Cryptography #1

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:14 am

10946.987 3.987.17711.610.10946 987.4181 610.987.10946 10946.987

3.987.17711.610.10946, 10946.34.1.10946 55.6765 10946.34.8

2584.17711.8.6765.10946.55.987.610.

Whats the message?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:56 am

I should emphasize each space between words.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:15 am

K.Snyder wrote: Whats the message?

These are the winning lottery numbers for the next 6 months??? :sneaky:

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:20 am

K.Snyder wrote: 10946.987 3.987.17711.610.10946 987.4181 610.987.10946 10946.987

3.987.17711.610.10946, 10946.34.1.10946 55.6765 10946.34.8

2584.17711.8.6765.10946.55.987.610.

Whats the message?

Is the dot a letter. Man I love cryptoquote but that thing is murder.:-5

Can you fix it K.:-4

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:26 am

weber wrote: Is the dot a letter. Man I love cryptoquote but that thing is murder.:-5

Can you fix it K.:-4

Sorry, no the dot is just a separation between letters....

Its rather easy, you just have to be about your whits.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:29 am

Rapunzel wrote: These are the winning lottery numbers for the next 6 months??? :sneaky:

If I knew those I wouldn't share them on a public forum. Although, if I ever win the lottery I will share the winings with all of you.

May only be a dollar each, but hey, it's sharing :sneaky:

:wah: jk

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:56 am

flopstock wrote: t.o

c.o.u.n.t

o.r

n.o.t

t.o

c.o.u.n.t,

t.h.a.t

i.s

t.h.e

q.u.e.s.t.i.o.n.

:yh_clap

Wasn't so hard was it?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:09 pm

Below, you will find a statement made by a famous person, only all the letters have been messed up. Each letter represents some letter of the alphabet. Figure out what each letter is supposed to be and you'll find out who made that statement.

An’d mast ib bes ni ti nro ackiddalgo.

-Qugn Tadsop

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:21 pm

flopstock wrote: t.o

c.o.u.n.t

o.r

n.o.t

t.o

c.o.u.n.t,

t.h.a.t

i.s

t.h.e

q.u.e.s.t.i.o.n.

awright K.

How did she get that out of those numbers up there. That is the real question. I do cryptoquotes all the time and knowing the answer and where the periods are, I still can't figure it out.

:-5 :-5

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:26 pm

weber wrote: awright K.

How did she get that out of those numbers up there. That is the real question. I do cryptoquotes all the time and knowing the answer and where the periods are, I still can't figure it out.

:-5 :-5

Fibonacci numbers

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:36 pm

flopstock wrote: I got it 'cause we are secretly lovers and he talks in his sleep?

I must have said something like this

:yh_sleep "Fibonacci numbers can not count as high, as much as I love flopstock" :wah:

:rolleyes:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:56 pm

flopstock wrote: this is fun! someone do another one!!:D

Jeez am i a geek or what???:wah:
Yeah Floppy!:)

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:20 pm

flopstock wrote: I got it 'cause we are secretly lovers and he talks in his sleep?

And here I thought he was mine

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:47 pm

flopstock wrote: Probably the same guy... he just may have slut tendencies... :wah:

Aw he jez loves all women and wants all women :-6

an' we wimmen seems to want him.......good stuff:-4

all for one......one for all:driving:

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:48 pm

flopstock wrote: this is fun! someone do another one!!:D

Jeez am i a geek or what???:wah:

One thing for sure, you right so are so good at this:driving:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:06 pm

Ok, heres a quickie

Oh Lame Saint

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:35 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Ok, heres a quickie

Oh Lame Saint

Thin as a mole..................well it fits:wah:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:03 pm

weber wrote: Thin as a mole..................well it fits:wah:

:wah:

Ok --

At least it makes since....

Theres another

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:00 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Ok, heres a quickie

Oh Lame Saint

The Mona Lisa - that was in The Davinci Code (and an easy one to work out then too!)

Have you guys read any Eoin Colfer books? They have a secret cryptographic story at the bottom of each page which is fun to decipher!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:53 pm

Rapunzel wrote: The Mona Lisa - that was in The Davinci Code (and an easy one to work out then too!)

