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

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- John Grove <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I agree it really is up to Glen to produce
> enough solid evidence
> that he has a solution 

Strong isn't here to explain it anymore, and he
has clearly stated that he wouldn't divulge
the method. The best we're getting from GC is
that the evidence has been presented before
and it's "all there". The intent of Jim Gillogly's
letter to Strong is for me sufficient reason why
I would need a whole lot of convincing that Strong's
method could be right. I have not seen anything
that could change my mind on this.

That being said, there are further weaknesses:
- The magic string still comes out of nowhere. If
  it comes fom O'Neill, then where did he get it?
  To me, 124842136963 is just as astronomical as 
  the one used by Strong
- A single transcription error throws the whole
  solution over. Now the name "Askham" comes from
  the proposed plaintext, which we already know
  cannot be correct (germ / paprika)..

For me it is enough to decide not to accept it.
Others may wish to dig further :-)

Cheers, Rene



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list