The Voynich Ninja

A friend of mine dropped me the link. The interview is in Russian, and as far as I can see there are no English subtitles unfortunately.

Unfortunately, these days I haven't had enough time yet to view it in full, the first ~20 minutes that I got into are mostly descriptive, what's the VMS, its history and all that. The description of the video, however, announces the subject of whether the VMS is, or is not, a "modern forgery" as the main subject of the talk.

What I did not like from the onset was the suggestion that the VMS may be a palimpsest. I recall that the statement that the VMS is not a palimpsest was the one most unanimously (pardon me this) approved in our sadly abandoned Voynich facts endeavour.

A quick search showed me that Dr. Chepikova is from the University of Jena. I don't remember her name mentioned in any of the Voynich discussions however.

The Russian speakers who happen to watch the video in full please be welcome to add to this; so will I when I have time to watch it further.

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

Just noted that there is the option of automatic translation on Youtube, have no time to check the quality, can only hope that it's decent!

I didn't learn anything new. A good salad of versions and other people's historical research taken from Wikipedia.
She is clearly not a member of the ninja community and has not personally studied the text.
For example, her statement that there are no single-character words in the manuscript. She doesn't know that the months are written in different ink.
Her opinion is not a forgery by Voynich, the Manuscript was written in the early 16th century, on older parchment.

This video is not intended for Voynich enthusiasts. It is a general presentation of the manuscript at the suggestion of one of the channel's viewers. The presenter is a "science journalist" who has published two books on the history of astronomy, if I understand correctly. She did not claim to be an expert on either encryption or Voynich, she quoted two articles: Guy and Torsten and his co-author. For the rest of the research on the manuscript she uses the term "they".

(12-03-2022, 06:24 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Her opinion is not a forgery by Voynich, the Manuscript was written in the early 16th century, on older parchment.

Were there any interesting arguments toward this point of view?