[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: VMs: A cryptological assault on Strong's decryption...

	Morning all,

		Trying to understand the reason why Strong, Glen, and Raymen are(were) so
tied up in the same general theory is reason enough to try and figure out
what the major points should be that we are all apparently blind to. I still
can't see any real ground for saying a solution is in sight either, but am
willing to keep listening to the explanations of why I'm missing the
point(s). I agree it really is up to Glen to produce enough solid evidence
that he has a solution - but I think he might be willing to admit that he
hasn't quite got a 'solution' yet; just a process that appears to show some
interesting output based upon a given theory.

		If the bible's passages were written one per page and shuffled out of
order and we knew nothing of the language that it was written in and it
'may' have been encoded as well - page order could make it very difficult to
resolve the text. However, whether or not it helps to decipher is somewhat
moot as well. In my view, the more we understand about the manuscript the
better. It may be insignificant that it was written left to right, that
somebody tore pages out of it, that pages were accidentally shuffled about,
that it was found in Italy, that Marci's letter is stored with it at
Beinecke, that Kircher's name was associated with its history, that the VMS
list talks in circles, that some people see a linguistic problem while
others see a cryptographic one, etc... However, anything that we can piece
together could help our overall understanding - of course, it could help
confuse the issue further as well.

		FWIW, I don't think anybody has produced anything convincing enough to
even suggest they are on the right track. The list is full of rhetoric and
suggestions that somebody is on to something. Most people who are passionate
about a pet theory are a little more closed minded when it comes to
questions that appear to be only asked to denounce the theory, or for calls
of full disclosure so that we can pound the theory into dust.

		Lots of people write with assertiveness and conviction that they know they
are right or on the right track, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't keep
asking them questions (even if they get a little hot under the collar at
being called to task). In the absence of something positive that we could
work on together to move forward, we have plenty of things we can question -
If only those who push an idea forward could answer clearly. The reason we
have so much to question is that nobody has really moved an idea forward
enough to convince anyone to do more than listen politely or ask what might
be a 'leading' question that might cause a theory to faulter.

		Sooner or later, somebody 'might' start pointing us all in the right
direction. Until then, I'll keep listening and questioning and try my
hardest to wrap my feable mind around the various concepts that are offered
as potential solutions.

	John.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Rene Zandbergen
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 6:31 PM
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VMs: A cryptological assault on Strong's decryption...



--- Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I've chatted with GC, and it seems I got Strong
> completely wrong. *sigh* :-(
>
> I'll try and understand better how it is supposed to
> work & will post again
> in a few days' time... wish me luck! :-o

Hi Nick,

I propose that we go down to the basics:

1) We have proposed solutions by Newbold, Child,
   Feely, Strong, Levitov and Stojko.
   We also have a non-solution from Gordon Rugg.
   At best, one of them can be right.

2) I am rather convinced that you don't believe
   that any of the above solutions is right. I
   certainly hold this same opinion.

3) If someone wants us to believe a particular
   solution, they'd better *convince* us. If the
   majority of the Voynich community does not
   believe any particular solution, and wishes
   to pursue further analysis, it is the clearest
   possible sign that point (2) above also applies
   for all those who know anything about
   the Voynich MS.

So why should anyone want to disprove the Strong
solution in particular? There's no need. It
is not any more credible than the other ones
listed above. The burden is on the one who wishes
to have us believe in it.

Cheers, Rene




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 06/08/2004


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