| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 882 online users.
» 10 Member(s) | 866 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google, Yandex, Aga Tentakulus, cowcrap, Jorge_Stolfi, R. Sale, rikforto, varadino
|
| Latest Threads |
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
1 minute ago
» Replies: 1,864
» Views: 1,305,063
|
15thc perception on swall...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: DG97EEB
30 minutes ago
» Replies: 598
» Views: 334,215
|
Voynichese is a numeric c...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: ololololo
43 minutes ago
» Replies: 194
» Views: 20,522
|
[split] Measure uncertain...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Koen G
1 hour ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 186
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
1 hour ago
» Replies: 360
» Views: 52,128
|
I am not convinced by the...
Forum: Provenance & history
Last Post: Oscroft
4 hours ago
» Replies: 15
» Views: 590
|
A Glyph Is Not a Letter, ...
Forum: News
Last Post: rikforto
5 hours ago
» Replies: 22
» Views: 1,159
|
Voynich Reconsidered
Forum: News
Last Post: dfs346
Yesterday, 08:47 PM
» Replies: 151
» Views: 108,688
|
Voynich's anatomy
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: ololololo
Yesterday, 01:27 PM
» Replies: 107
» Views: 9,429
|
Dr. Hartlieb's alleged in...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Rafal
Yesterday, 10:58 AM
» Replies: 21
» Views: 888
|
|
|
| [split] Measure uncertain spaces? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - Yesterday, 04:22 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (5)
|
 |
(Yesterday, 03:59 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But they also report finding that "certain" spaces tend to fall between their study's learned units, while "uncertain" spaces tend to fall within them. That seems potentially more meaningful in terms of supporting the idea of a hierarchy of "strong" and "weak" spaces.
Thank you for your contributions in clear language, Patrick, I find this very informative.
About these uncertain spaces: the phenomenon you describe here could still be attributed to subconscious split-second decisions by the transcriber, right? The manuscript trains your brain to recognize certain patterns, and as soon as something deviates from those patterns, you have to mark it as uncertain. In my opinion, there is a good chance this effect influenced the results. When transcribing regular medieval handwriting, we need to rely on expected sequences to determine spacing all the time, especially in kind of chopped-up scripts like these. Only, in regular MSS this is non-controversial because we understand the meaning of the words.
So I wonder: let's say we take this crucial sequence of [r] followed by [a], and plot them all according to the distance (pixels?) between the [r] and [a]. Will the no-space variants be all on the left, and the space variants on the right, and the uncertain ones neatly in between? How much overlap is there? Is it a continuum? If this could be measured objectively somehow, we would have a better idea of what space, no space and uncertain space actually stand for.
(Edit: this would actually be informative for other reasons as well, like when we split up by scribe).
|
|
|
| Dr. Hartlieb's alleged involvement in the creation of the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: amelkin - 20-08-2026, 12:22 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (21)
|
 |
I am facing some accusations that the arguments supporting my hypothesis regarding the origin of the Voynich Manuscript are unscientific. This concerns Dr. Hartlieb's alleged involvement in the creation of the Voynich Manuscript. I present here some devastating counterarguments.
(1) Some researchers consider Dr. Hartlieb too young to be connected to the Voynich Manuscript. I hold a different opinion and provide a rationale. Dr. Hartlieb was born in 1400, not 1410; otherwise, he could not possibly have participated in the Hussite Wars in 1419.
(2) Dr. Hartlieb was the only person at the time who possessed the full spectrum of knowledge covered in the Voynich Manuscript. His works and materials contain drawings and diagrams resembling the manuscript's graphic content. Hartlieb's *Medico-Astrological Calendar* features various scripts and cipher systems incorporating up to 70% of the symbols found in the Voynich Manuscript, including the inscription "Michitonese".
(3) Dr. Hartlieb did not write the Voynich Manuscript himself; instead, he commissioned five scribes to produce up to ten different versions based on his drafts, allowing them the freedom to generate words and drawings within certain parameters. This is evidenced by certain duplicated pages that differ in handwriting and detail (f70v1, f71r, f71v, f72r1). Therefore, there is no need to compare the handwriting of Dr. Hartlieb with that of the individuals who wrote the manuscript. The presence of duplicated pages and diagrams also indicates that the Voynich Manuscript is assembled from several surviving fragments belonging to different versions of the manuscript.
