Vigenere or Nomenclator…hasn’t it already been cracked?

http://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-k … abomber/2/

QT

Vigenere or Nomenclator…hasn’t it already been cracked?

http://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-k … abomber/2/

QT

It is the matrix he created for generating the keystream involved in his "code #1" system. You can read the FBI analysis of the code systems here.

The Fibonacci patterns makes sense in the context of a Lagged Fibonacci generator

But I just think that it is interesting that when creating this matrix, he chose to construct part of it in such a way, as to make that pattern & split it equidistant to the bottom left corner. He also chose to make the 8 of 80 in that square more bold. i.e. marking the center of it.

Interesting patterns and ideas Jelberg.

What has also interested me about the Kaczynski code system, well many things actually, but one thing is that in one version, the unscrambling sequences involve not just horizontal, but vertical and diagonal sequences.

Zodiacs code work was far too sloppy to be Ted IMO. Some interesting comparisons and similarities though.

Zodiacs code work was far too sloppy to be Ted IMO. Some interesting comparisons and similarities though.

But keep in mind this is not the Ted Kaczynski of 1996. This would be Ted Kaczynski of 1969. Also I’m not sure what you’re referring to in saying the Zodiac code work is so sloppy. Zodiac created the code that so far no one in the FBI, police, government or amateurs has been able to break.

Right but the one that was solved has some really bad mistakes in it, even missing half a sentence if I remember correctly. Plus plenty of spelling mistakes. I don’t think these were intentional to make the cipher harder either. One of the reasons the 340 hasn’t been solved could be because it’s full of major errors.

Ted from what I understand was always highly intelligent. Fair enough he would have been new at making codes, but I still don’t see him making bad mistakes like in the 408. To me clever codes would seem like something Ted would take great pride and care with. Could be wrong.

isn’t this from TJK? it’s full of mistakes …

Right but the one that was solved has some really bad mistakes in it, even missing half a sentence if I remember correctly. Plus plenty of spelling mistakes. I don’t think these were intentional to make the cipher harder either. One of the reasons the 340 hasn’t been solved could be because it’s full of major errors.

Ted from what I understand was always highly intelligent. Fair enough he would have been new at making codes, but I still don’t see him making bad mistakes like in the 408. To me clever codes would seem like something Ted would take great pride and care with. Could be wrong.

This is directly from the FBI report

Yeah okay fair enough

Ted just struck me as one of those genius types who wouldn’t like to look dumb. Maybe I am inserting my own thought process into it too. Where if it was me I would want to make the code very hard to break but still be perfectly logical and not rely on errors for increased difficulty.

Yeah okay fair enough

Ted just struck me as one of those genius types who wouldn’t like to look dumb.

No, you see in fact Ted wanted to appear "dumb", or at least non-college educated and not a holder of a PHD. Ted had a PHD in math and was very well read in many subjects, history, anthropology, English Lit, etc., and was a good writer. He was very worried that if he wrote the Unabomber letters in his natural ability, the FBI would determine he was college educated and probably even had an advanced degree.

So he deliberately used more dumbed down langauge and made intentional spelling errors – as many think Zodiac did. Ted as the Unabomber even complained about a computer experts book that said "virtually anyone with a college education can quickly learn how to use a computer." Ted as the Unabomber quoted this passage and said "Oh yeah? What about the rest of us without college degrees?"

And Ted’s deception worked at first. The initial FBI profile of the Unabomber had him as a laid off blue collar airplane mechanic, with no college education.

And as Jelberg shows above with the quote from the FBI report, Ted made his codes harder to break by including intentional misspellings, just as Zodiac did. The following is only one example of many"

Z – misspells words, probably intentionally in most cases. Examples of last consonant in word changed to a vowel in the Z408.
TK – encodes "yesterday" as YESTERDAE.

ZODIAC CODE

UNABOMBER CODE

Zodiac 408 Code: DANGEROUE
Unabomber Code: YESTERDAE

AK Wilks: Both Zodiac and Kaczynski have a code in which in order to increase difficulty of solution they change the last consonant in a word (S,Y) to the vowel "E".

Zodiac 408 Code: DANGEROUE
Unabomber Code: YESTERDAE

AK Wilks: Both Zodiac and Kaczynski have a code in which in order to increase difficulty of solution they change the last consonant in a word (S,Y) to the vowel "E".

It is not a settled matter that Zodiac purposefully added a mistake to make the cipher harder. We still have to rule out an encipherment or transcription error. For example, see: http://zodiackillerciphers.com/408/key.html#sup8

Note how close the "I" symbols are with each other. "E" and "F" can be easy to mistake sometimes too depending on how they are written. One explanation is that he made a first draft of the cipher, then screwed it up a bit when copying it by hand. Or, all the reproductions of the ciphers aren’t of sufficient quality to be sure we are seeing the exact way the symbols were written in the original cipher received by the newspapers.

Interesting and a possibility to be considered. But I don’t think it holds up to analysis. F and E are not that easily confused. Encipherment or transcription error might account for one or two spelling mistakes. But look at the spelling mistakes in the Zodiac 408:

1. Forrest
2. Dangeroue
3. Anamal
4. Experence
5. Thae
6. Paradice
7. Thei
8. Sloi
9. Atop
10. Collectiog

I think the evidence shows that the Zodiac 408 Code is filled with intentional spelling errors, at least ten, designed to increase the difficulty of solution and/or make the creator seem non-college educated. In that way they are similar to the Unabomber code. The Zodiac letters themselves have many intentional misspellings, also like the Unabomber letters.

How does the presence of mistakes/misspellings prove that they are intentional?

How does the presence of mistakes/misspellings prove that they are intentional?

Do you find it interesting how many of the mistakes take:
1)the correct consonant and swap it for a vowel
or
2)the correct vowel and swap it with another vowel?