There is one researcher in the Kryptos community that rejects the entirety of my work based on the fact that one of my steps involves metaphorical interpretation of K3, as exemplified by my insertion of the word “candle”. (I respect his right to remain unassociated with my work, for better or worse, so I won’t give his name or any direct quotes here.) This researcher believes wholeheartedly that the candle insertion process is prima facie evidence that my findings are bogus. And I don’t think that I am misrepresenting him by saying that. In fact, if anything, I am doing his argument a disservice by not making the case strongly enough. Let me attempt to rectify that...
As mentioned at the end of step 4, quite some time ago a particular researcher went public with a K4 solution that started with the Morse Code parsing “Dig Tale Interpretation” as a central premise. The researcher’s name is John Wilson, and his work is still available at this website. If you proceed to that website, you will note that John, like myself, attempted a metaphorical interpretation of K3. Ultimately, John’s process involves identifying groups of nearby letters that might have some sort of relevance to King Tut’s tomb (the subject of K3) and he concludes that K4 is nothing but a metaphor for the process of opening said tomb. (Alphabet soup solutions are something I attempt to avoid, because it is far too easy to find significance in the bowl if you are willing to bend the rules a little.) Well, John went public with his proposed solution, and it got enough publicity (on the Web and in WIRED) that Jim Sanborn decided a response was warranted. And in January of 2005, Jim Sanborn sent John an e-mail that said simply:
“Dear John,
This is not the way.
-Jim”
And with those simple 5 words, the majority of my work is shot dead.
Or is it?
You are welcome to go read John Wilson’s solution. Then read my proposed path. Without giving any value judgments whatsoever, I think it is safe to say that our methodologies are extremely different. One major difference is that while I view the application of metaphor as part of the process, John asserts that even the solution is a metaphor. But the differences are even more dramatic.
Let me give an analogy. John and I are living in a small city at the base of a very tall mountain. Both of us are told (by Jim Sanborn) that there is a secret path to reach the mountain top, and we are provided vague clues to get there.
I set out from my house, and I begin to interpret the clues, letting them guide my steps as I go. After several blocks of motivated navigation, I pass in front of John’s house. Lo, and behold, he is stepping out of his door at that very moment. John reaches the sidewalk as I pass and turns in the same direction that I am headed. For a half block or so, our direction is congruent. But then soon John turns to the left and I turn to the right. From that point on, there is nothing in common about either our direction or our motivation. As time goes by, our paths diverge mightily, and John finds himself in a location that he thinks is the mountain. Since he is clearly only standing on a hill, he declares that the whole “mountain” concept was just a metaphor, and the hill that he has reached satisfies the requirements of similarity. He plants his flag in the dirt and alerts the press. Meanwhile, I am continuing my independent trek somewhere far across town. (Hopefully I am actually scaling the mountain and setting up “base camps”, but the assumption of correctness is not necessary for my defense here!)
Eventually, Jim Sanborn learns of John’s announcement that the mountain path has been found. And he says these simple words: “This is not the way.”
What does that mean? Well, first of all, note that Jim Sanborn was very brief with his response. The likely reason for his stinginess is that he is doing his best not to give anything away (or even give the impression that he is giving anything away). Basically, the last thing he wants is to provide too much fodder for interpretation or misinterpretation. He wants to tell John “no”, but he doesn’t want to be too wordy. Can you imagine:
“Dear John,
With the exception of that ‘candle insertion thingy’, that is not the way.
- Jim”
or
“Dear John,
Every single step you took was incorrect, so perhaps everyone should take a hint from that.
- Jim”
On the other hand, an e-mail that only said “no” would seem quite rude. This presented quite the dilemma for Jim Sanborn, who rarely addresses particular methods in his public statements. My belief is that aggressive interpretation of those five words is fraught with potential for error.
But if we are bound and determined to draw conclusions from the words “that is not the way”, as provided to John, let’s consider the spectrum of possible interpretations of those words. The interpretation with minimal implication is that John has not reached the mountain and that, therefore, at least one of his steps was incorrect (and we know not which). I think that we can accept that as fact. The most aggressive interpretation is that every single one of John’s steps was incorrect, including those parallel with mine. Apparently, my detractor has not only taken the latter interpretation as a premise for his efforts (something I have no problem with) but he has also accepted that interpretation as fact, and is using it to reject the efforts of several people (including mine). Were I to use my interpretations of a dozen other (more specific) quotes as “facts”, I could shoot down his efforts as well. But I am not doing that.
Along with “thou shalt not insert any candles for K4”, here are some other premises of his that I have violated:
-
(1)Thou shalt not use multi-step processes on K4.
-
(2)Thou shalt not use anything “artsy-fartsy” on K4.
-
(3)Thou shalt not continue a specific line of study if you don’t reach an obvious solution within a few days.
Truly, I respect these premises as guidance for him. He feels that they are more likely to lead to the answer. I get that. But to use them as fact? I don’t get that. I don’t get that at all.
