The Voynich Ninja

(23-06-2026, 03:51 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was thinking of trying simple substitution

Question: has anyone ever tried to ask AI?

(23-06-2026, 09:24 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did it never occur to you that it just might have been meaningless, a fabricated deception to mislead people into believing it to be some work of importance, but that no-one would ever be able to read ?

Didn't we agree that the overall language-like structure of the VMS strongly suggests real-language-like features? According to several serious studies.

Plus the fact that (at least) two (to five) different people seriously worked on more than 200 pages of text and illustrations.

There is no other parallel to this level of hoax in that time period. Or am I mistaken?

(23-06-2026, 10:06 AM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Didn't we agree

I never did any such thing.

(23-06-2026, 10:06 AM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Plus the fact that (at least) two (to five) different people seriously worked on more than 200 pages of text and illustrations.

That is certainly the main argument against any theory that assumes meaninglessness. A few pages to illustrate the point, sure. But a 200+ page manuscript with plenty of illustrations? Hardly.

(23-06-2026, 09:24 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did it never occur to you that it just might have been meaningless, a fabricated deception to mislead people into believing it to be some work of importance, but that no-one would ever be able to read ?

Yea, but the romance of solving the voynich was stronger.

(23-06-2026, 10:20 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few pages to illustrate the point, sure. But a 200+ page manuscript with plenty of illustrations? Hardly.

You are unsure how a 225 page manuscript may be consistent with it being meaningless? How a hoaxer would commit himself to so much work which might eventually have been for nothing?

This question has been asked before. I did my best to try to reply on that previous occasion and present a scenario that could explain many of the facts about the manuscript.

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

Your assumption that it was all done in one go seems to me to be very wrong. It was written piece-by-piece.

(23-06-2026, 10:47 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was written piece-by-piece.

I like the theory that it was written piece-by-piece. I recall reading some evidence from experts of the VMS in this direction.

The question is, what was the temporal difference between the pieces? Weeks? Months? Years?

(23-06-2026, 10:47 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your assumption that it was all done in one go seems to me to be very wrong. It was written piece-by-piece.

I don't really have an opinion on this. However, the idea that a patron would finance a work over a long period of time that he can't even read seems very far-fetched to me. At the very least, you'd expect some explanations in plain text to keep him interested. But as it stands, it doesn't make any sense. There's simply no selling point.

The layout and structure of the VMS are largely comparable to those of other herbals, especially if one assumes it is a composite manuscript. This allows us to draw conclusions about the order in which it was written. I see no evidence of a “random jumble” (e.g., plants listed last).

(23-06-2026, 03:51 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was thinking of trying simple substitution

There are reasons for this, but unfortunately, the usual approach will not be successful. I have tried to experiment based on similarities with Latin, but I have not come up with anything significant (although you may be able to succeed...).

(23-06-2026, 11:17 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-06-2026, 10:47 AM)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your assumption that it was all done in one go seems to me to be very wrong. It was written piece-by-piece.

I don't really have an opinion on this. However, the idea that a patron would finance a work over a long period of time that he can't even read seems very far-fetched to me. At the very least, you'd expect some explanations in plain language to keep him interested. But as it stands, it doesn't make any sense. There's simply no selling point.

Was there a patron at all?
It seems to me that if the author had the necessary knowledge to write a book and was able to encrypt it securely (or write the text correctly according to his own ideas), then he probably had enough resources to write the book himself. I don't think the author was a poor peasant; he could at least read and write.