| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 612 online users.
» 5 Member(s) | 603 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex, Hider, symark
|
| Latest Threads |
Scribes and authorship of...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: ReneZ
29 minutes ago
» Replies: 17
» Views: 1,896
|
Tsakonika
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: ReneZ
37 minutes ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 5,804
|
Alchemical Symbolism in t...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: bi3mw
56 minutes ago
» Replies: 435
» Views: 181,537
|
Voynich Decoded
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Kris1212
3 hours ago
» Replies: 212
» Views: 30,387
|
f82r - label x + St Cathe...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
4 hours ago
» Replies: 18
» Views: 1,307
|
Cannons versus Pipes
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Barbrey
14-10-2025, 10:17 PM
» Replies: 59
» Views: 33,379
|
How to prove that the B-l...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Ruby Novacna
14-10-2025, 04:02 PM
» Replies: 97
» Views: 37,481
|
New images: Marci letter ...
Forum: Physical material
Last Post: LisaFaginDavis
14-10-2025, 01:27 PM
» Replies: 23
» Views: 1,498
|
Finding parallels for Mon...
Forum: Marginalia
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
14-10-2025, 07:02 AM
» Replies: 36
» Views: 2,170
|
Upcoming public lecture o...
Forum: News
Last Post: Stephen222
13-10-2025, 08:10 PM
» Replies: 22
» Views: 3,173
|
|
|
| Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 24-08-2020, 11:12 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (81)
|
 |
Discussion of Voynich theories with their proponents is, from my experience, a fruitless and generally pointless way to spend one's time.
Let me just present a shortlist that can be used to clarify this point.
Rich Santacoloma is strongly convinced that the Voynich MS is a modern fake by Voynich. He has been challenged for more than 6 years by now, without any visible effect. This is the one case on which I spent more time discussing than any other, well before the Voynich Ninja forum existed, and I have decided that that has been enough.
Tucker and Jannick are strongly convinced that the Voynich MS was written in the 16th century in Central America. I have had many exchanges with one of them, all very friendly, but without any impact.
Gerard Cheshire is convinced of his proto-italic theory. All discussions with him have been fruitless.
Jutta Kellner is not generally known in the various Voynich fora, but she is well known to the Beinecke, and she is as convinced of her theory as all the others in this list.
Giuseppe Bianchi is even better known to the Beinecke (in a negative way) but he is really an OK guy. His views about the MS cannot be changed.
Most of these are not (actively) present in the Voynich Ninja forum. Some that are include:
Morten St. George and his Nostradamus theory (one of the longest threads ever).
Antonio Jimenez Garcia, another very long thread and again someone who will not revise his opinion
Torsten Timm, very active in this forum and with many interesting statistics, none of which demonstrate his theory, and he is as resistant to changing his opinion as anyone else in this list.
Everyone can decide what he wants to spend his/her time on, and this is also what I do.
I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.
Of course, all of them will argue that they are right and all the others are wrong, and it is unfair to throw their work into the same pot as these invalid theories, but that is irrelevant. It is a matter of what people interested in the Voynich MS prefer to spend their time on, and for me forum discussions have moved down the priority list very considerably.
|
|
|
| Scruffy notebook |
|
Posted by: Mark Knowles - 22-08-2020, 12:02 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- No Replies
|
 |
I was just watching a video with the facsimile in it where the reader was saying the Voynich manuscript looked amateurish. This and looking at the facsimile got me thinking if I was trying to make something for sale then I would have thought it should look professional rather than amateurish. If I was trying to produce some manuscript with magical indecipherable writing for sale I would either make something which deliberately looks arcane or something which looks beautiful.
Something amateurish would be something like a notebook for personal use. This would fit with the idea that the author(s) was not particularly interested in sharing the contents of the notebook with the outside world and in fact had gone to means of making it more difficult.
