The Voynich Ninja

This is the best I can do:

6. No
7. No
10. Yes
11. No
14. Yes
15. Yes

The difficult part is that many questions assume certain answers to earlier questions.

(13-01-2020, 01:18 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These are the questions. I recycled the 2017 list and added one question at the end. Please answer in a numbered list with yes or no:

1. Does the text contain any meaning?
   
2. Has the text been purposefully enciphered to conceal its meaning?
   
3. Do the images match the text?
   
4. Are the plants meant to refer to real plants?
   
5. Is the majority of the plants exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...)?
   
6. Have the images been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning?
   
7. Is alchemy an important part of the manuscript?
   
8. Is astronomy and/or astrology an important part of the MS?
   
9. Is medicine an important part of the MS?
   
10. Is the MS the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author? (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)
    
11. Is the MS authored by a known historical figure?
    
12. Will we ever be able to read the MS?
    
13. Will there be any breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2020?
    
14. Is the MS any kind of hoax?
    
15. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years?
    

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. Yes
11. No
12. No
13. No
14. Yes
15. Yes

1. Yes
   
2. Yes
   
3. No
   
4. Yes
   
5. Yes
   
6. No
   
7. Yes
   
8. No
   
9. No
   
10. Yes
    
11. Yes
    
12. Yes
    
13. No
    
14. No
    
15. Yes
    

(14-01-2020, 08:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.14. Yes

That's an interesting answer... You think the MS is a kind of hoax?

(14-01-2020, 10:19 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-01-2020, 08:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.14. Yes

That's an interesting answer... You think the MS is a kind of hoax?

A very old one. With hoax I mean: "some intention to deceive".

1. Does the text contain any meaning?      Yes, a meaning weird for us, XXI century people 
   
   
   
2. Has the text been purposefully enciphered to conceal its meaning?     No; on the contrary, its purpose is universal
   
   
   
3. Do the images match the text?     Yes, of course
   
   
   
4. Are the plants meant to refer to real plants?   No, in general
   
   
   
5. Is the majority of the plants exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...)?  No. They are a product of the    
   imagination
   
6. Have the images been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning?  No
   
   
   
7. Is alchemy an important part of the manuscript?  No
   
   
   
8. Is astronomy and/or astrology an important part of the MS?  Yes, it is the main subject of the VM. A kind of astronomical tables
   
   
   
9. Is medicine an important part of the MS?   No
   
   
   
10. Is the MS the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author? (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript). Yes
    
    
    
11. Is the MS authored by a known historical figure?   No
    
    
    
12. Will we ever be able to read the MS?       Yes, not to read but to understand
    
    
    
13. Will there be any breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2020?     I don't know
    
    
    
14. Is the MS any kind of hoax?   No, no way. To think that is to assume that we are unable to understand the medieval mentality
    
    
15. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years?   No. I still think the same
    

(14-01-2020, 12:26 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A very old one. With hoax I mean: "some intention to deceive".

It's an interesting philosophical question to think about what a "hoax" implies. For example, there must be an intended audience who will somehow perceive the artifact as something it is not. Without an audience I would rather call it a creative exercise (in hypothetical deception). For example, if someone applied the techniques used in the VM to a private notebook I would not call this a hoax but rather an obscured notebook.

(I'm not saying that you therefore believe x or y, I had just never pondered the implications of "a hoax").

Yes, there can be intent to obscure without intent to deceive.

For example, we obscure passwords for personal protection, security, but it's not to deceive people, but rather to deter them.