Talk:Kryptos

Actual Kryptos Text

It might be helpful to include the actual text on kryptos. Does anyone have it/know a source? I guess a picture of the statue itself is verifiable and secondary enough =) 131.151.26.179 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text: http://elonka.com/kryptos/transcript.html --Bothary (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Removal of links due to reasons provided would require removal of ALL current links. The links re-re-re-added include those that offer additional information on the subject matter. Removal requires justification.Beckonamist (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it the unwritten word related to the Trinity Doctrine. You can only see it if it is not writtn. ‘Nancy’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.215.86 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ms. Monet Friedrich

Ms. Monet Friedrich is referred to in the article as 'Monet', which by my understanding is her first name. Shouldn't she be referred to by her last name? 184.76.44.118 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Concern regarding the clarity of the Solvers section

It has come to my attention that on October 26th, 2011, Elonka Dunin removed details relating to the solvers section of the Kryptos article, changes which only served to obfuscated well documented, historical fact. As evidence, may I invite those interested to the following website, on which Elonka herself clarifies these very details.

http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home

Beckonamist (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Beckonamist (and we both know who you are), accusing me of vandalizing the article is not helpful.[1] The goal here is to provide a neutral article which accurately summarizes Kryptos research, and presents information in the proper proportion. Including several lines for what, ultimately, is a very minor discovery, is not helpful to our readers. That it's minor is evidenced by the fact that no major news sources chose to cover the information. I did seek to set the record straight in an interview, but that one source is not enough to put as much information about the find as is currently in this article. --Elonka 20:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

<personal attacks by blocked editor Beckonamist (talk · contribs) removed>. Original post here.[2]

It doesn't seem to me that the extended explanation about the discovery of an error in part of the solution is helpful to the article. It also doesn't read very NPOV in any event; it seems dramatized (maybe there is drama there but I don't think it makes for encyclopedic style). --MTHarden (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

MtHarden, if you don't think an "extended explanation about the discovery of an error in part of the solution is helpful" (without any reference to the discovery, or the person making the discovery, of the solution a year before), then why would you reinstate the link to that very thing?? Either significantly improve the article targeted by the link, come up with some actual justification for reinstating the link, or remove the link. Beckonamist (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Kryptos article should definitely include a mention that Sanborn announced an error in 2006, but I don't think it's necessary to go into the details of the comments in the Kryptos discussion group about it. If we mention that Monet Friedrich found the words PLAYERTWO in 2005, then we should also mention Paul Kiesel, Mark Siegal, Thorne Kontos, Chris Hanson, etc., and this would all be giving undue weight to the discussion, especially since it wasn't covered in any major news sources. The information is covered at the Kryptos timeline,[3] which I think is sufficient. There are many excellent thoughts, comments, and discussion in the group such as Robert Matson's discovery that the keys SHIFTED and BINARY might be possible keywords in Kryptos, or David Allen Wilson's discovery that the word KRYPTOS might be a key to part 3, but that doesn't mean we need to list all of them in the Wikipedia article. Let's just keep the article as a simple summary of the current state of Kryptos research, based on reliable sources, and in the proper proportion to what those sources are saying. --Elonka 22:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend anyone here, or take sides -- but the members of the group know who discovered what, and that's important. Some stranger on Wikipedia -- who really cares what they think. Come on, guys. It's not that important. 96.37.222.197 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that The Kryptos article should mention that Sanborn announced an error in 2006, and I agree that it is unnecessary to go into the details of the comments in the Kryptos discussion group, or about the events that happened after he announced the error.

However, if we mention that Monet Friedrich found the words LAYERTWO in 2005, it is not the case then that we should also mention Paul Kiesel, Mark Siegal, Thorne Kontos, Chris Hanson, etc. With all due respect, no one in this group discovered plaintext in 2005. Only Monet, based on reliable sources. And there is NOTHING!!! more important to ANY discussion of Kryptos than who actually discovered plaintext. Everything else is but pure speculation. To claim that to clarify what ACTUALLY happened would be giving undue weight to the discussion is ridiculous. The discussion should not be about the scramble of a few after Sanborn mentioned the error. That's trivial. It should be about the error itself, and the implications of the error, which of course is to confirm that a year earlier, Monet Friedrich discovered plaintext.

