The Voynich Ninja

(26-11-2025, 09:02 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The two plants you post have different leaf shapes, neither of which is like the VM plant...

Oh, you have to be very careful with ivy leaves  , ivy has many leaves of very different shapes. However, a typical feature is the backward-curving leaves, which are shown here as a distinguishing feature:

(@ Koan, Is there such a collection thread for VMS plants / real plants?)

Here is an example of such a leaf.

[attachment=12648]

It's definitely ivy-like. But this type of climbing/clinging plants is notoriously hard to pin down in the VM. For example, I remember a very long discussion about f17v, which ended in Tamus/Dioscorea communis as the most likely candidate. It's got tubers, a better leaf shape and red berries. It would also be a better match for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. plant.

What probably no one has noticed yet is that the devices on page 99v and ff could be simple tubes that can be plugged into each other.

[attachment=12654]

@ Koan, there remains a residual probability that it is not ivy.

I wondered how anyone could come up with the idea of seeing a “round fortification wall with battlements and watchtowers (? see below)” in the middle of a possible plant cut, as in the circle in the middle of the Rosetta Page. Unfortunately, there aren't that many plant cross-sections on the internet, but here I found something that, with a lot of imagination (admittedly), could be interpreted as a fortification wall.

[attachment=12656]

But even crazier is the following, which I noticed on closer inspection: These are not watchtowers at all; we know these vessels; they are from page 88f.

So did he supposedly find the basis for his “devices/vessels or tubes” here in the middle of a possible plant cross-section? Or vice versa? He developed the devices because he suspected they were here, and therefore drew them in there.

I don't know, but it's amazing...

[attachment=12655]

Conclusion:

I realize this is a completely crazy theory, don't worry. But it has such a strange kind of craziness that it could almost be true. What makes it so “beautiful” in a way is that it could reconcile all areas of the VMS. And, no question, the Middle Ages were often very crazy from our modern perspective.

I don't know. What do you think, total nonsense or something worth thinking about...

The problem I'm having is that without your nascent translation, I don't see a lot to go off of on the plant vascular system metaphor here. (And this is entirely factual; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) These side-by-side comparisons have apparently significant deviations---roots that are entirely different; vessels with deviating shapes, sizes, and parts. In particular, one must be extremely careful when leaning on metaphor because it is quite literally an appeal to something that isn't there.

So I suppose my question for you is: What distinguishes this from the great many other partial and plausible comparisons? Is there some line of evidence or argument you can share that would strengthen the points of similarity and weaken the problems raised by the differences?

(26-11-2025, 08:26 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem...

I understand your criticism, and although I see things somewhat differently, I also accept that it is justified. No question about it. Observations of similarities are simply highly individual.

But most of the theories I know about the VMS are based only on assumptions and little “evidence,” if any.

If you compare the book with the classic medical books of the time (and earlier), it immediately becomes apparent that this cannot be the case. It must be something completely different. Why else would it be encrypted? People only protect knowledge that they consider worth protecting. 

This theory attempts to put everything into an overall context. Most theories I know of tend to be “island theories.”

--

But of course, then one can ask the question: Why should anyone even come up with and publish such a strange theory?

Because it is much easier and better to decipher something when you know what it is about. That's all.

And by the way, I think it's a shame that so many people work on VMs but keep their really “important” or even crazy insights to themselves. Is it about personal fame, or about deciphering the mystery? For me, it's about the latter...

And often it's a completely crazy idea that leads someone else to something that leads to a solution, even if it has nothing to do with the original idea.

I wanted to clarify the similarities between the roots and the vessels once again, as they were obviously not understood. This has nothing to do with my conclusion and theory; this similarity may also have a completely different explanation. But in my opinion, it exists.

f88. ff

[attachment=12752]
Here you can see a slender root body (black) that is slightly curved convex. From this grows (in his imagination) a narrow stem (green) that is also slightly curved concav.

The root ends, red, are similarly shaped.
---
[attachment=12753]
Here we have leaves in blue at the top that have a similar shape (blue circles). Below them we see a squat body, almost a barrel (black), which looks very similar. At the top is a wide open space (black circle). Many stems grow out of it (green circle)

The roots (red) have many small, thin ends.
----
[attachment=12754]
Here we see another leaf (blue) that has a similar shape (upside down). Again (green) there is a wide area from which a smaller pod grows, similar to the stems (small green circle)

The root (possibly young mandrake) is very bulbous, and this is also reflected in the vessel (black lines).
The root end is pointed, which also fits (red tips).
-----

[attachment=12755]

The vessel and the plant have very similar bodies (black). The root ends are initially more complex and then become fibrous, which has a certain similarity (but only a certain one).

----
[attachment=12756]
In the last device, I find that what was mostly green before, i.e., belonged to the stems/leaves, also shows an interesting similarity here.


So I think that the similarities, if you go by the structure of the plant, go far beyond the normal probability of similarities.

I found another plant cross-section that has the same characteristics as the graphic in Vonich—however, I am not allowed to copy the image here because it is from alamy, so here is just the link:
It still won't be the same plant, but the cross-section will be very similar.

It has the same internal structure; even the light spots on the outer edge are partially visible.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Patterned text marker: A herringbone pattern at 5 o'clock.