19-04-2025, 04:09 AM
The alphabet of this manuscript is very tricky.
In my opinion the encryption process involves systematically obfuscation of alphabetic characters.
Why the lay observer perceives the grapheme "a" as a fixed invariant symbol, the cryptographer recognizes subtle distinctions as o or e, or i.
I have derived an alphabetic system through consistent translational rules. But sometimes I am being banned from using it on the basis of lack of evidence.
Back to the thread:
ROS and f102v2 - they seem to be identical, but are not.
Recognizing that my approach diverges from the conventional interpretations, according it:
the ROS word is more connected to "king", while the v102v2 word is more likely a "turnip".
I present this not as definitive, but as a hypothesis.
br: Vessy
In my opinion the encryption process involves systematically obfuscation of alphabetic characters.
Why the lay observer perceives the grapheme "a" as a fixed invariant symbol, the cryptographer recognizes subtle distinctions as o or e, or i.
I have derived an alphabetic system through consistent translational rules. But sometimes I am being banned from using it on the basis of lack of evidence.
Back to the thread:
ROS and f102v2 - they seem to be identical, but are not.
Recognizing that my approach diverges from the conventional interpretations, according it:
the ROS word is more connected to "king", while the v102v2 word is more likely a "turnip".
I present this not as definitive, but as a hypothesis.
br: Vessy