The Voynich Ninja

(29-07-2026, 11:42 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Vol 3 of Trithemius' Steganographia is a 500 years old example of deniable encryption, and a very good one, only broken in the 1990s. For 500 years the prevailing opinion was that the decoy covertext is the only message.

True, and I suppose you could argue that any biliteral cipher is also an example of this.

(29-07-2026, 11:49 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "collection of recipes and spells" version differs from all of the above in that it is more banal and logical. For a book that is clearly related to medicine, this is not a contradiction or anything supernatural.

I would submit that a list of remedies and their uses (a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)  would be even more banal and logical in that context.

Quote: [The Big Spill theory] looks absurd to me, i.e. letter substitution. If the author, say, "outlined" the contours of the erased letters, he could see that it is not l, not b, and not the rest of the Latin letters. Halfway through, he must have realized that it didn't make sense.

Heve you noticed the big question mark at the end of line 4?

(Interestingly, that shape for the question mark seems to be rather modern.  I wonder if it can be used to date the "anchiton" script?  Wikipedia says that that shape began to be used in the 1200s, but points to examples in the late 1400s...)

Quote:On f17r, as you say, there is also a watery spot, and there are two words in Voynichese. Apparently, the same slacker is responsible for this as for f116v. What does this mean? The owner did not read the book at all? He did not even bother to open it? He deliberately did not look at the text on the pages? He deliberately skipped all the pages except You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f116v? Even after realizing that it was not Latin, he continued to write nonsense?

First, the slacker need not have been the owner.  He could have been a librarian or secretary trying to salvage a pile of books damaged by a roof leak.    Or a friend who had just borrowed the book to have a look, and desperately tried to hide his damage from the owner.

(Normally, wiping spilled water off a vellum book would be safe, because the ink would almost surely have been iron-gall, used precisely for being waterproof.)

But even if the slacker was the owner: imagine that it is 1600 and you bought this bizarre anonymous book from a used book shop or the widow of a friend.  You spent a couple of hours browsing through the figures and poring at the big fold-out. You noticed that it was written in a strange alphabet, but, to your eyes, it might as well be Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, ...

Let's assume that you were intrigued enough to study this foreign script.  There is no Internet, no Wikipedia, no Mary D'Imperio or Rene Zandbergen.  How much study would it take for you to realize that the bizarre script is not just an elaboration of the Latin script -- even though you can read the Zodiac month names, and several of the glyphs (like o, a, y, i, C, r, d, q) do look like Latin letters?  How long would it take for you to realize that while "d", "a", or "o" could be a possible reconstruction of a lost letter from f116v, a "p" or "b" would not be?

Quote:

(28-07-2026, 10:28 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are no stars on f116v, just as there are no stars on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. after line 30 or so.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the essence of this argument

I meant simply that, since there are no stars on f116v, there is no reason to think that stars signify "charm" or "recipe" on other pages.

All the best, --stolfi

(01-08-2026, 07:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would submit that a list of remedies and their uses (a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) would be even more banal and logical in that context.

That's also true...

(01-08-2026, 07:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Heve you noticed the big question mark at the end of line 4?

It looks cloudy and worn, like a dirty spot on top. It feels like a pareidolia.
In any case, the handwriting is somewhat reminiscent of Voynichese (especially the way the letter e is written in the word poxleber). My point is that this similarity could mean that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was written around the same time (and maybe by the same person?).

(01-08-2026, 07:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but, to your eyes, it might as well be Greek, Armenian, Arabic, Hebrew, ...

If I were familiar with these languages (and I should be familiar with them in order to say this), I would try to translate the text rather than change it to Latin letters.

(01-08-2026, 07:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How much study would it take for you to realize that the bizarre script is not just an elaboration of the Latin script -- even though you can read the Zodiac month names, and several of the glyphs (like o, a, y, i, C, r, d, q) do look like Latin letters?

I suppose that even if it sounds like Latin to me, I'll notice that the words are far from Latin.

(01-08-2026, 07:09 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How long would it take for you to realize that while "d", "a", or "o" could be a possible reconstruction of a lost letter from f116v, a "p" or "b" would not be?

The stupid copyist probably never even saw the letters k or f, but he looked very closely at d, a, and o...
If he was drawing on the outlines of the erased letters, why didn't he recognize the gallows and write them as L and B, which didn't quite resemble them?

However, @Jorge_Stolfi, there is reason to believe that this may not have been written by the co-author of the manuscript:
[attachment=16933]
The letter a is written in a different way than in VMS (in addition to the fact that it is compressed on f116v, it is written as if in one stroke, although it requires two strokes to make the e and i parts). 
The Sh is also different - the "legs" are quite low, and the second leg comes from the middle of the line, although it should come from the end.

The other letters also look quite strange when compared to other Voynichese letters. Perhaps the author didn't know how to write those letters, so he just drew them awkwardly.

If you are having fun with f116v, check out page 75 and 85 (and thereabouts)...

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

(01-08-2026, 07:31 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, @Jorge_Stolfi, there is reason to believe that this may not have been written by the co-author of the manuscript:

Well, I belive that the aror Sheey was writen bythe original VMS Scribe, and is still pretty much like he wrote it.  (Actually I think that it went through the same global restoration Rt1 as most of the other pages; but this pass, well after the spill affair, was very careful and barely changed the script.)

Quote:The letter a is written in a different way than in VMS (in addition to the fact that it is compressed on f116v, it is written as if in one stroke, although it requires two strokes to make the e and i parts). The Sh is also different - the "legs" are quite low, and the second leg comes from the middle of the line, although it should come from the end. The other letters also look quite strange when compared to other Voynichese letters.

I disagree. Those glyphs are well within the (enormous) range of variation of the original scribe's handwriting.  Here is an example from f116r:
[attachment=16934]
To me, it looks close enough to the a of f116v aror .

In fact, the a of aror is essentially the only "a" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that look like a Voynichese a. The others look like they were first drawn like a "c", then had a pointy "hood" added at the top.  Not at all like the way Voynichese a is drawn on other pages.

The only possible exception is the last "a" of "oladabad", which is not far from the Voynichese norm.

All the best, --stolfi

(01-08-2026, 07:41 PM)JoeyB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you are having fun with f116v, check out page 75 and 85 (and thereabouts)...

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

Very interesting! But what is noteworthy on those pages?  AFAIK Friedman and others mentioned in that document did not reach any plausible conclusion ...

All the best, --stolfi

(01-08-2026, 10:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, I belive that the aror Sheey was writen bythe original VMS Scribe, and is still pretty much like he wrote it. (Actually I think that it went through the same global restoration Rt1 as most of the other pages; but this pass, well after the spill affair, was very careful and barely changed the script.)

Someone believe in God...
In any case, we can't know for sure.

(01-08-2026, 10:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I disagree. Those glyphs are well within the (enormous) range of variation of the original scribe's handwriting. Here is an example from f116r:

Perhaps, yes, they are similar, but the author of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. entry seems to have thought that e and i parts are written with a single stroke.

(01-08-2026, 10:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact, the a of aror is essentially the only "a" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that look like a Voynichese a. The others look like they were first drawn like a "c", then had a pointy "hood" added at the top. Not at all like the way Voynichese a is drawn on other pages.

This is almost the same thing I was talking about...

(01-08-2026, 10:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In writing, yes, but there are similar a letters next to it, just slightly pointed. The difference is not that significant...
The only possible exception is the last "a" of "oladabad", which is not far from the Voynichese norm.

(01-08-2026, 11:59 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Someone believe in God...

And some believe in secret communities of astro-balneo-herbalists... Or magic inks and quills... 

Quote:Perhaps, yes, they are similar, but the author of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. entry seems to have thought that e and i parts are written with a single stroke.

Sorry, I am confused. I don't get your point.  

Everywhere in the VMS the glyph a is written as two simple pen strokes: an e and an i, both from NW to SE.  Just like on the aror of f116v.  

It is all the other "a"s on f116v, on the "Latin" and "Germanic" words, that are drawn in a strange way.  

Do you agree with that?

All the best, --stolfi

It is certain that the "a" in Voynich does not necessarily have anything to do with the Latin "a."