The Voynich Ninja

(10-08-2026, 04:03 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But that is the premise of this thread, no? That the illustrations are a "visual code"? That is, their FORM is essential?

Are you trying to fit your theory into another participant’s thread?
This looks like a desperate attempt to defend your theory, I’m sorry.
I can’t say whether the form matters. I don’t know anything for sure about VMS, but in my opinion, it doesn’t.

(10-08-2026, 04:03 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Yes, I’ve heard your assumptions that all the authors of VMS are very stupid, incompetent, and incapable of doing anything, so it’s impossible to analyze this book.
It can be said that they might have copied the images from some herbal texts (possibly) or borrowed the style (such as the green water in balneology). Oh, and there’s also the Zodiac.
In addition to plants and the Zodiac, we can talk about borrowing a style for a certain purpose. This may make sense if the real topic of balneology was disguised as something similar to Balneis Puteolanum.

(10-08-2026, 04:03 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

The bulges of the blue cloud are not very similar to those on Orem. They’re too simple and uncomplicated. When you want to draw a cloud and emphasize its formlessness, you can do so using this kind of pattern.

(10-08-2026, 04:03 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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".

Not a proof.
I remember that in Balneis Puteolanum, naked women bathed in green water bodies. Did I prove that balneology talks about lakes?
I remember that in the Aztec herbal, there was a drawing of a plant on the page along with text describing it. Did I prove that VMS is an Aztec herbal?

(10-08-2026, 04:03 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But it is not provable, is it?

Yes. But some people find a lot of coincidences...

I confess that for someone like me—a lover of clarity and orderly thinking—the jumble of the recent posts makes me uncomfortable. Let’s take things one by one:

   The diagram on folio f68v3 of the Voynich manuscript bears a striking resemblance to Oresme's well-known cosmological map. What distinguishes the Voynich diagram is the presence of spiral arms that serve to simulate the motion of the cosmos while simultaneously representing its interconnection with the Earth. Citing the Bible to discuss the "waters above" makes no sense in either work, given that Aristotle's Meteorology was already common knowledge among the educated. Oresme believed the cosmos functioned like a clockwork mechanism, with no angels left to push the spheres. And, of course, rainwater was something sublunary.

   What both diagrams have in common is that circle of protrusions representing the boundary of the medieval universe. And if we look at pages from Quire 13, such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f75v, we see that those same protrusions form part of the tent-like canopy—itself a metaphor for the limit of the medieval cosmos.

    To claim that the Rosettes represent a map of parts of Italy or Greece, or that they depict volcanoes and islands, is merely an illusion. I will not dwell on this, as I have discussed it several times before; I simply appeal for consistency. If the Voynich manuscript contains cosmological and astrological sections, it stands to reason that the Rosettes are of the same nature.

    To claim that the authors of the Voynich manuscript copied images from other books is to deny the enormous originality of this codex.

    The title of my thread, "visual code," refers to the script rather than the images. To me, the glyphs are astronomical symbols or icons. The gallows represent the sun in various positions; the c-shaped glyphs are the symbol for the moon; and the round, o-shaped ones represent stars, also in various positions. The images in the codex contain an astrological message that is consistent with the script.

(10-08-2026, 04:31 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are you trying to fit your theory into another participant’s thread?

 
I am giving objections against the thread's premise.  Like you were doing.  Any objection is of course an alternative explanation.  Or do you mean that, on each thread, only posts that agree with its premise are allowed? 

Quote:Yes, I’ve heard your assumptions that all the authors of VMS are very stupid, incompetent, and incapable of doing anything, so it’s impossible to analyze this book.

 
I never said such things.

My claim is that the Scribe who copied the Author's draft to vellum was not very bright, so that when he copied decorative illustrations from other books he usually misunderstood them. 

Which is a possibility that one must consider when trying to interpret the images as a "visual code".  Can we trust that the details we see were intentional?  If the "perfume bottle" on f85r2 was indeed a urine sample flask, what else could the "artist" have got wrong?

Quote:The bulges of the blue cloud are not very similar to those on Oresme. They’re too simple and uncomplicated. When you want to draw a cloud and emphasize its formlessness, you can do so using this kind of pattern.

Yes, because at the time the Scribe did not know that a cloudband was a specific design with a specific conventional meaning (the boundary between Heavenly and Earthly domains).  He did not recognize it as a stylized cloud band, and drew it as the edge of a pool.

Quote:I remember that in Balneis Puteolanum, naked women bathed in green water bodies. Did I prove that balneology talks about lakes?

No, that does not prove anything.  But given the many resemblances between the Bio section and the Balneis (like the "water slide" on f75r), it is pretty likely that those green areas do represent lakes and pools.  Al least as the fist layer of meaning -- that is, "pools" is indeed what the Scribe expected/wanted people to see when they looked at those figures. 

