Month: February 2026

One of the most fascinating mysteries from World War II involves a pigeon that was discovered in a chimney decades after the war ended, still carrying a small capsule with an encrypted message attached to its leg. The story was reported by the BBC and describes how the bird was found with a coded note believed to have been sent from a British military person during the war (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20456782).

After reading the article, I became curious about the origins of the message. Who sent it? Where did it come from? And perhaps most intriguingly, what did the encrypted message actually say? This paper explores the historical background of the pigeon message and attempts to identify the likely sender and context in which it was written.

The paper attached to the pigeon was a small, thin piece of tissue-like paper that had been tightly rolled and placed inside a red capsule tied to the bird’s leg. Written on the paper was a short message composed mostly of groups of five letters, which appeared to be encrypted text. Above the coded groups were several identifiers, including references such as “AOAKN,” “NURP 40 TW 194,” and “Pigeon Service.” The structured format of the message suggests it was created using a military communication system, likely intended to be decoded by personnel at a British base who possessed the correct cipher key. Because the decoding materials were never recovered, the message has remained unsolved.

World War 1 or 2?

One clue that helps identify the time period of the message is the format of the communication pad used for the note. The message is written in groups of five letters along with several short identifier codes at the top. This format was commonly used in British military communications during World War II. Messages were often written in groups of five letters so they could be transmitted more easily and so that patterns in the text would be harder for enemies to analyze.

Another important clue is the marking “NURP” written on the paper. NURP stands for the National Union of Racing Pigeons, an organization that worked with the British military pigeon service during World War II. These pigeons were used by aircraft and other military units to send messages back to base if radio communication failed.

The structure of the message and the organizations referenced on the paper strongly suggest that the message was created during World War II rather than World War I. British aircraft operating over the Atlantic often carried pigeons as a backup communication method in case the aircraft was damaged or forced to ditch in the ocean.

Some researchers initially suggested that the message might date back to World War I. One Canadian researcher proposed that the coded groups of letters resembled artillery fire control messages used during the First World War. In this interpretation, the message might have contained targeting information for artillery units rather than an aircraft communication. This theory was discussed online by historians and puzzle enthusiasts who examined the structure of the coded groups and compared them with known military message formats.

One example of this interpretation can be found in discussions archived on the BBC puzzle pages, where a contributor suggested that the message format resembled older artillery spotting messages from the First World War. https://www.wired.com/story/pigeon-code-cracked/

WW1 American Army Field Codes: https://archive.org/details/american-army-field-codes-in-the-american-expeditionary-forces-during-the-first-world-war

However, most historians later rejected the World War I theory. The references to the National Union of Racing Pigeons and the style of the message form more closely match British military pigeon communication systems used during World War II. Because of these details, the majority of researchers now believe the message likely originated during the Second World War.

Who’s the Author?

At the bottom of the message form there is a line labeled “Sender’s Signature.” Written in blue ink on that line appears to be the name “W. Stott Sgt.” The handwriting suggests the sender identified himself with the initial W, the surname Stott, and the rank Sergeant.

The name and rank are important clues. During World War II it was common for the sender of a pigeon message to sign the form so that the receiving station could identify the unit or individual who transmitted it. The rank Sergeant indicates the sender was a non commissioned officer rather than a commissioned officer such as a lieutenant or captain.

I searched www.cwgc.org and made a list of “W” “Stotts”. There are no matches for strictly “Stot”. The full list is the excel sheet I created. The best candidate with Sergeant is the one who served in the Royal Air Force and one promoted to Warrant Officer after his death in 1943.

Name	Rank	Service Number	Unit	Country	Date of Death	Age	Burial / Memorial
William Leslie Stott	Sergeant	508080	Royal Air Force	United Kingdom	08 May 1945	35	Chester (Overleigh) Cemetery
William Stott	Warrant Officer	407563	Royal Australian Air Force	Australia	04 October 1943	33	Runnymede Memorial

Two individuals named William Stott stand out as possible candidates connected to the pigeon message. Both served in air forces during World War II and both held ranks that could match the signature written on the message form.

