11-08-2020, 11:06 PM
Picking up on things in several recent threads, I'm wondering just how all of this comes together. Does the linguistic side of the VMs have a solution? One that can be recovered from the text in its present condition. Is there language; is there code? Is there sense, or nothing but nonsense? Is there a lot of filler with only a relatively smaller portion of text intended for meaningful interpretation? If the smaller portion is meaningful, how is it found? Where is it found? Any investigation focused on that filler is surely going to find nonsense.
The question has been asked: Is it possible, how is it possible to build a "disguised messaging system" in the 1400s that defies modern interpretation? Nothing but pen and parchment , the No-Tech build. The answer seems to be that this is something practically impossible. The complexity of cipher systems was insufficient at that time. There is the potential problem of a one way cipher. The possibility that meaning has been hidden in a way that is not recoverable.
If complexity is insufficient, then there is trickery. With lots of filler text, the important part may be hidden. Or by using a one way cipher on the majority of text, the key to deciphering may be hidden both physically and by a two way cipher. The main body of written text would be secure, but a solution would be possible. The second cipher would be less problematic than finding the proper segment of text - if all there was consisted of written text. But of course, there are the illustrations and there was trickery used in the illustrations. Lots of trickery in the illustrations. Perhaps trickery in the illustrations is connected to trickery used in the written text.
The question has been asked: Is it possible, how is it possible to build a "disguised messaging system" in the 1400s that defies modern interpretation? Nothing but pen and parchment , the No-Tech build. The answer seems to be that this is something practically impossible. The complexity of cipher systems was insufficient at that time. There is the potential problem of a one way cipher. The possibility that meaning has been hidden in a way that is not recoverable.
If complexity is insufficient, then there is trickery. With lots of filler text, the important part may be hidden. Or by using a one way cipher on the majority of text, the key to deciphering may be hidden both physically and by a two way cipher. The main body of written text would be secure, but a solution would be possible. The second cipher would be less problematic than finding the proper segment of text - if all there was consisted of written text. But of course, there are the illustrations and there was trickery used in the illustrations. Lots of trickery in the illustrations. Perhaps trickery in the illustrations is connected to trickery used in the written text.