The Voynich Ninja

Koen,

I went over the map and I was fortunate enough to make an edit with a better fit; as far as the rest of editing it, I will stop there.  As far as Argo Navis it is far from Taurus a bit below Cancer.  I have no idea why it's there yet it will remain.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(21-12-2016, 08:49 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar has said he is finding Druids, Celts and Britain, and I have to agree.

Bunny

Hi Bunny. It is an interesting idea. But you are also proposing Latin translations, and while the words you bring up are Latin, the grammar does not fit. Here's what you proposed:

Quote:Merlin(*) qui non malum olor haec eneco K. nec ales Merlin

Merlin did not this (he/she) evil swan slay.   K. and not winged Merlin
                                          or
Merlin did not.  This (he/she) evil swan slay K. and not winged Merlin (cometh)

Here are the issues:

• "malum" (neuter) and "olor" (masculine) are not the same gender but need to be.
  
• "olor" (nominative) is probably the wrong case (accusative seems to be needed here)
  
• "haec" does not seem to fit anywhere. It can't be the subject because it doesn't match the verb, and it can't modify the swan because it is the wrong gender (feminine).
  
• "eneco" means "I" kill / slay. The "o" on the end means "I" in this case. It can't go with Merlin or the swan, nor stand alone as a command.
  
• "Merlin qui non" would be a very odd standalone sentence
  

I am using this as an example to show that one may genuinely believe the text is Latin, or that one finds Druids and Britain and Celts. But genuine beliefs can be wrong and should be scrutinized.

I decided to see if I could find an image in the UK which would closely relate to the star chart, of my cipher in f68r1.  There are some close hits to the map and not so close hits for a 1:1 comparison.  However the map I found has a subtle stronger relationship for the gematria interpretation than less of one, being that stars of the same constellations were found.  I would say the map interpretation to be 50% accurate and that is not bad for no telescopes.  Argos really makes things complicated unless the author made a mistake, but no way of telling.  Cygnus, Gemini, Ursa Major, Draco and Taurus fairly good fits.  Auriga, Argos, Andromeda an a couple others not so good a fit.  One thing comes to mind is that the majority of the stars are in the Northern hemisphere and that fits with the Polar star.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:One thing comes to mind is that the majority of the stars are in the Northern hemisphere

And how many in the Southern?

Before anything can be said about this, you have to decide whether you want to stick to the 15th century or fully endorse the modern fraud hypothesis. You can't keep switching around between the two depending on which oddity you need to explain away.

Stellar, if I were to take a list of the brightest stars and their medieval names and link them through basic logic to the drawings, I would come up with correspondences that are every bit as valid as yours without doing any gematria or deciphering or interpretation of the text at all. Unfortunately, with either method, there would be no way of confirming if the interpretation is correct.

If you really believe your method is valid, it should work as well for text with no images and it should reveal whether there is different grammatical structure to the text in different sections. So far I see no evidence of that.

What you are doing is is using the images to assume the content in the text but you don't really know if the labels are labels or if it's narrative text that's been split up. Those cryptic labels might even be numbers that have been assigned to each star to indicate their brightness (as in astronomy texts) and might not be names at all.

(22-12-2016, 03:36 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(21-12-2016, 08:49 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar has said he is finding Druids, Celts and Britain, and I have to agree.

Bunny

Hi Bunny. It is an interesting idea. But you are also proposing Latin translations, and while the words you bring up are Latin, the grammar does not fit. Here's what you proposed:

Quote:Merlin(*) qui non malum olor haec eneco K. nec ales Merlin

Merlin did not this (he/she) evil swan slay.   K. and not winged Merlin
                                          or
Merlin did not.  This (he/she) evil swan slay K. and not winged Merlin (cometh)

Here are the issues:

• "malum" (neuter) and "olor" (masculine) are not the same gender but need to be.
  
• "olor" (nominative) is probably the wrong case (accusative seems to be needed here)
  
• "haec" does not seem to fit anywhere. It can't be the subject because it doesn't match the verb, and it can't modify the swan because it is the wrong gender (feminine).
  
• "eneco" means "I" kill / slay. The "o" on the end means "I" in this case. It can't go with Merlin or the swan, nor stand alone as a command.
  
• "Merlin qui non" would be a very odd standalone sentence
  

I am using this as an example to show that one may genuinely believe the text is Latin, or that one finds Druids and Britain and Celts. But genuine beliefs can be wrong and should be scrutinized.

It is not correct Latin sentences, but a group of Latin words, agreed.  I do assume the manuscript text may be read in many languages and eras, and produces lists of words which as a group has meaning.  Having the same manuscript glyphs produce correct grammar and flowing sentences in each language would not seem possible, and does not seem to be necessary.  One may pull out interpreted sentence from group in your own language.  This is not the standard approach and is subjective yes but I find the results from various people in this manner have a common thread of subject matter.  They may all be wrong, as in sheer coincidence, that they work together as a whole.  I am interested in the whole, something I will be coming to explaining my odd approach and why I find the output of people like Stellar (and my own as well) interesting.  I know the though in general is that anything can be made to say anything, but that is not what is happening here nor with other various theory results.  It is just not that random.

Bunny

(22-12-2016, 09:22 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
It is just not that random.

Bunny

If you consider that there is substantial agreement on many of the images (some are plants, nymphs, water, rainbows, stars, suns, moons, birds, zodiac-symbols, etc., etc.) the results are not likely to be random.

If you handed out the Voynich manuscript with all the text removed and asked 100 medieval historians to write a few paragraphs to go with each page, I'm sure you would find many commonalities in the results.

(22-12-2016, 10:43 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-12-2016, 09:22 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
It is just not that random.

Bunny

If you consider that there is substantial agreement on many of the images (some are plants, nymphs, water, rainbows, stars, suns, moons, birds, zodiac-symbols, etc., etc.) the results are not likely to be random.

If you handed out the Voynich manuscript with all the text removed and asked 100 medieval historians to write a few paragraphs to go with each page, I'm sure you would find many commonalities in the results.

Consider that I have not yet started in which way I find agreement, and it has nothing to do with cues on subject matter explaining it, results may have have no bearing on the images.  The commonalities are not going to be what you have expected.  But I must get back to following up putting Stellar's text through my own process, attempting to decipher, results to follow asap (pushed for time to do Voynich stuff in Christmas run-up).  So far the results fit the common thread ie, explainable, factual and not garbage.

Stellar's text being studied:
 
"uounen  

uoe-- et uoiia men u cuoiien et en uo-- en oiuse-- uoiiu -uia uoiiud uoiud e-- sg-a uoun sena uoiuen sen e-nsa"

Bunny

(22-12-2016, 09:22 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One may pull out interpreted sentence from group in your own language.  This is not the standard approach and is subjective yes but I find the results from various people in this manner have a common thread of subject matter.

I think this is the part where I am not convinced - earlier in this thread, Stellar translated the first page of the Voynich Manuscript as the book of Genesis. Using his method, I could take the exact same set of 5 words and create: "Eighteen men escape Atlanta Georgia on bridge"
"Crazy deer cause abominations on path."
"Common men used Geico."

This is why it's hard for me to believe the translations have "a common thread of subject matter" but I am open to considering it.