08-04-2019, 08:02 PM
I'm fascinated to see in how many different way this thread is going all wrong.
1. It is now *way* off the topic of the original post by Koen
2. It has begun to rehash a discussion that was already held (ad nauseam) at Nick's ciphermysteries blog.
3. It is not up to people to prove that any theory/hypothesis is wrong. It is up to the proposer to provide convincing arguments.
4. This should not be a contest who knows most about Italian diplomatic ciphers. It is pointless, because there is no way of verifying the claims, and it most probably is irrelevant. What's more, there are certainly people outside the Voynich fora who know even more than anyone inside.
5. In spite of points "2" and "3", the Voynich MS text is most clearly and most definitely not an example of a 15th century diplomatic cipher in the style of Tranchedino. A simple count of how many different characters there are (even discarding nulls, duplicates, nomenclator words) is enough to convince anyone.
6. A second point in addition to 5 is that the word structure in the Voynich text cannot be explained by such a diplomatic cipher.
7. Further in addition to points 5 and 6, and still in spite of 2 and 3, such a cipher would have easily been broken by Friedman and Tiltman, but this is already superfluous because of point 5.
I'll stop here, because the rest would be much less relevant.
1. It is now *way* off the topic of the original post by Koen
2. It has begun to rehash a discussion that was already held (ad nauseam) at Nick's ciphermysteries blog.
3. It is not up to people to prove that any theory/hypothesis is wrong. It is up to the proposer to provide convincing arguments.
4. This should not be a contest who knows most about Italian diplomatic ciphers. It is pointless, because there is no way of verifying the claims, and it most probably is irrelevant. What's more, there are certainly people outside the Voynich fora who know even more than anyone inside.
5. In spite of points "2" and "3", the Voynich MS text is most clearly and most definitely not an example of a 15th century diplomatic cipher in the style of Tranchedino. A simple count of how many different characters there are (even discarding nulls, duplicates, nomenclator words) is enough to convince anyone.
6. A second point in addition to 5 is that the word structure in the Voynich text cannot be explained by such a diplomatic cipher.
7. Further in addition to points 5 and 6, and still in spite of 2 and 3, such a cipher would have easily been broken by Friedman and Tiltman, but this is already superfluous because of point 5.
I'll stop here, because the rest would be much less relevant.
