Re: VMs: Operators

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx> Wrote


> Hello Jeff,
>
> > [...] As for the alphabet and which glyphs
> > represent individual characters, this is totally
> > irrelevant. I know that many people on the list
> > would tend to disagree but I have very good reasons
> > for coming to this conclusion. The statistics do
> > not vary with interpretation. The method does
> > not need to know this.
>
> People shouldn't disagree with something they don't
> know yet, but at the same time people will not
> accept conclusions if they don't know how they
> have been reached.
>
> If you want to present something, you should be
> prepared to answer some questions that will
> challenge you. Lots of people have looked at
> various different statistics related to the
> text: characters, words, vocubulary, long-range
> correlations. In recent months there
> haven't been many discussions about quantitative
> information. It's been but much more qualitative
> (almost arm-waving) but don't be misled by that.
>
> One big fallacy that you should try to avoid,
> and these are present (IMHO) in the work of Newbold
> and Strong, and possibly others, is that you
> should not be looking at a decryption method, but
> at an encryption method.
>
> If you take a piece of VMs text, devise a
> decryption method that has 20,000 parameters which
> you can choose freely (look-up tables, especially
> if you have to change them at every page), then
> come up with some 'plain text', which you can then
> interpret as: this could mean 'X' in a combination
> of languages 'Y' and 'Z', then you're working
> backwards.
>
> You have to have a plaintext that someone could
> have actually spoken or written down, and then
> encrypted in some way that you can describe.
>
> Cheers, Rene

I have great repect for everyone involved on this list and would not say
what I have lightly. I am making progress but have had no time to write up
the method. You will have to bear with me. I have taken in a lot of the
information I have received while reading the list. I find that my ideas are
now changing radically. I feel that the ideas that Nick Pelling and maybe GC
have proposed may be in the general direction of the solution, although I
only know snippets of what they have found.

I initially used the pair table to try deciphering the VMS but this has
shown some very interesting results. It is these results that I am trying to
elaborate. I believe (hold your breath) that the VMS is NOT encrypted at all
in the way that people are thinking. I cannot explain much more of this yet
as I have a lot of work to do to follow up on the data I have gathered so
far.
When I have a document put together I will be submitting it for scrutiny and
criticism. All data, tables and methodology will be explained in full.

Let's hope I'm not just barking up someone else's tree! :-)

Jeff


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