[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: VMs: Gordon Rugg's study follow ups
======= You wrote:
>Sorry for coming back to this, but this has _NOT_
>been demonstrated. It has been claimed. Some examples
>have been presented which are only very superficially
>similar to the VMs text.
>This is a key distinction.
Exactly - recently, when I visited Rugg's site, I could see he tried to rephrase
his statements more carefully, i.e. to do the half turn without changing the direction
:-). He says ( with >>):
>>I showed that it was possible to produce text very similar to ?Voynichese?,
with the same linguistic complexities, by using a modified form of a Cardan grille
and tables of gibberish syllables, to produce quasi-random meaningless
What he did was rather primitive reverse engineering: he chopped VM words in
to pre-, mid- a suffixes, and mixed then to get "VM look alike words". The
Cardan grill is of course just a red herring, he could have used magician's hat and
his quasi-randomness is quasi-nonrandomness as well, which proves
>>There have been some interesting debates about whether it's possible to prove
that something is a hoax, as opposed to proving that a hoax is possible. From the
Verifier point of view, this isn't important: the key point is that I found a possible
explanation that had been previously considered practically impossible.
The sentence about the the Verifier is utterly faulty - let me use the example from
Gord's field of expertise, the computer program verification: to prove
"the computer program is working" or "the computer program is possibly working"
makes the whole world of difference.
To prove the vague statement that something is "possible" is also
generally useless, it is the probability of it which counts. Even 5 percent of probability
is a "possibility" while in reality it is 95 percent improbability.
Another logical lapse: how could have been his explanation "found previously impossible"
if he was the first to find it? :-). Also notice his obvious stress on first person singular.
>>I think that several separate pieces of evidence point towards the manuscript
having been produced by Edward Kelley, long considered the prime suspect.
Those pieces were never presented by Gord and Kelley was never seriously
considered the PRIME suspect. This is the stuff the dreams are made off :-).
>>So even if we could prove that Kelley did produce the Voynich manuscript,
that wouldn't conclusively prove whether it contains code or gibberish ? either
would be in character for him.
He must have read in our discussion that Kelley wrote more of "sensical" text than
not, however he is still wrong: how much gibberish should Kelley really write in
his lifetime to say it "would be in character for him" ? :-). It was hoax that was in Kelleys
character but not gibberish. Also watch how cleverly is he bringing the statements
he can also easily refute: why would anybody think - except him, of course - that to
prove gibberish we need to prove it was Kelley? And his hiden agenda?
Well, it is obvious: there is no need now for him to prove it was Kelley!
He just brought him in as a bonus, that's all! Unfortunately, it does not work:
it was his only "proof" for a hoax and he cannot dismiss him now.
As you can see, the whole smorgasbord of ideas works against him. It
falls in pieces and they - individually or in a whole - simply do not make for any
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: