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

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Adam McLean <alchemy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dr Rugg's hypothesis has refreshed the dual
> perspectives as to whether 
> the work was a hoax or indeed actually encodes or
> hides information.
 [...]
> 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. 

 [...] 

> 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.

It is something which I could very well imagine.
The result could be fully irreversible or partly
irreversible. I have wondered about the possibility
that someone created the MS by 'transcribing' 
from an existing text in a script he could not 
understand. It is easy to imagine Arabic in this
sense. The result could be so far removed from
the original (several letters being mapped onto
one) that it cannot be translated back (unless one
had access to the original).

This could be a 'hoax' scenario, depending how
much the author was aware of the information loss
he was creating.

It would not necessarily have to be the Arabic
script. I have once seen a picture of a page
handwritten by Tomas of Aquino, in Latin, of
which I could hardly decipher a single word. I have
occasionally though about scanning it and sending
it to the list just for the fun of it.

Cheers, Rene


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list