(11-05-2025, 01:15 AM)DataWeaver22 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (11-05-2025, 01:13 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you seemed reasonable. Taxans build different I guess.
This is, grade A, horseshit. Entire thing, start to finish.
A "Mirrored structure with Neutral phase marker". You serious?
This is nonsense, stacked on nonsense supported by pseudo "trust me bro" baloney. Nice to meet you, but take it elsewhere.
Can you tell me how you tested this and proved it wrong?
(11-05-2025, 01:13 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you seemed reasonable. Taxans built different I guess.
This is, grade A, horse..poop. Entire thing, start to finish.
A "Mirrored structure with Neutral phase marker". You serious?
This is nonsense, stacked on nonsense supported by pseudo "trust me bro" baloney. Nice to meet you, but take it elsewhere.
I mean I am here very humbly and just asking for someone to actually test what I am saying, I have included steps on how to actually test it, so until you can back up your adamt appeal how can I be sure ?
I tried edit it, I got a bit feisty, so sorry for that. Saturday night beer pass..
Give the AI anything, todays news with text reversed. It will find your findings again.
Don't want to take my word for it? then here is ChatGPTs take.
this is not grounded in a testable, falsifiable, or replicable framework, and your description—
“nonsense upon nonsense using unknown things to validate nonsense”—is a fair summary in terms of scientific methodology. Let's break this down objectively.
? What This Person Is Claiming
They propose a system called
BRES (Binary Ritual Encoding System), which asserts that:
- Manuscripts like the Voynich, Phaistos Disc, and Book of Soyga are not languages, but ritual calendars.
- These are encoded via visual binaries (active/passive, start/stop, etc.).
- Structure is prioritized over content—patterns over meaning.
- The presence of visual repetition or alternation in symbols implies ritual intent.
? Scientific and Logical Problems
❌ 1.
Unfalsifiable Core Premise
“If it alternates visually, it must be ritual.”
This is
not falsifiable—any pattern could be called ritual. That makes the theory immune to testing, which is
anti-scientific.
❌ 2.
Cherry-Picked Symbolism
Symbols like "plumed heads" or "offering vessels" are interpreted through modern or personal assumptions. These interpretations are
not grounded in archaeology, linguistics, or ethnography, and alternative readings (e.g., "the plumed head is a priest" vs. "a dancer" vs. "a bird") are equally unsupported—so no interpretation is stronger than another.
❌ 3.
Statistical Sleight of Hand
“63% alternation between phases”
This is meaningless without:
- A clear and repeatable method for assigning phases
- A null hypothesis or expected alternation rate
- A control set (e.g., random symbols) for comparison
Without that, it's just pattern-hunting and overfitting.
❌ 4.
Reinforcing Speculation with More Speculation
Using the Phaistos Disc (which is itself undeciphered and controversial) to validate an interpretation of the
Voynich Manuscript (which is also undeciphered) is
circular reasoning. One speculative decoding cannot validate another.
❌ 5.
Misuse of Cross-Cultural Concepts
“360 + 5 sacred days” and “Mayan calendars”
These are historically real ideas, but
there’s no evidence that connects them to Voynich or Phaistos. Invoking them to support a binary calendar theory is
guilt by association.
? What’s
Actually Going On
This approach is typical of what’s called
pseudoscientific patternism—a method where:
- A person finds a visual pattern
- Assigns a symbolic meaning post-hoc
- Then claims the repetition implies intent or encoding
- But offers no replicable method to verify the mapping
In effect:
if you assume there is ritual logic, and then look only for things that support that assumption, you will always "find" it.
✅ What Would Be Required to Legitimize This
- Clear Definitions: What counts as "active"? How are glyphs consistently classified?
- Replication: Could someone else apply BRES to a new manuscript and get the same results?
- Control Data: Show that structured alternation doesn't occur in random texts.
- Peer Review: Submit this to a linguistics, semiotics, or history journal.
- Predictive Power: Can BRES predict something not already known?
None of these are present.
? Final Judgment
This theory is built on
subjective interpretation,
pattern overfitting, and
symbolic wish-casting, not evidence or method. It
cannot be validated independently, and does not meet the bar for scholarly or scientific analysis.