The Voynich Ninja

@ReneZ

I'm interested in your thoughts on the use of gematria as a possible solution to the VMS.  I know you have been following along.  Brumbaugh thought that the Voynich used a number system and I agree with him yet he was not using gematria.  I would appreciate your insight and I know you are one of the most knowledgeable persons on the subject matter regarding the VMS.  Do you know of any formula's that could prove this latest method as I have found a great deal of labels in f67r2 and f68r1.

Since we all agree to a certain extent that the VMS is not a natural language and that my cipher produces gematria equivalents to words that may have been used and also it would suggest an underlying code where the letters may or maybe a unique language or perhaps just as it is in scrambled form.  That would explain why no one has been able to decode it.  Or do you think ReneZ that if it is in Gematria form this is like using anagrams as there is no way to prove this system.  

Maybe if a computer database had an entire English Dictionary numbered with Gematria values and then my cipher was applied along with the dictionary and ran through a computer targeting the entire VMS.  What would be an agreeable % that I was correct if many labels were found?

(17-12-2016, 05:58 PM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ReneZ

I'm interested in your thoughts on the use of gematria as a possible solution to the VMS.  I know you have been following along.  Brumbaugh thought that the Voynich used a number system and I agree with him yet he was not using gematria.  I would appreciate your insight and I know you are one of the most knowledgeable persons on the subject matter regarding the VMS.  Do you know of any formula's that could prove this latest method as I have found a great deal of labels in f67r2 and f68r1.

Since we all agree to a certain extent that the VMS is not a natural language and that my cipher produces gematria equivalents to words that may have been used and also it would suggest an underlying code where the letters may or maybe a unique language or perhaps just as it is in scrambled form.  That would explain why no one has been able to decode it.  Or do you think ReneZ that if it is in Gematria form this is like using anagrams as there is no way to prove this system.  

Maybe if a computer database had an entire English Dictionary numbered with Gematria values and then my cipher was applied along with the dictionary and ran through a computer targeting the entire VMS.  What would be an agreeable % that I was correct if many labels were found?

Butting in here.
It is as you say, there is no way to prove the results, and that has always been the case with such methods.  It's pulling the needle(s) out of the haystacks, and if you can do that and are correct in given translations it doesn't mean you are wrong but that you cannot prove it is right. Finding linked matter and data then confirming the data historically may be the only way to prove anything.  Keep lists of data and facts that you daw from your work, some may be provable instantly, some may take a lot of digging or remain unknown. 

If you want to convince the academics you are studying the wrong manuscript and would need no less than back workable, by anyone, single possible solution, much as when reading a paragraph of English in a book, what it says is what it says.  But there are at least 3 people who use your type of unprovable system so you are not alone in that.  Research your data, facts are hard to randomly be conjured up by someone or some method and hard to ignore or dismiss.

Bunny

Just take a look at Thomas' table on the previous page, I'll just post it here again. This is a veeeeery small section of the possible solutions. And still I can make lots of grammatical sentences with it.



- Some older friend had ten gay druids.
- Under oath will he blame the Lamb of God.
- Lesbian pimp will age for gay King of Peace.
- Isn't love childish, I'd pick magic and oral.

This is fun

So why are my sentences wrong?

[quote pid='9923' dateline='1482000110']


This is fun

So why are my sentences wrong?
[/quote]

They are not wrong, they are all random word compilations.  I'm trying to point that Stellar's translations are Stellar's.  we are not talking of a 1:1 back-workable by anyone method, we are obviously not then talking a one and only "this is the translation of that text", book solved.  It doesn't mean his findings are wrong, they seem to be the opposite, one layer of the manuscript.

I will put one of my own on later from the word chart presented (I'm guessing it's not the full list), which will be nothing to do with Stellar's chosen translation, of course as you point out everyone will churn out something different. I'm churning out a 2 part poem from it.  Take a longer look at the list and see if anything beyond random comes from it. 

Bunny

I'm a bit confused, bunny. So we all agree that the system can produce many, many valid sentences. Thomas has shown that he manages to produce narratives over long sections which are grammatically more coherent than "Italy hast". 

But for some reason, the words Stellar chose, out of a literally near-infinite amount of options, are of some special value to you? Do you believe some people are somehow "gifted" to sense the meaning of the text? That some people reach similar conclusions because the text somehow suggests those to them, even though their methods are not scientific? I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing here...

(17-12-2016, 10:13 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm a bit confused, bunny. So we all agree that the system can produce many, many valid sentences. Thomas has shown that he manages to produce narratives over long sections which are grammatically more coherent than "Italy hast". 

But for some reason, the words Stellar chose, out of a literally near-infinite amount of options, are of some special value to you? Do you believe some people are somehow "gifted" to sense the meaning of the text? That some people reach similar conclusions because the text somehow suggests those to them, even though their methods are not scientific? I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing here...

I'm not talking about disregarding scientific method and some people work on both aspects.  In similar conclusions I don't mean all the same though some aspects like astronomy and botany may be almost identical.  They are of the same thread is what I'm attempting to say, and I hope to explain that all full when I publish my hypothesis that binds them all.  Throughout history it has been recorded that some people are gifted to sense things but again I don't mean finding results in a consulting the oracle or scrying sense, no magic or whatever involved, more reading the bumps on brail, pulling out what is meant from the mess.  In this non-scientific sense some people can read brail and most can't, most read words in print and if you gave them brail to read with a blindfold on they would be at a loss.  I don't know how to express the differences more at the moment.

The special value you query is part of a much bigger data base of things both in Voynich research attempts and outside of the sphere of it.  Monkey's can type an infinite amount of rubbish, and maybe even Shakespeare but unlikely.  The chances of presenting factual results from chaotic processes has to be very small and there has to be some unifying explanation for the results.  I'm not checking the process or validity of people's methods, just compiling the results. In the past I have run through the process of some and spent time testing them, but it is very time consuming and I don't have time to give to that now, so I have to assume any results are honestly produced by a method someone is working on and testing themselves.  It really is just about the results offered up and that they have more in common than not.

Bunny

P.S. addition to last post.  Some people have synthesisia and experience the world differently literally seeing and manipulating numbers in the air or tasting words, some savants know dates and do instant calculations better than a computer without trying, and people with what are termed language differences such as dyslexia etc. see written language, grammar, word structure and order differently.  I personally don't process written language normally in the same way as the rest, and normal people are not able to grasp what that means or is like to process the world in that way, it is a two way process of frustration for either side.  It would be interesting to know if anyone else who works with methods that are not rigid in output choice has the same issues.  The normal rules and regulations do not bind the mind in the same way as the average person because quite frankly we don't "get it", we see it but it doesn't make sense, but what we do get is a different view of language and written word.  For me it is all much more linked and less compartmentalised, over different languages and over historical change, and when you query the variations and pulling choices out of infinite possible words (though usually methods offer up very small group of possible words) I really don't understand how you don't see the needle, leading to much disbelief and toing and froing on both sides. I know logically you would say that's not how translation, methodology or producing sense works, but I also don't get how you don't get finding results in less rigid methods (really are you kidding?) when it is so simple and clear, though apparently not to normal people.  So I will always be unconventional in approach and struggle to explain why I see something working that is not normally logical. 

Bunny

(18-12-2016, 12:15 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...deleted for brevity...]

I'm not checking the process or validity of people's methods, just compiling the results. In the past I have run through the process of some and spent time testing them, but it is very time consuming and I don't have time to give to that now, so I have to assume any results are honestly produced by a method someone is working on and testing themselves.  It really is just about the results offered up and that they have more in common than not.

Bunny

How can you know which are actually results, if you don't check the process or validity of people's methods? That's giving equal weight to someone who knows what they are doing and is on the right track and someone who's making it up as he or she goes.

Yes, it's time-consuming to check process or validity. Often the willingness to do this kind of legwork is what differentiates the successful researcher from the wanna-be, the wheat from the chaff. There's a wonderful film called, "Why Man Creates" that was made a long time ago that is just as valid today as it was when it was first developed that gives some insight into the dedication it takes to advance knowledge.


Often the results "offered up" by those who DON'T take the time to do the legwork have many commonalities, because people see what they want to see and we have in common our human-centric perceptions. Science is about trying to see (or sense, or record) what's actually there, no matter how improbable—the results are frequently not what we expect.

(17-12-2016, 10:40 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The exclusion of "thou" is not usual and odd but the information is factual.  I can't give a reason for writing style maybe to be dramatic, compact or draw attention, that will have to remain undecided, but I will go with factual content is good enough for me.

Medici, Italy (thou) hast fame.

Why the thou/you left out may just be stylistic, but is less of an issue than the factual substance of the translation.  I expect a lot more factual content to come from Stellar, maybe not found or presented in a traditional manner, but then I'm comparing content of people's findings.

You may want to lie down for a bit now.  I am sorry it's not the standard academic line I have taken.

Bunny

Dear Bunny, what a wonderful reply. Thank you especially for your explanation of the Medici banking line. Regarding the exclusion of "you/thou", I just hope that every odd construction is not chalked up to "It must be poetry / dramatic writing / stylistic choice" - one can see how that explanation could be abused.

You're right though, I should lie down for a bit. Oh wine, where are you?

(17-12-2016, 07:41 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- Some older friend had ten gay druids.