(4) Regarding the depiction of the castle in the manuscript, researchers note that the fortress's general layout - four towers connected by walls, a moat or river, and a central building (*Herrenhaus*) - mirrors the original structure of Blutenburg Castle from that era with remarkable accuracy. This has led to the hypothesis that Hartlieb sketched Blutenburg Castle in his draft, while the scribes added the characteristic crenellations to the walls.
|
|
|
|
| I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS |
|
Posted by: JustAnotherTheory - 19-08-2026, 09:55 PM - Forum: Provenance & history
- Replies (15)
|
 |
As the title suggests, I'm not convinced by our current understanding of the VMS provenance timeline. I've had this feeling for a while now, but hadn't dared to share it.
I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?
My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.
- None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
- Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
- Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.
In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.
Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?
If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript.
I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.
|
|
|
|
| Rosettes and Astrology |
|
Posted by: ololololo - 18-08-2026, 11:02 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (20)
|
 |
Rosette 1 perfectly matches diagram f67r1. They have the same number of rays = 12.
Rosette has 3 14 rays in total. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has two different types of rays, but there are only 28 of them, whereas on the Rosetta 2 there are only half. In terms of shape, it is very similar to the f70r2. There’s even a sun in the center, but here’s the problem — this rosette is two rays short of 16; that’s exactly how many rays the f70r2 has 
I couldn’t figure out how many rays Rosetta 2 has. If it has 8, then it could correspond to f68v2 and the same f70r2 (it’s similar in shape). If it has 9, then there’s a candidate f70r1 (but there’s no similarity in shape) and f68v3 (9 spirals, but that’s not it at all).
In total, possible matches: Rosette 1 - f67r1, Rosette 2 - f68v2, Rosette 3 - f70r2.
...And that’s it. It’s not enough to call Rosetta’s scheme a cosmological one.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
| Neoplatonism in the Voynich Manuscript: The Soul’s Descent and the Sensible World |
|
Posted by: Worldmaster777 - 16-08-2026, 06:33 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (2)
|
|
Hello! I’m Vladimir Aristippus Robespierre from Moscow, Russia. Last year, I published a report in which I explained the meaning of some drawings from the Voynich Manuscript. Since then, I have come to understand additional details and identified a historical context that closely aligns with my reading of the drawings: the author of the Voynich Manuscript held views highly consistent with Neoplatonism, a perspective that featured prominently in late medieval natural philosophy. This report details those new observations and updates a few points from my previous analysis based on further findings.
By examining the illustrations not in isolation, but within the context of the entire manuscript, I trace recurring visual motifs and color codes, which I refer to as “Voynich lore”. This holistic approach allows me to identify structural parallels and clarify the meaning behind many of these elements.
This report is also a natural continuation of my Reddit post ‘The word “tolor” means “fertilization”’, which became “Top Post All Time” on the Voynich subreddit just two days after publication. Here, I show that every single piece of parchment containing the character sequence “tolor”, which appears only three times in the entire manuscript, describes the exact same process: how the soul comes into this world after a man has fertilized a woman. Though each series of illustrations features different imagery, such as plants, nymphs, and stars, they employ a shared set of visual codes.
The largest fold-out diagram fRos serves as the conceptual core of the manuscript. It maps the interaction between the human soul, the sensory apparatus of the body, and the sensible world, a composition resonant with Neoplatonic concepts. The layout consists of a central rosette representing the brain, peripheral rosettes corresponding to the five senses and speech, along with reproduction and the sensible world. The grouping of the five Aristotelian senses and speech together follows the model of Ramon Llull, an influential medieval philosopher whose widely circulated works the creator of the diagram was very likely familiar with.
The present study demonstrates that the Voynich Manuscript is not a collection of scattered illustrations but a holistic system united by the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition. The key result of this work is the revelation of the internal logic of the manuscript. If the pages are considered in isolation, one can put forward a multitude of different hypotheses, but when the drawings come together into a coherent whole, their mutual consistency becomes so complete that the probability of an erroneous interpretation yielding such systemic coherence approaches zero.
Knowledge of the actual meaning of the illustrations immediately eliminates dead-end research directions. Once it becomes clear that the plants are stylized diagrams, the stars denote souls, and the nymphs are not bathing women, there is no longer any need to search for real herbs, astronomical constellations, or balneological recipes. Grasping the theme of the pages narrows the space of interpretations and directs research in a productive course.
You can download my new report here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
|
