From: Steele, Kirk A (SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 20:29:41 MST
Has anyone besides L'erm and myself made a REAL study of steganographic
methods? Merm, a book does not a valid theory make!
Reproducability and a systematic model does.
This is a familiar thread among those who seek to validate belief with
pseudo-formal methods. A lot of lip service is given to the INTENT of
formality. But when peer reviewed for adherence to formal structure, this
type of argument fails miserably. The progenitor of the mormons tried it,
the Hesitics (sic) have tried it, countless fundementalists have tried it,
the Masonic Lodge quit trying it.
1) Take the ENTIRE UNTRANSLATED body of text that is CONTIGUOUS from ONE
AUTHOR.
2) Apply the steganographic key to the ENTIRE portion of STEP 1.
3) Read the 'plain text'
If there is intelligence to be decoded, it will be apparant as an entire
gramatical construct, not a fragment here, a misspleled word there; ONE
COMPLETE SENTACE WILL JUMP OUT AT YOU!
THIS HAS NEVER (repeat) NEVER BEEN DONE!
-----Original Message-----
From: Mermaid . [mailto:britannica@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:03 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: LOL..lady of faith?? desperate huh?
[Hermit]Mermaid, unless you really wish to place your great faith and
anti-occidental prejudices, on display, your posts have now descended to the
ridiculous. I repeat. If you are allowed to select the "keys" to decode a
supposed steganographic message, then <em>anything</em> can be found in
<em>any</em> text.
[ETC...WILL ADDRESS THE TIRADE LATER]
[Mermaid]I have one question for you, Hermit. Have you READ the book that
Yash referenced? Do you have any idea what it contains in substance or
content from first hand knowledge? Please answer this before we can
continue.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT