The Voynich Ninja

Hello everyone.

Do you think it is possible that two manuscripts were used to read the text - one known to us as the Voynich Manuscript, and the second lost one, which contained the same illustrations and diagrams, but a different text? For example, the words of manuscript №2 could consist of ordinary, but cleverly mixed Latin letters, and the sequences of symbols in the Voynich Manuscript could be a visual instruction for bringing these words into a readable form. This could explain the strange statistical distribution of words in the Voynich Manuscript - it's just that in the hypothetical manuscript №2, the same normal word of a European language could be encoded by many variants of mixing the original letters - accordingly, the visual instruction for decoding the same word could be different in different places of the manuscript.

I understand that this theory is not the path to solving the mystery, but I believe that this theory also has a right to exist.

Something like this is possible, though I personally wouldn't look in the direction of two parts of a code that have to be combined. (This is a personal preference without any evidence). What I feel is more likely is that the text in the VM was sufficient for someone to recall a memorized text (which may or may not be from a written source). 

I'm not saying that I think this is what happened, but it is possible. So yes, the theory has the right to exist. It suffers from the same issue as the "nonsense text" theory though: we will probably never prove it. Nor disprove it, as long as the MS remains unsolved.

(03-09-2025, 08:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Something like this is possible, though I personally wouldn't look in the direction of two parts of a code that have to be combined. (This is a personal preference without any evidence). What I feel is more likely is that the text in the VM was sufficient for someone to recall a memorized text (which may or may not be from a written source). 

I'm not saying that I think this is what happened, but it is possible. So yes, the theory has the right to exist. It suffers from the same issue as the "nonsense text" theory though: we will probably never prove it. Nor disprove it, as long as the MS remains unsolved.

I agree with you. This theory can neither be proven nor disproved. However, it may explain why no one has managed to decipher the manuscript for so many years. It may explain the unnatural distribution of words in the manuscript and the distribution of symbols in words.

Finally, I would like to leave a visual illustration of my theory for those readers who will not immediately understand what I mean.

It reminds me of : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I believe that unless you capture the key, it is unbreakable