Talk:Kryptos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Layout

I'm still not too happy with the layout, but still feel, that the transcript should be included in the article in some way, maybe somebody volunteers to make it a picture so it doesn't spoil the text layout as much... --Palapala 10:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not just add a transcript section just before the solutions? --Trevor 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the solutions up the page as I think it is more important than other sections and is what people will want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.211.106 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumours

There is a rumor that Kryptos will be mentioned in best-selling author Dan Brown's next book.

I don't think this is sufficiently noteworthy to include in the article as an unattributed rumour. Certainly, it would be worth mentioning if Dan Brown published such a book mentioning Kryptos, but my vote would be to wait until then rather than including speculations at this point. — Matt 23:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's already been mentioned in The Da Vinci Code. --GaidinBDJ 01:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It was actually referenced twice with codes on the front and back cover of the Da Vinci Code. N8pilot16 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...

From CIA site:

To produce the code for “Kryptos,” Mr. Sanborn worked for four months with a retired CIA cryptographer to devise the codes used in the sculpture. Mr. Sanborn wrote the text to be coded in collaboration with a prominent fiction writer.

Then again, I don't think Dan Brown was prominent at that time. Phoenix Song 02:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sanborn has since said that the "prominent fiction writer" idea was just an initial concept that was never actually implemented. Elonka 03:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Google Maps link was wrong - it wasn't focused on the CIA headquarters at Langley, but the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade!

Richard Gay's claim

I removed the new section about Gay's claim to be the first CIA solver, because it is not verified. I and another Kryptos researcher spent hours going through the NSA's crypto library reviewing the back issues that Gay cites are his verification. However, the only thing we found were occasional letters to the editor where he claimed that he was working on it, but without giving any proof of progress. It is our opinion that this is not sufficient verification, and I have other correspondence which casts further doubt on the claim. If others would like to review the newsletters for themselves, and believe that you saw something that we missed, I look forward to your analysis. --Elonka 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If User:RGay is Richard Gay, then it's extremely inappropriate for him to be making these sorts of edits. I presume a single sentence repeating Gay's claim, but without endorsing it, is acceptable? — Matt Crypto 08:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

... So, why not include his claim? — Matt Crypto 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: I've researched Gay's claims extensively (I first heard of him in December 2004, and tracked him down in 2005), and not only are his claims not credible, but I have encountered multiple examples of him making aggressively false statements. This is not just my sole opinion, but that of other Kryptos researchers as well, such as when we made a visit to the NSA cryptographic library in November 2005 to check Gay's claim personally. I do not believe that it is appropriate to list Gay's own website as a "reference" for his claim, and even on his website I see nothing that is a solid verification. Indeed, the oppposite. He claims (in a 1999 newsletter) that he informed CIA of his progress in 1997, but that in 1999, the CIA announced that Stein was the first internal solver. This tells me that even if he did "report a solution" to the CIA, that not even they believed his claims (and I mean really, a name of "Dick Gay"?). Gay's website is also obviously an attempt to capitalize on the link between Kryptos and "The Da Vinci Code." He even superimposed a picture of the Mona Lisa on top of Kryptos, which is antagonistic to the sculptor. I should also mention that Gay told me in personal correspondence in mid-2005 that he was planning on making a "press release" about this to promote a book that he is publishing.

Gay's claims were discussed by the Kryptos Group several months ago, and dismissed. I have also personally been in contact with individuals from the NSA and CIA, and no one has corroborated Gay's claims of a solution, or even been able to verify that he really worked at either of the Agencies. He does show up as a member of one of the retirement associations, but it has been pointed out that this means nothing, as they require no proof of previous employment.

Anyone that is interested in seeing any of the Kryptos Group discussions, I'll be happy to give you access so that you can review our archives for yourself. As for other "early solver" claims, I was the one that added the information about the 2000 article which stated that an NSA team had solved parts 1-3 in 1992. That information comes from a single source (one Sun Journal article in 2000), but it's a credible source, so (in my opinion) it was appropriate to include. But I'm willing to discuss that as well, especially since it was published so many years after the fact. --Elonka 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the expert opinion and information. That's what we depend on! I was extremely skeptical of Richard Gay's claims because he made no attempt to keep the existing informatino on the page, just removed basically everything and put his claims in instead RGay's version. However, desiring to be generous in my opinion of others until proven otherwise, I figured he was a NOOB so I integrated his edits with a reverted version of the page. I did look at the info he cited and thought it was at least not blatant lies, but I'm pleased that the "peer-review" process has proven itself once again. Thanks for your vigilance, research and public contribution Elonka. Alan J Shea 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pending press release

FYI, a major (and radical) discovery about Kryptos K2 was just made today. I'm working on the press release now, and the public story will probably break tomorrow (Thursday April 20). There will be a couple radical changes to the Wikipedia article coming, so I just wanted to give other editors a heads-up that no, it's not vandalism.[1] I'll also do my best to follow WP:NOR and make sure everything gets published elsewhere first before it can show up on Wikipedia. Stay tuned . . . --Elonka 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't keep us waiting, whats the new discovery? I didn't see it while scanning your Kryptos page. Qutezuce 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to get signoff from other Group members before we send out the press release. If you'd like to join the group though... [2] :) --Elonka 08:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a mistake in one of the parts, see [3] for details. Daniel (☎) 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Press release is up, my website is updated [4], and Wired has released the first story.[5] Since I'm personally involved with this one though, I'll leave it to other Wikipedia editors to update the Kryptos Wikipedia article. :) --Elonka 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Porn link?

