The Voynich Ninja

(03-12-2016, 06:10 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, that is the entire translation you posted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I didn't leave anything out.

"Italy", is the word.

(03-12-2016, 06:12 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-12-2016, 06:10 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, that is the entire translation you posted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I didn't leave anything out.

"Italy", is the word.

Sorry - I caught that just as you were replying. I apologize. But whether Italy is there or not, the sentence is still ungrammatical.

So you think I'm wasting yours and my time?

(03-12-2016, 06:19 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you think I'm wasting yours and my time?

You aren't wasting my time - I like reading your posts. But I think this note may be important because the same issue came up with numerology also:

Quote:I used your exact method and posted all my work. You say the devil wrote the VMS, I say it was Nostradamus. Gematria says that we're both right at the same time. That means there's a problem with Gematria: the system doesn't give just one answer; it gives multiple results that contradict each other.

A good test before claiming that you've found the answer to the VMS is asking: can my system produce multiple answers? Or is the devil (or John Dee) the one and only answer that my method produces? That will be a good litmus test to see if you are correct. Indeed, it is a good test to perform to decide if your solutions are fit to publish.

If your system can produce only one solution, you have solved the VMS. But if your system can produce multiple contradictory solutions (Satan wrote the VMS - no, Nostradamus did - no, a third person did) then it is not a good solution. Try to prove your own system wrong: see if you can't make your system churn out a paragraph about JFK and the moon landing, or a Chinese zodiac, or any random thing. If you can, that may be an indicator that the solution is too loose.

(03-12-2016, 06:19 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you think I'm wasting yours and my time?

Stellar, if you consider the huge number of possible interpretations using this method, multiplied by all the possible languages in which it would work (hundreds), one has to consider this method a one-way cipher.

If that's the case, you have to find good reason to spend the time trying.

(03-12-2016, 06:02 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Dear Witch,

Do you think my whole method is incorrect and I have not even translated one word from the VMS?  Can you claim 100% yes or no?

Dear Stellar, what a wonderful question. Who am I to judge? I have no clue what's in the VMS. I am only here for comedic relief. So to answer your question: no. But at the same time, remember that brilliant brains and computers have worked on this project for decades. It is improbable that someone discovers the solution overnight. And if they think they have, they should scrutinize their findings.

(02-12-2016, 03:23 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-12-2016, 09:59 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....

I am soon to publish a theory suggesting that all the differing results people find in different languages (by various means) have a common thread and are all to some degree correct...

Bunny

Hello, Bunny, welcome to the forum.

How do you define "correct". What objective measures are you using to determine that the various translations are what the original scribe intended?

Hi,
by correct I mean factual and in context to the VM and its wider place in history.  A challenging concept to be sure, but I can't go into it more than that yet as work in progress which has not yet got onto paper (or screen).  I'm busy as we speak (or type) with other things and my attention has temporarily been grabbed by a couple of other more minor VM projects.  The upshot is don't dismiss theories and people because it is not the "one" solution and their results (and usually methods to boot) seem obscure and wacky, they fit into a theme of oneness which is not the same as the "one" technical translation.  Stellar is a prime example of a researcher whos work fits, assuming and this is a big one that he is not one of those folk who come on with false results and methods for the sake of disruption and making monkeys of us all.  If he is sincere he is either accurate or some kind of genius, in that type of choice I usually go with accurate but misunderstood due to obscure methods and unintelligible results. 

Bunny

(05-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-12-2016, 03:23 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-12-2016, 09:59 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....

I am soon to publish a theory suggesting that all the differing results people find in different languages (by various means) have a common thread and are all to some degree correct...

Bunny

Hello, Bunny, welcome to the forum.

How do you define "correct". What objective measures are you using to determine that the various translations are what the original scribe intended?

