posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 01:42 AM
We have no way to prove this one way or another.
Some fuzzy logic I'd like to point out-
-If this book came from another time then bad grammar, paper composition, juvenile-looking signatures, cut-and-paste pictures, type of media mean
absolutely nothing. No one knows what kind of stuff the people of that time have or have not, can or can't do. Unless you're from that time and can
vouch for authenticity, its all fun and games.
-Just because it looks like a hoax doesn't mean it is a hoax. Just because it looks old doesn't mean it is old. Looks are deceiving. Unless you're
seeing it with your own eyes in front of you, it can be altered.
-Whether or not you consider this topic worthy of being here on ATS, you still had the neurons in your brain stimulated in some shape or form in one
way or another. I personally found it to be entertaining to say the least.
My theory: a piece of literature that can be expanded to be turned into a good piece of fiction. Or perhaps it can be published as itself in its
current state, bad grammar and all.
Edit: And I'm still curious about the science of it. Fictional or not. Also, how can this be labeled a hoax when boiled down to its simplest form
this thread is about the science in this piece of writing being based in reality or not? The end result should not be calling this a hoax or
authentic. It should be a yes, no, or maybe answer.
[edit on 16-8-2008 by danj3ris]