I've just commented out the link to David Behar's site -- www.idbyrows.com -- because after displaying a picture of Kryptos for a few seconds, it redirected me to a porn site. IceKarmaॐ 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur. No encyclopedic value. The link can be deleted. --Elonka 00:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Solution 4

"Part 4 remains publicly unsolved." seems to imply original research or secret knowledge. Either way the "publicly" needs to go. The code is either solved or unsolved. Guinnog 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does just the opposite. Since we can only know about public solutions of Part 4, stating that it is unsolved both publicly and privately implies original research or secret knowledge.

You are correct that the code is either unsolved or solved. However we cannot know if it has been solved by someone in the NSA who has to keep it secret or something or that sort. So we can only know if it is publicly solved or publicly unsovled. Qutezuce 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I still find it unsatisfactory; by this logic we could insert "publicly" in an awful lot of places. I'll leave it for now but it could do with clarification. Guinnog 07:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

With cryptography there are demonstrated examples of the people or organizations figuring something out long before the general public does. (The NSA made some modifications to the DES standard which public cryptographers didn't understand until years later when differential cryptanalysis was discovered publically, see Data Encryption Standard#NSA.27s involvement in the design.) And we can even look to Kryptos itself for another example (from this article):

After Gillogly's announcement, the CIA revealed that their analyst David Stein had also solved the same sections in 1998, using pencil and paper techniques, though at the time of his solution the information was only disseminated within the intelligence community, and no public announcement was made.

Qutezuce 07:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

After having given it some thought, I'd like to toss in my $0.02, and say that I too am uncomfortable with the word "publicly", and would like to see it removed. To say "publicly unsolved" seems to imply that we have some sort of knowledge that it's been solved privately, when in reality, to the best of my knowledge, no one, inside or outside of the intelligence agencies, has solved it. If it *were* privately solved, someone would have gotten word to me or the sculptor. So, can we remove "publicly", or perhaps reword the statement in some other way? For example: "No one, inside or outside of the intelligence agencies, has ever reported a solution for K4." --Elonka 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the claim "not yet publicly solved" is valid and appropriate. given the history in general vis a vis government action on crypto and the specific history of a CIA solution to Kryptos being withheld, this is the best statement that can be made. It in no way impells us to make similar statements about unrelated issues. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"No information on the solution, methodologies or elimination of possiblities has been put in the public domain." (This might be useful in other contexts.)

Given the nature of the puzzle and the challenge provided, anybody coming up with even a partial solution/'failed solution' would publicise it in some format. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Monet's observations

I removed the following paragraph from the main article, which was added by an anonymous editor:

It turns out, however, that Monet Friedrich, an author and software design engineer[6], from Vancouver British Columbia, and a member of a Kryptos discussion group, had documented finding the LAYERTWO plaintext the previous October 11, 2005, making her, along with Gillogly and Stein, only the third person so far to reveal plaintext from the Kryptos sculpture.[7]

There is a grain of truth to the claim, but I don't feel that it should be included because it is a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. In other words, though it's true that Friedrich did, as part of a brainstorming discussion in the subscription-only Kryptos Group, discover that the words PLAYERTWO could be derived from the end of K2, there was some controversy about the method, and Friedrich did not make the discovery alone -- many other group members were involved in the discussion who also deserve some credit. Also, no one has ever signed off on the claim that this makes Friedrich "only the third person so far to reveal plaintext from Kryptos." I have discussed the find with multiple reporters, but to date, none of them have felt it was notable enough to mention in an article anywhere, so, per Wikipedia guidelines, I feel that it is inappopriate to include the information in the Wikipedia article, unless such a claim is first referenced in a third-party publication, as per WP:NOR.

What do other Wikipedia editors think? Do you agree with my analysis? --Elonka 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the messages posted to the Yahoo Kryptos group website, it is a stretch to call Monet's discovery of LAYERTWO the result of a "brainstorming discussion". On October, 2005, out of nowhere, with no previous mention whatsoever, she introduces her initial discovery that the end of the K2 can be interpreted as a letter sequence that includes the letters PLAYERTWO (message #3719). Then, the next day, many hours later (hours that Monet had for further analysis), another group member makes a rather obvious comment.

Also, does the fact that the discovery was documented in a bulletin board-like context like that of the Yahoo Kryptos group, not fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia:No original research policy?