It is less certain, but still likely, that there is a second layer of meaning (like anatomy) hidden under that "balneological" appearance.  This has been discussed elsewhere.

Quote:I remember that in the Aztec herbal, there was a drawing of a plant on the page along with text describing it. Did I prove that VMS is an Aztec herbal?

No, because there are zillions of other non-Aztec herbals that all look like that.  Probability theory explains when such "coincidences" are significant and when they are not.

All the best, -- stolfi

Quote:

Quote:But [Rosettes is a map of a region of Italy] is not provable, is it?

But some people find a lot of coincidences...

Like which?

All the best, --stolfi

(10-08-2026, 07:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or do you mean that, on each thread, only posts that agree with its premise are allowed?

You said that the visual form is part of this branch. I thought you had decided to prove your theory this way. Apparently, I was wrong, sorry.

(10-08-2026, 07:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My claim is that the Scribe who copied the Author's draft to vellum was not very bright, so that when he copied decorative illustrations from other books he usually misunderstood them.

He could also copy the text with errors, and one of the owners was so foolish that he decided to rewrite the text in Latin. But that’s the general idea.

(10-08-2026, 07:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He did not recognize it as a stylized cloud band, and drew it as the edge of a pool.

The same assumption...
Take a look at the pattern from Orem. The VMS scribe/artist has no reason or opportunity to draw the same pattern. It’s easier for him to draw ordinary bulges. He has no need to put in effort, but that doesn’t mean he should cut corners everywhere.

(10-08-2026, 07:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, that does not prove anything. But given the many resemblances between the Bio section and the Balneis (like the "water slide" on f75r), it is pretty likely that those green areas do represent lakes and pools. Al least as the fist layer of meaning -- that is, "pools" is indeed what the Scribe expected/wanted people to see when they looked at those figures.
[quote='Jorge_Stolfi' pid='89444' dateline='1786385360']
No, because there are zillions of other non-Aztec herbals that all look like that. Probability theory explains when such "coincidences" are significant and when they are not.

Hm... Can I also refute the speculations based on the similarity to the Orem map?
I don’t deny the fact of the similarity itself, but I proceed from the assumption that there is a diagram with planets nearby. If there is a relationship between the diagrams, then most likely, the Orem map is simply Earth.

(10-08-2026, 07:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Like which?

@Linda found matches in the shapes of the lakes. She published it in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Similarly, there’s You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where people look for matches between the castle with Rosette and real castles.

(10-08-2026, 06:35 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I confess that for someone like me—a lover of clarity and orderly thinking—the jumble of the recent posts makes me uncomfortable.

Sorry, Antonio, but that’s exactly what this forum is for — for discussions and debates

(10-08-2026, 06:35 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What both diagrams have in common is that circle of protrusions representing the boundary of the medieval universe. And if we look at pages from Quire 13, such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f75v, we see that those same protrusions form part of the tent-like canopy—itself a metaphor for the limit of the medieval cosmos.

I can only see the bulges at the edges. That’s not enough.
What other similarities and connections can you find?

(10-08-2026, 06:35 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the Voynich manuscript contains cosmological and astrological sections, it stands to reason that the Rosettes are of the same nature.

Corollary fallacy or non sequitur?

This whole jumble overwhelms me because it isn't about reasoned debate, but rather about imposing one's own view on every single detail of the Voynich. There is never any real debate—rarely is there any on the forum.

   Stolfi, you haven't replied to my latest posts where I refute your arguments. In reality, you only talk about what interests you. It’s a constant urge to argue, but one that yields no results.

   ololololo (Michael), you joined the forum only two months ago, full of enthusiasm and talking about everything as if you already had it all figured out.

    Since you both have your own theories about everything, all I ask is that you state them in your respective threads and try to convince people. Arguing is pointless.

I had just written the above when I saw that denty—who joined the forum a month ago—was disputing something I had said about the Rosettes.

    denty is precise and laconic. He has taken the academic podium and spoken only two words.

   If I weren't feeling tired and heading to bed soon, I’d write a 2,000-word post about the Rosettes foldout.

(10-08-2026, 09:54 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ololololo (Michael), you joined the forum only two months ago, full of enthusiasm and talking about everything as if you already had it all figured out.

Oh, maybe that's true. If anything, i'm sorry.
But, first of all, I do not claim that I "understood" (this can be attributed to you). I just have a lot of assumptions about many aspects of VMS. I do not know if they are true, and even more so I can't prove it.
Secondly, my goal is not to impose my point of view, because your approach is nevertheless very interesting and quite valuable in itself, even if it turns out to be erroneous. 
I'm trying to figure out why I should count the same way you do. How should I come to the same conclusion as you? For example, I don't see anything on the Rosettes that would connect them to space. I see two Suns, urban architecture, and some spheres. Beyond your contextual bias that "everything written in VMS is about space," will I also be able to see something cosmic in Rosettes?