The first is William Leslie Stott, who served as a Sergeant in the Royal Air Force. His service number was 508080, and records show that he died on 8 May 1945 at the age of 35. He is buried at Chester (Overleigh) Cemetery in the United Kingdom. Because the message signature appears to include the rank “Sgt,” William Leslie Stott is a possible match based on rank alone. As a member of the RAF, he may have been involved in communication duties or air operations where carrier pigeons were used.

The second individual is William Stott of the Royal Australian Air Force, service number 407563. He served as a Wireless Operator Air Gunner and held the rank of Warrant Officer at the time of his death on 4 October 1943 at the age of 33. His name appears on the Runnymede Memorial, which commemorates airmen who were lost with no known grave. Historical records show that he was part of the crew of Liberator FK923 of No. 120 Squadron RAF, which disappeared during an attack on a German submarine in the North Atlantic.

This second individual is particularly interesting because wireless operators were responsible for sending and receiving communications. If an aircraft became damaged or unable to transmit by radio, the wireless operator would likely have been the crew member responsible for preparing a message and releasing a carrier pigeon. For this reason, William Stott of the Royal Australian Air Force is often considered one of the strongest candidates for the author of the pigeon message.

Although both individuals match the name and wartime context, the connection between the aircraft loss in October 1943 and the role of a wireless operator makes the RAAF William Stott a particularly compelling possibility.

Hand Writing Analysis

One piece of evidence that may help narrow the search is handwriting. By reviewing handwriting samples from enlistment documents of the various Stotts who served during the war, we can compare their signatures to the one on the message and determine which individuals might be possible candidates.

It took some time to track down and sort through the available digital military records. We should be grateful that the British and Australian governments have made so much of this historical information available to the public. Research like this would have been much more difficult to carry out years ago.

We have the original message handwriting and several options

We now have the original handwriting from the message along with several possible individuals to compare it to. For this comparison, I used the original signature from the message, a neutral reference sample from W. O. Stott of London, and our strongest suspect, W. Stott of the Royal Australian Air Force from Adelaide.

A comparison of the handwriting suggests that the Australian W. Stott signature is the closest match to the handwriting on the original message. The message signature begins with a tall, angular capital “W” followed by a shortened or simplified form of the surname that appears as “Stt.” The style is quick, somewhat block-like, and the letters are not fully connected. When compared to the enlistment documents, the Australian W. Stott signature shows several similar characteristics. The capital “W” is formed with similar sharp upward and downward strokes, and the overall structure of the name is compact, suggesting a writer who might abbreviate or simplify letters when writing quickly. This could explain why “Stott” appears shortened in the message. In contrast, the signature attributed to Owen William Walter Stott from London is written in a much more flowing cursive style. The letters are fully connected, the loops are more rounded, and the surname “Stott” is clearly written out with distinct letter forms. Because the London signature shows a more decorative and continuous writing style that differs significantly from the simpler and more abbreviated form seen on the message, it appears less consistent with the handwriting on the original note. While this visual comparison cannot serve as a formal forensic identification, the structural similarities in letter formation and writing style make the Australian W. Stott the more plausible handwriting match to the message signature.

With handwriting analysis, we observe the following:

Capital “W” Formation

Message signature

• Tall capital W
• Formed with three sharp angular strokes
• Slight rightward lean
• Ends with a small upward exit stroke

Australian W. Stott

• Very similar angular W
• Also constructed with distinct pointed peaks
• Same rightward slant
• Final stroke lifts slightly upward

Interpretation

The structure and stroke sequence of the W are highly consistent. Many writers produce rounded or looped W’s, but both samples show angular mountain-style W formation, which is a useful comparison feature.

Simplification of “Stott”

Message

Appears as:

Stt

or a compressed form of Stott.

Characteristics:

• Very short middle section
• The “o” loops appear omitted
• Final t stroke is emphasized

Australian signature

• “Stott” is written more formally
• However the middle letters are compressed
• The t strokes dominate the word visually

Interpretation

When people write quickly or under stress, interior vowels are often minimized or skipped. The Australian signature already shows compressed middle letters, which could easily reduce to “Stt” in fast writing.

