superb example of the much underused method of participant observation, in which a scientist studies a process by becoming immersed in its natural occur- rence; it provides information of interest to such diverse groups as historians, psy- chologists, and theologians; and, most important, it shows how social evidence can be used on us-not by others, but by ourselves-to assure us that what we prefer to be true will seem to be true. lOther research besides O'Connor's suggests that there are two sides to the filmed-social-proof coin, however. The dramatic effect of filmed depictions on what children find appropriate has been a source of great distress for those concerned with frequent depictions of violence and aggression on television (Eron Il{ Huesmann, 1985). Although the consequences of media violence on the aggressive
Fabyan of the Riverbank Laboratories; the vice president of the Royal Astronomical Society in London; even Dom Aidan, Cardinal Gasquet, prefect of the Vatican Archives, who offered to help get any documents from those archives that might throw light on the problem. Almost certainly many of these and others tried to solve the cryptogram. Among the others in 1917 was Captain John M. Manly, then second in command of Yardley's MI-8. He had cracked the Lother Witke cipher that had baffled all his colleagues but, like the others, with the Voynich manuscript he failed. And so did Yardley. In 1919, some of Voynich's reproductions found their way to William Romaine Newbold, a professor of philosophy and former dean of the Graduate School at the University of Pennsylvania. Newbold, 54, a brilliant man who had stood first in his class of 1887 at Pennsylvania, had wide-ranging interests, many of which had in common an element of
annaabi.ee 
