Re: VMs: Ryland 228

["DANA SCOTT" <dscott520@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, but who cares whether or not it is a hoax? Is that important? If it is
a hoax is it merely as an empty treasure chest or, if authentic, as a coffer
full of gold? Is the value of the VMS whether or not it is identified as a
hoax or has it stood fast the test of time and therefore become more that a
complex knot to be severed in twain at the stroke of the sword? I for one,
relish the pursuit and treasure the knowledge gained through experience. The
end game may bring a sigh of relief at its final resolution, but will the
discovery of the ultimate truth but lead us into a new realm of discovery?
Search on ye explorers for the truth for there are still not doubt wonder
gems of discover still to be uncovered.

Regards,
Dana Scott
:-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Rugg" <g.rugg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: VMs: Ryland 228


> Hmmm..... There are many theories which fit some of the evidence. The
> challenge is to find evidence which gives us good reason to eliminate
> possibilities and therefore to reduce the problem space down to one
> sensible explanation.
>
> There are a lot of features of Voynichese which are inconsistent with the
> VMS being in an exotic, non-encoded, natural language. If it's a code,
> then it's resisted decipherment for much longer than any other code of the
> same period. The third main possibility is that it's a hoax.
>
> The hoax explanation has tended to be dismissed as requiring too much
> complexity and time. However, apart from the mechanism for producing
> Voynichese itself, every other alleged indication of complexity in the
> manuscript itself can be produced quite easily and quickly using
> fifteenth/sixteenth century methods. The overall planning could have been
> done in a couple of weeks, including labels with cross-references between
> sections; the transcription and illustration could have been done in two
> or three months.
>
> I think that the issue of who might have hoaxed it is a side-issue; the
> key question is what type of evidence would either disprove the hoax
> hypothesis, or show that it is the most reasonable explanation for the
> VMS.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gordon
>
> GC wrote:
>
> > Nick wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Rafal Prinke is totally correct to strongly
> > > question the
> > > Dee-centric view of VMS' history - many of the supposed
> > > pieces of evidence
> > > don't quite "stack up":-
> > >
> > >          http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~rafalp/HERM/VMS/dee.htm#9
> > >
> > > Having said that... I do think the quire-marks are
> > > Dee's, and the foliation
> > > is Kelly's: but this doesn't mean I think the "600/630
> > > ducats" evidence
> > > links the sale with Dee.
> >
> > Of course there's always that *third* option that the manuscript
> > was from an English source?  Dee bought several books from
> > dissolved monasteries in England, and if indeed the VMS were ever
> > in his hands, this would be a much simpler explanation of how he
> > obtained it.  Even simpler, if it was written by Ascham, then
> > Roger would have obtained it after Anthony's death, a much more
> > direct line of transference from author to Dee? :-)  Theories do
> > indeed abound!
> >
> > GC
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> > unsubscribe vms-list
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list