Letter Spacing

Message

• Letters are slightly separated
• Not fully cursive
• Appears written quickly

Australian

• Semi-cursive
• Letters almost connect but not fully
• Slight pauses between name components

Interpretation

Both samples show partial connection rather than full cursive flow, suggesting a writer who mixes print and cursive habits.

Stroke Pressure and Rhythm

Message

• Heavier strokes on W and t
• Lighter strokes between letters
• Indicates fast writing with emphasis on capitals and final letters

Australian

• Similar emphasis pattern
• Capital and cross strokes heavier
• Interior letters lighter

Interpretation

This pressure rhythm is consistent between the samples.

Terminal “t” Style

Both signatures show:

• A firm final t
• Slight upward finish
• A confident stopping point

This is another behavioral writing trait that tends to remain consistent.

The handwriting in the message shares several similarities with the Australian W. Stott signature, including the angular capital “W,” compressed surname structure, and similar stroke patterns. While these features suggest the two samples could come from the same writer, this comparison is only a preliminary visual assessment. It is recommended that professional forensic handwriting analysts examine the original documents and conduct a full comparison to determine whether the signatures can be reliably attributed to the same individual.

How did the bird make it back?

The reconstructed position of the aircraft also aligns with what we know from personnel records and squadron history. Records show that Warrant Officer William Stott of the Royal Australian Air Force had been transferred to No. 120 Squadron RAF, which was operating Liberator aircraft from RAF Reykjavik, Iceland as part of the North Atlantic anti submarine patrol effort. On 4 October 1943, Liberator FK923 departed Iceland to escort Convoy ON 204. Squadron reports state that at approximately 11:30 a.m. a signal was received from the aircraft indicating it was about to carry out an attack, believed to be against U boat U 539. The signal faded and nothing further was heard from the aircraft, which never returned to base. Subsequent searches found no trace of the aircraft or crew. This means that on that specific day in October 1943 the entire crew, including RAAF Warrant Officer William Stott, was lost during the patrol, placing him directly aboard the aircraft at the time the message and pigeon were likely released.

Why the One Time Pad Message Cannot Be Cracked

The coded message carried by the pigeon appears to use a One Time Pad (OTP) system, which was widely used by Allied forces during World War II for highly sensitive communications. A one time pad works by combining a message with a page of completely random numbers or letters called a pad. Each character in the message is altered using the corresponding character from the pad. The crucial rule is that the pad page is used only once and then destroyed. The receiver has an identical copy of the pad page, allowing them to reverse the process and recover the original message.

What makes this system unique is that, when used correctly, it is mathematically unbreakable. Unlike other codes, there is no pattern for a computer or codebreaker to analyze. Every possible decoded message is just as likely as any other unless the correct pad page is known. In simple terms, it is like trying to guess a password that is completely random and just as long as the message itself. Even if someone used the fastest computers in the world, they would still be guessing blindly because there is no statistical clue pointing to the correct answer.

For this reason, the pigeon message cannot realistically be decoded today. The aircraft that carried the pigeon would also have carried the matching pad page used to encode the message. When the aircraft was lost in October 1943, that page of the pad was almost certainly lost with it. Without that specific page, the encoded text cannot be reversed. This means the message remains effectively locked forever unless the original pad page is somehow discovered, which is extremely unlikely.

This explains why, despite decades of effort by historians and cryptography enthusiasts, the pigeon message has never been successfully decoded. The security of the one time pad system means that the message is not merely unsolved; it is designed to be impossible to break without the original key.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, the investigation narrowed the possible author of the pigeon message by systematically identifying and evaluating potential candidates named Stott who served during the war. Early on, it became clear that the message was not from World War I, as the use of coded pigeon message pads corresponds with British military pigeon communications used during World War II. With that timeframe established, attention focused on individuals who both served during the period and were in positions where sending such a message would make sense. Among the candidates examined, William Stott of the Royal Australian Air Force emerged as the strongest match. Records show that he served as a Wireless Operator Air Gunner with No. 120 Squadron operating from Iceland, placing him directly in aircraft responsible for anti submarine patrols and convoy protection. Squadron logs confirm that on 4 October 1943 his Liberator aircraft attacked U boat U 539 while escorting Convoy ON 204, after which the signal faded and the aircraft never returned. This scenario provides a credible moment in which an emergency pigeon message could have been released. Finally, a comparison of the handwriting on the message with known enlistment signatures showed notable similarities in the structure of the capital letters and the abbreviated style of the surname. While a definitive determination would require professional forensic examination, the combination of historical context, operational role, documented loss of the aircraft, and preliminary handwriting comparison makes William Stott the most plausible candidate identified in this investigation.

