The Voynich Ninja

[attachment=2956]

The Times also published a story about the retraction, ironically enough, higher up than the original story.

(15-05-2019, 11:35 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder when Lisa Fagin Davis's research is coming out?

Be very interesting to read. I have strong opinions on a few glyphs.

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

Tech Times. Dr. Kate Wiles weighs in:

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


.
Also, Cheshire claims no interpretation is involved (in reading the VMS using his system).

This is a remarkable claim if you consider that his "solution" mostly consists of a grab-bag of partial words from several languages, that are pasted together with no grammatical consistency, and that the same token is broken up several different ways, and the resulting "syllables" are often interpreted more than one way, and that the frequency distribution of the character-substitution system does not match any Romance (or "proto-Romance") language, I'd say his system is about 95% interpretation.

Other claims within Cheshire's paper:

"It is also no exaggeration to say this work represents one of the most important developments to date in Romance linguistics. The manuscript is written in proto-Romance ..."

(18-05-2019, 02:29 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-05-2019, 11:35 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder when Lisa Fagin Davis's research is coming out?

Be very interesting to read. I have strong opinions on a few glyphs.

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

This looks genuinely interesting, I hope she publishes soon.

I look forward to seeing it.

You know, I have a mostly finished blog about the individual characteristics of the different handwritings in the VMS, but if she's publishing specifically about this, I'll put the blog on hold. No need for two people to be doing it, at least not until her research is published.

This mistake about the name of the journal in the Bristol news was mentioned by another poster, so I decided to take a look and it is a pretty amusing...

"The university confirmed the announcement had been made in the official way, with an academic paper that had been properly peer reviewed.
The paper was published in ‘The Journal of Popular Romance Studies’ following a double blind peer review process by two external academic referees, a process used to validate the research quality of a study,” the statement added."


From the Journal's site:


"The Journal of Popular Romance Studies is a double-blind peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal exploring popular romance fiction and the logics, institutions, and social practices of romantic love in global popular culture."

Cheshire's paper has been downloaded 100k times already. This must be the highest downloads/quality score in the history of science.

Edit: I forgot you can't divide by zero.

Sci-News disappointingly parroted the news release without any critical evaluation of its validity:

AND.... it's aliens   You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.