Re: Re: Re: VMs: Highly uneven word distribution

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I broadly agree with the points you made, please find hereafter some specifics.

Jan : Sure, you have the right to ask. But in the science it is not as it is in courtof law: if somebody makes the statement, he is consider "guilty" until he proves it. In my vocabulary, the guilty one is Ruggs.We are only raising our doubts. So for jeff is enought o state that Gordon has no proofs.

Jean : As you just stated, we are not in a court. Thus, nobody?s guilty : Gordon is not, Jeff is not, etc. Please consider that in his post Jeff stated : Kelley did not write the VMS and nothing less, and nothing more : no proofs either ; hence my question.

Jan : Again: no proofs, that is enough. True, people believe what they like to believe. I can talk only for myself, based on what I know for fact. Kelly had with him in Bohemia the manuscript he supposedly
found in Glastonbury and he was using it to make gold. He didn't part with it even
when he left Rosenberg's service. It was already questioned if that one was not the VM.
Apparently it was not, there is no indication waht was in it - nothing which would
even remotely remind the VM content and we do not know what happened with it after Kelley's
death. We do not even know if it was written by Enochian script (see samples on net) -
if it was, then it was not the VM; the script is completely different. And it definitely
was not sold to Rudolph - Kelley was using it even after Dee left Bohemia. If Gordon is

confusing taht one with the VM, he has more things to prove. It woudl have to be another manuscript.

Jean : Good point, there still is a doubt on the " Glastonbury MS " ; my assumption is then that at this stage we cannot conclude it was or it was not VMS. Your argument that it was not sold to Rudolf is very interesting. Please consider the possibility that even in that case a copy could have been made, and sold, etc.

Jan : But it does - without his claim that Kelley sold it to Rudolph and that it is a fraud, there
is nothing to discuss so vehemently. And if he wrote it in gibberish - our work until

now was useless. But why would Kelley write something nobody can read - except
him? Only if he was using it with his experiments - selling just the book nobody can read
would not be that profitable :-).

Jean : A pure hypothesis, of course, a copy was made for money, and why not a garbled and /or uncomplete one. Kelley knew Rudolf?s interests in, say, " immortality ".

Jan : So you see, the suspicion Kelley wrote it has some implications - even if we do not
accept Ruggs fairy tales ( without proof, they are really nothing more than that), we
have to ask why would Kelley write it so nobody can read it.

Jean : Perhaps he wanted to keep his secret for himself at this stage.

Jan : If so, he could just

write in in gibberish, witout needing any Cardan grille. The objection he wanted to

simulate some natural language statuistics is a nonsence - the appearance woudl be

enough. Besides, teh Vm has many faatures n atural alnguages do not have.

Jean : Gibberish to this prospect was not a good idea, Rudolf was surrounded with some

" experts ".

Have a nice weekend, too.

Jean

jan <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Jean,

you wrote:
==========
No I am definitely not putting pressure on Jeff. He made a statement, I am asking the
reasons why. He is free not to answer, if he does not want to. I think I am fair in this
game.
---------------
Sure, you have the right to ask. But in the science it is not as it is in courtof law: if somebody makes the statement, he is consider "guilty" until he proves it. In my vocabulary, the guilty one is Ruggs.We are only raising our doubts. So for jeff is enought o state that Gordon has no proofs.
==========
I am really anxious to know the arguments he can develop to convince people that EK
has nothing to do with the writing of VMS. BTW what is your own opinion on this
one?
---------------
Again: no proofs, that is enough. True, people believe what they like to believe. I can talk only for myself, based on what I know for fact. Kelly had with him in Bohemia t! he manuscript he supposedly
found in Glastonbury and he was using it to make gold. He didn't part with it even
when he left Rosenberg's service. It was already questioned if that one was not the VM.
Apparently it was not, there is no indication waht was in it - nothing which would
even remotely remind the VM content and we do not know what happened with it after Kelley's
death. We do not even know if it was written by Enochian script (see samples on net) -
if it was, then it was not the VM; the script is completely different. And it definitely
was not sold to Rudolph - Kelley was using it even after Dee left Bohemia. If Gordon is

confusing taht one with the VM, he has more things to prove.  It woudl have to be another manuscript.

================
My question has nothing to do with Mr Rugg's work.
---------------------
But it does - without his claim that Kelley sold it to Rudolph and that it is a fraud, there
is nothing to discuss so vehemently. And if he wrote it in gibberish - our work until

now was useless. But why would Kelley write something nobody can read - except
him? Only if he was using it with his experiments - selling just the book nobody can read
would not be that profitable :-).

So you see, the suspicion Kelley wrote it has some implications - even if we do not
accept Ruggs fairy tales ( without proof, they are really nothing more than that), we
have to ask why would Kelley write it so nobody can read it. If so, he could just

write in in gibberish, witout needing any Cardan grille. The objection he wanted to

simulate some natural language statuistics is a nonsence - the appearance woudl be

enough. Besides, teh Vm has many faatures n atural alnguages do not have.