This would also fit with the fact that we don't know who wrote the Voynich and why we have no record of it around the time of writing. If the author(s) had no interest in making it public and in fact had gone out of the way to conceal it from the public then it is hardly surprising that we don't know much about its early history. Also, because it is a scruffy notebook it is easily overlooked, it seems that only when one looks at the script is one struck by the manuscript.
However reconciling the idea of an amateurish creation with something hard enough to decipher that modern professionals have failed, seems difficult, though not impossible. Maybe the appearance is amateurish, but that doesn't mean the contents was. I am sure that some great scientists made their own scruffy notebooks. I am not saying the author(s) was a great scientist, but still a certain amount of the contents appears quite original.
I know others will certainly disagree, but that is my thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Decans on the rosette, 1st sphere |
|
Posted by: Barbrey - 17-08-2020, 04:27 AM - Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
- Replies (6)
|
|
Has anyone associated the quarter moon shapes lining the inside of the 1st rosette's inner sphere with decans? I thought it was an interesting number - 37 - but I associated it with moons and powers or some such. Also numerologically with the number #10, 3+7=10, or 1+0 = 1so that sphere to me represented likely both 1 and 10 as the starting and ending point for my hermeticum man's journey from the celestial as divine brother of god to his fall to earth as both mortal/immortal to his return to the celestial/immortality through hermeticum gnosis (and good medicine re the signatura rerum of plants, astral magic and natural magic of course!). A journey from 1 to 10 similar in some ways to the Sephiroth.
I became interested in decans through the hermeticum. Unlike in most astrology, decans in the hermeticum are regarded as incredibly powerful daimons/gods, second only to Logos and Cosmos, and a reconstituted divine man might even be able to join them. So I looked them up.
They number 36, governed by or governing, the 7 planets/constellations, and at least today represent 10 degrees each of a zodiac sign, and have a history going back to Egypt 2500 bc at least. I won't go into that history here - it changed considerably over the years but by medieval times they were widely and often used in medicinal astrology, particularly in regards to the body.
This association with bodily health appeared to be related to the rebirth of Ra and or Osiris, according to a few different sources, in which the decans were responsible for leading him to the underworld, then returning him, in accordance with their function in the sky.
Rebirth! That agreed with my original hypothesis.
If only, I thought wistfully, they numbered 37 not 36 and could be represented by quarter moon shapes...
As it turns out, they are.
36 only accounts for 360 days of the year and is often only quoted because it's tidy. The 37th decan accounts for the 5 extra days, before Sirius appears again after long absence and begins the procession of decans again.
Moreover, pictorially, the decans ride on quarter moon boats. The Temple of Hathor at Dendarra has a celebrated frieze on its ceiling of 37 decans riding these boats, with one of them escorting a coffin, likely Ra or Osiris, to the underworld before rebirth.
I'll try a link showing the first 18: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| Tradition, heraldry: Encore! |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 17-08-2020, 12:46 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
|
Yesterday lelle posted:
*"R Sale,
It's hard for me to follow the line of thought in your various threads regarding tradition, white Aries, heraldry etc and how it's connected to the VMs.
Can you please summarise your thoughts on the VMs (preferably accompanied with images) and explain the above points? It would help me engaging in the discussion.
Thanks in advance."*
If I had to say in a single word, perhaps 'synthesis'. While the record of proposed VMs solutions covers a range from Aztecs to Cathars, the results of several different investigations have found apparent evidence of a more centrally located European origin. Taking these results in combination, rather than individually, promotes a stronger indication than any single item on its own.
Tradition is defined as a belief, opinion, custom or usage coming down from the past. It applies to us and it also applies to the creator(s) of the VMs. Obviously things have changed over 600 years. The recent example of this is the myth of Melusine. It is one thing to discuss whether the VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. image *looks* sufficiently like a representation of Melusine to justify that interpretation. It is another thing to recognize and recover the tradition that various noble houses claimed Melusine as an ancestress, mythical or otherwise during the time that matches the VMs parchment dates.