I have always been drawn to history, especially the way our understanding of the past often rests on a surprisingly small number of surviving written sources. In the case of Christopher Columbus, the original ship logs from the first voyage no longer exist. What we have instead are copies, summaries, and transcriptions preserved in the journals and correspondence of others, including versions recorded and translated decades later. These surviving texts, while imperfect, provide a rare day by day narrative of the voyage itself, including distances sailed, compass headings, weather conditions, and Columbus’s own private estimates alongside the figures he reported to his crew. Using the Diario de a bordo and related contemporary compilations and translations, including multiple Spanish and English editions of the first voyage journal and selected letters, it becomes possible to reconstruct the crossing through dead reckoning rather than illustration alone. By combining reported leagues traveled, noted course changes, and observations of magnetic compass behavior recorded in these primary sources, a plausible daily track can be estimated. This project begins that reconstruction by translating the written record into a KML map, allowing the voyage from departure to landfall to be examined one day at a time through the evidence Columbus himself left behind.

First Voyage

This KML represents a careful reconstruction rather than a claim of exact precision. It shows daily dots marking where Columbus would plausibly have been based on the leagues per day recorded in the log and the west, west southwest, and west northwest course changes he explicitly describes. It includes fixed anchors at La Gomera as the known departure point and Guanahani as the known landfall, connected by a continuous track line so the viewer can visually inspect drift, curvature, and pacing across the voyage. The file documents its assumptions clearly, including the use of one league as approximately three nautical miles, bearings treated as approximate true bearings derived from magnetic courses, and the absence of usable longitude fixes in 1492, which means uncertainty naturally increases in the mid Atlantic. Periods of calm and course changes guided by birds are preserved rather than smoothed away. When viewed, the track bends gently instead of forming a straight line, the days from October sixth through October tenth show noticeable course instability that aligns with crew anxiety and bird sightings, the final approach aligns logically with the Bahamas rather than Cuba or Florida, and the daily pacing feels human, with fast days, slow days, and pauses. Overall, this reconstruction is more historically honest than most published maps.

To actually see the reconstruction, we load the KML into Google Earth on the web. Open this in your browser:

https://earth.google.com

From there, go to Projects, choose Open or Import, and upload the KML file you downloaded from this chat. Once it loads, you will see the voyage as a connected track with dated dots. Clicking each dot opens the description text for that day, so you can follow the crossing step by step and visually inspect how the route curves, where it speeds up or slows down, and how the day by day pacing matches what the log describes.

---

 Second Voyage

The second voyage of Christopher Columbus is documented far more broadly than the first, but the records are also more fragmented. Unlike the 1492 crossing, there is no single continuous ship’s diary that survives intact. Instead, the movement of the fleet must be reconstructed from a combination of letters, journal excerpts, official reports, and contemporary accounts written by Columbus himself and by those who sailed with him. These sources do not always agree in detail, but they consistently name places, dates, and sequences of movement that allow the overall path of the voyage to be traced with confidence.

This reconstruction was created by identifying every dated or clearly implied location where Columbus is attested to have been present during the second voyage, beginning with the departure from Spain in 1493 and ending with the return in 1496. Each point plotted in the KML corresponds to a place explicitly named in the surviving sources, such as known departures, landfalls, island visits, and extended stays. Rather than inventing daily positions where no distances or headings are recorded, the map anchors itself to these historically supported locations and connects them in chronological order to show the flow of the voyage.

The result is an anchored track rather than a dead reckoning line. This approach avoids artificial precision and reflects how the second voyage actually functioned. By this point, Columbus was no longer searching blindly across open ocean but moving deliberately between known islands and colonial centers. Navigation relied heavily on visual landfall, short sea passages, and repeated routes, which makes named locations more reliable than inferred daily distances. Where the historical record is silent or vague, the map remains intentionally conservative.