---

(10-08-2026, 10:06 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I weren't feeling tired and heading to bed soon, I’d write a 2,000-word post about the Rosettes foldout.

Good night! 

(10-08-2026, 08:09 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Orem

Why do you call him "Orem"?  Is that how his name is rendered in Russian? (Like "Magalhães" is "Magellan" in English?)

Quote:You said that the visual form is part of this branch.

Sorry for the confusion.  Just to be clear, I disagree diametrically from Antonio in that I believe that the figures are mostly decoration provided by the Scribe with minimal input from the Author.   I believe that there is convincing evidence that many of the figures were (badly) copied from books that were circulating at the time, like the Balneis and Taccola's notebook.  That puts into question whether the illustrations could be a visual code, or at least raises that question for each specific figure or detail.

Quote:[The Scribe] could also copy the text with errors

Yes, unfortunately I think that this conclusion is unavoidable when one has tried to transcribe a significant part the manuscript, or considers the large number of single-use "weirdo" glyphs and words.  I discussed the possible sources of those errors in the proper threads.   A large fraction of errors makes decipherment harder, but not impossible.

Quote:and one of the owners was so foolish that he decided to rewrite the text in Latin

Only the text of f116v, and perhaps the top line of f17r.   And it was Latin script, yes, but the language was a mix of German and Latin, and half the words that he guessed were not valid in any language.  That has its thread, too.

Quote:Take a look at the [cloud-band] pattern from Orem. The VMS scribe/artist has no reason or opportunity to draw the same pattern. It’s easier for him to draw ordinary bulges. He has no need to put in effort, but that doesn’t mean he should cut corners everywhere.

That means he did not know that the cloud-band was a specific "graphical idiom" that had to be drawn in a specific way.  But when he got to the Big Fold-Out he apparently had been taught that point, because on the central rosette he drew a fairly "correct" cloud-band. 

For me, the question is how much of the f68v3 diagram was specified by the Author, and how much was "provided" by the Scribe.  

One possibility is that the Author gave the Oresme book to the Scribe and told him to copy that diagram, with some specific changes.  

Or perhaps the Author sketched crudely the diagram, copying some details from Oresme and modifying it according to his own ideas, and gave only that draft to the Scribe. In that draft, the could-band probably was just a single knobby line (the "nebuly line" of heraldry), and the Scribe mindlessly copied it as such before the Author could see the mistake.  

The changes determined by the Authormust have included the Voynichese text that should go in the three sectors of the "inverted  T-O map" and along the eight "spiral arms".  Maybe the "spiral arms" were his original idea, or maybe they were in his copy of Oresme's book. 

Quote:I proceed from the assumption that there is a diagram with planets nearby. If there is a relationship between the diagrams, then most likely, the Orem map is simply Earth.

There is a diagram with 12 "moons" with faces several pages earlier, on f67r2.  Those are depictions of the Earth's Moon, not of planets; because in the 1400s no one know that the planets were spheres.  Everybody assumed that they were mere points of light -- like the stars, only moving.

If f68v3 is indeed based on Oresme's diagram of the Universe, the central "inverted T-O map" does indeed represent the Earth -- but the sectors are not the three continents (Africa, Asia, Europe) as in the common TO-maps, but representations of the Biblical separation of dry land from the "waters below" and the creation of plants.

Quote:@Linda found matches in the shapes of the lakes. She published it in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

I saw a couple of such proposals, namely 

• Island of Lesbos (or route around it) = serpentine pipe of f77v, center east margin. 
  
• Lake of Garda = middle of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (rotated 90 degrees)
  

Frankly I cannot see any similarity in the first case.  In the second case, the only similarity is that both shapes have a long "handle" with a roundish "pan" at the end.  Not an uncommon shape...

All the best, --stolfi

Koen, as the moderator of this forum, I ask you to put an end to this nonsense. Stolfi and ololololo aren't engaging in a dialogue; they're just firing paragraphs at each other. And they're doing it in my thread—not in their own threads.

   I do not believe that this way of acting reflects the spirit in which this forum was created. As I have asked you on other occasions over the years, I simply want to develop my ideas without being interrupted by others who take advantage of the fact that my thread is the most read.

    I don't mind at all if someone tells me they disagree with what I write, but it is unacceptable for anyone to use the opportunity to air their own ideas when they have their own thread—or could create one—to try to convince people.

    I only ask for fair play.