The recovery of tradition in the VMs also benefits from the investigation of medieval heraldry - that is heraldry as it was practiced up to the time of the parchment dates. The VMs uses three different aspects of heraldry: armorial, ecclesiastical, and linguistic (heraldic canting). This investigation focuses on the first three pages of the VMs cosmos and begins with the tub patterns around the outer ring of characters on VMs Pisces. Comparison of these tub patterns with the standard patterns of heraldic ordinaries and sub-ordinaries reveals several examples of similarity. Alternating vertical stripes are similar to a paly, horizontal stripes to a barry, diagonal stripes to a bendy or bendy sinister. The chevrons are surely heraldic. There are circles, like roundels, and rings like annulets, There are tubs with a looping line across the upper portion that look like an engrailed chief. But in Pisces these are followed by more complex images that do not fit standard definitions. This gives an impression that the comparison has faltered and need not be taken seriously. Besides which, heraldry is more than just the pattern, it is a combination of pattern and color, and color (tincture) designation in VMs Pisces is problematic.
Then there is VMs White Aries, the best painted page in the VMs Zodiac sequence. This was done for two reasons. Having so much that is painted disguises the things that need to be painted. Having so little that is unpainted emphasizes the 'whiteness' of things that were not painted. This is where history and heraldry come together with the recovery of tradition. And here is the same old problem. How does the reader recover tradition if the reader has no knowledge of the tradition put forward? On White Aries the VMs creator puts forth a question which I have called the Genoese Gambit. Does the reader know the armorial, heraldic insignia of the pope that started the Roman Catholic tradition of the cardinal's red galero?
History reveals that Pope Innocent IV first granted the red galero to the cardinals about 1245. He was previously known as Sinibaldo Fieschi, and the Fieschi coat-of arms is Bendy, argent et azur, diagonal stripes of silver and blue. This was from a time long before all popes were retroactively granted heraldic insignia. Looking at White Aries reveals some blue-striped tub patterns and red hats, and a lot of obfuscation. Innocent IV appointed 2 or 3 of his relatives to the office of cardinal. Is this really a historical reference? Appearance would seem to cast doubt. In the radial presentation, the orientation of the blue stripes is wrong. However the more subtle, page-based orientation is correct for both. The combination of blue paint and ink work appears wrong. It is wrong. D[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]ifferent systems of tincture designation are never used in combination, and doing so looks like an intentional violation of rules in order to create obfuscation. Intentional obfuscation then requires a knowledge of traditional rules in order to reverse the violation. Position and placement, on the other hand, serve to confirm the Fieschi identification. Pope and cardinal are in their proper hierarchical locations in the celestial spheres - the pope is in a higher sphere. Both figures are located in the most favored heraldic quadrant, - which is the upper right - as seen from behind the insignia, looking out. The page chosen is White Aries, with white animals the only proper, traditional choice for celestial sacrifice.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Furthermore, back on VMs Pisces, if the investigation continues on around the outer circle of tub patterns, instead of breaking off as the odd patterns were intended, there is a dark, scale-like pattern at about 11 o'clock. This is the obscure heraldic fur, the tincture known as papelonny - the scales of a butterfly's wing. A similar pattern occurs in the inner ring of Dark Aries. This is an intentionally hidden construction. The paired papelonny patterns correspond in sphere and in quadrant with the two blue-striped patterns on White Aries. The structure constitutes an example of heraldic canting between the papelonny tincture patterns and the subsequent, blue-striped patterns of the Fieschi insignia, based on the French word for pope, which is 'pape'. It turns out that the nephew, Ottobuono Fieschi, made a cardinal in 1251 by Innocent IV, was later elected pope as Adrian V, so there was a historical pair of popes with this armorial insignia.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Maybe all of this is just circumstantial and hypothetical, and if the history behind it is unknown to the investigator, then it doesn't mean anything at all. Of course, there is an actual physical connection between one of the blue-striped patters and one of the two deluxe versions of Stolfi's markers found in the circular bands of text. It might seem as if this entire papal narrative was created to add emphasis to the markers and to the marked bands of text, but why would someone do that?[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sorry, to run on, but the topic is complex with lots of little details - intended to be tricky - a modus operandi also seen in the VMs Cosmos.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Willing to discuss things further. Sorry, no pictures.[/font]
|
|
|
|
| A crown and a ring |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 14-08-2020, 04:26 AM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (1)
|
|
Interesting to consider those seemingly insignificant details of historical tradition.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Under 'Liturgy' in paragaraph #2, the third sentence says. " The nun is also invested with a crown and a ring."
