From the article:

> Astra felt compelled to check its work and found that, in fact, the English cruiser HMS Canterbury arrived in Sevastopol on November 24, 1918, based on its original logs

Then follows a picture of the original log papers.

▲

JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The comment you're replying to was implying that some ciphers are sufficiently flexible that you could make up a key to make the cipher decrypt to a nearly arbitrary plaintext.

In this case, though, that seems unlikely from the fact that the key used was an actual key documented as being used for other messages.

	▲	stalfie an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well, from a Bayesian standpoint the odds of that seems to be pretty much zero, given that you would have to decipher an arbitrary message that coincidentally pointed to a real date and time that in retrospect turns out to be the correct time a boat relevant to the Germans arrived in a port. Of course, that's given the sequence of events as written is correct, and that Astra presumably did not cheat by brute forcing all historical events around the date of the transmission in advance, found an event that could fit with the message, invent a plausible cipher to make the message fit that event, and then lie about retrospectively validating the information. I would assume that such a process would be obvious from the reasoning chain, and so then the only remaining plausible scenario is that the writer of the article is lying. The most likely explanation by far is that the cipher was just solved, and OP does point this out to be fair.
	▲	tirutiru an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Aah thanks for explaining that. I was wondering how a fake key could possibly help.

▲

30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

jonplackett an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Well soon realise it hacked that website and added that log.