The evidence (available only to those in the Yahoo Kryptos group) makes it clear that the discovery of the LAYERTWO plaintext is Monet's alone. The fact that Elonka is unwilling to give credit where credit is due is intriguing. In a radio interview, available on Elonka's website, made a few days after the Sanborn revelation (April, 2006) she goes out of her way to praise Monet, giving Monet FULL credit. Yet since then and in other interviews (New York Times, NPR, CNN, etc.), there has been no mention of Monet. What gives? 24.67.5.196 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Janet

Elonka, why is Monet not mentioned in the Yahoo Kryptos group announcement about the corrected answer to K2? Was she even consulted? 24.67.13.200 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Maureen

This clarification is long overdue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckonamist (talk • contribs) 15:14, November 23, 2010‎

No. Elonka, for years you have obfuscated the facts of this case. Monet's find is well documented. May I refer you to Message 3719 of the Yahoo Kryptos group? The problem is that these facts are not readily available to the general public. That would be the group's spokesperson's job. AND THAT'S YOU. Is it any wonder why reporters STILL get it wrong?

Check out this website: http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home

There you will hear yourself talking out of the other side of your mouth. Beckonamist (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I removed the following paragraph (another addition by an anonymous editor), per Wikipedia:No original research:

Sanborn has references to Kryptos in some of his other works as well, namely the Covert Operations Fragments. The 2 sections located at the Zola Spy Restaurant in Washington, D.C. decode to an almost identical account of the Howard Carter opening of King Tut's tomb, using the same type of modular-transpostition cipher as K3. They were solved by Keith Edkins. The large and small English Covert Ops Fragments use the same double Vigenere style of encryption as K1 & K2, using the words (KRYPTOS, DECEIT) and (KRYPTOS, SHADOW). They were solved by John Wilson. [8] [9] Since these pieces were created after Kryptos, but before any publically known solutions to Kryptos, one could assume that Sanborn was either attempting to give further hints for Kryptos', or was making the classic cryptographic mistake[10] of reusing the same PT (plaintext) and keywords.

If someone knows of a third-party publication verifying the above information and proving its notability, it can probably be re-added later. --Elonka 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[11] Does John's scirealm page deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.13.200 (talk • contribs) 20:08, February 26, 2007

Broken link?

Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation is broken... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.115.196.97 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Nova

Kryptos will be the subject of an upcoming segment on NOVAscienceNOW, on July 24.[12] I'd add it to the article, but since I'm going to be in the segment, that would be a COI. So, I thought I'd mention it here and see if anyone else thought it was worthy of mention. --Elonka 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EXCAVATION

Has anyone tried to excavate at the coordinates? I suspect a clue or key may be buried at this location, since several references within the code refer to underground treasure. Whatever is buried there may help in solving the fourth part of the Kryptos or may solve the entire riddle. 65.60.165.146 04:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC) JS

FACT?

This "inscription" contains four separate enigmatic messages, each apparently encrypted with a different cipher. Someone has a hidden comment: "how is this (regarding 4 parts) known?" Good point, whoever wrote that. K1 and K2 are different from K3 in that K3 is a transposition cipher, whereas K1 and K2 are Vigenère ciphers. In reality, we don't "know" a whole lot about K4. It could be another cipher, it might not actually be a cipher at all! Mindraker 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ENIGMA

Kryptos is an enigma and all evidence should be weighed, I dont think that anyone person has the right to delete another's entry and call it nonsense especially when it is referring to visible evidence. Before deleting anything, discuss it first please. Also, all of you numbers people are overlooking the obvious visual clues provided by the sculpture. I already have solved the riddle, so I will give all of you people who use one side of their brain a clue: Moon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.170.45 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's policies such as Verifiability, unsourced information can be removed on sight. Also, I would like to point out that I get announcements of "solutions" about once a week. They are pretty much always hoaxes. For more information, please see the Kryptos FAQ, under "If I solved Kryptos, how would I announce it?"[13] --Elonka 06:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you were indeed sincere about sourced information over 50% of Wikipedia would be deleted. You have an agenda and I have the solution, if you only took the time to look. You really must not have a life to be the unofficial policeman of this page. It must be the only place you feel like you have some control over your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.170.45 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is your answer: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a11_h_40_5875.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.170.45 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself, What runs the U.S. machine? http://kimpluseddie.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/matrix.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.170.45 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am everywhere and I am nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.170.45 (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

--Thank you Peter Esteban (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to "If you were indeed sincere about sourced information over 50% of Wikipedia would be deleted"... More than 50% of Wikipedia is deleted on a daily basis. More than 50% of edits are removal of unsourced information and pure garbage than addition of information. -- kainaw™ 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really want something to chew on: Try to finish this thought: "Illusion, underground, desperately..." or "Iqlusion, undergruund, desparately..." BFritzen (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Illusion desperately WHAT? when it is underground? BFritzen (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted "This is stupid"

The opening paragraph was either vandalized or just badly written - it ended "while many others simply remark "this is stupid" and walk away." I went ahead and deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.189.50 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...It was added by a tenured user... perhaps some bit of original research? =) –xeno ^talk 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

turn the letter around and it my be anagrammatic as well

turn some letters upside down and may the public have a copy of the cyphertext —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blix1ms0ns (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)