Now, to claim that the information is covered at the Kryptos timeline, is simply not true. And until corrections are made to the timeline that minimize discussion about what happened after Sanborn mentioned the error, and reaffirm what the error confirmed, it doesn't deserve to have a link from this article. Beckonamist (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you want to say, but it is completely wrong. Your claim is that everyone who solved it initially was wrong and that Monet was the only one who got it right. The error was not in the solutions. The error was in Kryptos itself. So, the original solutions are correct for the Kryptos text that is physically sitting on the ground. Monet's solution is correct for the intended Kryptos text that was never installed anywhere for anyone to see. I do not understand why you feel it is important to shift blame for the error away from a mistake in the Kryptos text and onto those who solved what was physically on the statue itself. -- kainaw™ 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you clearly don't understand what I'm claiming. To say that my "claim is that everyone who solved it initially was wrong and that Monet was the only one who got it right" is RIDICULOUS. Educate yourself. The entire issue concerns a small portion at the end of K2. Nothing to do with K1, nothing to do with K3 and nothing to do with most of K2. The extent of the ignorance displayed here is astounding.

To claim I "feel it is important to shift blame for the error away from a mistake in the Kryptos text" is, again, ENTIRELY without merit. NOTHING I've ever said could be used to justify such a claim.

Further, the distinction between what actually sits on the ground versus what was intended displays an utterly pathetic lack of understanding about Kryptos, about cryptology, about riddles. Beckonamist (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Beckonamist, please try to keep your comments civil. Comment only on the content, not on other contributors, thanks. --Elonka 20:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you aren't claiming that everyone got it wrong, why did you repeatedly add "thought" before "solved" in your edit? They thought they solved it means that they got it wrong. It isn't ridiculous to read it that way. That is what it means. If they only thought they solved it, they didn't solve it. So, your claim that it is ridiculous to read your edits that way is simply stupid. As for what they were solving - they were solving what is firmly sitting on the ground. They weren't solving some imaginary puzzle that wasn't anywhere to be seen. -- kainaw™ 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"They thought they solved it means that they got it wrong. It isn't ridiculous to read it that way. That is what it means."

So, if someone thought they did something, it follows from that that they didn't do it? LOL!

Then to twist the argument by adding the only in "If they only thought they solved it, they didn't solve it." is disingenuous. Where, pray tell, did it ever say they only thought they solved it?

Anyone resorting to such shameful behavior is, minimally, unqualified to be included such a discussion. Beckonamist (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Where did you claim they only thought they solved it? Your edit here:

• He and others thought at the time that he had correctly deciphered...
• David Stein had also thought he had solved...
• a NSA team led by Ken Miller ... had thought they had solved...
• They were mistaken.

That clearly states that they thought they solved it, but were wrong. They didn't solve it. If that isn't what you mean, then try to make your point clearer. -- kainaw™ 21:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, you make this way too easy. As I clearly stated (see above) there is absolutely no place where I say they ONLY thought they solved it. Notice also that NONE of the quotes you used include ONLY thought. This right here is more than enough to counter your claim. But there's more...

If you were to read a book on critical thinking, you would learn that adding the word only serves to flip the direction of inference. Consider iff (if and only if), where iff is symbolized by <->, P<->Q |- (P->Q ^ Q->P). You see, there is somewhat of a difference between saying "they thought" or "they did A" and saying "they only thought" or "they only did A". They have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT meanings. Don't conflate them. And don't accuse someone with something they didn't do.

Finally, you then go on to further insult the integrity of the conversation by AGAIN trying to CHEAT in your attempt to get your way. Do I really have to mention the sentence before the sentence "They were mistaken." -- that you obviously take out of context. Well, here it is...

"All of these early attempts to solve Kryptos presumed that K2 ended with WESTIDBYROWS." Of which, of course... "They were mistaken." Beckonamist (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not about trying to calculate the logical process, it's about what sources say. Wikipedia articles should be based predominantly on reliable secondary sources. See also the policy on "no original research". --Elonka 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, is that really you talking in the mp3 interview links? Maddison2112 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is apparent that you only care to argue and have no intention of improving this article. I am therefore adding you to my ignore list and will not see or respond to any further nonsense you wish to spew. -- kainaw™ 03:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL!!! I don't blame you kainaw, you were in over your head. Maddison2112 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem Beckonamist. I can add your sockpuppet to my ignore list as well. -- kainaw™ 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Beckonamist (talk · contribs) has been blocked from Wikipedia for two weeks, and the sockpuppet Maddison2112 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs). If there are any further problems, we can probably just drop a note to Jayron32 to block any further alternate accounts. --Elonka 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the following evidence be included in the article?

Quotes backed by .mp3 files from a radio interview with BellCoreRadio, season 1, episode 32, Barcode Brothers, 2006

"I'm Elonka Dunin, speaking from St Charles, Missouri." http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home/files/1ImElonkaDuninspeakingfromStCharlesMissouri.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

"And when I saw the letters change from IDBYROWS to LAYERTWO. LAYERTWO, I've seen LAYERTWO before. And I knew that last year, actually in October of last year, one of the members of my group, Monet Friedrich, was playing with different methods of manipulating the text on Kryptos. And what Monet was doing was trying different keys. The key to part two is the word ABSCISSA, ... and what Monet was doing was shifting the letters in the word. So like instead of using ABSCISSA, take the A from the beginning and put it at the end, so you have the word spelled BSCISSAA. What happens when you try this? And then move the B to the end, and then move the S to the end, or the C to the end, and see how that changes the text. And what Monet noticed was that on one of these manipulations, Monet got at the end of part two, the words PLAYERTWO. And Monet sent this to the group saying 'I've got the words PLAYERTWO at the end of part two. And we were all like 'Wow! That's kind of interesting.' " http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home/files/2recallsearlierpost.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

"Monet definitely gets credit for finding that." http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home/files/3Monetdefinitelygetscreditforfindingthat.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

"I have to give props to Monet Friedrich because Oct 11th 2005, Monet was the first person to get the words LAYER TWO out of Kryptos." http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home/files/4PropsToMonetFriedrichBecauseOct11th2005MonetWasTheFirst.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

"So one of my goals for being on your show today actually, was to make sure that Monet got props and proper respects, proper credits for what Monet did - good job Monet!!!" http://sites.google.com/site/sarenasix/home/files/5OneOfMyGoalsForBeingOnYourShowTodayActuallyWasToMakeSureThatMonetWasGivenFullCredit.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckonamist (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any issue with changing the article such that:

"Sanborn announced that he had made an error in part 2, which changed the last part of the plaintext from WESTIDBYROWS to WESTXLAYERTWO"

Is changed to read something like:

"After Monet Friedrich noticed that "PLAYERTWO" could be at the end of part 2 by altering the key, Sanborn announced that he had made an error in part 2, which changed the last part of the plaintext from WESTIDBYROWS to WESTXLAYERTWO"

But, your previous attempts have been to downplay the solutions of others (even claiming that they "thought" they solved it) while making the note about Monet be the primary focus of the article. What Monet did was discover that changing the order of the letters in the key could produce two words, "PLAYER" and "TWO". That was interesting. However, I have never seen anything that indicates Monet identified a typo on the sculpture itself. Sanborn announced the typo. If you feel that my understanding of the events is completely wrong, please let me know. (ps... I removed your pre-spacing because it made the page layout badly.) -- kainaw™ 21:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not recommend that sentence, because it implies that there was a causal relationship between Monet's find of "PLAYERTWO", and Sanborn's announcement. But the two were unrelated. I am also still opposed to including anything about Friedrich's discovery, because it's not something that was covered by mainstream media, and gives undue weight to Friedrich, as opposed to everyone else that has contributed. This is not meant to diminish Friedrich's contribution, but just to keep things balanced. --Elonka 22:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Are these pages really archived forever? Beckonamist (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, is that really you talking in these mp3 audio interview links? Maddison2112 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Euclid's triangle

ID Clue Four cornerstones

Grandmother Mother 1st Daughter 2nd Daughter

Eight Cornerstones

Grandfather Father 1st Son 2nd Son

Head of House determines Frame of mind

Horsemen Headless Horsemen Day Nights

Head Horsemen Knights of Templer Templar Temper Template Temple

End of old plate layer Beginning of new plate layer inskin

find in in finite find inside of eighth site side

insight to inside

          infighting

Grandmother sees results of kins

sense of insurance sense of census — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.242.131 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a time capsule

Reading the deciphered text, it probably points to a time capsule buried nearby. Anyone got info on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.88.74 (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)