VMs: Can one "prove" a hoax? - and a request.

[Gabriel Landini <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
Long ago I asked the group what would constitute "proof of decipherment". Some 
replies to this question are in the EVMT page. However those points implied 
that there is a solution to the vms in terms that the text can be "decoded" 
(for lack of a better word). Of course it could be that the method of 
encryption is lossy and the underlying languange has variable abbreviations 
and spellings so reading it back is not possible anymore.

Now, let's assume that the vms *is* a hoax. What would be "proof" of a hoax 
*based on the text itself*?

I could accept, for instance, analysis of the inks pointing to the 1900's (as 
in the Vinland map), or a letter by WMV stating that he made it, but those 
would be based on evidence which is independent of the text contents.
I do not think that "it cannot be read, so it must be a hoax" is a valid one.

I know only of 1 example where there is some indication of something not 
right: the Gillogly strings in the Beale cipher. What about the vms?

I would like to hear your suggestions.

==
And now, the request:
Could it be possible that when we reply to messages, we try our best to edit 
the messages and remove unnecessary "included text" and just keep the 
pertinent bits in the replies? 
There is no need to keep the entire threads in each message to add just a 
couple of lines.
It would also make it much easier to digest when we go back to read the stored 
archives. 
Thanks

Cheers,

Gabriel


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list