The Voynich Ninja

(06-12-2025, 02:05 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:This could be and probably is a reference or an allusion to german manuscripts (and those German manuscripts could be an allusion to other, possibly earlier manuscripts/ideas)

The idea of presenting winter as an old person isn't actually very original. It is rather some universal archetype. Old year is dying just like the nature but the new one will be born and nature will be reborn.
And old women often walk with a stick and pray a lot 

Quote:Can anyone tell me, is there a compiled list of manuscript database resources on VN somewhere or elsewhere? Thanks in advance.

Unfortuantely you rather won't find any single list here.
It would be rather long, possibly with over 1000 items.
You may try reading the threads and making your own list.

By the way, as you probably already know, you can make a thread with your theory. People have their own threads and for some it somehow works without anyone getting bitter. I guess the key is not being too overzealous and presenting your results not as an absolute truth but rather as an option. But it is your choice, of course.

That’s why I asked, I’m reading a lot of these threads and seeing a lot of helpful references I’ve never seen before. My “overzealousness” is not any different from your post about the Rohonc being decoded. (By the way, the academia link is a dead link).

I think the image in this specific instant is  connected to Greek culture (ie Peletory of the Wall, The Pleiades), I’m unable to search large specifically Greek Manuscript databases, so if someone has a reference handy so I can properly make my point without solely translation evidence that would be stellar.

@Doireannjane


[I've tried getting rid of this "user URL.." a few times.. I give up]
[url=https://www.voynich.ninja/user-3073.html][/url]The frustration is due to the "blindness and deafness" that comes with having a theory that is very convincing to you.
Rich C has a long standing theory that the manuscript is a forgery, but it would be very hard to communicate properly if he said "it don't matter anyway because its a forgery" in posts, or masked it more due to requests of admins to "this may not be relevant, for more information see my blog here". It gets tiring. Its not a reflection of the strength of the theory but the "off-topic'ness" it introduces in places where it is not wanted.   

When I come into this thread I accept that the proposals and theories may not align with my own. I think this is healthy honestly. I buy books by people that have the total opposite views to myself and its not to say "this is wrong!" but try to learn and see the other side. In this case in particular, refuting well done and presented research with "my theory" is not scientific or in a quest for truth. You will see Jorge say "this looks very good, I wonder how that fits into my theory", but not reject it as a threat to his theory. This is why "I'm tired, boss" with how you address things sometimes. If you have an Irish theory and enter the Chinese theory thread you should be looking to learn, not teach, imo. 


Also, I am aware I've left a couple of your questions hanging Jorge, I'm not ignoring you I just need to reread a few things so that I'm not talking out my ***. Also I keep getting distracted  , I think I might have a definitive answer to your Kelly's powders question soon. 

Also-also, do you prefer "Stolfi"? My default is using first names, but I've seen Rene address you this way and you sign off this way, so I thought I would ask.

(07-12-2025, 02:32 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also-also, do you prefer "Stolfi"? My default is using first names, but I've seen Rene address you this way and you sign off this way, so I thought I would ask.

The details and reasons are complicated, but basically people here call me "Stolfi", and that is my normal username for email and www, while in the US I was called "Jorge".  I used to sign off as "stolfi" in the old mailing list.  I started signing as "jorge" here, but then another "Jorge" joined in, so I switched back to "stolfi".

And anyway my mom called me "Giorgio".

So you may call me either way, I don't mind.  "A rose by any other name..."

All the best, --giorgio

@bluetoes

I interacted with this post because something was mentioned definitively about 85r that wasn’t true. We do not know 85r is a literal reference to German manuscripts. We do not know that is a rosary. That statement by Rafal deserves correction. If you’re a person with authority, so to speak, in this forum, like Rafal, and you throw out falsehoods like that, then you are sculpting a narrative, a common “knowledge”. 

My experience of this forum is witnessing  a lot more people wanting to lead the way and play goalie than those lead by genuine curiosity.  I was harassed on my TikTok by a continuous poster on this forum, one of the first people to throw an unwarranted personal jab/assumption at me in my Irish thread. This forum feels politically charged. 

 I respect the OP and this thread. My post is important for the integrity of this thread.I should also note, I’m finding overlaps between Irish and Chinese in terms of tonality and script in previous approaches and I have a lot more to say that I don’t. But I’ll absolutely call out what deserves a call out. If others are playing goalie, I should be able to as well.

 I just know 85r is not a literal reference to the German manuscripts and I don’t have the resources to prove that. And if I call Rafal’s definitive verbiage out without any reasoning to refer to,  I’ll be considered crazy or intentionally contradictory. Which is not my intent. So I mentioned my reasoning, I did not reference my work directly. Others have done this on the forum.

