You can't just go by numbers, you have to LOOK at how the change manifests in the text.
Let's say I write the words "harbour" and "colour" and "theatre" in the first part of the manuscript, but then I decide to use "harbor" and "color" and "theater" instead.
What would happen statistically is that the frequency of the letter "u" would dramatically change from one section to the next, but the meaning of the words doesn't change at all.
So you have to look at WHAT changed in the VMS. If a common word gets written essentailly the same way but one character was dropped later on, then ask yourself what does that mean? Was that a substantive change? A change in language? Or was it just an easier way to write that particular vord or chunk or syllable?
(19-03-2019, 01:32 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can't just go by numbers, you have to LOOK at how the change manifests in the text.
Let's say I write the words "harbour" and "colour" and "theatre" in the first part of the manuscript, but then I decide to use "harbor" and "color" and "theater" instead.
What would happen statistically is that the frequency of the letter "u" would dramatically change from one section to the next, but the meaning of the words doesn't change at all.
So you have to look at WHAT changed in the VMS. If a common word gets written essentailly the same way but one character was dropped later on, then ask yourself what does that mean? Was that a substantive change? A change in language? Or was it just an easier way to write that particular vord or chunk or syllable?
JP, I very much doubt that any conversion of something from British English into American English could result in letter-count discrepancies of the magnitude that we see between Curriers A and B because most words in both versions of English are spelled exactly the same. Why should we expect to see something different in the VMS?
On the other hand, one might expect encoded text to remain somewhat rigorous or consistent throughout, which is something that we do not find in the VMS, forcing us to conclude that different systems of encoding are being employed or that some parts of the VMS may not be encoded at all.
In view of the 68 characters (72 by inserting blank spaces between the four sequences of 17) on the alphabet wheel, it seems that the wheels might require an input line of at least 60 characters for the decryption process to function properly ie. input lines might need to wrap around the wheel to allow for a pairing of characters from opposite sides of the wheels. Except for paragraph ends (possibly inserted for left to right deception), lines in the Deep Text section have this length.
It is therefore unclear how the wheels could serve to decode the short lines written around the plants in the herbal sections not to mention the many labels found in different sections of the VMS. Any ideas?
(19-03-2019, 03:56 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
JP, I very much doubt that any conversion of something from British English into American English could result in letter-count discrepancies of the magnitude that we see between Curriers A and B because most words in both versions of English are spelled exactly the same. Why should we expect to see something different in the VMS?
...
Most words in Curriers A and B are spelled the same if you look at the
dynamics of the changes.
Morten St. George Wrote:On the other hand, one might expect encoded text to remain somewhat rigorous or consistent throughout, which is something that we do not find in the VMS, forcing us to conclude that different systems of encoding are being employed or that some parts of the VMS may not be encoded at all.
It is pretty rigorous. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Yes, there may be slightly different systems of encoding but having studied them and having created four transcripts (which means I've looked at EVERY GLYPH in the VMS from beginning to end), I think of them as system "adjustments" rather than as different systems or languages. The differences are not major.
(19-03-2019, 05:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Most words in Curriers A and B are spelled the same if you look at the dynamics of the changes.
I'll here raise another version of a question that I raised a day or two ago: Can the herbal text be accounted for by a copy and paste of words from the Deep Text section?
The truth is that I find it difficult to believe that native Americans had the motive or capacity to work with and encrypt any Old World language or even to encrypt their own language for that matter. But for all sections of the VMS preceding the Deep Text, it would have been easy enough to replace any Latin-alphabet text (or to create new text) with glyphs randomly drawn from the Deep Text section.
Let's get realistic about the encryption: for our best cryptographers to be unable to make any headway against it, this encryption has to be multilayered and therefore extremely time-consuming and difficult to put into effect. It might be a little presumptuous to think we find it applied throughout the entire VMS.
(19-03-2019, 05:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is pretty rigorous. That's what I've been trying to tell you. Yes, there may be slightly different systems of encoding but having studied them and having created four transcripts (which means I've looked at EVERY GLYPH in the VMS from beginning to end), I think of them as system "adjustments" rather than as different systems or languages. The differences are not major.
I gather that you have finally decided to join Koen and the others in abandoning this thread. That's OK. My hopes of finding someone to undertake a fresh decoding of the VMS rest with people who are unburdened by the rigid belief system of Western culture. People who are convinced it's a pangolin and not an armadillo could never accomplish such a task. That is not to say that the armadillo should be accepted, but only that it has to acknowledged that the armadillo is a possibility.
I have now acquired additional facts about the VMS script and have concluded that it does not directly represent the sounds or words of any language, either Old Word or New World. In the beginning for VMS script there would have been only the deep text: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. through f116r, 57v through 58v, maybe 66r, maybe a few pages more now missing. My theory maintains that these pages encrypt the sounds of Old World languages representing the sacred text of the Cathari.
From the deep text, to further mask the sacred text, two sets of tokens were extracted with both differences and overlap: one set was used to create Herbal A and the other to create Herbal B. This accounts for glyph-frequency discrepancies between languages A and B. Essentially, it means that VMS text, excluding the deep text, is meaningless, and the deep text only acquires meaning through successful decryption.
I view it as an extraordinary miracle that the sacred text managed to survive the scourge of the 13th century and reach us today. We have the Rosicrucians to thank for that. To ensure that the Roman Church and its Inquisition wound never be able to destroy the sacred text, the Rosicrucian scheme, quite brilliant, was to openly publish it under a heavy disguise. Hundreds of editions and millions of printed copies later, the sacred text of the Cathari is today so widely dispersed that it could never be erased from memory.
I've never discounted a New World Origin. I've already told you that. I just ascribe it a lower probability.
You keep putting words in my mouth and making as many assumptions about my beliefs (and those of others on the thread) as you do about the manuscript.
My opinion? You're a storyteller. Nothing wrong with being a storyteller, it's a gift few people have and something to be treasured. But storytelling is not research. Research should be done WITHOUT assumptions.
(22-03-2019, 06:58 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My opinion? You're a storyteller. Nothing wrong with being a storyteller, it's a gift few people have and something to be treasured. But storytelling is not research. Research should be done WITHOUT assumptions.
Many scholars have assumed that the VMS entails encrypted text but few have bothered to inquire about, or speculate on, what it was that they wanted to hide or why they wanted to hide it. Without raising questions like that, it becomes hard to place the VMS in the correct historical context. Do you guys really believe that plant descriptions require complex encryption?
Whether the animal is a pangolin or an armadillo, that is, whether the VMS was compiled in Europe or the New World, or whether the depicted fortress is Montségur or some other castle, are all minor issues for me. My main concern is the text that underlies that encryption. It seems many Cathars so strongly believed in the words of their god that they voluntarily walked into the flames of a bonfire.
Between me and you guys I am only seeking cooperation on breaking the code, nothing more and nothing less. To begin, you might want to comment on the evaluation of Herbals A and B as postulated in my last post.
Morten,
I know a few about Cathari.
Do we have some (or a lot of) manuscripts written by cathar authors ?
If yes, did you already identify the name of the VMS ?
If no, is there a database of these books writeent by cathar authors ?
(22-03-2019, 04:48 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten,
I know a few about Cathari.
Do we have some (or a lot of) manuscripts written by cathar authors ?
If yes, did you already identify the name of the VMS ?
If no, is there a database of these books writeent by cathar authors ?
Hi Paris,
An excellent source of information about the Cathars is the following website:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
It has a "Cathar Books" section with many entries but these are books about the Cathars rather than written by them. As far as I know, beyond the VMS, no books written by Cathars (and there were likely a great many of them) have survived. All were destroyed by the Inquisition.
If another book written in Voynichese were to exist, the most likely place to find it would be the secret archives of the Vatican.
To the Catholic mentality, books that make historical predictions that fail are perfectly OK, but books that make accurate predictions are deemed to be the work of Satan. This explains why the Papal crusades were so brutal in exterminating the Cathars and their literature.
Under normal circumstances, I would have no interest at all in the religious literature of medieval times. But a great curiosity arises with regard to the writings of the "good god" of the Cathari: as best as I am able to determine, his predictions are more relevant to our contemporary times than to the 13th century.
--Morten
(22-03-2019, 04:05 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Many scholars have assumed that the VMS entails encrypted text but few have bothered to inquire about, or speculate on, what it was that they wanted to hide or why they wanted to hide it.
I've seen many people ask why this information would be hidden.
Quote:Without raising questions like that, it becomes hard to place the VMS in the correct historical context. Do you guys really believe that plant descriptions require complex encryption?
People do raise those kinds of questions. You just
assume they don't.
There's an entire medieval manuscript that enciphers common medical recipes. People don't always need a complex reason to use cipher and our job is not to DECIDE what that reason is. Our job is to research and discover the reason.