The Voynich Ninja

Now that there is a thread on the forum about Voynich's anatomy, I think it is all the more necessary to explain that there are no real women—nor anything human—in the codex. Seeing human organs in Quire 13 is merely the result of the illusion that the female figures we see represent real women, when in fact they are simply personifications of the stars.

  I previously wrote that on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. we see the roof of a tent representing the limit of the medieval universe—the sphere of the fixed stars. It is from there that the female figures cascade down. We see that same tent roof on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. above the female figure inside a tube who is holding a cross. That image depicts her commending herself to God because she is about to embark on a journey through the tube. This might seem childish, but it is part of the Voynich's humor. If we do not understand that humor, we will never understand the codex.

   If there is a recurring motif in Quire 13, it is that of female figures inside tubes. This is a metaphorical representation of the stars making a journey to transmit their influence to Earth—specifically, to the herbs in the herbal.

Antonio, don’t deceive yourself—you don’t know anything for certain about the VMS. We can only limit ourselves to assumptions.
Blind faith in the truth of your theory does not make your theory true. Moreover, as I see it, you have not explained the principle of operation of the visual code and have not examined the text. All you do is constantly interpret the Zodiac, Rosettes, and Balneology, and even then only the images, and this is an area of purely subjective interpretations.

I'm not fooling myself, ololololo (I'd like to know your name).

  I do know what the images say—what the graphic language of the Voynich conveys. It is not a matter of you believing me, but rather of following my reasoning and the coherent system I am attempting to build, which applies to the entire codex, not just parts of it.

  The images in the Voynich manuscript are not a matter of subjective interpretation, as you claim. It is not a work of abstract art where everyone sees what they want to see. There is only one possible interpretation: the one intended by its authors.

   Trying to decipher the script is a dead end. I don't think there is anything to read. They are just groups of astronomical symbols that must have some astrological significance. Since I know this is hard to believe, I focus on the images in the codex to show that it is an astrological book.

(09-08-2026, 04:33 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not fooling myself, ololololo (I'd like to know your name).

Michael
Nice to meet you, Antonio

(09-08-2026, 04:33 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do know what the images say—what the graphic language of the Voynich conveys. It is not a matter of you believing me, but rather of following my reasoning and the coherent system I am attempting to build, which applies to the entire codex, not just parts of it.

For example, I don’t agree that the fact that nymphs emerge from these pipes and that this is what connects them is obvious.
On its own, it’s logical, but it’s quite difficult to confirm it using VMS. For example, as you say, f75r — roughly speaking, “nymphs descending from space” (I apologize if I expressed your idea inaccurately, but you understand me). So what is the appendage nearby, then?

(09-08-2026, 04:33 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is only one possible interpretation: the one intended by its authors.

That's true. 
However, the only way to find out exactly what they depicted is to translate the text or invent a time machine.
Even if you’ve figured out what they drew in their book, you currently won’t be able to confirm that this is indeed what it is. Why aren’t the Rosettes the female reproductive system, as some scientific journal suggested? Their argument is that there are seven tubes near the central Island — they say that in the Middle Ages it was believed that the uterus had the same number of vessels (or something along those lines).

(09-08-2026, 04:33 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Trying to decipher the script is a dead end. I don't think there is anything to read.

I won’t judge you for this approach, as it’s part of your theory. I also won’t criticize you for not being able to describe it. When working with a text, I myself sometimes can’t describe it in its entirety
However, on the other hand, this thesis works in your favor, as it essentially relieves you of the need to seek confirmation for your interpretations of the illustrations. 
Although you may not understand this, of course, there’s no room for self‑confidence then.
For example, this:

(09-08-2026, 08:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a metaphorical representation of the stars making a journey to transmit their influence to Earth—specifically, to the herbs in the herbal.

Find confirmation of this.
The fact that everything was supposedly depicted with great symbolism in the Middle Ages is not an argument.

The flaw in your theory is that you take it as an unquestionable truth. I can find similarities between all the features you’ve listed and other things that are simpler than such an intricate astrological interpretation (which, moreover, is meaningless — why produce an unreadable book? What in it is truly astrological/astronomical? The phenomena you describe are more akin to some kind of mythology or unconventional astrology, but not to classical medieval astrology).

(09-08-2026, 08:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now that there is a thread on the forum about Voynich's anatomy, I think it is all the more necessary to explain that there are no real women—nor anything human—in the codex.

I agree with this claim, but maybe in a different sense.  I believe that all human images in the VMS, including all nymphs and the Zodiac icons, are strictly decorative.  That is, if all those human images were completely erased, the information contents of the book would not be affected.  

At most, for some nymphs in the BioBalneo section, one of the hands may function as an arrow showing the feature of the drawing -- like an opening of a pipe -- that is associated with the nearby label.

