The Voynich Ninja

Well this may come as a shocker to all of you, for I have found the key to read proper sentences in the Voynich Manuscript.  Theorem I of John Dee’s book commences with the word, “Per”, and I decoded 11 word tokens of the Voynich in a row for folio 1r using my cipher from his book.  Take a look!  The word, “At” breaks down to the next theorem in the following paragraph at the next voynich sentence.

Hi stellar,

This is good work and I commend you for continuing to try hard.

In this typeface, the [f]-looking symbol is actually an ʃ which represents the letter s (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Also I think you may have divided some parts of words which would naturally be together (simplicissimaque and existentium are both one word in Latin), and joined some words which would actually be separate (fuit is separate). Here is what the Latin line is:

per lineam rectam circulumque, prima simplicissimaque (space) fuit rerum, tum, non existentiu(m), tum ...

(For comparison here is your line):

per lineam rectum circulumque, prima sim- pliciffimaquefuit rerum, tum, non exiften-

(03-10-2016, 01:39 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Here is what the Latin line is:

per lineam rectam circulumque, prima simplicissimaque (space) fuit rerum, tum, non existentiu(m), tum ...

(For comparison here is your line):

per lineam rectum circulumque, prima sim- pliciffimaquefuit rerum, tum, non exiften-

My Latin is rudimentary (so Latin scholars DO correct anything I got wrong) but I'm agreement with Thomas on most points.

Here's what I get as a transcription:

Per Lineam rectam, Circulum[ ]que, Prima, Simplicissi[ ]maque fuit Rerum, tum, non existentiu[m], tum in Naturae latentium Involucris, in Lucem Productio, representatio[ ]que.

(03-10-2016, 01:39 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi stellar,

This is good work and I commend you for continuing to try hard.

In this typeface, the [f]-looking symbol is actually an ʃ which represents the letter s (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Also I think you may have divided some parts of words which would naturally be together (simplicissimaque and existentium are both one word in Latin), and joined some words which would actually be separate (fuit is separate). Here is what the Latin line is:

per lineam rectam circulumque, prima simplicissimaque (space) fuit rerum, tum, non existentiu(m), tum ...

(For comparison here is your line):

per lineam rectum circulumque, prima sim- pliciffimaquefuit rerum, tum, non exiften-

I admit my Latin is poor, but I'm not done with scoping out this document by John Dee

---

(03-10-2016, 02:15 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-10-2016, 01:39 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Here is what the Latin line is:

per lineam rectam circulumque, prima simplicissimaque (space) fuit rerum, tum, non existentiu(m), tum ...

(For comparison here is your line):

per lineam rectum circulumque, prima sim- pliciffimaquefuit rerum, tum, non exiften-

My Latin is rudimentary (so Latin scholars DO correct anything I got wrong) but I'm agreement with Thomas on most points.

Here's what I get as a transcription:

Per Lineam rectam, Circulum[ ]que, Prima, Simplicissi[ ]maque fuit Rerum, tum, non existentiu[m], tum in Naturae latentium Involucris, in Lucem Productio, representatio[ ]que.

I'm taking some hits to my reputation for trying to decode the Voynich Manuscript funny.  I'm still not done with this document!

(03-10-2016, 05:05 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I'm taking some hits to my reputation for trying to decode the Voynich Manuscript funny.  I'm still not done with this document!

Stellar, that's a clearly written lowercase "g" in a Gothic cursive hand that is probably the same hand as on the last page. The tail is curled a little more, but that's not unusual. I have many writing samples where the scribes would use a straightish tail one time, a looped tail another time and one in between (like this one) a third time.

(03-10-2016, 05:05 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm still not done with this document!

That's fair - I'm glad you're still looking and searching!

I think one issue that might be good to consider is this: with numerology, it's possible to make the text come out as Latin or Welsh, but that's because with numerology it's possible to make the text say just about anything - and if the method can produce just about anything, it's too loose.

For example, Oocephalus showed that he could make you the author using numerology:



And unless you have a big secret that you're hiding from us stellar I don't think you're the author

This use of numerology reduces every word in an entire lexicon to a single, representative digit, 1 through 9. There is no way that this sort of arbitrary substitution can function as a method for reliable communication.

(03-10-2016, 08:21 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This use of numerology reduces every word in an entire lexicon to a single, representative digit, 1 through 9. There is no way that this sort of arbitrary substitution can function as a method for reliable communication.

Actually, I think it can.

If the number 3.141592653 or a full sentence out of one of Dee's books were found in the exact same numeric sequence, it's highly unlikely to occur in a manuscript of this kind by accident.

However, since stellar's application of the numbers is based on 1) misreading some of the VMS glyphs and 2) misreading some of the Latin in one of Dee's books, 3) cherry-picking the glyphs to be interpreted, and 4) cherry-picking the numerological conversion system based on an Internet utility rather than on actual Welsh numerology research, I think it's highly unlikely that any of the data presented so far is credible.

Is that pi minus one?

I was looking at the possibilities within each of the numerical sets as basically being random, but you're right in that the string of individual values in a sentence would turn out to provide a specific number. And then, if that numerical sequence can be found repeated in a plain text, there could be a sort of correspondence, an argument for equivalence, perhaps. Sort of like a numerological version of Pelling's 'block' paradigm proposal.

The obvious disadvantage of this type of investigation is its difficulty in implementation. The VMs can be given some interpretation, but what about the plain text? Where does it come from? Why not from Oresme, instead of John Dee, if we already have a representation of the Oresme cosmos in the VMs?

The problem is in the nature of the comparison. This is an internal (VMs elements) to external (unnamed plain text) comparison. The basic premise of the comparison is flawed because of the extreme improbability of finding the proper plain text.

This problem is solved by changing the nature of the comparison. A simple and easy solution can be found by presenting both of the elements for comparison within the VMs, as in the Zodiac illustrations. An internal to internal comparison is a much more definitive evaluation. A string of such comparisons can be an effective way to communicate.

(03-10-2016, 10:56 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is that pi minus one?

Sorry, I've been trying to touch-type numbers (without looking at the keys) and I'm not very good at it yet (I've corrected it). I meant to type Pi, but Pi minus 1 would work as well, the overall idea being to find sequences that are unlikely to happen by accident.