Apparently unique to Carthusian nuns.
Of course there is a potential connection to Burgundy through the Chartreuse de Champmol founded by Philip the Bold.
Also note the Carthusian symbol with an inverted T-O and seven stars.
|
|
|
|
| Transliteration and interpretation of the Voynich MS text |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 12-08-2020, 01:36 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (21)
|
|
To render the Voynich MS text into a computer-readable form is called 'transliteration'.
Historically, this has been called 'transcription' but the two processes are not the same.
Take the letter from Marci to Kircher (1665). We have access to a graphical image of this letter, which is written in a known language (Latin) and a known alphabet. It can be (and has been) transcribed.
Other hand written manuscripts are more difficult to read, use abbreviations and omit characters. They can still be transcribed, but there is a set of conventions for resolving the abbreviations and omissions.
With the Voynich MS it is very different. We cannot read it and it is not Latin. The best one can do is to try to identify the individual forms, and render them in electronic form as consistently as possible. This process, which is also applied to texts in known non-Latin alphabets, is called transliteration.
This has been done many times for the Voynich MS, and different people/groups have come up with different results.
The 'easy' interpretation is that these people defined tables from the Voynich glyphs to alphanumeric characters, but the more complete and correct interpretation is that the decision rules have been different in all cases.
In the 'easy' interpretation they can be easily translated between each other back and forth, but in the more accurate interpretation this is not possible without loss of information.
This can be exemplified with the case of the character d.
It looks like an eight, so FSG transliterated it as 8, so did Currier, in Eva it is 'd' and in v101 it is again 8.
However, v101 (and also Eva) recognise several different forms. The main forms are transliterated as 6, 7, or 8.
In Eva there is the high-Ascii code &152; but this is hardly used in the LZ or ZL files.
The problem is not whether one uses 8 or 'd', but where one draws the limit.
I highlighted this last sentence, because I get the impression that even experienced Voynich MS researchers do not fully grasp this idea.
It is immaterial whether one transliterates e as 'e' or 'c'.
It is immaterial whether one transliterates Sh as 'sh' or 'Sh'.
Coming back to the title of this post, it is very tempting to map 'expectations' of the meaning of some glyphs to the way they are transliterated.
Even if we think that e looks like a 'c', it does not mean that this is what it is supposed to represent. In fact, that is extremely unlikely, but that is subjective and can be ignored for now. What should be clear to Voynich researchers is that just mapping Voynich symbols to plain text characters in some language will not work.
|
|
|
|
| Writing papers about the Voynich MS |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 12-08-2020, 01:03 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (27)
|
|
If I wanted to write a paper about molecular biology, I better have a relevant degree and I better know the relevant recent publications on this topic.
The same is true for physical geodesy, history of astronomy or pediatric cardiology.
And many other subjects.
You simply cannot expect to publish anything in an area in which you cannot demonstrate prior knowledge.
This is obviously different with the Voynich MS.
New publications (almost always outside the academic world) appear at an amazing rate, and it is exceptional if they demonstrate any attempt from the author(s) to get themselves even basically familiar with the topic.
This is nothing new. I have seen this for 10-15 years now. In the earlier days, people would actually use the excuse that they did this, in order not to be biased and to have an independent view, but nowadays this is simply passed over.
