Hi, Jean
> And finally - but perhaps there are more possible
> arguments - the most tricky one would be to have
> deciphered it or encoded it and to find out in the
> "plain text" that there is a series of facts that
> obviously is beyond Talbot's knowledge.
Pam: The assumption in using this form of dating would be
that it is impossible for astrology to make any valid
or useful predictions.Jean: I have nothing special against astrology ( :-) ), but I do
think it cannot predict everything; as was said in the old old days, stars
don't determine the future; they incline to it. Please moreover
note that even an astrologer in his previsions or predictions
cannot envision the whole of human knowledge; this IMHO is admitted even
by traditional astrology; therefore I think my argument remains valid and
BTW I was not especially aiming at astrology. Finally, I added as you
surely noticed: "Even that could be objected". For instance again,
who knows what EK really knew?
Pam: Kepler, for one, made quite a few very accurate
predictions using astrology; so I wonder if this
assumption is entirely supportable by objective
criteria.Jean: Answered.
Pam: For those who believe the document has an early date,
the challenge is to explain how apparent references to
technology such as the microscope or the telescope
appear in the VMs.Jean: Not sure, this was Newbold's approach in particular,
but it was not agreed at the end; that said, perhaps he nevertheless
was right on this one, but remains unproven at this stage.
Pam: Perhaps there are those who believe in time travel or
alien UFO intervention, but I have not seen anything
to convince me yet.Jean: I am not competent on this one.
Cheers,Jean