Have you guys read any Eoin Colfer books? They have a secret cryptographic story at the bottom of each page which is fun to decipher!

yep,

But dont forget, Thin as a mole :wah:

I am intrigued by some of the things brought up in the Da Vinci code....Me being cynical, I suppose,(Brought to my attention by a certain someone who we have all missed dearly)I am skeptical about a lot of things, while at the same time love the idea. Things such as the implication of the holy grail being discretely portrayed in the Last Supper painting as well as the significance of what I presume is Mary Magdalene painted to Jesus' right, with a "V' signifying the ancient symbol of a woman(before the circles with bars and arrows distinguishing male from female).

Its all a little bone chilling, if not by truth, then by sheer history of something so popular.

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:01 pm

K.Snyder wrote: yep,

But dont forget, Thin as a mole :wah:

I am intrigued by some of the things brought up in the Da Vinci code....Me being cynical, I suppose,(Brought to my attention by a certain someone who we have all missed dearly)I am skeptical about a lot of things, while at the same time love the idea. Things such as the implication of the holy grail being discretely portrayed in the Last Supper painting as well as the significance of what I presume is Mary Magdalene painted to Jesus' right, with a "V' signifying the ancient symbol of a woman(before the circles with bars and arrows distinguishing male from female).

Its all a little bone chilling, if not by truth, then by sheer history of something so popular.

LOL....K.

When I get a hold of you, I'm gonna keep you for a long time....forever mebbe. Git ready:guitarist :-6 :-4

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:04 pm

weber wrote: LOL....K.

When I get a hold of you, I'm gonna keep you for a long time....forever mebbe. Git ready:guitarist :-6 :-4

I've got time. :wah:

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:15 pm

K.Snyder wrote: I've got time. :wah:

Ready or not.......time for another crypti my fine feathered friend:-6

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:16 pm

K.Snyder wrote: yep,

But dont forget, Thin as a mole :wah:

I am intrigued by some of the things brought up in the Da Vinci code....Me being cynical, I suppose,(Brought to my attention by a certain someone who we have all missed dearly)I am skeptical about a lot of things, while at the same time love the idea. Things such as the implication of the holy grail being discretely portrayed in the Last Supper painting as well as the significance of what I presume is Mary Magdalene painted to Jesus' right, with a "V' signifying the ancient symbol of a woman(before the circles with bars and arrows distinguishing male from female).

Its all a little bone chilling, if not by truth, then by sheer history of something so popular.

It IS intriguing, although I can't see why the Roman Catholic Church made such a brouhaha about the whole thing! I think it's fascinating that Mary Magdalene may have married Jesus and had a daughter, Sarah, and that her bloodline is the 'cup' which holds the blood of Jesus. I'm also intrigued that Mary Magdalene may have been a high-class Lady or Princess and not a prostitute as she is portrayed in the Bible. (Although I think the message Jesus would send is that even a prostitute is a person and worthy of love and marriage, IMO). However, I cannot see that they would still worship where her bones lay, for surely they would just be dust after 2,000 years?

Also, da Vinci painted The Last Supper on damp plaster and the original painting is all but lost to us. Although in recent years it has been repainted as close to the original as it is possible to be, it has been repainted so badly in previous centuries that no one can surely know exactly how any of the disciples may have looked, let alone whether one carried a knife or another was a woman?

I also thought the ending was terribly lame. Sophy found her brother - then what? The whole story just petered out. I love the film National Treasure! If only the people who wrote that could have written this I think it would be far more intriguing and possibly point to a future where we should aim to go.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:30 pm

Rapunzel wrote:

Also, da Vinci painted The Last Supper on damp plaster and the original painting is all but lost to us. Although in recent years it has been repainted as close to the original as it is possible to be, it has been repainted so badly in previous centuries that no one can surely know exactly how any of the disciples may have looked, let alone whether one carried a knife or another was a woman?.

Well noted, indeed.

Rapunzel wrote:

I also thought the ending was terribly lame. Sophy found her brother - then what? The whole story just petered out. I love the film National Treasure! If only the people who wrote that could have written this I think it would be far more intriguing and possibly point to a future where we should aim to go.

I haven't actually seen the film. I am afraid that the film would actually be....well....lame as you said, and I wouldn't get the most out of the actual story and history of it. I just don't like movies anymore. They tend to be rather dull and lacking of true inspiration in my opinion. Films thrown out to make a quick buck.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:37 pm

K.Snyder wrote: I haven't actually seen the film. I am afraid that the film would actually be....well....lame as you said, and I wouldn't get the most out of the actual story and history of it. I just don't like movies anymore. They tend to be rather dull and lacking of true inspiration in my opinion. Films thrown out to make a quick buck.

