13-06-2017, 01:25 AM
Certainly a fair amount of time would be necessary to lay down the pages of the VMs. And it also seems some time was devoted to the structure of certain complex constructions like the three way interpretation of the fifth symbol of the 17 symbol sequence of f57v, with each interpretation having an objective positional confirmation of that interpretation. That's pretty clever to build that into the sequence. Likewise, the papelonny pun is built into the first three pages of the VMs zodiac. I think that the prospective author was already a well-educated person at the time that these complex constructions were conceived as elements in disguising hidden information. The author knows the use of heraldic canting. And if the text contains a readable commentary, then the author may be a master of languages as well.
There is a certain difficulty involved it the use of imperfection as one of the techniques of disguise, because it may be seen as contradictory. And there is certainly a problem of what to do with something that appear contradictory or ambiguous. Some will surely say that contradiction will invalidate the investigation. And some may feel that potential contradiction and discrepancy have no place in the development of a consistent and functional research theory and abandon such investigations. That does not take the nature of the imperfection into consideration. What is the significance of one minor discrepancy, whether valid or ambiguous in comparison to a number of objective, positional confirmations based of traditional facts. Does one imperfection necessarily invalidate all the other evidence or does the weight of evidence predominate? Assuming the investigator now perseveres to discover the more positive factors. Or does imperfection prove its value to maintain the VMs facade?
There is a certain difficulty involved it the use of imperfection as one of the techniques of disguise, because it may be seen as contradictory. And there is certainly a problem of what to do with something that appear contradictory or ambiguous. Some will surely say that contradiction will invalidate the investigation. And some may feel that potential contradiction and discrepancy have no place in the development of a consistent and functional research theory and abandon such investigations. That does not take the nature of the imperfection into consideration. What is the significance of one minor discrepancy, whether valid or ambiguous in comparison to a number of objective, positional confirmations based of traditional facts. Does one imperfection necessarily invalidate all the other evidence or does the weight of evidence predominate? Assuming the investigator now perseveres to discover the more positive factors. Or does imperfection prove its value to maintain the VMs facade?