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)

I have inserted the text into the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the title to this article wrong? It should be called Krypto's? You could not use punctuation marks when editing in Wikipedia when it first started. I saw what I believed to be the correct spelling in a magazine that was promoting the book "The Lost Symbol???????" ?123108.36.198.58 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Testing

The name of the sculpture is Kryptos. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2020 (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)

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)

So far as I have seen, the so-called Kryptos discussion group hasn't produced anything notable. 'If' the production of "LAYERTWO" using a slightly broken key had been recognized at the time as an indication of an error in the ciphertext, it would be worth noting in the article. However, its significance wasn't appreciated until Sanford announced the error. — 71.179.92.145 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2012 (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)

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)

Many have considered that possibility, which seems indicated by the mention of "underground" and the coordinates. There is an issue of what "datum" was used for the coordinates. I looked at the indicated location using one datum, but didn't find any evidence of access to a vault. Using another datum, the coordinates refer to a loading dock, which should have an associated drain and maybe a basement. It's kind of hard to just walk in and start searching! — 71.179.92.145 (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Could K4 mean Fourmatted???? Which includes the word "datum"????108.36.198.58 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

174.235.6.134 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC) My personal opinion is that the final passage has something to do with the Manhattan project and Einstein.

yahoo groups

yahoo groups tag was removed because that is not defining for this article. Kryptos is first and foremost a sculpture. The existence of a yahoo group which discusses it does not make Kryptos a yahoo group.--KarlB (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

97 character solution to the fourth section

AsfarassongwritersIvealwaysbeenafanofIrvingBerlinColePorterandGeorgeGershwinthoseguysmeanalottome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensyao (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That can't be right, since "Berlin" is not followed by "clock". — DAGwyn (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You guys should probably know about this

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/11/nsa_cracked_kryptos_statue_before_the_cia.html Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gamaliel - I've added a couple of sentences about this latest development. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Pop Culture References: The King of Queens Season 2 Episode "Meet By-Product"

The subject episode of the "King of Queens" does indeed have what appears to be a photograph of the Kryptos sculpture to the left of the doorway in the apartment which serves as the main set for this episode. But the assertion that "Much of the dialog is centered around it" is incorrect. In fact, NO dialog is centered around it ... it is NEVER discussed or even mentioned in the episode. I'm not sure whether this comment meant that the characters talk ABOUT the sculpture or its picture, or that the characters, when speaking, are in the vicinity of the picture. Nonetheless, the photo is rarely visible in the episode, so either assertion is misleading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.16.201 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

K4 remains publicly unsolved

Its a copy of a letter that means something to one person, it has no other meaning to any one else, is there any reason why I can't see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.74.34 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking. The K4 ciphertext is given in the article, and to date nobody has figured out the corresponding plaintext. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kryptos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070518224221/http://www.ashmolean.org:80/gri/4tut.html to http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/4tut.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kryptos

Prompt where it is possible to report the full unraveling of the cipher of the monument in front of the CIA ? (Ark) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.33.209.58 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Transcript of the first part K-4====Heres your chance,find great extensive experience,first step responsible conduct in research,understading and knowledge very useful,quick as you receive ready drawing.18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)18:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.95.105 (talk)

The sculptor's Web page contains information about submitting claimed solutions for verification; unless you use that procedure, there is no reason to take a proposed solution seriously. As to holding some kind of news conference "in front of the CIA", you need to check with the CIA's Public Affairs Office. — DAGwyn (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

someone who forgot

§12.164.74.34 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)where they put their keys Kryptos K-4 has long been cracked,but no one not publish212.142.95.105 (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in Wikipedia's world, if it hasn't been published, it didn't happen. :) See WP:V. --Elonka 01:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a procedure for having the sculptor verify a supposed solution to K4, described in http://jimsanborn.net/kryptos_fees.pdf — unless a claimed solution has been submitted to this vetting process, we have no reason to take it seriously. If somebody does submit the correct solution, it is almost certain that Jim Sanborn would issue a news release, and we'd probably see it announced in major news media. — DAGwyn (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith edit

I edited the article to make it more readable.

Added links to the GSA webpages about the various projects, including Kryptos, they commissioned to JIm Sanborn.

There is an issue with the all uppercase for the solution sections which cluebot interpretes as "shouting".

Unfortunelately cluebot sees this as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.152.79 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

how do you get the word out- marketing techniques

The CIA is a master when it comes to keeping secrets but how well can they get the word out, how far, in what amount of time and in the correct version, and how to make it people believe it.

— 108.16.233.162 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Italic text

Best way to phrase Section 4

There is some disagreement as to how best to phrase the text in the "Solution of passage 4". I'm backing off, and leaving it to you all to figure out. 97.82.193.208 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A possible clue to a work of missing art?

For some reason, the stone gives me a reason to bring up stone soup. It came to me in a dream of a diamond and gold vein crusted cavern of rocks you could only see under a black light. As someone says a albeit, very popular phrase to me. Something along the lines of "well how about that, you don't say" the veins of gold and diamond-crusted rocks disappeared from the cavern. Here's an external link to stone soup: Stone Soup 174.240.1.108 (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Anon

There was also a very small box I dreamed of, it had a very tiny fireplace. Then promptly it flooded, and one of the two boxes was higher than the other as I scuba dived down to repair the fireplace. The diamonds weren't on the rocks per say but on some sort of metal ring. It was very pretty. 174.240.1.108 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 174.240.1.108 (talk) Anon

Maybe Anne Frank.

″Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart. Anne Frank″ 174.240.1.108 (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Anon

Mistakes

[This is regarding some dubious tags I places on the section about mistakes] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Everything I have read has only suggested the errors in K1 and K2 were intentional, never in K3. Sanborn was asked this directly at an early dinner/presentation and didn't answer (can't find a link at the moment). To quote Elonka Dunin on a recent book: "And the book lumps the error in K3 into the set of "intentional" errors, when to my knowledge, it's not (it was an error by either Sanborn or his assistant)." https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Kryptos/conversations/messages/18993

I have also never seen evidence the extra L was a mistake as claimed. The article cited as the source of that fact seems to make no such claim. [Edit: Speculation has been it was a mistake because it is not included on the models Sanbron sells, and that it was not a mistake because that L plus 2 spaces = 867 characters, same as on the cipher side]

--Skintigh (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that the "ENDYAHROH" ciphertext contains 3 or maybe more "displaced" characters, in both the CIA sculpture and the models, so Sanborn treats that feature as intended. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Found the link:

"- I asked him if the "desparatly" typo was deliberate or accidental, and he declined to answer."

"- Similar to how Scheidt reacted, I saw Sanborn light up when I talked about how the extra "L" on the tableau side now means that we have the same number of characters on both the cipheralphabet and tableau sides. Neither Scheidt nor Sanborn *said* anything when I talked about that, but I definitely noticed both of them reacting, like sitting up or forward a little more, nodding like this was something that they knew and were glad that someone had noticed."

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Kryptos/conversations/messages/753

--Skintigh (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The following are all dubious speculation. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Jim Sanborn charging fifty dollars now to submit the ten characters for K4? Doesn't "L" stand for fifty? — 108.36.198.58 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it might mean "Taken out of Context". Misquoted...or the full quote is not revealed. "A Riddle within a Riddle"...native tongues" or they have to be resolved by people that speak the same language. (100 Riddles 101 Things to do. The books source is "every source in the world including newer ones. It also quotes "life and death quotes.)

I think the sculpture is related to George Washington. He was inaugurated in 89 0r 90. Maybe a private collection of stamps in reference to the "Culper Ring".

The great circle - reference data for radio engineers...P's and Q's The book is relatable to radio frequencies and interference in both radio, T.V. and telephones.

The K in Kryptos is constant (hard C), Where as a "C" is either soft or hard or combinable. Perhaps relatable to Software and hardware, C-language or programming in which the elements are constant or variable.

An indication that there are "royalties" related to the "Art of Science" — 100.11.10.84 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Dubious "LAYERTWO" claims

One line claims "X LAYER TWO," which is already plaintext, is deciphered (again?) into plaintext "PLAYER TWO" by rotating the key. But plaintext does not need to be deciphered. There seems to be an assumption the X is ciphertext, but if that were in the ciphertext then you wouldn't need to rotate a key if you insert the X so that doesn't make sense. There is no evidence the ciphertext of the letter was supposed to be X, only the plaintext.

The line "It was intentional that WESTIDBYROWS was discovered at a later stage by following a clue to manipulate the letter (or numeral) X" is not supported by the citation. Sanborn has said the missing X was an error, not intentional. There is no evidence of any intention for it be discovered in a later stage. There is no evidence later stages show how to correct this error. There is no evidence it is a numeral (I believe Sanborn has implied, if not said, that the X and Q are punctuation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 07:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Code - chinhseoul

Tôi có thể giải mã tất cả các bức khắc họa trong vòng 16h00' . ( chinhseoul - tên : NGUYỄN VĂN CHINH - đến từ quốc gia : VIỆT NAM  ! ) biết chính xác Chinhseoul (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a rough translation: I can decipher all the depictions within 16h00'. (Chinhseoul - name: NGUYEN VAN CHINH - from country: VIETNAM!) know exactly — Chinhseoul

I never buy the NYTimes...never...but low and behold I bought it this morning and there was a full page regarding a new clue...Northeast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:4300:C680:20CD:9F9F:9108:D0BE (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate claims

There are some new claims about the coordinates pointing to a different spot, but the source isn't given, nor are the new coordinate's location given, other than by "a cafeteria door" (a building that large surely has more than one cafeteria door). We need sources for that and for why a different coordinate system is a more likely source of data.

However, based on Sanborn saying he came up with the coordinates by (the less than accurate method of) pacing them off (from some now-defunct marker that does not appear to exist in any database of markers and banchmarks), and based on his statements that he hates math, I'm not sure any specific location can be considered more likely unless he specifies one. Skintigh (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of Geodetic datum is based on standard mapping practice, and the effective date spanned by the datum (see the Wikipedia article). The "new coordinate" is numerically identical, but the physical location is designated by the combination of coordinates and datum. NAD 27 was the datum in effect during building planning and construction.

I explained this at least once to Elonka, but she didn't seem to understand.

As to the cafeteria door, if you stand in the grassy area looking toward the cafeteria, as I have done, there are two cafeteria doors; the coordinates using datum NAD 17 designate the door on the right. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

K4

What if K4 tells us that K1, K2, and K3, are not really clues at all

The one-word hint?

The Description section of this article ends with a paragraph that starts out with "The one-word hint ..." but then failed to mention what this hint is. The paragraph also fails WP:NPOV and failed to cite sources. I have moved the paragraph here as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to restructure it into something that is usable in the Description section of the article which is mostly about the works of art by Jim Sanborn found on the CIA campus.

The one-word hint—a decryption of letters 26 through 34—is the third and final clue Sanborn is willing to pass. The other two clues—“clock” and “Berlin,” liberated in 2010 and 2014, therefore—sit back-to-back at positions 64 through 69 and 70 through 74.

--Marc Kupper|talk 19:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is steganography used as method?

Is steganography used as method? Therealtwo (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

K4

THEBEACONSOFHOPELIEEASTNORTHEASTOFBERLINCLOCK David Condrey ^{log talk} 07:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Surfacing

Bringing things to the surface 65.242.22.130 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)