All the best, --stolfi

Stolfi, there is nothing more diametrically opposed to my view than yours. To say that the Voynich images are merely decorative is to ignore the communicative power that images—any image—held in the Middle Ages, a time when very few people could read or write.

   Nice to meet you, Michael:

   Ultimately, it is a matter of knowing how to read medieval images. You either know how or you don't. I don't claim to know absolutely every detail we see in the Voynich, but I believe I can interpret the essentials. If I say that the roof of a tent—an image that recurs in the codex—represents the roof of the medieval universe (the sphere of the fixed stars), what surprises me is that I am the only one interpreting it this way, given that there are members of this forum well-qualified to see it as I do.

    You mention a scientific journal that describes the Rosettes foldout as the female uterus, which I find quite amusing. It is actually a representation of the medieval cosmos, and I have explained the reason for this on several occasions.

     Various hypotheses can be formulated to explain the Voynich, but you will agree with me that the more comprehensive a hypothesis is regarding all sections of the codex, the more well-founded, and closer to the truth, it will be. The goal is to build a coherent system comprising everything—all the images and the script—without discarding anything.

(10-08-2026, 08:55 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ultimately, it is a matter of knowing how to read medieval images. You either know how or you don't. I don't claim to know absolutely every detail we see in the Voynich, but I believe I can interpret the essentials. If I say that the roof of a tent—an image that recurs in the codex—represents the roof of the medieval universe (the sphere of the fixed stars), what surprises me is that I am the only one interpreting it this way, given that there are members of this forum well-qualified to see it as I do.

[attachment=17110]
In the center is a T‑O map, surrounded by a blue cloud with stars inside it. Spirals emanate from the T‑O map.
Essentially, the most banal (but not necessarily true) explanation of this diagram is a description of geocentrism. At the center is the Earth, surrounded by a celestial sphere to which the stars are attached. The arms demonstrate the rotation of the celestial bodies around the Earth.
For a medieval person, it probably looked something like that.
To imagine this as some kind of lid from a pot, like on f75r, you need to have a vivid imagination...
And how, then, can you explain that the celestial “ceiling” is depicted in VMS in different ways? Is it really the case that the astrological section is for those who aren’t very smart, while Balneology is intended for the smartest of the smart? But such a discrepancy could be explained if scribe B wrote this section independently and “in isolation” from the other sections? I don’t know whether the theory of singularii allows for this, but still…

(10-08-2026, 08:55 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is actually a representation of the medieval cosmos, and I have explained the reason for this on several occasions.

I know you’ve already explained this; I’ve read your posts  But an explanation alone is not enough. We also need to prove WHY I should consider this explanation appropriate.
For example, the most banal assumption about the Rosettes is that it is a map of some Italian region. This version is SUITABLE and LOGICAL, because we can associate it with balneology, where (in the context of the same theory about the periplus with a list of hot springs and lakes) the same geographical features or objects from the same region are depicted.
To refute this, you should not compare it with your own theory. You must show why this theory is contradictory or incorrect in itself. 
The usual explanation of one’s theory and attributing to oneself the ability to read VMS images proves nothing and refutes nothing.

(10-08-2026, 08:55 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Various hypotheses can be formulated to explain the Voynich, but you will agree with me that the more comprehensive a hypothesis is regarding all sections of the codex, the more well-founded, and closer to the truth, it will be. The goal is to build a coherent system comprising everything—all the images and the script—without discarding anything.

I agree with you! 
Overall, I actually have an opinion on most of VMS, except for anatomy and the numerical cipher; I just don’t have a place to express it, and besides, no one has asked me about it yet
But in your case, part of the VMS text theory, let’s say, is “silent.” You simply say that this is some kind of astronomical notation (as I understand it, something along the lines of a mathematical language, right?). But at the same time, I don’t understand how one could write an entire book using this method.
You don’t explain the text, you only describe the illustrations. Of course, I understand that you mean there’s a direct connection between the text and the images, but it would be better if you explained what that connection is.

(10-08-2026, 09:27 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the center is a T‑O map

We already went through this.  The central element is not a T-O map: the orientation is wrong.  Rather, it is a diagram that was used (devised?) by Oresme to illustrate the creation of the word according to the Bible: the bottom half is the Biblical "waters below", the top half is dry land, divided into wilderness and populated areas.  Several copies of that diagram were posted to this forum somewhere.

Quote:surrounded by a blue cloud with stars inside it.

Comparing this illustration with the Oresme diagram above we can see that the squiggly border of the starry area is a mangled reproduction of a cloudband that separated the Earth (the "inverted T-O map") and the heavenly bodies from the Biblical "waters above" -- the vast ocean that lies beyond the sky, whose drips are the rain, and, when God "opened the gates", came down as the Flood. 