I didn’t mean to be an annoyance, I have my reasoning. 

I think all of your validity in this forum goes out the window when you apply the same linguistic approach, with strict, definitive, precise linguistic rules, to the multi-scaled and layered ART involved, ESPECIALLY if you can’t read the accompanying text.

Again, apologies for the annoyance.

The comparison that Rafal is referring to, and which goes back to work by Koen, supported by several others here, is not fact. However, it is entirely reasonable, even as it is not proven.

On the other hand, it is definitely invalid to base arguments on unproven interpretations of the text, that really have no chance of being correct.

Quote:The comparison that Rafal is referring to, and which goes back to work by Koen

Indeed.
I don't claim to be any kind of expert. Actually I am quite a newcomer, seriously interested in VM for about 3-4 years. And there are people here who deal with Voynich since 1990s.

The resemblance was spotted by Koen, Marco and several other members who are dealing with VM for a much longer time, have their acknowlegded achievements and are respected in our small community. I just agree with them.

Jane, if you don't agree, make your thread and present your argumentation there as I already suggested.
But be prepared that you will be discussing with the mainstream view that VM imagery is related to Italian and German sources. If you spot there other influences like Celtic or Greek, argue for that.

Btw, sorry Jorge for highjacking your thread 

(07-12-2025, 09:54 AM)Doireannjane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We do not know 85r is a literal reference to German manuscripts. We do not know that is a rosary.

We know very, very little about the VMS.  The C14 date of the parchment, the various images, some spectra.   Everything else is just guesses.

The four figures of f85r1 are definitely not literal copies of the illustrations of Heinrich Laufenberg's Regimen, at least in the versions that have been posted here.  perhaps the VMS artist was drawing them from memory, perhaps he was copying form a very  bad version, perhaps he drew them from a poor verbal description...
Anyway there are several notable differences:

• The handle of the staff (hatchet?) became a knob in the VMS.
  
• The rosary (or loop of chain for carrying firewod?) turned into a chain of three wreaths.
  
• The urine jar turned into a perfume/medicine bottle (or orb-with-cross?).
  
• The "doctor's skullcap" lies under the "doctors" hair.
  

In particular, the urine jar in the Laufenberg versions had a perfectly logical appearance: unadorned, clear transparent, with a smooth and broad funnel-shaped neck, easily washable, with a sample inside that the doctor was examining against the light. The VMS version is totally unsuitable for that purpose, and the figure holding it seems to be showing it to others, not examining it himself.

Also, we do not know whether there was an ink line separating the "skullcap" from the forehead.  If there was, that line is now covered by the opaque blue paint.  But if the skullcap is only painted, it may not be original...

But, in spite of these differences, the similarities (one figure holding a staff and a big ring, one holding a vessel up high) seem too unlikely to be just coincidences.  AFAIK, before the Laufenberg reference, there was no plausible interpretation of those four figures.  The hunched lady, alone, suggested it could be an allegory for the Four Ages of (Wo)Man; but the other figures, and the wreaths of that lady, made no sense.

On the other hand, the differences above imply that the VMS artist did not understand what those details were supposed to be, or the meaning of the allegory.

All the best, --stolfi

Yes Jorge, you’re agreeing with me. And this isn’t meant to call you out Rafal specifically, just the definitive language choice. We do not know it is rosary. Reference to this scene, reference to rosary, allusion to a rosary, sure. We do not know there’s a literal interpretation here, even after the previous discussion referenced (the Koen thread all of us in this conversation have fully read through). My input is a very valid, important and REASONABLE (for Renee) thing for me to add here. We do not know. There’s a long winding response from you Jorge which is appreciated, just not entirely necessary-  instead of just saying, yes I agree, we do not know. I will add there is/was far less conversation/push back/interaction in the Rohonc solution thread than there is here with my small, valid input. 

Maybe we should be engaging with the OP more here and offering possible resources/links to those in the thread who have requested/may need them?

Philosophically, we don't really _know_ much of anything with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean that every possible explanation or theory is equally plausible and reasonable.



Or to put it in other words; pointing out that we don't know something for sure is rarely particularly interesting or useful on its own. It's a matter of degrees of confidence, not a binary know/don't know.

Let’s say in the future the internet isn’t preserved and the script in these images isn’t well documented/understood. Historians could look at the following images, and based off of readily available printed material, say these images are likely some kind of greeting card, advertisement or inspirational quote.. And that might be hilarious and/or frustrating to a person that understands the text.

But yeah, it’s valid for me to say that there exist contexts in history that have not been well preserved, especially given the VMS is written in an  “undecipherable” script. We can’t definitively say something was a rosary based off of image or even a clear reference alone without understanding the text/context.