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

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

From: "Elmar Vogt" <elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 07 September 2004 20:53

> So what you're saying is: You refuse to give criteria to assess the merit
> Rugg's work, but still insist he's wrong? You refuse to ask a question,
> insist the answer's wrong? What kind of logic is this?
> You could turn the argument around: What proof do we have that the VM is
> _not_ a hoax? A priori, both hypotheses ("hoax" vs. "for real") are
> Fourty years of intense research have failed to make any significant
> progress in finding meaning in the VM. Which some might consider empirical
> support for the theory that there is no meaning.
> All we have is a number of statistical properties. These properties on the
> one hand seem to favour the idea of an underlying structure (and meaning),
> OTOH it so happens that every decryption attempt which tries to exploit
> of these features is instantly killed by another feature which contradicts
> the attempt.
> Now I actually think the idea to devise a plausible algorithm for
> seemingly meaningful text, and gradually refining it to include more and
> more features of the VM, is not such a bad one. Actually, I think it's the
> only way one could substantiate the hoax hypothesis. (That Rugg might
> shamelessly exploit the PR created in this manner doesn't necessarily
> devalidate his findings.)
> Elmar

Elmar let me say something. I have been banging around on this list for a
while now and have tried ALL SORTS of things! I can replicate the VMS in
every respect, but the method I use will prove nothing. I could probably
produce a methology RIGHT NOW that could replicate pages and pages of the
stuff. It is all based on analysing what is there and using that as a basis
for the replication. I agree with the people on this list that are totally
fucked off with Rugg. They have spent unending hours carefully researching
and all for free! He has no proof of provenance, he has not replicated the
full structure. He hadn't even finished assembling all the tables and
grilles he thought he would need before he published. He admitted that
himself on his website!

I do agree that he could be right! But it could also be right that Elvis
wrote it, went back in a time machine and started singing are you lonesome
tonight to Rudolph. But unless you find the historical evidence that leads
to the conclusion that A) Elvis is not dead, just not born yet! B) He had
the technical capabilities to build a time machine and C) HIS MOTIVE! Then
will anyone find your theory credible?

I hope this clears up my position.


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