VMs: Re: Verbose cipher...

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 07 April 2004 09:30


> Hi Dennis,
>
> At 00:24 07/04/2004 -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >As the originator of the verbose cipher concept, I'd sure like to hear
> >more from you or Nick.  What are those frequently occurring, if it's not
> >too much trouble and you feel confident enough in the identification?
>
> I have a high degree of confidence that <ch>, <sh>, <ee>, <qo>, <dy>,
<ol>,
> <or>, <os> (rare) and <al> code for single tokens (as do all the
> struck-through gallows). I also wouldn't be surprised if <cho> turned out
> to be a separate token - basically, I'm suspicious of all occurrences of
<o>.
>

I agree with all except cho. Some stand alone occurances of o are valid
single units IMO.

> However, I suspect that <o> + <gallows> performs quite a different
function
> - if (double leg) gallows characters in the text de-serialise (single-leg
> gallows-surrounded) Neal keys (ie, untranspose them, character at a time),
> then possibly <o> + <gallows> means "re-use the last token/letter pulled
> from the Neal key".
>

I have no opinion on this.

> Still, it's entirely possible that the various <o> + <gallows> pairs are
> simply verbose cipher tokens: this was my original (pure-pair) hypothesis,
> though I've moved away from it more recently.
>

Interesting.

> I also am reasonably convinced (like Tiltman was) that <a[i][i][i]n> and
> <a[i][i][i]r> are some kind of steganographic Roman numerals - there have
> to be numbers *somewhere* (if not everywhere) in a document of this size,
> and I can't see any better candidates than these.
>

This I would disagree with unless solid evidence came to light.

> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>

Nick I think you are very much in the ballpark.

Jeff


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