The Voynich Ninja

"You gave wave" is when at some point in the past you jumped in the pool from really high.

It's what the annoyed Frenchman you swamped after jumping spluttered out through a mouthful of water

(13-04-2019, 08:12 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Don't you understand the most basic rules of grammar? Dabas is the imperfect indicative, it refers to a past action that has been interrupted. The closest English translation would be you had given and the verb refers to the action of passing, giving or producing. IE I thought that you were giving me the ball (Creí que me dabas la pelota).

What on earth do you think you gave wave means? It's nonsensical in any language. 

You'd be better off saying that it means Cauldron of beans (Ol[l]a d[e]'[f]abas - Ola d abas) which at least makes more sense

David,

I gather from what you say here that you have a more rational explanation of the marginalia oladabas, so please let us know what it is.

The use of ola, wave, makes sense in the context of the aforementioned sea and, in fact, wave can stand for the sea in poetry. Let's look at the complete prophecy where you find mer, sea, in the first verse.



The use of dabas rather than dio could indicate continuous action in the past as opposed to a one-time action. Note the "encores", encore, in the second line. Thus, for example, this could refer to something like the following: repeated attempts by Argentina to take to the waves (sea) to seize ("prendre") the Falkland Islands, beginning in the early 19th century and renewed in the late 20th century. 

The marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. begins pox leber which I, with justifications, interpret as por liber, by free, or "par franche" in French. We find the city, cité, in "ubren", urbe or urban from the 4th line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia.

In the second line of the prophecy, note the word "porte" which corresponds to the "portas" at the end of the second line of the f116v marginalia. Most of all, I show that the Roman numerals in the second and third lines can add up to 535, the number of the respective prophecy.

And I will remind you that the sequence of glyphs at the start of the 4th line of marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. reappears on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and nowhere else in the entire manuscript. There is every reason to suspect that we are being provided with a Rosetta Stone for undertaking a fresh decoding of quire 20.

PS #1. It looks like you can read Spanish, so I'll mention that many years ago I wrote in Spanish and some of it is still online:

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

PS #2. It cannot be recommended that you attempt to read the oracles of Delphi.

(13-04-2019, 09:13 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."You gave wave" is when at some point in the past you jumped in the pool from really high.

I'll have you know that ships moving rapidly through water likewise produce (another meaning of dar) waves. It's sad that so many people are lacking in imagination.

Morten, the problem is that you jump on the very first thing you see that might support your theory and completely ignore other possible interpretations.

The meaning of 116v is by no means understand.

There are multiple threads on it with different ways of looking at it by some very intelligent researchers. You get one new piece of information (SAL) and IMMEDIATELY you grab the first thing that works for YOU, but which might NOT be the right interpretation.

(14-04-2019, 02:11 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, the problem is that you jump on the very first thing you see that might support your theory and completely ignore other possible interpretations.

The meaning of 116v is by no means understand.

There are multiple threads on it with different ways of looking at it by some very intelligent researchers. You get one new piece of information (SAL) and IMMEDIATELY you grab the first thing that works for YOU, but which might NOT be the right interpretation.

You are perfectly correct in what you say. As soon as I saw that you had found a "S A L", I immediately suspected that it could be the inverse of something and I was not surprised to find that it was.

Some thirty years ago I saw a prophecy that said "Of the seven branches it shall boil down to three, The eldest (more than one male) shall be surprised by death, To kill the two brothers they shall be seduced…." It made me think of the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, JFK and RFK, from where I calculated that they had to have had four sisters at the time of their death. Learning things in advance of external confirmation has been an ongoing story ever since.

I do not ignore other interpretations; for the most part, I simply have no knowledge of them. Since I have been banned from posting in any thread other than this one, I seldom look at the other threads.

It's possible that your own work might not be beyond criticism. For example, just above the "S A L", on the same blog page, you note that someone called Pelling claims that "a single plant seems to appear in three separate places in the manuscript: f17v, f96v, and f99r", to which you respond "No way!"

Technically, looking at the three plants in isolation, you might be right. But can't you see that those three plants look a lot more like each other than any of the three look like any other plant in the VMS? It is fully rational to suspect that they could all be the same plant or at least that they may have some connection.

On f116v, you think "pox" means goat. Can't you see that the x is in much darker ink than the preceding po and hence could be overwriting a different letter? Can't you see that the VMS is largely a book about botany, not zoology?

My analysis demonstrates that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. points to prophecy V-35 in multiple ways, far too many for any reasonable person to write it off as a coincidence. It is therefore a tremendous break for would-be decoders: chances are excellent that we now know what some of quire 20 has to say.

Logically, if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was written before prophecy v35, then v35 ain't no prophecy, it's a reinterpretation.

(14-04-2019, 04:51 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's possible that your own work might not be beyond criticism. For example, just above the "S A L", on the same blog page, you note that someone called Pelling claims that "a single plant seems to appear in three separate places in the manuscript: f17v, f96v, and f99r", to which you respond "No way!"

Technically, looking at the three plants in isolation, you might be right. But can't you see that those three plants look a lot more like each other than any of the three look like any other plant in the VMS? It is fully rational to suspect that they could all be the same plant or at least that they may have some connection.