There are a lot of clever people interested in the text statistics of the MS, but how can they be made to look at earlier research, and take lessons from that?
|
|
|
|
| Babylonian Goal Years in Q9 and Q10? |
|
Posted by: DONJCH - 12-08-2020, 09:18 AM - Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
- Replies (5)
|
|
Babylonian Goal Years
The following was inspired by an entry on Nick's site
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
He has argued that the 7 planets of traditional astronomy/astrology are represented by the diagrams in Q9/Q!0.
These diagrams are, respectively
1 f68v2
2 f68v1 Sun
3 f67r1 Moon
4 f69r Mercury (46 fold radial symmetry)
5 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
6 f70r1
7 f70 r2
He identifies 2 as Sun and 3 as Moon.
He further notes that 4 has 46 fold radial symmetry and notes that this exactly fits the Babylonian Goal Year number for Mercury.
I thought I would find out a bit more about Babylonian Goal Years and see whether any other features in the diagrams may fit. I am certain that Nick has probably already tried this but still, I thought to report the initial results here.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"The prediction of planetary phenomena using periods is based upon the assumption that after a certain number of years, a particular phenomenon will occur again on about the same day in the Babylonian calendar."
There are two types of planetary phenomena and thus two values of the Goal Year:
Synodic - planet in relation to Sun as seen from the earth
Sidereal - planet in relation to fixed stars
Tables of small corrections were made to allow for variations in the calendar.
Without further ado, the values for Goal Year are:
Synodic
Jupiter 71 Venus 8 Mercury 46 Saturn 59 Mars 79 Luna 18
Sidereal Jupiter 83 Mars 47 Luna 19
Jumping right in we note that #1 f68v2 has 8 fold symmetry and could be assigned to Venus. This order makes some kind of sense by grouping the inner planets together.
#5 to 8 are not so easy as the symmetry is 28x, 9x and 16x respectively.
Undeterred I counted some of the other features and found the number of folds in the ?wolkenband surrounding the centre of #6, f701r1 is 58.
Perhaps a miss is as good as a mile but on further reading I understand that the way Goal Years were used was to count to the Year BEFORE the event so as to have plenty of time to add in the corrections and be ready in advance.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood this?
So in fact 58 may be a correct Goal Year value for Saturn.
I also went ahead and counted the stars large and small in these diagrams and will report these if anybody is interested.
I thought that one more "hit" and one possible for Nick's theory was perhaps worth reporting and in any case it may be worth looking for matches of these numbers elsewhere in the VMS.
|
|
|
|
| The 'No-Tech' Build |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 11-08-2020, 11:06 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (9)
|
|
Picking up on things in several recent threads, I'm wondering just how all of this comes together. Does the linguistic side of the VMs have a solution? One that can be recovered from the text in its present condition. Is there language; is there code? Is there sense, or nothing but nonsense? Is there a lot of filler with only a relatively smaller portion of text intended for meaningful interpretation? If the smaller portion is meaningful, how is it found? Where is it found? Any investigation focused on that filler is surely going to find nonsense.
The question has been asked: Is it possible, how is it possible to build a "disguised messaging system" in the 1400s that defies modern interpretation? Nothing but pen and parchment , the No-Tech build. The answer seems to be that this is something practically impossible. The complexity of cipher systems was insufficient at that time. There is the potential problem of a one way cipher. The possibility that meaning has been hidden in a way that is not recoverable.
If complexity is insufficient, then there is trickery. With lots of filler text, the important part may be hidden. Or by using a one way cipher on the majority of text, the key to deciphering may be hidden both physically and by a two way cipher. The main body of written text would be secure, but a solution would be possible. The second cipher would be less problematic than finding the proper segment of text - if all there was consisted of written text. But of course, there are the illustrations and there was trickery used in the illustrations. Lots of trickery in the illustrations. Perhaps trickery in the illustrations is connected to trickery used in the written text.
|
|
|
|
|