Hi everyone! First time poster, long time stalker. ABIEH. I'm personally of the belief that Ed is being both cryptic and simple. Reader, if for any reason you do not like what I say in this little book...Why say? Why not " have written"? I believe it is because it is in the " saying". Having learnt many languages, the very first thing i do, is learn the phonetic sounds of an alphabet. We all did this with english, growing up!
Combinations of letter sounds, can make a meaning completely different.
A BOOK IN EVERY HOME. For example:
E: as air
OM: as ohm, resistance.
YH: as wire.
R: as are.
EVE: as heavy or heavier.
IN: as iron or ion or plain old in.
OK: as oak or OOK: as hook.
BO: as bow. Or AB said as up.
AIR RESISTANCE WIRE ARE HEAVY IN HOOK UP?
Is his quarrying tool an oak bow?
Could an iron bow, refer to a bow collector on a tram, which looks remarkably like the pmh?
Some things to ponder?!?
Looking forward to your thoughts.
You're thinking exactly the way ed was thinking.
Not only is this stated and exploited in edward marlinski's book, but I've been using it as well as friends of mine.
And you are right also about "what I say in this little book..." as ed later will correct himself in MC with the opening line; "This writing is...". Evidently ed knew the difference in what he was saying. He was too smart to not see the little things.
EDM does exactly what you state above when he reads "this writing is..." as 'thin machine that sings'
He also makes mention of oral tradition, which in any oral traditions, is the basis of etymology.
He makes brilliant use of it in every aspect of his coding. Phonetically is the only way to follow the enigma machine gibberish, it uses more than just the learned half of our mind which only sees the learned spelling. It's an interesting trick to help pick out those who see and hear more.
Not many people comment on it, so its nice to see a talk about it.
Heres just a few from the enigma that I can throw off of my head.
MQ = make
EZ = easy
YZ = wise
EY = eye
C = see
F = if
Y = why
Theres lots more, ed uses it frequently.
Anyway, I think it's important to talk about how ed exploited how the mind and body work, in order to hide information and code what he wanted.
A perfect example is how he exploits the 'rule of three'. The human mind is apt at identifying 3's of anything. Lewis Carroll said, paraphrasing 'If I say it three times, it is truth.'
The same goes for code breaking and in ed's case it should be followed as an identifying mark.
If someone notices one thing, that stands out to them, it's speculation and theory. And our eyes tend to overlook single things.
When 2 things are together, we call it coincidence and pareidolia. Although you can build on these things, people will still tend to miss it, and our eyes might see 2 things better, but again, we have an ability to overlook it still.
But 3 is the magic number. Our eyes dont tend to miss things in 3's, and when you have 3 or more examples of a code, or a message, it tends to lend more believability to what you are observing.
When understanding that ed was a polymath, we have to understand that although ed claimed he never studied anatomy, he was also an avid liar. Not the bad kind of deceptive liar, but he fibbed, a lot. And he had more than a basic understanding of how, at his time, we learned and perceived things. Also how we retained and expressed this information.
He took advantage of different meanings of sounds and words, letters and numbers. We use so many letters in mathematics, just the word 'eyes', when used properly, could yield the phrase 'e, yes'. e being the natural logarithm, which is basically one of the most important numbers concerning everything, next to pi.
w is e
MAGNET I C
MAG NET I C
GAM TEN I C
AM G NET I C
C UP RENT
It's everywhere in ed's work, I could elaborate on this stuff for hours.
Could read " to do modern lifting you