I disagreed with Pelling. That doesn't mean I'm right (or that he's right). A third person with a different idea might be right.

What I did was disagree, offer another interpretation and offer my argument. I am not into this right-and-wrong thing. Saying that I disagree (even if I do so passionately) is not the same as saying the other person's interpretation is wrong. I present an argument as best I can and then TIME and MORE RESEARCH will bear out whether it's right or wrong. I never assume I'm more right than the other person until my argument is out there and has a chance to be reviewed, rebutted, and then we move toward the truth.

Quote:Morten St. George: On f116v, you think "pox" means goat. Can't you see that the x is in much darker ink than the preceding po and hence could be overwriting a different letter? Can't you see that the VMS is largely a book about botany, not zoology?
 

No I do not think pox means goat. That is not my idea. I have simply said (over and over) that the interpretation is rational, it follows the linguistic substitutions that were common at the time. I supported whoever proposed it as a logical possibility. I have offered about 20 different readings for the text on 116v, maybe more (goat was probably one of them since I was aware that box and pox are synonymous in some dialects before I knew someone else had proposed it, but it was by no means the only idea I had for the word that resembles pox). I've blogged about the various words many times and also have discussed possibilities on the forum. The discussion is ongoing.

The goal is to find the truth, not to put my ideas above others. The whole point of writing about them is not about ego—it's about getting the ideas reviewed by other eyes to see if they stand up to scrutiny.


.
As for pox being over-inked. Maybe it is, but it's not the only possibility. It's possible a little too much ink got on the quill when the writer dipped it, and it blobbed on the curve. Either way, I've never absolutely assumed it was an "x", as can be seen by the way I wrote about it on the blogs.

(14-04-2019, 06:06 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Logically, if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was written before prophecy v35, then v35 ain't no prophecy, it's a reinterpretation.

The thirty-nine prophecies in question date back to at least the 12th century where we find unmistakable references to them in the Prophetiae Merlini and Vita Merlini of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Additional references to those prophecies can be found in cabalistic writings of the 12th and 13th centuries. However, from the time of Nachmanides (d. 1270) until the publication of the prophecies in 1588/90, I have yet to uncover clear evidence that anyone in Europe had fresh sight of those prophecies.

The prophecies themselves self-date their authorship to circa A.D. 576. Their whereabouts from that time until the 12th century is unknown. There are indications that the Knights Templar may have found them in their excavations beneath the Temple of Solomon during the 1120s, but none of that is certain.

In the Nostradamus publication, the thirty-nine prophecies were translated into French and then surrounded and masked by nine hundred newly-written predictions. The original language of the prophecies is unknown. I had always assumed it was Latin (and indeed there are many signs of this) which leaves me unable to explain Geoffrey's claim that they were written in "British". It reminds me of very strange remarks found in the New Atlantis of 1627:

"There was also in both these writings, as well the Book, as the Letter, wrought a great miracle, conform to that of the Apostles, in the original Gift of Tongues. For there being at that time in this land Hebrews, Persians, and Indians, besides the natives, every one read upon the Book, and Letter, as if they had been written in his own language."

I have found reasons to suspect that the New Atlantis was falsely attributed to Sir Francis Bacon after his death, and that the true author (who wrote it in Latin) was the same person who wrote the VMS marginalia. Thus, it's possible that quire 20 encodes the prophecies as written in multiple languages. In other words, the reason Prescott Currier found each VMS line to be an independent functional unit is that each line could be encoding a different language, but all saying the same thing.

Overall, my theories postulate that the real motive of the Cathar Crusade of the 13th century was to find and destroy those prophecies, that the prophecies survived via escape to the Americas, and that the VMS was their vehicle of survival for most the 15th and 16th centuries.

(14-04-2019, 07:41 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I did was disagree, offer another interpretation and offer my argument. I am not into this right-and-wrong thing. Saying that I disagree (even if I do so passionately) is not the same as saying the other person's interpretation is wrong. I present an argument as best I can and then TIME and MORE RESEARCH will bear out whether it's right or wrong. I never assume I'm more right than the other person until my argument is out there and has a chance to be reviewed, rebutted, and then we move toward the truth.

What you say here is pretty much my own attitude on it all.

(14-04-2019, 07:41 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for pox being over-inked. Maybe it is, but it's not the only possibility. It's possible a little too much ink got on the quill when the writer dipped it, and it blobbed on the curve. Either way, I've never absolutely assumed it was an "x", as can be seen by the way I wrote about it on the blogs.

On the dipping of the ink, you again resort to something of low probability to defend a popular belief which, in this case, is that the marginalia is meaningless scribble.

It reminds me of how you resorted to the pangolin to negate the armadillo, without providing any evidence at all that the pangolin was known somewhere in Europe at some point during the Middle Ages. I do not have to do the same for authorship in the Americas because at that time the armadillos, with more than a dozen species of it roaming about, were seen everywhere.

On the marginalia, other points of contention include whether "mich" means milk (and don't know how you connect that to plants) or is simply short for michel. Michel, of course, would be consistent with other marginalia pointers to a prophecy attributed to Michel Nostradamus.

Your technical capabilities are very valuable and much needed on this project. I only wish that you could take a more neutral stance on the interpretation of the data. You say you do, but many of your posts reveal little openness to new ideas.