[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory
7/09/2004 9:43:09 AM, elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>To answer that I'd have to be able to decipher it.\
Which you have not done, nor has anyone of us,
nor is anyone every likely to, short of a tremendous
breakthrough in decipherment methods (wherein lies
the only interest of the Voynich Manuscript).
>If I understand correctly, you're saying that to be a hoax, it must
>contain "meaningful content", ie some statements which the author knows not be
>According to this definition, even if the VM was composed with the method
>proposed by Rugg, it couldn't qualify as a hoax, because there obviously would
>be no content.
Unless it was presented as meaningful. "Hoax" is in the
>It doesn't address the possibility, that the VM was created this
No indeed. That is irrelevant, totally irrelevant.
>I took a broader approach, considering everything a hoax "which is, on purpose,
>made to look like it had contents which it has not" -- a deception, a trick, a
>swindle. In that case the VM would qualify (assuming the Rugg approach) for a
When I was a teenager, I toyed with the idea of creating my own hoax.
Texts in Proto-Indo-European written in a Maya-looking alphabet.
What held me back was:
1. What medium?
2. Where to plant my forgeries.
For (1) I had decided on slate.
As for (2), that is what convinced me to put it into
the "too hard" basket.
>*) What would you consider proof of the hypothesis that the VM does contain no
Difficult. I have, I should think, given enough examples of
what may look to you like gibberish, and yet is not. Like,
just now, my Indonesian bit about how many fucking bloody
books (buku-buku) were cluttering every room (kamar-kamar) of
my house (rumahku), everywhere (di mana-mana).
>*) How could one prove the validity of Rugg's approach?
How could one prove that the moon is made of green cheese?
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: