The Voynich Ninja

(04-09-2026, 09:04 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-09-2026, 08:02 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So someone was spreading Voynichese-bifolios in great numbers and the current MS is their unsold stock?

Chuckling at the idea that most of them were unsold and that the Voynich Manuscript is in fact the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of medieval manuscript hoaxes

If we assume that VMS is a collection of works, then it can be counted as containing at least 4 works:
1 A fairly large encyclopedia about pharmacopoeia.
2 Foldable sheets (almanacs) with diagrams and maps
3 A book with women and pipes
4 Only text
We don’t know how many works the charlatans had in total or what they looked like, but these particular ones might not have been sold for several reasons:
1). The book in an unknown language didn’t interest anyone.
2). The works were not finished.
3). The books were finished, but for some reason the charlatans could no longer sell them.

That reasoning does not hold up against medieval practice: a majority of medicinal books were composite in some way, and in descriptions the word "medicinal" is often paired with "astrological" and followed by "compendium".

(30-08-2026, 02:34 AM)anejati Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, they aren't microscopes.

"Ornate object made via You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view./You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."could describe such a large variety of objects that it's impossible to narrow it down. They could be pots, kitchenware, musical instruments, shafts, pulleys, pipes, decorative ornaments ... the list is endless. Here's some You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. jars. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. who makes turned ornaments.

Well about those alternatives to microscopes: They clearly fail on a point by point basis. So do the great many other objects which have been suggested over the last two decades, to me, when you tally up the features which match and do not match: Perpetual candles, soft soap containers, inkwells, glassware, and many more... even capstans and cannon. For instance, you, as many have, suggest apothecary jars. Here is one from your link:

[attachment=17628]

This jar has curved sides, which are of a gradually changing diameter. Microscopes have parallel sides of multiple diameters, so that the tubes they are made of so that one could slide within the other for focusing them on the subject. Also, the proportions of the jar are wrong, with a very wide top. The Voynich cylinders mostly have smaller tops, as microscopes had, and have. The coloration on all jars I've seen suggested, as this one, are a much worse match to the Voynich cylinders... which are very similar to the tooled Moroccan leather coverings found on early microscopes ("tooling" is the craft of applying, with pressure, concave decorations into leather, often using gold leaf or other coloration in the design).

Yes, many of these object have some of the features seen on the Voynich cylinders, but still, microscopes and other optical instruments always match a far greater percentage of what is in the Voynich... as I've listed, but will repeat here: Parallel sides; multiple diameters; rims on segments; ridged, possible knurling on those rims; patterns and colors close to actual early microscope tooled Moroccan leather coverings; some with legs similar to the "Delphi" motif found on early microscopes... head out or tail fin out (some with lines seeming to denote the ridging on Delphini fins); recessed tops with light colored "material" similar to the impure glass lenses of early microscopes, and more.

Two of many comparisons I use... I have many dozens of them pointing out the much greater concurrence of these microscope features than any other alternative suggestions... which I used previously in this thread, but perhaps people have found your comment and this rebuttal... are the "Green Microscope", which is very close to an actual, known, microscope which was only 1/4 of a mile from Voynich's Libreria in Florence, in the Museo Galileo, and the instruments from the 18th century brochure:

[attachment=17629]

[attachment=17630]

Quote:If you think they're microscopes you'd have to explain why someone would just randomly draw a large number of pictures of microscopes but never even show a single cell (or any other object!) under a microscope.

I think that, from reading your point here, you are unaware of just how many people, and times, for many decades, people have actually suggested that many of the illustrations in the Voynich have been favorably compared to microscopic plant and animal cells, diatoms, and more! These suggestions seem to have come even before I was born, and I am in my 70th year, and continue to this day. These very good comparisons (for the most part) run into the dozens, if not hundreds. You can find such suggestions quoted in Mary D'Imperio's "An Elegant Enigma", which I and other suggest everyone read before making assumptions about early research (up to the 1970's). Much of what might occur to you, such as this, has been covered, and it will avoid one reinventing the wheel.

Here, for instance, and for example, is one of these, a comparison of a cross section of a wheat stem under a microscope, compared to a Voynich "wheel":

[attachment=17631]

Here is another... an engraving of a Diatom found off the Japanese coast in the 19th century, and seen at 512x magnification, compared to another "wheel":

[attachment=17632]

... note that all the diameters match, along with strong similarities to various shapes included in the Voynich illustration, such as "spokes" and "pods".

There are many more, which I have published and posted, but many I have not. There is a great number of them... but importantly, most of the comparisons I and others have made "just happen" to all appear in only four books on microscopes and microscopy: Sources for the Voynich Forgery: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. That begs a total suspension of belief that this is purely coincidence, or a case of pareidolia on anyone's part.

But you also, in your above statement, claim there is no reason, no context, for someone "... randomly draw[ing] a large number of pictures of microscopes..." in the Voynich. On the contrary... whether or not you choose to accept my reasoning here... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. claim that including microscopes and microscopic observations is far from random. I believe the Voynich, as forgery created circa 1908 to 1910, was, "... that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him."

And the included illustrations were meant to evoke the Court of Rudolf II based on the error-filled book, "Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II", by Bolton, which admitted by Voynich as one of his favorite books, and which he knew by heart. Both the Voynich (arguably) and "Follies..." contain references to New World plants and animals, magic circles, alchemy, proto-sciences, the New Atlantis, microscopes, zodiac, medicinal cures and herbal remedies, Jewish lore and sciences, and much more. Read "Follies..." I encourage everyone to do so. I think it was the primer used for the Voynich... the "core" from which the entire forgery was created around, using it as a seed idea and framework: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Pulling a large number of unsubstantiated ideas out of the air just to support an increasingly unlikely hypothesis is not a route that's likely to really discover anything about the VMS.

Well of course I respect the fact that you consider my ideas "unsubstantiated", but I will point out, again, that you seemed unaware of my proposed "substantiations", and also, that they are based not only on my own theories and observations, but also on the observations of a great many other amateurs and even experts. To dismiss my reasoning, I think, it would be best to come up with better comparisons to the ones which support Modern Forgery. I never see them... I see the jars you have copied, or other lesser comparsons used, which are often favored mostly because they are "old enough" for the parchment's C14 date only... but not really on a count of the number of points of comparison, nor the overall context and chronology I offer, which actually explains each and every one of them.

I acknowledge that as far as "looks like" comparisons go, this one both has a better pedigree and scans better for me than most. On the other hand, the overlaid images are fairly different when you look past the radii. Now, I realize you are likely to insist that I cannot look past the radii, but not only can I, the number of potential source photographs, even in the works you mention, pretty well covers the various configurations of inner and outer circles one might end up with, especially since many in both works are imprecise. I would be much more convinced if other details lined up, such as the number or shape of the chambers on the purported You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. identification or the weight and distribution of the dots in the f85r2 identification.

Now, someone may well have embellished those photographs as they copied them, but that quickly slides into territory where all similarities are in your favor and all differences are just a failure on the part of your critics to see what you see---the perennial problem of the "looks like" theory!

As I’ve already mentioned here, I, too, believe that some of these could be simple depictions of plant cross-sections.

From this post onward:

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

These structures do not necessarily have to be diatoms; based on their basic structure, they also occur in plants—as is so often the case, very small structures arise within larger structures because these are simply mathematical, biological, and physical processes that inevitably “must” lead to these formations.

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

In this context, I examined whether the theory of plant cross-sections was anachronistic for the 15th century. It is not. At that time, magnifying stones—made from polished rock crystal or quartz—were indeed in use.

It is therefore not necessarily logical to conclude from this that the manuscript was created much later.

Also, many of the larger vessels have feet, which doesn’t quite fit either, and as I show here, some of the vessels could easily be turned into tubes—which aligns with the tubes on the previous pages:

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

And here you can see that these vessels were also used in a somewhat different way:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

From this perspective, there are many other possibilities for what these vessels could be—I don’t really see them as microscopes.

(16-09-2026, 02:57 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For instance, you, as many have, suggest apothecary jars. Here is one from your link:  This jar has curved sides, which are of a gradually changing diameter.

But apothecary jars can have a zillion different shapes.  While the most common seems indeed to be a simple cylinder with slightly concave profile (perhaps for more comfortable and safe gripping), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., including two stacked cylinders with straight sides, with a ridge or painted line between the two.

Moreover, don't forget the artistic limitations of the Scribe. As in other illustrations, his mental model of "apothecary jar" must have been only loosely based on real ones, and his renderings of it were probably as realistic as the Zodiac scorpion or the volcanoes on the Rosette page. 

Quote:many people, and times, for many decades, have actually suggested that many of the illustrations in the Voynich have been favorably compared to microscopic plant and animal cells, diatoms, and more!

But the resemblances are very weak (like the alleged resemblance of f68v3 and a spiral galaxy). The diagram of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also resembles an orange sliced in half, a carriage wheel, a cathedral's round vitral, a Lullian volvelle, ...

And the details are not consistent with those interpretations.  Why would the rays of a diatom's cell have labels on them?  If f86v4 is an cross-section of a plant stem, why are there four "angels" and a moon-face in it?  

Conversely, two essential features of a high-power microscope (capable or seeing the internal structure of diatoms) are a smaller objective lens at the bottom and a support that holds the tube raised and steady with a space under the objective.  The marginal "things" of the Pharma section have neither.

Anyway, the first microscopes capable of seeing cells were made in the late 1670s by Dutchman Leeuwenhoek  They were just You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Double-lens tubular microscopes were developed mostly in the 1700s.  So if the Pharma "things" are indeed meant to be microscopes, they would be a big blunder by the forger -- who supposedly was trying to forge a book that would have been sold to Rudolf II in ~1600 with the claim that it was a Bacon original from the 1300s.   

You claim that the forger was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But that itself would be a mistake hard to justify.  No matter how much Wilfrid enjoyed that book, like any antiques forger he should have done a good deal of research, outside that source, in order to figure out what paleographers expected a "Bacon's original" to look like.

(On the other hand, I now think that Jacobus's "signature" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more likely to have been forged by Wilfrid than to have been there before he acquired the book.  I will post the reasons eventually.)

All the best, --stolfi

(18-09-2026, 01:10 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The diagram of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also resembles an orange sliced in half, a carriage wheel, a cathedral's round vitral, a Lullian volvelle, ... 
And the details are not consistent with those interpretations.  Why would the rays of a diatom's cell have labels on them?  If f86v4 is an cross-section of a plant stem, why are there four "angels" and a moon-face in it?  

I agree with you on most points, especially regarding the willingness to thoroughly research cases of forgery.

But there’s one point I’d like to address specifically—this quote. Here’s my take on it:

Microcosm-macrocosm thinking was widespread back then. And it wouldn’t be unusual to “see” angels and animals as symbols of certain forces and “energies” in plants. And it’s common for people to describe what they see using terms they’re familiar with.

The best example is the “flying saucer”—no one believed they were actually saucers. And so it’s understandable that he recognized structures which he interpreted as buildings.

As a possible example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And the fact that he tried to place the plants within the context of astrology is also entirely understandable, in line with the microcosm-macrocosm way of thinking.

These things therefore actually serve, in a certain sense, as evidence that it was indeed written in the 15th century and not much later—by which time this way of thinking no longer existed in such a naive form.

Just a quick note: I find the theory about plants very interesting, and in a way, plausible as well, but I'm aware that it's just another theory that can't be proven.

(18-09-2026, 05:56 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Microcosm-macrocosm thinking was widespread back then. And it wouldn’t be unusual to “see” angels and animals as symbols of certain forces and “energies” in plants. And it’s common for people to describe what they see using terms they’re familiar with.

But that argument works both ways.  If we are allowed to consider some parts of a figure mere "decoration" added for "familarity", how can we tell which parts are the actual contents?  

I would rather believe that the  four angels and the Moon are the actual contents of f86v4, and the rings of "cells" are just decoration...

And on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I woudl say that the actual contents is just "there is a thing that is periodic or circular, which is divided into 16 parts, each divided into 3 parts, with 24 of those 48 parts having some phrase associated to them". The "cups" around the periphery and the radial lines are meant only to visualize those divisions. (Except that the Scribe goofed and drew only 45 sectors instead of 48, and 22 labeled radial lines instead of 24)

Quote:And the fact that he tried to place the plants within the context of astrology is also entirely understandable, in line with the microcosm-macrocosm way of thinking.

Indeed in Europe at the time, and for several centuries after that, astrology was believed to be connected to medicine and therefore to medicinal plants.  Culpeper's famous herbal is an example of the latter.  Thus it would not be strange at all if the VMS made those connections.

However, AFAIK there is not a single shred of evidence for such a connection.  There is not a single detail in the Herbal, Pharma, and Bio sections that suggests Astrology or Astronomy.  Conversely, in the Astro/Cosmo and Zodiac pages there is not a single detail that points to medicine or herbs. 

In fact, AFAIK there is not a shred of evidence of connections between the major sections -- Herbal+Pharma, Astro+Cosmo+Zodiac, Bio, and Starred Parags -- other than the script and the language (or encryption, if you will).  The VMS, like many other manuscripts of that time, may well be four or more totally separate books, written by different authors in different places and epochs.

All the best, --stolfi

(18-09-2026, 01:10 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(On the other hand, I now think that Jacobus's "signature" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more likely to have been forged by Wilfrid than to have been there before he acquired the book.  I will post the reasons eventually.)

I await this post eagerly.