The Voynich Ninja

(13-05-2026, 02:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, but that is not correct.  History is full of examples where practically all the experts in a field rejected what was in fact a correct and ground-breaking discovery/solution/invention.

If we exclude the situations where the idea was initially presented without any good evidence, then I think these are mostly fictionalized accounts for better drama. At least, every time I look up the details of a similar story it turns out there were both supporters and opponents from get go, just the opponents were more vocal and authoritative. But this doesn't make as good a movie plot as "one person against the whole world", so this alternative narrative gets boosted. I don't know of an instance where a well presented idea with substantial evidence got universally rejected.

On the other hand, there are also instances where the person is right and wrong at the same time. Reminds me an old joke: a guy is competing in a trivia contest. The host asks, "Which of these birds does not build its own nest: the Stork, the Swallow, the Cuckoo, or the Eagle?"
The guy rolls his eyes and says, "That’s easy - it's the Cuckoo!"
The host is impressed and asks, "Correct! Do you know why?"
The guy replies, "Well, duh... everyone knows they live in clocks!"

(13-05-2026, 03:09 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(13-05-2026, 02:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, but that is not correct.  History is full of examples where practically all the experts in a field rejected what was in fact a correct and ground-breaking discovery/solution/invention.

If we exclude the situations where the idea was initially presented without any good evidence, then I think these are mostly fictionalized accounts for better drama. At least, every time I look up the details of a similar story it turns out there were both supporters and opponents from get go, just the opponents were more vocal and authoritative. But this doesn't make as good a movie plot as "one person against the whole world", so this alternative narrative gets boosted. I don't know of an instance where a well presented idea with substantial evidence got universally rejected.

Linear B is a good example of how a lay identification doesn't always meet academic standards. A major line of objection accepted the translation to a degree I think most people in this audience would think was agreement, but contested if it was specifically Mycenean Greek and if all the translations based on the assumption it was were correct and appropriate. It took a substantial amount of back and forth by experts to resolve those questions, in this case largely in Ventris's favor but with much more sophisticated arguments than he was making.

Given the dialectical difficulties being thrown up by the Zodiac names, there's every possibility we get this sort of detailed (and admirable! no shade on Ventris here!) sketch from a lay person, but some expert in rare 14th Century German dialects whips it into a shape that other experts can accept

(13-05-2026, 01:48 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When a solution with some promise is put forward, this will become clear. 

As someone who has received proposed solutions on a regular basis for years now, I use exactly this criterium to decide if any of them are worth a closer look.

The key words are "solution" and "promise". I really don't care about solutions that say the text is meaningful, yet don't actually include a specific mechanism to translate the text. Most of the recent 'protocols' and 'frameworks' miss the boat for exactly this reason.

Then, what is the meaning of "promise"? 
For me this is something, anything, in the proposal that goes in some way to explain the key oddities of the Voynich MS text. Or even just potentially do that.

(13-05-2026, 01:48 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When a solution with some promise is put forward, this will become clear. This has happened several times in the past, even though so far, none of those theories have managed to live up to the expectations. (Quite on the contrary).

Based on my own criterium, this has not yet happened. The only cases where I still decided to take a closer look were when at least there was nothing contradictory, for example when the proposal suggested the source text is Arabic. I do not know enough about that language group to decide either way.

What remains true is that such an initial promise is no guarantee that it will live up to the expectations.

The real problem here is that it is a huge stretch to compare Voynich MS 'research' to any form of academic research or historical discoveries. 

In every field, you have to start by learning. You need to read a lot and even that is rarely enough. You need instruction and you need feedback (tests). 
That is not the case with the 'vast majority' (deliberately vague term) of Voynich solution proposers here.

Oddly enough, LLM's have read a lot, keep on reading, and are likely to catch on. Sadly, the people using them rarely know enough to be able to properly grasp and judge their output. 

Ventris often comes up, but it is also a huge stretch to compare Voynich MS newcomers to him. 
Ventris knew Greek. He spent a significant amount of effort studying earlier research on the topic.
He had a theory (Etruscan) but gave it up when the data pointed him in another direction (Greek).

Also, his case is not the norm. It is a major exception.

I am currently the proponent of a theory that claims that the Voynich manuscript is based on the original, which is the Book of Enoch (1 and 2). Revisionist D.N. O'Donovan has subjected this to basic attributes for possible validity. Not one of these attributes was negative. With each further investigation, I find more and more evidence. The problem is that this theory breaks many paradigms. Plants are not plants, the Book of Enoch was lost at that time, the bathing nymphs are rather angels and other spiritual images, the recipes are epistles and apocalyptic history. The astronomical part is for 13 months and for a 360-day calendar with each month having 30 days. I have also questioned the currently valid date of creation. I understand that this theory would essentially erase a whole decade of research. So I understand that there is still no reaction. Dr. Donovan was probably right in saying that it will take two years before something moves and changes.

(14-05-2026, 06:39 AM)Radim Dobeš Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem is that this theory breaks many paradigms. [...]  So I understand that there is still no reaction.

[Sigh.] There is something known (in French) as the Galileo syndrome. It is not enough to break paradigms to be the new Copernicus/Galileo, you also need to be right.

Quote:With each further investigation, I find more and more evidence.

This is the real problem. Subjective validation and looking for confirmation only. The result is guaranteed pseudoscience.

(14-05-2026, 12:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oddly enough, LLM's have read a lot, keep on reading, and are likely to catch on.

This is an interesting point. In my opinion, LLM can be used as a huge knowledge summarizer, sort of Google sumarizer, and they can be used as idea creators (cautiously) (for example Terence Tao is using LLM for pushing his mathematical experimentation).

The bad point is, that they "keep on reading" and that now, a big part of the internet is created by LLM, with their hallucinations, and that part is increasing a lot. So what will they learn in a future?

(14-05-2026, 09:38 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Sigh.] There is something known (in French) as the Galileo syndrome. It is not enough to break paradigms to be the new Copernicus/Galileo, you also need to be right.

I hope I can remember "Galileo syndrome" for the next time it comes around. It's such a useful descriptor.

(14-05-2026, 09:38 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[Sigh.] There is something known (in French) as the Galileo syndrome. It is not enough to break paradigms to be the new Copernicus/Galileo, you also need to be right.

Gaillieo's use of Biblical evidence and the centrality of the analysis that the tides were caused by the oceans sloshing during the Earth's transit really are great examples of how it's possible to have a correct insight and be wrong from the perspective of arguing it. The former argument was the crux of his trial and the fact the latter argument was wrong a significant piece of why it took so long for heliocentrism to supplant geocentricism. The valid/sound distinction comes for us all.

Giordano Bruno comes to mind too. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot had an ill-considered segment about how Bruno was an early rationalist standing up to Church doctrine by arguing the sun was at the center of the solar system. I recall the imagery implying he had been martyred for science and exclaiming at the television. It certainly is remarkable how many of his positions now look like mundane science, for example the existence of other solar systems that could harbor life, but his arguments were from Hermeticism, and the bases for those claims were just as mystical as the Church's, perhaps even more so. The point being, it's easy to argue censoring and executing him was wrong, but there's more to being right than a list of conclusions that sound like other, well-argued conclusions

(14-05-2026, 12:25 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Giordano Bruno comes to mind too. Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot had an ill-considered segment about how Bruno was an early rationalist standing up to Church doctrine by arguing the sun was at the center of the solar system. I recall the imagery implying he had been martyred for science and exclaiming at the television. It certainly is remarkable how many of his positions now look like mundane science, for example the existence of other solar systems that could harbor life, but his arguments were from Hermeticism, and the bases for those claims were just as mystical as the Church's, perhaps even more so.

Yes. The idea that he was a martyr for science, and was burned because his ideas contradicted the dogmas of an evil obscurantist Church, is popular in Protestant countries -- but seems to be incorrect.  According to a SciAm article I read many years ago, the Church was upset because he was a popular figure in European courts, and was using his astronomical ideas to justify the thesis that the Pope should not meddle in local politics.

For instance, he argued that God would not have created whole planets only to leave them deserted.  Therefore, the planets must be inhabited by people, too, But then those people too would have needed redemption from their Original Sins.  Therefore Jesus must have appeared on them too, as He did here on Earth.  Therefore each of those planets must have its own Church.  And therefore its own Pope.  And therefore there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of multiple Popes...

Or, imagine a sphere  in a dark room with only one candle.  If the candle is too close of the sphere, it will illuminate only a small area.  As the candle is pulled away, the portion that is illuminated becomes bigger and bigger.  Eventually, if the candle is far enough, the whole sphere will be in its light. [Yes, I know.]  Likewise, the farther the Pope keeps from worldly affairs, the more effective he will be at his sacred mission of spreading the Light of Christianity all over the world...

Quote:Gaillieo's use of Biblical evidence [...] was the crux of his trial

Here again, the popular story seems to be rather incorrect.  He did indeed venture into theological disputes to argue that the heliocentric view did not contradict the Bible; and that may have contributed to his troubles.  

But another major reason was that he was all thumbs at politics and psychology, and ended up offending many powerful people in the Church (probably including the Pope, who had  been his personal friend when he was still a Cardinal) by implying that they were idiots for not believing heliocentrism and his discoveries.  Among those people were the astronomers of the Vatican Observatory, until then considered the best in the world.  

One of Galileo's books has a dialogue between three people about various things, including the cosmos; and the character who tries to defend the wrong popular ideas, including geocentrism, is called Simplicius -- "simpleton". 

And another contributing factor apparently was the Church still remembering Giordano Bruno and his use of astronomy to justify rebellion against the Church's political power. 

Quote:the analysis that the tides were caused by the oceans sloshing during the Earth's transit

That is a great example, but maybe not of what was intended.

Some obscure monk had published a pamphlet in which he argued that the tides were caused by attraction by the Moon.  Some 50 years before Newton's Principia. 

Galileo wrote a scathing rebuttal where he dismissed the idea as preposterous, and instead proposed his own idea that the tides were caused by the rotation of the Earth, "like water sloshes in the tank barges that take drinking water to Venice when they make a turn"...

All the best, --stolfi

First, thank you ALL for the diversity of your responses.
With my eternal respect for some who are looking for a VM finally deciphered.

Thank you all.