This KML is therefore best understood as a geographic index of the second voyage rather than a continuous navigational trace. It shows where Columbus was, when he was there, and how the expedition expanded outward from the initial Atlantic crossing into sustained movement across the Caribbean. When viewed alongside the first voyage reconstruction, it highlights the shift from uncertainty and exploration to repetition, logistics, and occupation, using the surviving documentary record as its sole guide.

Sources used for KML generation of 2nd Voyage:

• Select Letters of Christopher Columbus, which preserves Columbus’s surviving correspondence to the Spanish Crown and others, including letters written during and immediately after the second voyage that reference specific locations, dates, colonial activities, and movements between the Canary Islands, the Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Cuba, and Jamaica
• Letters from Christopher Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabella (1493–1496), transmitted as official reports and later copied into archival collections, providing dated references to departures, landfalls, settlement efforts, and returns that anchor Columbus to identifiable places even when navigational details are absent
• Columbus’s memorials and administrative reports often labeled Relación, which summarize discoveries, colonial conditions, and travel sequences during the second voyage and survive through later copies rather than original manuscripts
• The letter of Diego Álvarez Chanca, an eyewitness account written by a participant in the second voyage that describes the Atlantic crossing, first Caribbean landfall at Dominica, early island exploration, and conditions on Hispaniola, serving as one of the most reliable independent confirmations of dates and locations
• The narrative account of Michele da Cuneo, an Italian nobleman who sailed on the second voyage and later recorded his experiences, providing corroboration for island sequences and movements while requiring careful critical reading
• Historia de las Indias by Bartolomé de las Casas, which preserves summaries and quotations from documents that no longer survive and records chronological movement during the second voyage based on sources available to Las Casas in the sixteenth century
• Vida del Almirante by Fernando Colón, written using family papers and now lost records, offering sequencing and contextual detail for the second voyage, particularly regarding Hispaniola and the wider Caribbean
• Historia General y Natural de las Indias by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, which compiles early testimonies, official documents, and firsthand accounts that preserve locations, dates, and movements associated with the second voyage

This combined documentary record forms the basis for the anchored KML reconstruction, relying on named places and dated attestations rather than inferred daily navigation where the sources remain silent.

---

Third Voyage

The third voyage of Christopher Columbus is reconstructed differently from the first two because the surviving record emphasizes events and locations rather than continuous navigation. No complete ship’s log survives for this voyage, and the sources that do exist consist primarily of letters, official reports, and later historical compilations that record where Columbus was at specific moments rather than how he traveled day by day. To build this KML, every dated or clearly implied location mentioned in these documents was identified, beginning with the departure from Spain in 1498 and ending with Columbus’s forced return in 1500. Each placemark represents a place where Columbus is explicitly documented to have been present, such as known staging points in the Atlantic, first landfall at Trinidad, exploration of the Gulf of Paria and the South American mainland, extended residence on Hispaniola, and his arrest at Santo Domingo. These anchored locations were then ordered chronologically and connected to show the overall movement of the voyage without imposing artificial precision where the sources are silent. This method reflects the historical reality of the third voyage, which was defined less by open ocean navigation and more by coastal exploration, settlement, and political collapse, and allows the map to remain faithful to what the documentary record can actually support.

Here is the single long bullet list of sources used for reconstructing Christopher Columbus’s Third Voyage (1498–1500), written consistently with the earlier voyages:

• Select Letters of Christopher Columbus, which includes letters written by Columbus to the Spanish Crown during and after the third voyage, describing his route to the south, first landfall at Trinidad, exploration of the Gulf of Paria, his belief that he had reached a continental landmass, and the deteriorating political situation on Hispaniola
• Letters from Christopher Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabella (1498–1500), preserved through later copies and archival compilations, which provide dated references to departures, landfalls, coastal exploration near South America, and Columbus’s reports of unrest and resistance to his authority
• Columbus’s memorials and formal reports commonly referred to as Relación, which summarize discoveries, geographic observations, and administrative actions taken during the third voyage and survive through later transcription rather than original manuscripts
• Historia de las Indias by Bartolomé de las Casas, which preserves summaries of now lost documents and provides a chronological account of the third voyage, including Columbus’s movements around Trinidad, the Paria coast, and Hispaniola
• Vida del Almirante by Fernando Colón, written using family papers and records that no longer survive, offering sequencing and contextual detail for the third voyage and Columbus’s changing perception of the lands he encountered
• Historia General y Natural de las Indias by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, which compiles early testimonies, official correspondence, and firsthand accounts that record locations, dates, and events associated with the third voyage
• Official Spanish administrative records relating to Francisco de Bobadilla, including orders, reports, and correspondence concerning the investigation of Columbus’s governance on Hispaniola, his arrest in 1500, and his transport back to Spain, which anchor the final phase of the voyage to specific places and dates

Together, these documents form a fragmented but overlapping record that allows the third voyage to be mapped through anchored, historically attested locations, avoiding conjectural daily navigation while remaining faithful to the surviving evidence.

---

Fourth and Last Voyage

The fourth and final voyage of Christopher Columbus survives in the historical record primarily through letters, reports, and later chronicles rather than through a continuous ship’s log. By this stage of his career, Columbus was no longer engaged in open ocean discovery but in deliberate coastal exploration, repeated landfalls, and prolonged periods of enforced immobility. To construct this KML, all surviving documentary references that place Columbus at a specific location during the years 1502 to 1504 were collected, including departure and return ports, named island landfalls, coastal regions along Central America, and the extended stranding in Jamaica. Each of these locations is supported by contemporary correspondence or early historical compilations that preserve the sequence of events even where navigational detail is absent.

The mapping approach used here is intentionally anchored rather than speculative. Instead of attempting to infer daily positions or routes where no distances or headings are recorded, the KML plots only those places where Columbus is documented to have been present and connects them in chronological order. This method reflects the character of the fourth voyage itself, which was shaped by storms, ship deterioration, political exclusion from Hispaniola, and long periods without movement. Coastal segments along Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the Veragua region are shown as sequential stops rather than continuous tracks, while the Jamaica phase is represented as a fixed location spanning many months. The resulting map presents the fourth voyage as it appears in the historical record, grounded in documentary evidence and free from artificial precision, allowing the geographic scope and narrative progression of Columbus’s final expedition to be examined with clarity and restraint.

Here is the single long bullet list of sources used for reconstructing Christopher Columbus’s Fourth Voyage (1502–1504), consistent with the earlier voyages and grounded in the surviving documentary record:

• Select Letters of Christopher Columbus, which contains letters written by Columbus during and after the fourth voyage describing his final expedition, his exclusion from Santo Domingo, coastal exploration along Central America, the worsening condition of his ships, and his prolonged stranding in Jamaica
• Letters from Christopher Columbus to Ferdinand and Isabella (1502–1504), preserved through later copies and archival compilations, which provide dated references to departure from Spain, encounters in the Caribbean, reports of storms and ship damage, appeals for assistance while stranded, and his eventual return
• Columbus’s memorials and reports commonly referred to as Relación, which summarize discoveries, hardships, and decisions made during the fourth voyage and survive only through later transcription rather than original manuscripts
• Historia de las Indias by Bartolomé de las Casas, which preserves narrative summaries and quotations from now lost documents and provides a chronological account of the fourth voyage, including the Central American coast and the Jamaica stranding
• Vida del Almirante by Fernando Colón, written using family papers and records that no longer survive, offering sequencing and contextual detail for the final voyage and Columbus’s declining authority and health
• Historia General y Natural de las Indias by Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, which compiles early testimonies, official correspondence, and firsthand accounts that record locations, dates, and events associated with the fourth voyage
• Contemporary Spanish administrative correspondence and royal directives, including orders, responses, and reports related to Columbus’s authority, restrictions placed upon him during the voyage, and arrangements for his rescue and return, which anchor the final stages of the expedition to specific places and dates

Together, these sources form a fragmented but overlapping record that allows the fourth voyage to be mapped through anchored, historically attested locations, avoiding conjectural navigation while remaining faithful to what the documentary evidence can actually support.