19-02-2026, 03:59 PM
After further examining the cipher and developing one myself, I have a different theory. I believe that the developer of the cipher was unable to develop a truly effective cipher. He was likely a simple monk or physician who wanted to keep his herbal recipes and possibly some ideas secret. He invented a secret code without realising that its rules were often contradictory.
How did I come to this conclusion? Because it happened to me too.
That could explain a lot.
1. Low entropy: An overly rigid formula, probably very repetitive, possibly even a shorthand with too little variation, too little ‘clean text’. I have now examined several Bavarian texts, and the differences are dramatic, as are their effects on certain statistical characteristics. I will present my findings here shortly.
2. Courier A/B: He did not consistently adhere to his own rules, or rather, he realised over time that they did not work so well and kept adjusting them without changing the old, already encrypted texts. (This happens to me all the time – the longer I work on it, the more I realise that this doesn't work, that doesn't work, and I'm constantly changing everything possible.)
If, in addition, several people worked on the encryption, it could be that
a. The dialects they spoke differed slightly, and so they naturally encrypted the text differently.
b. Precisely because the cipher was inconsistent, misunderstandings and differences arose between the writers.
c. This could even explain why the same word sequence was written slightly differently each time, simply because no one remembered how they had done it last time.
3. Word repetitions: He simply encrypted the same word again without realising it. (This has happened to me too.)
4. Inconsistency with the “e” (chol/cheol): Sometimes he forgot a step or added an extra one, resulting in three “e's – my current cipher allows for several possibilities for the use and non-use of the 'e”, so this can easily happen.
5. Others copied from the template that he or several others had previously encrypted and made further mistakes because they did not understand what they were writing.
Strictly speaking, a bad cipher writer explains the anomalies better than a good one. And that is another possible reason why no one has yet succeeded in cracking the code – not because it is too ingenius, but because he was simply too bad at it.
The German language is really complex, and although this chipher can cover some of the German ‘anomalies’, it's still enough to drive you mad.
To pique your curiosity: I can prove to you, at least as things stand at present, that German/Bavarian fits well with the VMS if it is based on a real language. More on this shortly.
How did I come to this conclusion? Because it happened to me too.
That could explain a lot.
1. Low entropy: An overly rigid formula, probably very repetitive, possibly even a shorthand with too little variation, too little ‘clean text’. I have now examined several Bavarian texts, and the differences are dramatic, as are their effects on certain statistical characteristics. I will present my findings here shortly.
2. Courier A/B: He did not consistently adhere to his own rules, or rather, he realised over time that they did not work so well and kept adjusting them without changing the old, already encrypted texts. (This happens to me all the time – the longer I work on it, the more I realise that this doesn't work, that doesn't work, and I'm constantly changing everything possible.)
If, in addition, several people worked on the encryption, it could be that
a. The dialects they spoke differed slightly, and so they naturally encrypted the text differently.
b. Precisely because the cipher was inconsistent, misunderstandings and differences arose between the writers.
c. This could even explain why the same word sequence was written slightly differently each time, simply because no one remembered how they had done it last time.
3. Word repetitions: He simply encrypted the same word again without realising it. (This has happened to me too.)
4. Inconsistency with the “e” (chol/cheol): Sometimes he forgot a step or added an extra one, resulting in three “e's – my current cipher allows for several possibilities for the use and non-use of the 'e”, so this can easily happen.
5. Others copied from the template that he or several others had previously encrypted and made further mistakes because they did not understand what they were writing.
Strictly speaking, a bad cipher writer explains the anomalies better than a good one. And that is another possible reason why no one has yet succeeded in cracking the code – not because it is too ingenius, but because he was simply too bad at it.
The German language is really complex, and although this chipher can cover some of the German ‘anomalies’, it's still enough to drive you mad.
To pique your curiosity: I can prove to you, at least as things stand at present, that German/Bavarian fits well with the VMS if it is based on a real language. More on this shortly.
