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

["Larry Roux" <LRoux@xxxxxxx>]

I could see that if the text were shorter.  Man, if I wrote that many
pages and later found out it was unreadable!  Holy cow would I be
ticked!


Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx


>>> alchemy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9/8/2004 9:25:07 AM >>>
I regret I have not been able to keep up with all the discussion on the

group recently.

Dr Rugg's hypothesis has refreshed the dual perspectives as to whether

the work was a hoax or indeed actually encodes or hides information.

Perhaps there is a middle possibility. I apologise if this has already
been considered and analysed in detail.

Could it be that the person who constructed the Voynich manuscript
used a method for coding an original plain text which was
irreversible,
not by intention but by some misunderstand of methods of coding.
Because he knew the original, he believed when he looked at the
coded output that it could be decoded. 

Is there any method, perhaps similar to Rugg's, available to the 
originator, which he could use to develop the coded text, and which 
could not be reversed. Are all the coding methods of that time
strictly reversible ?

Could it be that, sadly, the originator of the Voynich manuscript
believed he was hiding the text in a coded script that others could
read, but in fact he was using some irreversible procedure.



With best wishes,

Adam McLean


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