Re: Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,  

>> Unless it was presented as meaningful. "Hoax" is in the
>> author's intent.

Yes, the hoax is - by the definition - based on pretention, that is the most important 
part. The fact the content is meaningful or not, especially if it cannot be said out 
right,   is only of secondary importance.  To prove it is a hoax, one has to prove the  intent and of course Rugg does not have it.  So he provides the hint about 
Kelly which is so far his only "proof" of the hoax theory. 

As for the content, the VM already looks like a gibberish, but to prove that  the 
plaintext is also gibberish, he would have to solve it first - any 
gibberish just will not do. He could not  very well claim  it was  some important 
text - the  need  for finding such text would be too obvious. So he miscalculated, claiming it was just gibberish - neither he can proof his gibberish is the right one :-). Instead, he offers indirect proof:  to provide the method how was  it done, by Cardan grills.  For that he has to do the reverse engineering of the VM - rather impossible job, according to what we know so far. Again, simulating  individual  symptoms will not do.

Without  proof, his ideas are of course nothing more the fiction accompanied by noisy publicity stunt -  unfortunately  it also ridicules our efforts and results.  Without proof, he will eventually fall in  obscurity, but in the meantime, we will suffer temporary setback. We may of course soften the impact  by taking public stand, by explaining people what  proof is needed and  that unless the  proof is  provided, the whole theory is just another folly.

Regards,

jan


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