The Voynich Ninja

Quote:I’m not interested in endless discussions.

Do you realize that raison d'être of internet forums are discussions? And you just posted to such a forum  

But if you don't want to discuss and won't tell us more details then there won't be any more discussion here indeed. Is it your goal?

(01-11-2025, 11:31 AM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I’m not interested in endless discussions.

Do you realize that raison d'être of internet forums are discussions? And you just posted to such a forum  

But if you don't want to discuss and won't tell us more details then there won't be any more discussion here indeed. Is it your goal?

Like I mentioned before, my main interest is to connect with an academic — ideally with Dr. Lisa Fagin Davis, whom I haven’t been able to reach yet.
That is the reason because i dont present my theory, because is not a theory...
I know that many people over the years have claimed to “translate” the Voynich Manuscript, but in truth most of them interpret, they don’t translate. Even AI simply mirrors the hypothesis you feed it. In the last decade alone there have been at least a hundred such claims.
What I did is completely different:
I created a methodology for translation, not for interpretation — a doctoral-level philological framework that I developed and patented. It allows a direct, reproducible translation through a morpho-syllabic “Rosetta Table.”
Using this system, I have been able to read and translate around 95% of the manuscript. It is written in an old, local form of Latin, technically precise and difficult to understand. I am now rendering it into modern, readable English.
People in that period spoke and wrote in a very different way than we do today — even the vocabulary was limited. Based on linguistic reconstruction, this “street Latin” probably contained no more than five thousand words in active use.

---

The content itself
The so-called “plants” are not plants at all.
Essentially, the manuscript is an alchemical treatise that uses botanical science as a symbolic language applied to women’s physiology. It treats the female body as a living herbarium — its organs as vegetal analogues.
The drawings express that idea visually. For instance, the text might describe how a particular plant requires warmth, water, and light to mature — and then explain that the same process can be mirrored within the human body.
It is, in essence, vegetal alchemy applied to human regeneration.

---

Example passage (from my ongoing translation)
“Water and leaf are cooked beneath the feminine light;
the gentle fire preserves their virtue,
and the soul shapes the body within that clarity.”
This short segment illustrates the internal logic of the work: the union of elements — water, plant, fire, and light — as both a natural and spiritual medicine.
It conveys the idea that the female body reflects the cycles of nature and that balance of heat, moisture, and purity restores both health and wisdom.


i give you a very small approach of my reasearch

i am looking for some academic to review the method and particpate on my books.

i can tel you more...

After more than a century, hundreds of people — from cryptographers to linguists to AI models — have claimed to “solve” the Voynich. And yet, none of them has produced a translation that actually holds up under linguistic scrutiny.
The reason is simple:

They all started with the wrong assumption.


Is not an Alphabetic language....

The real problem is that everyone assumes the Voynich must work like our modern languages —
that it has to be built from letters forming words, following the same alphabetic logic we use today.
But it doesn’t.

That assumption is what breaks every attempt before it even starts.
People keep forcing the text into systems that didn’t exist when it was written — Latin, Italian, Hebrew, or complex codex — trying to “decode” it letter by letter.

But, the Voynich wasn’t designed around [b]letters...
[/b]

(31-10-2025, 06:19 PM)ZamnaMx Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I prefer to work with academics on the methodology — debating results without a method is pointless.

There are probably less than 10 academics in the world that could offer the kind of critical feedback and support in credibility you are looking for. Every single one of them receives enough theories, questions and suggestions on the VMS to fill their whole work week, while none of that is part of their actual job description. In other words, no matter how good your work is, your chances of getting one of them to engage with your theories based on vague emails are basically zero. Even if you include details on how you came to your conclusions, your chances are barely rising. That is nothing personal, just the reality of academia where everyone with some level of public recognition has to say no to 90-99% of requests due to workload. The main problem with AI is that the production of texts that are not immediately recognizable as nonsense has risen significantly, i. e., academics are approached about reviews etc. even more often.

Finding a publisher for a series of books will hardly change this situation either, by the way. There are volumes of Voynich literature published independently or by smaller publishing houses that nobody reads, once again because there is too much material available. You need to distil your work down to a short paper that can be easily peer reviewed. This forum would probably give you the best feedback on such a paper, since most academic journals could not find qualified reviewers and would either reject for that reason (the quality ones) or print anyway but find no readers once again (the predatory ones).

