Acidus wrote:
] ] Update 21-Jan-2005: Finally got an email from Sanborn
] ] "Dear John, This is not the way, Jim"
] ] However, for me, there are just too many coincidental
] ] things for this solution to be wrong... It just ties
] ] together so perfectly, so beautifully...
]
] I remember reading this page a few months back and thinking it
] was a little too crazy.

Agreed. I've been telling John Wilson for months that he was just "Bible Coding" or "playing Boggle" with part 4. On the other hand, I *do* think he's a brilliant man who has the capacity to find the answer to part 4. He's just taken himself way down this dead-end, and, Poe-like, barricaded himself inside. If he could let go of this wrong idea and turn his substantial energies to exploring other possibilities, I think he may yet discover the *real* solution.

] Oh cource, Elonka is a hell of alot smarter than I

Ha! ;)

] This failed attempted just enforces a quote the Author Graham
] Handcock once wrote:
]
] "People looking hard enough will find Shakespeare in the
] leaves of trees"

Nice quote. :)

I'm also very glad that, via this most recent interview, Sanborn confirmed who "WW" stands for. I'd been getting increasingly suspicious that in his next book, Dan Brown was going to go look for his Jesus/Magdalene theories in Kryptos, and was going to make a case that "WW" stood for "MM" or "Mary Magdalene" (he actually said this on a recent episode of Good Morning America). So I'm glad we've got some hard confirmation from Sanborn ahead of time! It also says something about Dan Brown's scholarship, that if he's willing to take these kinds of liberties with the works of people who are still living, it re-emphasizes the likelihood that he makes things up about works from the past.

- Elonka :)

RE: 'Solution' to part 4 confirmed as wrong by Sanborn