The Voynich Ninja

As far as I know, only Edith Sherwood thought the MS was written by Da Vinci.

It may be that Edith Sherwood popularized the idea and the VM theorists out there latched onto it and haven't yet let go. But the timing is wrong for the creator(s) to have been da Vinci. He wasn't born until 1452. For similar reasons, we may be able to rule out several other contenders: Albertus Magnus (died 1280), Roger Bacon (died c. 1292), John Dee (born 1527), and Edward Kelley (born 1555). Giovanni Fontana (c. 1395-c. 1455) and Filarete (c. 1400-c.1469) have also been proposed and I don't think they have yet been disproven. There have been many more proposed creators, including the hoax candidates.

This of course assuming we accept the radiocarbon dating as the timing for when the VM was written, which, although the ink analysis corroborated that to some degree, is disputed as it is insufficient proof due to the nature of the science, the small sampling used, the centuries of newer substances with which the VM has come into contact that could throw off test results, and the fact that this really only gives a starting point for the dating and not an end point. Some would say those tests were perhaps convincing but they certainly weren't irrefutable.

There really is no comparison, in terms of ability or quality, between the VM's creator(s) and that of da Vinci. But that isn't to say that the VM's creator(s) bore no similarities to da Vinci. Ultimately, any such similarities, however, may only serve as circumstantial evidence in profiling the VM's creator(s) and we really don't know enough yet to build such a profile. There is every possibility the creator(s) were one or more individuals who are not yet known to us today and may never be. Time will tell. In the meantime, the best we can do for any potential identification made is to poke holes in them until we either sufficiently disprove them and remove them from consideration or don't and leave them on the list of possibilities for further analysis later. And we can continue looking for clues in the VM that might equate to some sort of recognizable signature of some sort.

(22-05-2024, 01:39 PM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.although the ink analysis corroborated that to some degree, is disputed as it is insufficient proof due to the nature of the science, the small sampling used, the centuries of newer substances with which the VM has come into contact that could throw off test results, and the fact that this really only gives a starting point for the dating

Do you have a source for this?

Regarding VMs creator(s), specifically the artist(s), I would suggest that we clearly have enough information to build quite an interesting profile based on what certain VMs illustrations reveal in their historical information. Various investigations, from the cosmos to mermaids and sheep (fleece), to the fashion of sleeves and hats, indicate a familiarity with an era in Europe [1400-1450] that is coincident with the C-14 dating. In addition, other historical and religious interpretations are included that were relevant 
to that era.

It is not a single investigation, but a summation of the results from various researchers, that tells us some of what the VMs artist(s) knew. The VMs artistry reveals a knowledge of history that can only be recognized when the investigator discovers (rediscovers) that same relevant information.

The person(s) responsible for VMs artistry had access to the relevant information, then chose to use that knowledge in a way that indicates intentional, idiosyncratic manipulation.

There are so many more things I want to share about my findings. Especially about the physical aspect of the manuscript.

Here I wanted to add the S at the bottom of the page that I forgot to show in folio 99r. Also, one of the symbols in folio 99r resembles the symbols I have found in this beautiful book full of amazing illustrations. I wonder if the creators of the VM are talking about planets. This symbol is Uranus, we can see other planetary symbols in the Voynich.

Also, wanted to share findings on folio38r as I explain on the jpg. 

Let me know your thoughts.

I traced this bird on folio 1r and I was intrigued by the shape of a nicely designed symbol that we don't realize at first glance..

Also, on my previous post I think I have confused the zodiac signs and said it can be a planet symbol. I think I am wrong about that and believe it was an astrological pisces symbol instead.. I know many others are much more qualified than me to make these links.

Symbols for zodiac signs didn't exist in the first half of the 15th century. The earliest that I can find quickly are in a printed book dated 1482.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Wrote:The history of the symbols is unknown; they seem to appear first in Greek manuscripts of the late You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

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

(22-05-2024, 12:18 AM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a fun link, thanks. Do you think Da Vinci created the VM? Many people do..

---

(21-05-2024, 08:00 PM)Pardis Motiee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems the artist was getting inspired by the shapes of letters.

I wonder if it's just inspiration, maybe there is a meaning..

If you can find the same letter on the roots of different plants, maybe the plants were divided into different types; for example, plants with tuberous roots were categorized by one letter.

A letter giving the meaning like a full word can be found mostly in East Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese.

But based on what can be seen on folio 49v, each letter might be explained, like numerals, by a line in front of it.

[quote="nablator" pid='59724' dateline='1716570922']
Symbols for zodiac signs didn't exist in the first half of the 15th century. The earliest that I can find quickly are in a printed book dated 1482.

[quote="Encyclopaedia Britannica"]The history of the symbols is unknown; they seem to appear first in Greek manuscripts of the late You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


Thanks nablator for the link : )  I wonder, if there is a possibility that the creation of this book began later than the carbon dating of the calfskin .. for example, created at the same time the first microscopes were invented, maybe?

(25-05-2024, 03:10 PM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="nablator" pid='59724' dateline='1716570922']
Symbols for zodiac signs didn't exist in the first half of the 15th century. The earliest that I can find quickly are in a printed book dated 1482.

[quote="Encyclopaedia Britannica"]The history of the symbols is unknown; they seem to appear first in Greek manuscripts of the late You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


Thanks nablator for the link : )  I wonder, if there is a possibility that the creation of this book began later than the carbon dating of the calfskin .. for example, created at the same time the first microscopes were invented, maybe?

In one of Koens Youtube videos, Lisa Fagin Davis says the holes in the manuscript were already there and they used them as part of the illustrations. I thought this made sense. If we look at the holes, they seem pretty big which I assume were damaged over time (years) before the creator(s) decided to use this calfskin..