(01-11-2025, 06:26 PM)N._N. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-10-2025, 06:19 PM)ZamnaMx Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I prefer to work with academics on the methodology — debating results without a method is pointless.

There are probably less than 10 academics in the world that could offer the kind of critical feedback and support in credibility you are looking for. Every single one of them receives enough theories, questions and suggestions on the VMS to fill their whole work week, while none of that is part of their actual job description. In other words, no matter how good your work is, your chances of getting one of them to engage with your theories based on vague emails are basically zero. Even if you include details on how you came to your conclusions, your chances are barely rising. That is nothing personal, just the reality of academia where everyone with some level of public recognition has to say no to 90-99% of requests due to workload. The main problem with AI is that the production of texts that are not immediately recognizable as nonsense has risen significantly, i. e., academics are approached about reviews etc. even more often.

Finding a publisher for a series of books will hardly change this situation either, by the way. There are volumes of Voynich literature published independently or by smaller publishing houses that nobody reads, once again because there is too much material available. You need to distil your work down to a short paper that can be easily peer reviewed. This forum would probably give you the best feedback on such a paper, since most academic journals could not find qualified reviewers and would either reject for that reason (the quality ones) or print anyway but find no readers once again (the predatory ones).

I think it’s a bit rude to say that I send “vague emails.”


That comment feels quite dismissive and, frankly, insulting.

My work is not based on “theories” or “magical translations.” It is a philological and linguistic methodology of scientific and doctoral-level rigor, designed to produce a real and fully reasoned translation without subjective interpretation.
The process is reproducible, verifiable, and built on linguistic and historical evidence.
Yes, I am aware of the level of noise and confusion that surrounds the Voynich Manuscript, and I also understand that some people feel a sense of ownership over something that, so far, no one has truly decoded.
However, the Voynich is not the property of any particular group or person, and neither the approval nor the disapproval of a few individuals determines the validity of anyone’s work.
That is precisely why I have approached this project from a professional academic perspective, seeking to collaborate only with qualified experts.
I have already been in touch with Yale University, and they suggested looking into these research communities.
So, no — I can’t thank you for a comment that begins with an assumption and an insult.
Regards,
Álvaro López

and i can tell you more..    

The Voynich Manuscript was not written in English, nor within an English cultural framework, so it should not be academically or culturally appropriated as such.



What we have here is a classic case of cultural appropriation: my interpretation is the correct one because I speak English.
Yet in more than 600 years, this way of thinking hasn’t solved anything — probably because it keeps looking at the manuscript through the wrong lens.

The manuscript deserves to be studied from a broader European and Mediterranean perspective, which is exactly the foundation of my work.

My comment was in no way or form meant to be dismissive or insulting. The point is that no qualified academic can check whether your work is the 1 in 10 000 or so that is actually the solution because they get 9999 others to review as well and every one of them takes more time than they have available. It is just not possible, which is not about you - this exactly what I was saying. This is why Yale sent you to the research communities.

I’m not looking for approval of my translation — I’m looking for academic evaluation of my methodological process.
My process translates the Voynich, and its content is quite impressive, but what really matters is the methodology itself — it’s scientific, philological, and reproducible.
What I must do now is not get involved in the ongoing community discussions full of speculation (like the idea that the manuscript was “invented” and lot of crazy very weird ideas), but instead focus on presenting the methodological framework to qualified academics who can evaluate it from a professional standpoint.

Quote:I prefer to work with academics on the methodology — debating results without a method is pointless.

Exactly, you choose not to give an example of your method. So we cant help you.

As an aside, here are some red flags i noticed in your posts.
. Lots of bold type
. Peculiar phrase usage pointing to an attempt at an argument-from-authority i.e doctoral-level
. Patent - can you patent a method and why would you want to.
. Unwilling to discuss Methodology -we are not really interested in a result like 'daiin' means 'moonflip' we want to know the steps taken to produce said result.
. Read my book.
. Unwilling to reveal more details because of Patent, Copyright, Book Publisher issues.
. Inconsistent reasons for posting here on an open medievalia discussion internet forum.
. Posted 'results' are word-salads or meaningless, nonsensical sentences i.e "and the soul shapes the body within that clarity.”
. Bad terminology e.g the famous Cheshire use of 'portfolio' instead of 'folio' in this case 'Alphabetic language'.
. Use of the words 'Framework' and 'symbolic' - these words have seen much abuse lately, i feel a bit sorry for them.

I hope you find what you are looking for, but i do not think you will find it here.