Thanks K, and I haven't seen the film either - that was just how the book ended. :rolleyes:

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:42 pm

Rapunzel wrote: It IS intriguing, although I can't see why the Roman Catholic Church made such a brouhaha about the whole thing! I think it's fascinating that Mary Magdalene may have married Jesus and had a daughter, Sarah, and that her bloodline is the 'cup' which holds the blood of Jesus. I'm also intrigued that Mary Magdalene may have been a high-class Lady or Princess and not a prostitute as she is portrayed in the Bible. (Although I think the message Jesus would send is that even a prostitute is a person and worthy of love and marriage, IMO). However, I cannot see that they would still worship where her bones lay, for surely they would just be dust after 2,000 years?

Also, with such being the case, this would have given Jesus all provocation to claim to be the rightful King over the Jews, which would have threatened the position of what was the current Roman Caesar. So they say.

I want to read about it, I just hate being put on wild goose chases....I rather get irritated by ones lies. But, I suppose everyone is left for their own assumptions pertaining to the matter. Considering that it cannot be proven(right?).

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:44 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Thanks K, and I haven't seen the film either - that was just how the book ended. :rolleyes:

Oh no,

and you told me how it ended....

Oh well,

I'm in it for the knowledge anyway.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:46 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Thanks K, and I haven't seen the film either - that was just how the book ended. :rolleyes:

Oh...

I missread your post...

I thought when you said you "loved the film..." that you were refering to the movie - The Da Vinci Code

I read it too fast, sorry.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:47 pm

Then again....

It all could just be one big lie just to sell the movie and the book....

Film industry can be a scary place, I'm sure.

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:49 pm

rapunzel wrote: It IS intriguing, although I can't see why the Roman Catholic Church made such a brouhaha about the whole thing! I think it's fascinating that Mary Magdalene may have married Jesus and had a daughter, Sarah, and that her bloodline is the 'cup' which holds the blood of Jesus. I'm also intrigued that Mary Magdalene may have been a high-class Lady or Princess and not a prostitute as she is portrayed in the Bible. (Although I think the message Jesus would send is that even a prostitute is a person and worthy of love and marriage, IMO). However, I cannot see that they would still worship where her bones lay, for surely they would just be dust after 2,000 years?

Also, da Vinci painted The Last Supper on damp plaster and the original painting is all but lost to us. Although in recent years it has been repainted as close to the original as it is possible to be, it has been repainted so badly in previous centuries that no one can surely know exactly how any of the disciples may have looked, let alone whether one carried a knife or another was a woman?

I also thought the ending was terribly lame. Sophy found her brother - then what? The whole story just petered out. I love the film National Treasure! If only the people who wrote that could have written this I think it would be far more intriguing and possibly point to a future where we should aim to go.
If Jesus were a man, and only a man, and nothing more than a man such as a man I might like to meet and date and take home with me for ummm well I don't even talk about it here really. If Jesus were such just a man, maybe I could go along with your thought of him love making a baby. But for me He is God, fully God as well as fully man and as such, I figure He could easily live a celibate life as the perfect human, the perfect God. Maybe to you Jesus was not God but just a man with male desires, all of man's failings. And that is okay with me if that is what you believe.

I just wish what I believe to be known too. Which is the Jesus is/was fully human and fully God and I don't think He had to give in to male needs like our wonderful but plain men, not God, do. I believe Jesus/God is/was above that. Anyone who could die on the cross the way He did could certainly avoid sexual thrills.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:49 pm

weber wrote: Ready or not.......time for another crypti my fine feathered friend:-6

I will be ready, to jump all over your....

"Crypti". :wah:

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:55 pm

K.Snyder wrote: I will be ready, to jump all over your....

"Crypti". :wah:

Be good K.

or I may have to leave:-3

'Tis a good thing you are so far away from me and my .....

Crypti

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:57 pm

weber wrote: If Jesus were a man, and only a man, and nothing more than a man such as a man I might like to meet and date and take home with me for ummm well I don't even talk about it here really. If Jesus were such just a man, maybe I could go along with your thought of him love making a baby. But for me He is God, fully God as well as fully man and as such, I figure He could easily live a celibate life as the perfect human, the perfect God. Maybe to you Jesus was not God but just a man with male desires, all of man's failings. And that is okay with me if that is what you believe.

I just wish what I believe to be known too. Which is the Jesus is/was fully human and fully God and I don't think He had to give in to male needs like our wonderful but plain men, not God, do. I believe Jesus/God is/was above that. Anyone who could die on the cross the way He did could certainly avoid sexual thrills.