Hi,
by correct I mean factual and in context to the VM and its wider place in history.  A challenging concept to be sure, but I can't go into it more than that yet as work in progress which has not yet got onto paper (or screen).  I'm busy as we speak (or type) with other things and my attention has temporarily been grabbed by a couple of other more minor VM projects.  The upshot is don't dismiss theories and people because it is not the "one" solution and their results (and usually methods to boot) seem obscure and wacky, they fit into a theme of oneness which is not the same as the "one" technical translation.  Stellar is a prime example of a researcher whos work fits, assuming and this is a big one that he is not one of those folk who come on with false results and methods for the sake of disruption and making monkeys of us all.  If he is sincere he is either accurate or some kind of genius, in that type of choice I usually go with accurate but misunderstood due to obscure methods and unintelligible results. 

Bunny

Bunny, there is nothing obscure or unintelligible about Stellar's method. He has described each step of the way—it's very straightforward. The problems with his method have also been critiqued by a number of people each step of the way.

Perhaps you should take some time to read all the back threads in chronological order and study the method, which is neither obscure nor wacky.

One of the problems with the method is it can be applied equally well to a large number of languages and each "translation" leads to a large number of possible words which, in turn, makes the final step very subjective (not wacky, just subjective) which means it's not defensible in its current form and would be considered a one-way cipher (not decipherable) in its current form.

(05-12-2016, 03:52 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-12-2016, 03:23 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-12-2016, 09:59 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....

I am soon to publish a theory suggesting that all the differing results people find in different languages (by various means) have a common thread and are all to some degree correct...

Bunny

Hello, Bunny, welcome to the forum.

How do you define "correct". What objective measures are you using to determine that the various translations are what the original scribe intended?

Hi,
by correct I mean factual and in context to the VM and its wider place in history.  A challenging concept to be sure, but I can't go into it more than that yet as work in progress which has not yet got onto paper (or screen).  I'm busy as we speak (or type) with other things and my attention has temporarily been grabbed by a couple of other more minor VM projects.  The upshot is don't dismiss theories and people because it is not the "one" solution and their results (and usually methods to boot) seem obscure and wacky, they fit into a theme of oneness which is not the same as the "one" technical translation.  Stellar is a prime example of a researcher whos work fits, assuming and this is a big one that he is not one of those folk who come on with false results and methods for the sake of disruption and making monkeys of us all.  If he is sincere he is either accurate or some kind of genius, in that type of choice I usually go with accurate but misunderstood due to obscure methods and unintelligible results. 

Bunny

Bunny, there is nothing obscure or unintelligible about Stellar's method. He has described each step of the way—it's very straightforward. The problems with his method have also been critiqued by a number of people each step of the way.

Perhaps you should take some time to read all the back threads in chronological order and study the method, which is neither obscure nor wacky.

One of the problems with the method is it can be applied equally well to a large number of languages and each "translation" leads to a large number of possible words which, in turn, makes the final step very subjective (not wacky, just subjective) which means it's not defensible in its current form and would be considered a one-way cipher (not decipherable) in its current form.

The obscure and unintelligible is more regarding the results and not uniquely regarding Stellar, and to be sure sometimes methods have been questioned also such as Steve Ekwall's experience.  I have seen many translations over time be dismissed because they are considered lines of non-backward consistently reproducible intelligible/gibberish text. There have also been methods where there are degrees of freedom and the results are not as gibberish as they may seem.  It is easy to say one makes the data fit the required end result, but this is an end result which is unknown to be aimed at, yet time and again they fit into a consistent pattern.  If someone produces results which are correct but not defensible by method or degrees of freedom, where does that leave the results?  For the examples he is allowing me to include, the translations are factually accurate to such an extent that he is either really correct or pulling all our legs. Not only factual but sometimes poetical which is the kind of thing I have comes across myself in examining the Voynich text.

I do not have time to examine other's methods or trawl back though data (maybe some time in the future) and have to rely that what people find (by whatever means) is their honest finding, and fitting them all together in a seamless explanation is the aim.   The method and degrees of freedom is factually irrelevant to this study and by its nature does eliminate the "one technical solution" producing the one translation that everyone is happy with being the solution.  I do think it can be done.

Bunny

People, please try to limit the quote-within-quote-within-quote-quoteception.