a bill password
The Unsolved Second Document and the Unsolved Legend
▲ Cover of events — opening records
The Bill Papers, published in 1885, claims to contain the location, content, and owner of a treasure somewhere in Virginia in a three-digit code. Only the second document reads the Declaration of Independence in key.
The key question of the Bill password is whether the document itself is a real problem rather than the treasure location.
Prologue: A Record-Breaking Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and some times were entirely empty. People try to explain the whole incident by holding on to a clear scene, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between them is too far.
The pamphlet tells the story of Thomas J. Bill's disappearance, leaving the treasure behind. The source of the original record and the existence of the figure are controversial.
I didn't see this event as a work to confirm a known ending. The records were arranged in chronological order, the routes of the objects were drawn separately, and the sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. Because if you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues appear to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| Number | Verified Records | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Of the three numbers, B2 is decoded as a plain text that speaks of treasure using the initials of the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. | High |
| 2 | B1 and B3 have no consensual decryption. | High |
| 3 | There are discrepancies and errors in B2's numbering and text. | the middle |
| 4 | Due to the style and publishing situation, it has long been analyzed that it is a 19th-century creative fraud. | the middle |
The existence of the Bill, the existence of the treasure, whether B1 and B3 are the actual codes, and who the B2 creator is remains.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Reconfiguring Scene: The Last Definite Point
I changed the place where the incident took place to a real route rather than a stage in my head. I divided the starting point, the last check point, and the place of discovery, and calculated the time required in the meantime. Several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing in the process. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The fictional atmosphere arose from the texture of that very fact. There was no need to add an unidentified secret passage or an unnamed accomplice.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I did not make up the character's mind. Fear, planning, error, and fatigue can cause the same behavior. So, I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. The events became less colorful but more specific thanks to this principle.
Clue 1. Of the three numbers, B2 is decoded as a plain text using the initials of the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. But I immediately confronted the next record, "B1 and B3 do not have a consensus decoding." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. The hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Does the sequence of B1 and B3 show the statistical characteristics of natural language encryption?" specifically ignores the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. There is no agreed decoding in B1 and B3.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "There are discrepancies or errors in B2's numbering and text." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. The hypothesis, which fails to pass the question "Is the B2 error an original transcription mistake or an intentional device?" in particular, ignores the remaining records instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 2 — An mismatched piece
Clue 3. There are discrepancies and errors in the numbering and text of B2.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. However, I immediately confronted the following record, "The analysis of 19th-century creative fraud has been raised for a long time because of the text and publishing circumstances." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question of "How would the cryptographic value of this document be different without a treasure story?" turns a blind eye to the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. Analysis of 19th century creative fraud has long been raised due to its style and publishing situation.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
The conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if this clue is taken aside. However, I immediately confronted the following record, "B2 in the three numbers is decoded into a plain text that describes the treasure using the initials of the words of the United States Declaration of Independence." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, the hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Does the sequence of B1 and B3 show the statistical characteristics of natural language encryption?" ignores the remaining records instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Putting the three hypotheses on the same scale, the
hypothesis did not evaluate them in a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they can withstand opposite evidence were written down, respectively. A complete explanation of one clue is not a good hypothesis if the other three are discarded.
Hypothesis A. Book cipher that protected real treasure
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts as a relatively small assumption that "out of the three columns, B2 is decoded into a plain text that speaks of treasure using the initials of the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence." I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-stated the time of the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. There must have been a hidden assumption at the point where the connection was disconnected.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "B2's numbering and text contain inconsistencies and errors." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but that explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B. Elaborate fiction for pamphlet sales
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "B1 and B3 have no consensus decoding" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-staged the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the analysis of 19th-century creative fraud has been raised for a long time because of the text and publishing situation." Anything can be explained by continuing to add exceptions to the hypothesis, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis C. A mixture of creative narratives added on top of some real records
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "B2's numbering and text have inconsistencies and errors" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from beginning to end. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain, "B2 in the three columns is decoded into a plain text that speaks of treasure using the initials of the words of the United States Declaration of Independence." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
The conclusions I abandoned
I was also drawn to the most famous explanation at the beginning of the investigation. It organized the case in one sentence and gave everything intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required a new coincidence for each blank. Then I erased the conclusion and started again. Good reasoning was more about removing unnecessary assumptions than adding anything.
