The Voynich Ninja

Janick and Tucker's arguments are not well supported.

Janick and Tucker use the supposed ID of a sunflower and armadillo as a free pass to start speculating like amateur theorists. None of what they write is to be called evidence.

(04-12-2018, 08:00 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Janick and Tucker use the supposed ID of a sunflower and armadillo as a free pass to start speculating like amateur theorists. None of what they write is to be called evidence.

Since the plant and animal depicted in the VMS comes closer to the Mexican sunflower and armadillo than any plant or animal found in Europe, it is indeed evidence that only a fool would ignore. Moreover, the sunflower and the armadillo were also entered into evidence by supposedly sane supporters of the modern-day forgery theory. And, of course, let's not forget about the swamp lily with a white flower, the jalapeño peppers, and the smoking volcano (or is that a native American teepee?). But in general I agree that much of what Tucker and Janick have to say is a stretch, but their overzealous efforts to establish a theory should not negate elements of evidence that are hard to refute.

The sunflower has various alternate IDs, and I think especially millet (after an image JKP posted a while ago) is a better candidate. Based not only on the appearance of the plant on c.1400 MSS but also the actual plant's morphology. See here You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Other IDs which make as much or more sense than sunflower are some thistle types, dandelion and other Asteraceae.

For the "armadillo" there is a better candidate in the Old World, the pangolin. An armadillo is defined by its bands (in Dutch it is even called gordeldier, "band-animal") while the VM critter has scales, like the pangolin.

More importantly though, there are animals in medieval nature books which are basically fish versions of mammals. They look more like the thing than an armadillo ever could, showing how ridiculously flimsy Tucker's foundation is and the lack of proper iconographic research that underlies his entire thesis. 

[attachment=2543]

There are a few reasons why these "aquatic mammal monsters" are much more like the VM critter: the mammalian paws, large scales, presence of water and the split fish tail.

(04-12-2018, 04:14 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-12-2018, 08:00 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Janick and Tucker use the supposed ID of a sunflower and armadillo as a free pass to start speculating like amateur theorists. None of what they write is to be called evidence.

Since the plant and animal depicted in the VMS comes closer to the Mexican sunflower and armadillo than any plant or animal found in Europe, it is indeed evidence that only a fool would ignore. Moreover, the sunflower and the armadillo were also entered into evidence by supposedly sane supporters of the modern-day forgery theory. And, of course, let's not forget about the swamp lily with a white flower, the jalapeño peppers, and the smoking volcano (or is that a native American teepee?). But in general I agree that much of what Tucker and Janick have to say is a stretch, but their overzealous efforts to establish a theory should not negate elements of evidence that are hard to refute.

I guess you're not familiar with the details of plants or of other plants that look similar to the "sunflower" so you just accept at face value a questionable ID.

I don't know why you think their evidence is hard to refute. It's not hard to refute. For every plant that they identify as a New World plant, there are Old World plants that look similar or the same, so the plant IDs prove nothing. The animal IDs are the same, in fact, some of them are even more questionable than their plant IDs. They have tried to tell us that the fish in Pisces are the same species as the fish swallowing the nymph in the pond even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE and they don't look like alligator gar, either, which is a very toothy fish. The fins are wrong, the nose is wrong, and there are many Old World (and New World) fish that are more similar to VMS Pisces, such as some species of pike.

Their Voynichese translations are questionable also because they did what so many people do, they picked a handful of words that kind-of-work and ignored all the others that don't.

ANYONE can find a dozen or two or three dozen words in the VMS that will map (via substitution code) to various languages. It is not hard. I did it years ago with about seven different languages, but I knew it wasn't a solution. I knew it was an artifact of the way the tokens are constructed.

If you take 200 PAGES of text in random letters (it doesn't even have to be cipher text) that have a somewhat normal consonant-vowel balance, it is possible to PICK OUT words that will map to real words, but when you try to generalize the method to the rest of the text, they do not make real phrases or real sentences and certainly not real paragraphs when the method is applied consistently. Janick and Tucker "explained" this inconsistency by saying maybe it was a mixture of languages. That's not an explanation, that's an excuse for why their method doesn't work (and also shows that they did not acknowledge that the construction of the tokens is very consistent from beginning to end, even when taking into consideration Currier A and B).

Cherry-picking the .1% of tokens that work and ignoring the 99.9% that come out as gibberish and calling it a decipherment is not science.

(04-12-2018, 04:34 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Janick and Tucker's arguments are not well supported.

I read somewhere that foldout pages (of which there are a few sets in the VMS) were unknown in 15th century Europe. How do you explain that?

I looked at 14th and 15th manuscripts on Google images and their drawings appear to be much more elegant than what we see in the VMS. Can the poor quality of VMS drawings be found in other 15th century manuscripts?

I also noticed that European manuscript drawings of the 14th and 15th centuries displayed many religious and military themes with depictions of the Hundred Years War being particularly frequent. Why do we find virtually nothing on those themes in the VMS?