Yeah, but if Jesus wanted everyone to live as he did and he lived a life of celibacy, human kind as we know it would parish. We would have no family to look on to witness what true love really is. If no one is able to live the perfect life as Jesus did, no one has the right to imply to anyone what it is he was actually trying to teach us.

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:03 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Yeah, but if Jesus wanted everyone to live as he did and he lived a life of celibacy, human kind as we know it would parish. We would have no family to look on to witness what true love really is. If no one is able to live the perfect life as Jesus did, no one has the right to imply to anyone what it is he was actually trying to teach us.

Within reason K.

Within reason. I could envision making love with a regular man like you or any of the men here, but there is no way that there would be a thought in my head of making love with God. By your thought then, Jesus should have done all the things we do. But He didn't, and you don't complain about that.

Now be a good boy and come to me and forget other such things for now. I is waitin.

:-4

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:04 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Also, with such being the case, this would have given Jesus all provocation to claim to be the rightful King over the Jews, which would have threatened the position of what was the current Roman Caesar. So they say.

I want to read about it, I just hate being put on wild goose chases....I rather get irritated by ones lies. But, I suppose everyone is left for their own assumptions pertaining to the matter. Considering that it cannot be proven(right?).

Agreed. In the book it stated that he was head of one Royal line and Mary Magdalene was head of another Royal line, and a morganatic marriage between them would result in them having total Right of Power over all the Jews - so, yes, threatening the Roman position, as you say.

I don't think its a wild goose chase, as such. i found it interesting that there were far more gospels than I ever realised and realised the church has been quite selective in what it has allowed us to read. There were things I didn't know about or hadn't heard of, but it was an interesting book. I just wouldn't follow it religiously as some people seem to have done. :rolleyes:

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:07 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Oh no,

and you told me how it ended....

Oh well,

I'm in it for the knowledge anyway.

Sorry bout that.

I didn't tell you the actual end as such and it wouldn't make sense without reading the rest anyway.

Note to self: Learn when to keep your big gob shut!

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:11 pm

weber wrote: Within reason K.

Within reason. I could envision making love with a regular man like you or any of the men here, but there is no way that there would be a thought in my head of making love with God. By your thought then, Jesus should have done all the things we do. But He didn't, and you don't complain about that.

Now be a good boy and come to me and forget other such things for now. I is waitin.

:-4

Quite the opposite, we should do all things in the way Jesus has done in which we all do.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:11 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Then again....

It all could just be one big lie just to sell the movie and the book....

Film industry can be a scary place, I'm sure.

Yeah, there was a LOT of hype to sell this film!

I hate that bacause those films so rarely live up to expectations!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have to say I've enjoyed chatting with you, K.

I've enjoyed the posts you've written in the past too.

I'll have to beetle off in a min as its already 3am here, but this was a nice thread. Thanks :-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:12 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Sorry bout that.

I didn't tell you the actual end as such and it wouldn't make sense without reading the rest anyway.

Note to self: Learn when to keep your big gob shut!

I know,

I was only teasing :p

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:13 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Yeah, there was a LOT of hype to sell this film!

I hate that bacause those films so rarely live up to expectations!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have to say I've enjoyed chatting with you, K.

I've enjoyed the posts you've written in the past too.

I'll have to beetle off in a min as its already 3am here, but this was a nice thread. Thanks :-6

No

Thank you.

weber · Post by **weber** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:18 pm

K.Snyder wrote: Quite the opposite, we should do all things in the way Jesus has done in which we all do.

You misread me you little rascal. But that's okay. No it's not. You said if Jesus didn't have sex that we wouldn't and the race would die out. I said that in that case you would, meaning "you", would think he should do everything that we do.

I know that I try to do as Christ did and with your rules, maybe I should get crucified. Someone may eventually do that.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:24 pm

weber wrote: You misread me you little rascal. But that's okay. No it's not. You said if Jesus didn't have sex that we wouldn't and the race would die out. I said that in that case you would, meaning "you", would think he should do everything that we do.

I know that I try to do as Christ did and with your rules, maybe I should get crucified. Someone may eventually do that.:lips

I said if Jesus wanted us to live a life of celibacy, then hypothetically human kind would parish, which is my implication that he didn't wish us to do so. Which would then in turn give me all the more reason in believing that he very well could have married and had children.

If I'm still misunderstanding, then I apologize....but that's my story and I'm sticking with it :p :wah: