Re: VMs: Re: Anagram attempt

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- DANA SCOTT <dscott520@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Brumbaugh makes the observation that "study of the
> first line of 'key' on 
> the back flyleaf helps to explain why this
> manuscript has been attributed to 
> Rodger Bacon. It opens MICHI CON OLADABA, and the
> OLADA deciphers as RODGD, 
> with the CON...BA a simple anagram (no more
> disguised than it would be in 
> modern pig-Latin "Aconbay").

This is indeed what Brumbaugh proposes. To me, it
is a clear example of looking at a decryption,
rather than at the encryption process. This is 
because at the end (of the decryption) there is
an extra 'explanation' step, which says that
RODGD really means ROGER. What one should look at
is how Bacon would have encrypted his name. 
Why would he have started from RODGD ??? After all
using ROGER, the fraction of line would have been
MICHITON OLDBOBA
Nothing wrong with that.
How did he really spell his name, for that matter?

On a side note, I recently read the interesting
suggestion that Marci (or Dr. Raphael, or anyone
before them) made the classical mistake of 
swapping the two Bacons, and the Marci letter
should really have referred to Sir Francis....

I'm not saying that I am buying this though :-)

Cheers, Rene 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list