The Voynich Ninja

Dear all,
I'm opening this thread to discuss why a specific user is promoting his theory in every single thread, post and section of the forum, and why this behaviour seems to be tolerated. 

I'm talking obviously about the scribe + author + retracing theory. Honestly, it's becoming unbearable. For example, when reading a thread about marginalia, you'll see comments from that user like 'But this wasn't in the original text by the author! No, this was retraced!'. Then you open another post about analysis of the text, you'll see the same comments again: 'But the scribe isn't the author, and this was retraced!'. Literally in every post, even when it has nothing to do with it, the same (highly improbable, in my opinion) theory is always brought up and the thread starts to go off topic from there.

Specific theories like this one should be kept within You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; as far as I'm concerned, don't ruin the reading experience of the entire forum.

I agree it's a bit much, but we are working on it. I think the retracer theory may have been slightly more mainstream before, and Stolfi may misjudge the degree to which it registers as a personal theory here on the forum. There is a thread for that now, so we'll make an effort to keep the discussion about retracers etc. over there.

Well, on almost every thread I see people "promoting" the theory that the contents of the manuscript is connected to Medieval European culture.  And "hogging" those threads with hundreds of images of other manuscripts because of that assumption.  Shouldn't that theory be censored too?

I am not "promoting" the Retracing Theory.  I am warning people who build elaborate interpretations of images while implicitly assuming that the drawings are still exactly like the original scribes scribed them in the 1400s.  That is just a theory. I have yet to see evidence that it is true, while I have lots of evidence showing that it is not.

All the best, --stolfi

Sorry but I can't bear this post-truth nonsense. The dominant view supported by academics is not a personal theory. Personal theories are personal theories, and they go in their own thread.

The Voynich codex is a cultural object that is very difficult to interpret, but both its form and content point to a cultural object from the beginning of the 15th century.

This is something fully accepted by the academic world, as Koen says. Any other interpretation, however respectable, calls into question the very foundations of scientific knowledge.

(21-11-2025, 11:17 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry but I can't bear this post-truth nonsense. The dominant view supported by academics is not a personal theory. Personal theories are personal theories, and they go in their own thread.

You're laying it on a little thick, Mr. Gheuens. You could aim to be a bit more civil.  

Too bad I can't warn myself...

Anyway, Yavernoxia's point is understood. Let's try to get back to solving this manuscript.