[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: VMs: Testing Dr. Rugg's hoax theory
>> 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.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: