[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: VMs: KELLYWatch
======= At 2004-07-24, 01:03:00 you wrote: =======
> In fact I've been wondering about this. I don't know
much about Kelley, but he clearly did not have Dee's
intellect. Was he truly capable of producing something
of the VMs' complexity, considering all involved in
inventing the script, the ill-precedented drawings, and
Bringing Kelley as an author of the VM is the weakest point of Mr. Rugg's
hypothesis, based only on Kelley's poor "character reference" :-). It can be dismissed
outright - the probability of finding some proof of Kelley's authorship is close to zero.
> Also, I would not expect the rules of such a hoax to
be too complex. The input might well be random, but
the rules for a hoax might be fairly recoverable - if
in fact it is a hoax. And that might be the best
evidence that it is not in fact a hoax.
Right. The reason for using gibberish as plaintext - actually the only reason given
by Rugg - is to save the time, so he better come up with very simple rules of
encoding while still preserving the complex VM structure. I do not believe it
will be more than superficial agreement anyway :-). Since VM rules do not vary
too much from one folio to another, swapping Cardan grills for different folios
would not help and swapping them for one folio would be cumbersome and quite
Now there is however the other reason not mentioned by Mr. Rugg: one CANNOT
break the cipher if the plaintext is just gibberish. I admit it does look tempting,
but the skilled forger had to consider something else. For an "unreadable" book
he would not get too much, while demonstrating he can make a gold by using it
will bring him more money and for longer period of time :-). The second option
however has a hidden danger: after some period of promises, he would have to reveal
at least a aprt of the decoded text to raise the fading hopes of his already skeptical employer.
To make it really believable, he would have to also provide the method of cracking
- at least for some part - which would be surely checked for veracity. Gibberish
of course would not do and we cannot credit the forger with rather sophisticated,
premeditated design and at the same time with making such primitive mistake.
Either way, I do not see too much time saving by using gibberish as a plaintext.
And one can surely make a hoax even using normal plaintext. But for Mr. Ruggs,
the gibberish is necessary to support his theory of a hoax, otherwise we could
ask him to find the real plaintext. And in that case it would all fall through
the grill (call it Cardan or any other name).
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: