17-08-2016, 09:54 PM
Well, I just read the Tiltman's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and I failed to find any statement of the kind "it was not written in cipher". Tiltman simply said nothing of the kind, at least in this paper.
Let's see what Tiltman writes (the pagination is as it appears in the paper, not in the PDF file).
Actually all essential judgements in this paper are taken from Tiltman's report to Friedman, of the year 1951. As he quotes his report to Friedman on p.7:
This is an honest statement of an expert, and it reveals that the expert generally regards the matter as indefinite.
Further (p.9):
This statement, in the first place, means that Tiltman believes it impossible that the text is a simple substitution cipher - an opinion which, I think, is not presently disputed by anyone.
But in the second place, this statement (just by way of definition of a simple substitution cipher) means that Tiltman believes it impossible that the text is a natural flow of a plain text in any language. He adds immediately:
On the same page 9, Tiltman notes:
I am not able to understand if Tiltman means that the text is not a transposition cipher, but looks like that.
On p. 8 Tiltman says that:
On p.9 he informs us that after Friedman read his report he shared with Tiltman his view (it is not clear whether he formed it independently or on the basis of Tiltman's report) that:
Tiltman concludes:
It is not clear whether Tiltman means a complex substitution cipher here or some other thing, but further he discusses the development of a universal language by Cave Beck in XVII c. which was basically built on a nomenclator (the priority in this development, I guess, is not with Cave Beck).
Bottomline:
1) Tiltman did not assert that the VMS is not a cipher.
2) Tiltman believed it impossible for the VMS to be a simple substitution cipher and (if I am not mistaken) a transposition cipher.
3) As follows from 2), Tiltman believed it impossible for the VMS to represent a natural flow of text in a natural language ("languages simply do not behave in this way")
4) As a possibility, Tiltman suggested that the script might be a synthetic language; but he was not confident in this, using expression like "it might be, for instance..."
5) Tiltman acknowledged that none of his statements of opinion is free from contradictions.
Let's see what Tiltman writes (the pagination is as it appears in the paper, not in the PDF file).
Actually all essential judgements in this paper are taken from Tiltman's report to Friedman, of the year 1951. As he quotes his report to Friedman on p.7:
Quote:I would like to say that there is no statement of opinion below to which I cannot myself find plenty of contradiction.
This is an honest statement of an expert, and it reveals that the expert generally regards the matter as indefinite.
Further (p.9):
Quote:My analysis, I believe, shows that the text cannot be the result of substituting single symbols for letters in the natural order.
This statement, in the first place, means that Tiltman believes it impossible that the text is a simple substitution cipher - an opinion which, I think, is not presently disputed by anyone.
But in the second place, this statement (just by way of definition of a simple substitution cipher) means that Tiltman believes it impossible that the text is a natural flow of a plain text in any language. He adds immediately:
Quote:Languages simply do not behave in this way
On the same page 9, Tiltman notes:
Quote:If the single words attached to stars in the astronomical drawings, for instance, are really, as they appear to be, captions expressing the names or qualities of those stars, there can hardly be any form of transposition system involved.
I am not able to understand if Tiltman means that the text is not a transposition cipher, but looks like that.
On p. 8 Tiltman says that:
Quote:It might be, for instance, that the manuscript is intended to demonstrate some very primitive universal language
On p.9 he informs us that after Friedman read his report he shared with Tiltman his view (it is not clear whether he formed it independently or on the basis of Tiltman's report) that:
Quote:the basis of the script was a very primitive form of synthetic universal language such as was developed in the form of a philosophical
classification of ideas by Bishop Wilkins in 1667 and Dalgarno a little later.
Tiltman concludes:
Quote:My analysis seemed to me to reveal a cumbersome mixture of different kinds of substitution
It is not clear whether Tiltman means a complex substitution cipher here or some other thing, but further he discusses the development of a universal language by Cave Beck in XVII c. which was basically built on a nomenclator (the priority in this development, I guess, is not with Cave Beck).
Bottomline:
1) Tiltman did not assert that the VMS is not a cipher.
2) Tiltman believed it impossible for the VMS to be a simple substitution cipher and (if I am not mistaken) a transposition cipher.
3) As follows from 2), Tiltman believed it impossible for the VMS to represent a natural flow of text in a natural language ("languages simply do not behave in this way")
4) As a possibility, Tiltman suggested that the script might be a synthetic language; but he was not confident in this, using expression like "it might be, for instance..."
5) Tiltman acknowledged that none of his statements of opinion is free from contradictions.