Re: VMs: Can one "prove" a hoax?

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jacques Guy wrote:

> >I think that even a decyphered or decoded MS cannot be proven a hoax
without
> >a study of the contents in context of the purported purpose of the MS (am
I
> >saying this right, historians?). In other words, the rules for a valid
> >cipher may be satisfied, and the MS may yet be a hoax.
>
> In other words, it could be shown to be a hoax if its
> distributional properties were incompatible with a cipher,
> or a language.
>
> But they are.
>
> So, it can be shown to be a hoax only once we have deciphered
> it.

What I've done with the Astro section convinces me the VMs
is not a hoax.

The question of dates aside for the moment, the fact that I've
matched 8 of the 14 diagrams before the Zodiac to specific
astronomical alignments argues for meaningful text. Why
bother to put in real astronomical events if the rest of it
is just transcribed text from any old book available?

The fact that none of the normally-used symbols for stars
and planets are found means either that the Author chose
not to for some reason, or was unaware of them.

Robert Hicks wrote:

> It's interesting that the top 5 (oldys) are the letters that intuitively
> (and, if I recall correctly, statistically) are vowel-like.

It may be significant that in the arrangement of letters I posted,
those five also have number values:

o    1
l     5
d    8
y    3
s    7

Robert

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