Quote:Spirals emanate from the T‑O map.

I did not see any version of Oresme's diagram with anything like these spirals.  They may be an original contribution of the VMS author.  Or maybe he had an "enhanced" version of Oresme's that we do not have.

Quote:For example, the most banal assumption about the Rosettes is that it is a map of some Italian region. This version is SUITABLE and LOGICAL, because we can associate it with balneology, where (in the context of the same theory about the periplus with a list of hot springs and lakes) the same geographical features or objects from the same region are depicted.

Whoa, this is far from a "banal" interpretation.  I know of no region of Italy that has a geography remotely similar to that chart.

There are two active volcanos on the big fold-out, sticking out of the NE and SE rosettes.  There are half a dozen volcanos in Italy that  were active in historic times; including three near Naples, which are related to the many thermal springs in that area.  That would be consistent with the "balneological" interpretation.  However, the geography of that region is nothing like "nine islands".

Venice is a bunch of islands connected by bridges.  But the islands have complicated shapes and the channels are rather narrow.  And there is no volcano anywhere near that place.

Maybe the fold-out is a map of part of the Greek archipelago.  There are lots of islands there, and a couple of historically active volcanoes.  But no bridges between islands... 

But the most banal explanation is that the fold-out is a map of an imaginary place.  Like the maps that I liked to draw when I was a kid...

All the best, --stolfi

(10-08-2026, 02:42 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We already went through this.

Yes, I know, Stolfi.
But now I’m not imposing my point of view; I proposed this particular interpretation to Antonio so that he could analyze it and tell me why it couldn’t be a celestial sphere.

(10-08-2026, 02:42 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did not see any version of Oresme's diagram with anything like these spirals.

I don’t really like this approach — “it’s somewhat similar to an Orem map,” but the diagram in VMS and the Orem map are similar ONLY IN FORM.
Of course, the situation is similar to my anatomical interpretation of balneology, but there I’m not trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I’m not trying to fit absolutely EVERYTHING into this explanation. I’m saying that in some places I don’t understand, and in some places it’s ambiguous.
You apparently really want to believe that the VMS depicts the Orem map.

(10-08-2026, 02:42 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Comparing this illustration with the Oresme diagram above we can see that the squiggly border of the starry area is a mangled reproduction of a cloudband that separated the Earth (the "inverted T-O map") and the heavenly bodies from the Biblical "waters above" -- the vast ocean that lies beyond the 
sky, whose drips are the rain, and, when God "opened the gates", came down as the Flood.

Find at least an image of water within this T‑O map on the VMS diagram.

(10-08-2026, 02:42 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the most banal explanation is that the fold-out is a map of an imaginary place. Like the maps that I liked to draw when I was a kid...

The most banal and provable one was meant.

(10-08-2026, 03:06 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don’t really like this approach — “it’s somewhat similar to an Oresme map,” but the diagram in VMS and the Oresme map are similar ONLY IN FORM.

But that is the premise of this thread, no?  That the illustrations are a "visual code"?  That is, their FORM is essential?

Quote:You apparently really want to believe that the VMS depicts the Oresme map.

I believe that many illustrations of the VMS were copied (quite ineptly) from other books that would be found in a well-stocked library at that time; either at a monastery or university, or in the private library of a scholar.   

We have identified several such "inspiration sources", including the Balneis Puteolanum, Taccola's notebook (or some "cousin" thereof), and that German almanac with the lady carrying a chain and a doctor examining an urine flask.  

And Oresme's "Genesis" diagram.  The points of similarity include the same orientation (which is different from that of "T-O" maps that depict the three continents), the starry area surrounding the "T-O", the squiggly border of that area, and the outer round framing circle. These features were a rather literal illustration of the Biblical account:

Quote:6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” ... 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” ... 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. ... 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth ...

Each case by itself could be dismissed as mere coincidence.  But together they make this "artistic inspiration" theory the most likely explanation.

Quote:Find at least an image of water within this T‑O map on the VMS diagram.

In the version of Oresme's diagram that most closely resembles f68v3, the "inverted T-O" has waves in the bottom half (the "waters below"), houses in the top right quarter, and a green pattern in the top left quarter.  The VMS version has text instead of those graphical codes.  In the original, the "waters above" are a featureless blue area outside the cloudband.  Which matches the featureless area outside the squiggly line of f68v3.

I am not sure, but I seem to recall that some of the lower-quality versions of Oresme's book had text in the three areas of the "inverted T-O map".

(10-08-2026, 02:42 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The most banal and provable one was meant.

But it is not provable, is it?

All the best, --stolfi