The VMS has an intricate section on herbal medicine. Why do you think we find no signs of awareness of the Black Death (which killed half the population of Europe in the middle of the 14th century) in the VMS?

When you answer these questions, I will prepare another list of questions. Maybe in the end you will come to realize that support for VMS authorship in 15th century Europe is not as strong as you might think.

(04-12-2018, 09:08 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The sunflower has various alternate IDs, and I think especially millet (after an image JKP posted a while ago) is a better candidate. Based not only on the appearance of the plant on c.1400 MSS but also the actual plant's morphology. See here You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Other IDs which make as much or more sense than sunflower are some thistle types, dandelion and other Asteraceae.

For the "armadillo" there is a better candidate in the Old World, the pangolin. An armadillo is defined by its bands (in Dutch it is even called gordeldier, "band-animal") while the VM critter has scales, like the pangolin.

More importantly though, there are animals in medieval nature books which are basically fish versions of mammals. They look more like the thing than an armadillo ever could, showing how ridiculously flimsy Tucker's foundation is and the lack of proper iconographic research that underlies his entire thesis. 

There are a few reasons why these "aquatic mammal monsters" are much more like the VM critter: the mammalian paws, large scales, presence of water and the split fish tail.

There are two 'sunflower' drawings in the VMS. The one on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. comes closest to the real thing, even down to the roots.

Also, if any of the five animals you depict were alive and well in Europe during the early 15th century, please let me know which one and the full name of its species so that I can check it out. Thanks.

Those roots are as generic as can be, and no, the leaves are more like those of a cereal crop (see the thread I linked).

Of the four animals I show, the pangolin was alive in Asia and theoretically could have been known to European travelers, traders and so on. The others are medieval fantasy creatures derived from classical tradition. They don't have to be real...

The armadillo is the least likely candidate.

(04-12-2018, 09:39 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-12-2018, 04:34 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Janick and Tucker's arguments are not well supported.

I read somewhere that foldout pages (of which there are a few sets in the VMS) were unknown in 15th century Europe. How do you explain that?

That's nonsense. They were uncommon, but they were not unknown. Physician's manuals were sometimes designed as foldouts. Charts and maps were sometimes designed as foldouts (maps sometimes were intended to remain unbound, especially large ones, but some have been bound as foldouts).

Quote:I looked at 14th and 15th manuscripts on Google images and their drawings appear to be much more elegant than what we see in the VMS. Can the poor quality of VMS drawings be found in other 15th century manuscripts?

You "looked" at 14th and 15th manuscripts? I've been STUDYING them for a decade and several people on this forum have been studying them quite a bit longer than that. I don't think "looking" at them is sufficient to understand the depth and breadth of these documents.

Some of the Carthusian manuscripts from the south are extremely professional, but some of the Carthusian manuscripts from remote towns in the north have quite humble but charming drawings. Plus, you can't compare studio and scriptorium-created manuscripts with the VMS. You have to compare the "home-grown" manuscripts (and those that haven't been digitized yet) with the VMS. The nicer manuscripts tend to be digitized and put online first.

Quote:I also noticed that European manuscript drawings of the 14th and 15th centuries displayed many religious and military themes with depictions of the Hundred Years War being particularly frequent. Why do we find virtually nothing on those themes in the VMS?

Do alchemical manuscripts have many religious and military themes? No.
Do math texts have many religious and military themes? No.
Do magic texts have many religious and military themes? Some of them have a few religious references, but they do not tend to have military themes.
Do grammar and foreign-language texts have religious and military themes? No.
Do herbal manuscripts (remember, the VMS is PRIMARILY plants) have religious and military themes? No.

Quote:The VMS has an intricate section on herbal medicine. Why do you think we find no signs of awareness of the Black Death (which killed half the population of Europe in the middle of the 14th century) in the VMS?

How do you know it's herbal medicine? I tend to think it is, but no one has proven that yet. Maybe these are culinary plants or dye plants, or a mixture of all three.

Quote:When you answer these questions, I will prepare another list of questions. Maybe in the end you will come to realize that support for VMS authorship in 15th century Europe is not as strong as you might think.

My experience has been that the more I delve into the VMS, the MORE support I find for 15th-century authorship. The signposts are adding up.

(04-12-2018, 09:08 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the "armadillo" there is a better candidate in the Old World, the pangolin. An armadillo is defined by its bands (in Dutch it is even called gordeldier, "band-animal") while the VM critter has scales, like the pangolin.

At least, from the images Koen uploaded, it seems that pangolin is a better candidate than armadillo.

And, yes, pangolin was once very common in the Old World. In China, we had a long history of eating pangolin. But it is now endangered, so cannot be eaten any more.

I could even remember when I learned the word armadillo for the first time, and thought, “Wow, isn’t this a pangolin?”