• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • News
  • [Panel Session] Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017
• Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

• Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  -JKP- > 10-10-2017, 04:34 AM

  Richard SantaColoma is scheduled for a pre-20th Century cryptology panel at the Symosium on Cryptologic History (Milestones, Memories, and Momentum), Thurs. Oct. 19th at the Kossiakoff Centery, Laurel, Maryland.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  ReneZ > 10-10-2017, 07:28 AM

  This is one of the main repeating events related to the history of cryptography.
  I think David Jackson already mentioned that Rich would make a presentation there.
  
  The title is:
  "Is the Voynich Manuscript a Modern Forgery? (And why it matters)"
  
  I wonder if anyone will attend it and report.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  -JKP- > 10-10-2017, 10:37 AM

  (10-10-2017, 07:28 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is one of the main repeating events related to the history of cryptography.
  I think David Jackson already mentioned that Rich would make a presentation there.
  
  The title is:
  "Is the Voynich Manuscript a Modern Forgery? (And why it matters)"
  
  I wonder if anyone will attend it and report.

  
  
  I had forgotten that the panel had been mentioned on VViews' thread in the VMS provenance section back in July.
  
  
  I did find the thread on the theory itself:
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  doranchak > 10-10-2017, 11:00 AM

  I plan to attend his talk.  I am giving a talk on the unsolved Zodiac 340-character cipher at the same venue that day.
  
  Rene, I've been following some of the activity in the Voynich community.  There is a lot of interesting overlap with the community of Zodiac cipher researchers, in particular the endless proliferation of delusions and false solutions.  
  
  You among others have a strong grasp of Voynich's statistical oddities -- would love to hear what you think of Zodiac's 340 if you've ever investigated it.  It, too, has statistical oddities that I've been fixated on for quite a while now.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  ReneZ > 10-10-2017, 02:22 PM

  Thanks @doranchak. Looking forward to hearing about that.
  
  I have to admit that I am not following any of the other 'historical' cipher topics (not even the Rohonc codex...).

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  voynichbombe > 28-10-2017, 04:12 PM

  Richard has put up a video version of his presentation:
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  doranchak > 29-10-2017, 12:13 AM

  I attended his presentation and found it to be coherent and persuasive, though I admit I am very ill-informed on all the nitty gritty details of Voynich research since I tend to inhabit the math/comp sci aspects of the mystery.  I am curious to know your opinions on his main points.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  Diane > 29-10-2017, 05:54 AM

  Doranchak
  I expect you know that Nick Pelling, a researcher and cryptologist who has studied the VMS for almost twenty years, providing much original commentary and so on, has also been interested in the zodiac ciphers.
  
  His posts at  ciphermysteries.com  should give you a fairly solid ground from which to advance any new ideas you may have.  Nick not only provides his own thoughts, but links to the work of earlier researchers, or those whose opinions agree with or differ from his own. 
  
  Hope the talk goes well.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  -JKP- > 29-10-2017, 08:02 AM

  (29-10-2017, 12:13 AM)doranchak Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I attended his presentation and found it to be coherent and persuasive, though I admit I am very ill-informed on all the nitty gritty details of Voynich research since I tend to inhabit the math/comp sci aspects of the mystery.  I am curious to know your opinions on his main points.

  
  
  I don't agree with all of SantaColomba's points (I can see counter-arguments to a number of them) but he's approaching it in a reasoned way and backing up his arguments, and maybe some of the specifics will turn out to be correct.

• RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

  -JKP- > 29-10-2017, 08:17 AM

  One of the things SantaColomba points out with visuals is the similarity of "gallows" characters  to litterae elongatae, and certainly there are similarities. He mentions that someone could perhaps try to copy something like that and not know what it is.
  
  I have some sympathy for this idea because some aspects of the VMS text do seem to be created by someone who maybe didn't know what they were reproducing... but if that were the case, then the distribution of the misrepresented shapes would work out the same as they were in the original, which would presumably be a natural language. And yet the distribution (and position) of VMS glyphs does not follow natural language patterns. Even if you collapse some of the symbols into the same ones because the scribe maybe didn't recognize the difference, it doesn't work out statistically.
  
  
  The Voynich text has its own set of rule-like patterns that are distinctive and pretty consistent, and I don't think they could turn out that way by copying errors alone.
• Next Oldest Next Newest