On the other hand, Kelley wrote some manuscripts in pain language and he was skilled writer.

- why then use the non-sensical text and still encode it? he hsoudl rather use the sensicla text,

encode it and when asked, show part of the  text "translated" and legible, to get more credibility.

Every conman knows that trick.

But if we accept Kelley wrote it, one of the reasons would be of course a fraud. Gordon tries to
prove it with bad press Kelley was getting in his time :-). But many alchemists of his
time were "selling the smoke" and had bad press, so why particularly Kelley? We should rather

ask if he was able to do it: did he have enough knowledge, opportunity and means? Gordon
knows he can only come up with motivation and even that one is very thin. Now on this
shaky ground he builds another "proof": Kelley must have sold it to Rudolph. But why
to Rudolph? Well, progg b y tautology: if Kelley, then Rudlph and if Rydolph, then Kelley, see?

Two wrongs of course do not make right. Beside it being just another variation of old fable about Dee selling it to
Rudolph, Ruggs cannot even prove Rudolph ever even saw the VM :-). So all those
"proofs" are just one marriage of convenience. The top of this unholy grail story is the claim
the VM is just some reshuffled gibberish.

That's where the author got the shoe in his mouth: he cannot prove it without solving the VM -
bringing another "gibberish" as a solution simply will not do. He knows that by now and
recently, as per his page, he is trying to cut the "words" in the VM into pre-mid-su-ffix
fractions and glue them together, via holes in the grill :-). He may believe he is playing the "write-the-VM" game,
he may even call it "grammar", but as much as he shakes the pot, he cannot get
anything else than to reverse engineering the VM without solving it. As for Cardan grille, it is another
coincidental make-believe. The grille is actually very simple instrument and no complex
algorithm, external, for that matter, will make it the needed proof.

===============
I certainly acknowledge this - the exact opposite of Jeff's own point of view. But at least
Mr Ruggs had some arguments...
-----------------------
The argument in my vocabulary is the series of facts and conlusions. One cannot m ake conclusions without facts

and I do not see any facts in Ruggs visionary statements - as much as he is called a scientist in Saturday newspapers, his method is not scientific, more like sci-fi.
===================
I am looking, once again, for strong evidences.
----------------------
Exactly. That is not to say Kelley could not write the VM, but its probability cannot
be even established without facts. We are of course playing by different rules than Ruggs, that's all.

As for good points Rugg's ideas brings, there are few, but not what he thinks:

a) his is reshuffling game can prove quite inspiring for true VM solution

(especially when there isa sensical text there) and

b) Cardan grille is so simple that one can hardly make the mistake.

There is nothing to calculate ( Gordon algorithm's have nothing to do with
the grill itself, as Francesco shows :-) -one just has to fill the windows of the grill in
sequential order. That would explain there are apparently very few mistakes in the VM.
On the other hand, cracking the grill is very difficult, so it is ideal encoding and decoiding device.

.........................

The everlasting quarrel among VM researchers is this: how to establish from facts and our
experience the chances of the VM being either:
a) unknown language without coding, or
b) known language with encoding (or reshuffling), or
c) reshuffled gibberish, or
d) something else, say steganography and what not.

In the case of encoded uknown language, we will never know - it is similar to encoded
gibberish :-). Unfortunately, the original idea of group cooperation was deeply shaken by

Gordon's statements and we are split now about those lines. Some time ago I was
suggesting to make some public statement, sincehis publicity stunt is harming our
rearcher work in the field - namely in Bohemia - but the others apparently do not
see the need (yet :-).

Have a nice weekend,

Jan

Hi Jean,

you are putting pressure on Jeff, while you should be putting pressure on Ruggs for  his statement that Kelley wrote the VM. Until Ruggs proves his accusations, Jeff has all rights to claim Kelley did not write it. the burden of proof of the cake is on Gordon - he should now eat his cake (or his shoes, to be more accurate).

What's wrong with you guys in the VM- list, it looks like all of you are buying Ruggs phantasies contrary to your own longtiem experiences?

Jan

Hi Jeff

This is a clearcut and therefore very interesting statement. Perhaps you will be so kind as to share with others the reasons you had to make it.

IMHO the best way to be sure is to have an evidence of whom wrote the VMS ( and this man or woman was not Edward Kelley ) and of the fact he did it alone and hence in that case without any help from Talbot. Are we here at the moment? I am not but perhaps you are.

Another possible way could be to be sure that EK was obviously not in a position to write it,

because VMS was written before his birth. For this, we are oblidged to state about the date of writing.

A more tricky one is to state that VMS was written after his death; but now we are facing the theoretical possibility that VMS could be a rewriting which at that time was quite not uncommon.

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. For instance I would say news from the next President of the United States.

But even that (smile) could be objected, for instance by references to an Enochian angel.

Best regards,

Jean

Jeff <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Edward Kelley had absolutely nothing to do with writing the VMS. John Dee
on the other hand is a much more interesting character.

Jeff