The Voynich Ninja

(17-06-2026, 11:10 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.f83v - phallus and testicles

I prefer Ellie Velinska's proposal.

(18-06-2026, 09:49 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first person to officially propose an anatomical interpretation of certain images was Joseph Martin Feely in 1943.

Was he really the first ?  Only in 1943?  I find it hard to believe that someone could have looked at drawings like those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and not thought immediately of organs...

All the best, --stolfi

(18-06-2026, 04:33 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(17-06-2026, 11:10 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.f83v - phallus and testicles

I prefer Ellie Velinska's proposal.

It's also possible, but I'm not canceling it. However, it is unclear why the eyes are staring at one point and why something is flowing out of them.
And if these are the eyes, then the one below may be the optic nerve.

---

(18-06-2026, 05:41 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-06-2026, 09:49 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The first person to officially propose an anatomical interpretation of certain images was Joseph Martin Feely in 1943.

Was he really the first ?  Only in 1943?  I find it hard to believe that someone could have looked at drawings like those of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and not thought immediately of organs...

All the best, --stolfi

Well, at least he's the first one to say that. 

(18-06-2026, 06:07 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Was he really the first ?  Only in 1943? 

Wasn't it Wilfrid's wife and his secretary who did that, too?

I actually find the comparison with Michelangelo’s "Creation of Adam"— in the depiction of God as a "brain" - very interesting; Michelangelo, of course, lives later, but it shows that anatomy was disguised. 

In some regions, a doctor who dissected corpses risked losing his social status and, of course, his job. That would be a really good reason to encrypt this work. And it would also explain the nymphs. These bathing nymphs would be the perfect cover, because they distract from the actual work. Anyone who sees this—and, of course, has no idea about anatomy—would assume they’re just bathers.

[attachment=16089]

(19-06-2026, 06:46 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I actually find the comparison with Michelangelo’s "Creation of Adam"— in the depiction of God as a "brain" - very interesting; Michelangelo, of course, lives later, but it shows that anatomy was disguised. 

In some regions, a doctor who dissected corpses risked losing his social status and, of course, his job. That would be a really good reason to encrypt this work. And it would also explain the nymphs. These bathing nymphs would be the perfect cover, because they distract from the actual work. Anyone who sees this—and, of course, has no idea about anatomy—would assume they’re just bathers.

It's really possible. But the images in the manuscript seem too suspicious to be ordinary bathers (although it was possible to disguise oneself as a bather - for example, what I identified as a nasal cavity really does resemble a public bath). 
Perhaps the illustrations were disguised not to lead us to false conclusions, but to prevent us from reaching any conclusions at all, so that the book would be useless to us and we would not take it seriously.

(17-06-2026, 11:10 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

Some questions... what is 'Culp' in your usage thereof? What part of the trachea do you think resembles the diagram it is written on? I thought is was basically a tube of cartilage, but the item you have written it on seems globular. You are missing identifications on some of the diagrams, and whole pages are missing from the quire? Were you not able to discern the parts they could be, or do you think some bathers are mixed in to make it more difficult to determine what's what? Also, clitoris/pancreatic? Those seem like dissimilar items to me, I would stick with the first one as being the the more analogous of the two, at least when I looked them up I could see commonalities with the former, but not with the latter.

I do agree the bathing is meant to obfuscate things. Although even I can see some of the things people say in terms of anatomy, I don't think that is what is being portrayed. One reason being, why would the parts be spread all over the place, would there not be more order to it? What about parts that should be more easily understood, like a hand, or a knee. 

It's not that I don't see what people describe, I mean, I see the similarity between 

and

But, when I try to associate the various parts, it starts to break down. Like, what are those 3 dangly things? How come the connections on the tubes aren't symmetric? Is that nymph a fetus with the top of the uterus removed? What's with the cube behind her?

I think the reason for the organic look is that they have chosen some very organic iconography to portray things that don't resemble that iconography at all, but which have been used to depict these items historically. Seems like a satire on its usage to me, but all the better for them, re the resulting ambiguity.

But when you break it down into what each of these things could be, it starts to make no sense, like why, if the nose is portrayed with parallel wavy lines, would the testicles have those same wavy lines coming out of them, along with being used on other pages where they also do not correlate in any way?

Those wavy lines, the tubes, the nebuly lines, the blue coloured wavy lines, the semicircular lines on the tubes, I think they always mean the same things when they are drawn. 

So why would the same wavy blue lines that make up the tongue also make up a sternum, and yet also be part of an ovary (the mesosalpinx doesn't seem like a tongue either)?

---

(19-06-2026, 10:06 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps the illustrations were disguised not to lead us to false conclusions, but to prevent us from reaching any conclusions at all, so that the book would be useless to us and we would not take it seriously.

I could see that being the case.

(19-06-2026, 09:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.what is 'Culp' in your usage thereof?

I didn't notice this mistake... It's not culp, but throat. It might be a problem with the translator. 

(19-06-2026, 09:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, when I try to associate the various parts, it starts to break down.

There was no point in the author showing everything in parts, because it wasn't that important in the context of herbal medicine. This can cause inaccuracies.

(19-06-2026, 09:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I thought is was basically a tube of cartilage, but the item you have written it on seems globular.

This is purely my assumption that this is how the author might have depicted the trachea. Perhaps he wanted to separate the throat and the trachea.

(19-06-2026, 09:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So why would the same wavy blue lines that make up the tongue also make up a sternum, and yet also be part of an ovary (the mesosalpinx doesn't seem like a tongue either)?

I don't think the author put a lot of meaning into the scales. However, it may be an indication of his understanding of organs, as he used scaly lines to represent bones.

(19-06-2026, 09:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Those seem like dissimilar items to me

The point is that what is labeled oleoedar (i.e., the platform where the nymph is placed) resembles the pancreas in appearance, but the meaning of the tubes remains unclear. In conjunction with the fallopian tubes, I have suggested that it may also be a clitoris.

[attachment=16115]
@JoJo_Jost
I really don't know what a map is doing in your presentation.

Topic: How do I evaluate images correctly?
Knowledge with Aga Special

(19-06-2026, 10:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@JoJo_Jost
I really don't know what a map is doing in your presentation.
Topic: How do I evaluate images correctly?
Knowledge with Aga Special

Oops, how did that map get in there?  

Just so there are no misunderstandings, the idea about the brain is NOT mine... I just think it's pretty plausible, because you can clearly make out the different parts of the brain in the painting.

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

(I thought that was common knowledge... sorry...)