There is no guarantee that the rest will be meaningful just because one document is released. Verification of authenticity requires not only decoding, but also independent verification of person, land, and publishing records.
In particular, the details repeated on the Internet and later testimonies were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. The possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated was first confirmed. The size of the case decreased after this process, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Checks — The Conclusion I Abandoned
Final Reason: The Results I Reached
The key question of the Bill password is whether the document itself is a real problem rather than the treasure location.
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. It is a direction that requires the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It can be corrected when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that the conclusion changes when it comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable legal and scientific data, and independent evidence that directly connects objects and people are needed.
I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of the mystery is not that anything is possible. It is in finding out what can be thrown away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description that requires the least assumption
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the Timeline
Early in the morning, I opened the event chart again. This time, he covered up the conclusion and left only a record saying, "B2 out of the three numbers is decoded into a plain text that describes the treasure using the initials of the words in the U.S. Declaration of Independence." Even events that I thought I already knew will take a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a single line and wrote the minimum time needed to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filling in with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that "a book cipher that protected actual treasure". At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Does the sequence of B1 and B3 show the statistical characteristics of natural language code?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation records 2. Missing links
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only the record was left: "There is no consensus decoding on B1 and B3." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis that "a sophisticated fiction for the sale of pamphlets". At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Is the B2 error an original transcription mistake or an intentional device?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 3. Eyewitness Distance
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was covered up and only the record was left: "There are discrepancies or errors in B2's numbering and text." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a mixture of creative narratives added to some real records." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "How would the cryptographic value of this document change without a treasure story?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation record 4. The path through which the item passed
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was covered up, and only the record that "the analysis of 19th-century creative fraud has been raised for a long time because of the text and publishing situation." Events that I thought I had already known reveal a completely different shape when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The space between the records was marked with an empty square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that "a book cipher that protected actual treasure". At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Does the sequence of B1 and B3 show the statistical characteristics of natural language code?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses must endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 5. The Temptation of False Clues
Early in the morning, I opened the event chart again. This time, he covered up the conclusion and left only a record saying, "B2 out of the three numbers is decoded into a plain text that describes the treasure using the initials of the words in the U.S. Declaration of Independence." Even events that I thought I already knew will take a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a single line and wrote the minimum time needed to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filling in with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of that, I put the hypothesis that "a sophisticated fiction for the sale of pamphlets". At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Is the B2 error an original transcription mistake or an intentional device?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was concealed and only the record was left: "There is no consensus decoding on B1 and B3." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a mixture of creative narratives added to some real records." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "How would the cryptographic value of this document change without a treasure story?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only used the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
▲ End of investigative record — questions still to be asked
· Library of Congress — Declaration of Independence
※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal investigation records based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, the judgment is updated.
Image Source and Edit
We used Wikipedia Commons public license data cut, ratio adjustment, and color correction to fit the body flow. Circles with generated images are not included in the list below.
- Confederate cipher disk.jpg — austinmills from NSA museum, CC BY-SA 2.0
- Lovells Cipher.jpg — James Lovell, Public domain
- CipherDisk2000.jpg — Hubert Berberich ( HubiB ), Public domain
- A comparison chart of various ciphers for encoding messages. Wellcome V0025516.jpg — Wikimedia Commons contributor, CC BY 4.0
- Ac2 cipher key.png — Ultimatedevr ( talk ) ( Uploads ), Public domain
- Cipher.png — KingOfGOD, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Beale Papers (1885) - Cover.jpg — IQLUSION.Be, Public domain
- Pigpen cipher on paper (3027069236).jpg — Andie from Nanaimo, Canada, CC BY 2.0