Re: Re: Re: VMs: Further investigatio of folio f1r

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Jeff,  you wrote:

Yes I saw this too. You need to run a lot of different tests though to see the structure fully. It took me months to put together the necessary tools.

---  Come to think of it, our different tools are mostly telling us what the VM cannot be, which is of course some help too, while on the other hand there are not too many tools that can help us to get closer to the solution, not mentioning the fact we are running out of possibilities. Well, it does not look like, judging by the  traffic of this conference :-), but truly, the best linguists and cryptographers so far failed mainly because we have here three unknown variables: the script, the language and possibly the coding. Is there any way out which would help us to establish at  least one of those three?

--- Now let's get into the mind of the author, who - one thing we are all almost positive about - wanted to conceal the text, that is the content of the text (that applies even for the hoax :-). He didn't care that it looked	strange or  maybe he wanted it to  look strange :-)?  Hardly, unless it was a hoax. That's why I do not think Roger Bacon Bacon wrote it: he already had enough problems with his superiors and strange script would certainly attract the unwanted attention,  not talking  about those  naked women :-). Bein g intelligent, he would probably choose something less conspicuous, say like Francis Bacon binary cipher with steganography.

--- But why would the author use  strange script (or we should call it rather "scripting", since we do not know if it is one-to-one thing :-) AND strrange language AND maybe even cipher? The most questionable is the use of rather strange natural language, unless it was his own. As far as artificial language, I do not see any point there: who else could be then able to read it? It would be like the whole unknown code-book. So it is highly possible that the language USED was the one known to author and probably even to us. Again, the linguists cannot establish what language it was because none did  fit so far. Neither can cryptographers establish the cipher or code, not getting solution  in any known language. 

---So there must be still something else and now we are really getting deep into the jungle. With all due respect to the VM  author, the complexity could not be that high, provided that it was written to be read by somebody who should be able to figure it out only with pen and paper. So what it was it that eluded the solution for so long and made us so blind? I know this is mainly philosophical question, but here are only two answers: a) it is something we half-checked and discarded, or b) something completely new. Comparing it with military messages, which supposedly need only 500 letters so they can be able to be cracked down (I believe that applies for monoalphabetic cipher, known language and no code),   the VM author gave us generously plenty of ammunition for statistic evaluation, for observing certain rules and work it out. Still, the high quantity here does not mean that much - doesn't it tell us something?

... One interesting thing: while there are meny methods published for solving the substitution ciphers, there are only few for transposition ciphers and ac tually quite cumbersome ( see Lanaki lectures on Net On the other hand). Stuill, those are the  most underestimated ciphers and in complex form very difficult to solve (especially if we do not know the language). Cobinations go to high factorials and that's why they are used more and more in computer communications. 



Best regards.  Jan  


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