| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 909 online users.
» 5 Member(s) | 899 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex, dashstofsk, Fabrizio Salani
|
| Latest Threads |
Who is even still working...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: anyasophira
1 hour ago
» Replies: 20
» Views: 584
|
Rosettes castle and Rocca...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Linda
1 hour ago
» Replies: 6
» Views: 204
|
A One-Page Ledger Method ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Dunsel
2 hours ago
» Replies: 135
» Views: 5,245
|
My Solution – Abbreviated...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: RadioFM
3 hours ago
» Replies: 11
» Views: 351
|
What is special about Voy...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Bernd
7 hours ago
» Replies: 25
» Views: 24,178
|
Why and how the text coul...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
11 hours ago
» Replies: 228
» Views: 26,118
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
Yesterday, 06:37 PM
» Replies: 123
» Views: 14,675
|
9 Radial Fully Mapped to ...
Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
Last Post: rikforto
Yesterday, 04:29 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 616
|
The Voynich as a rhythmic...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: nintus
25-05-2026, 10:32 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 1,106
|
Ruby's Greek Thread
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Ruby Novacna
25-05-2026, 09:24 AM
» Replies: 350
» Views: 86,121
|
|
|
| Trilingual theory. |
|
Posted by: Joshwaful - 13-02-2026, 04:53 AM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (12)
|
 |
I am presenting a model that treats MS 408 not as a synthetic language or a complex cipher, but as a proprietary medical logography (shorthand) utilized by the University of Prague Medical Faculty. This model accounts for the manuscript’s low entropy and repetitive labeling by mapping lexemes to a "Triple-Filter" of 15th-century Bohemian academic dialects.
1. The Linguistic Filter:
The script functions as a "Macaronic Mashup" of three components: - Latin Frame: Utilization of standard 15th-century abbreviations (e.g., 9 for -us, 8 for -am).
- Slavic/Czech Roots: Technical nouns derived from the scribes' native vernacular (e.g., Tepl for heat, Oko for eye, Chor for sick).
- Germanic Suffixes: Functional markers common in Holy Roman Empire engineering/chemical traditions.
2. Contextual Correspondences (The "Bohemian Spa" Match):
The "Biological" section (Folios 75-84) aligns with 15th-century Balneology and thermal engineering.- Teucheln Pipes: The "tubes" map to the hollowed-out wooden conduits used in Karlovy Vary.
- Functional Labels: Lexemes such as pchedy (Per-Chod-is / "Through the flow") and otol (O-Tepl / "The Heat") serve as technical markers for fluid direction and temperature.
3. Rosetta Proof Points:- Folio 15r (Mullein): f-mol-9 \rightarrow Folium-Mol-us (Moth-Leaf). Matches the medieval name for Mullein (Moth-Mullein).
- Folio 88r (Jars): ma-st-9 \rightarrow Mast-us (Old Czech: Mast / Ointment).
- Folio 57v (Map): ovrid \rightarrow O-Vrid (Old Czech: Vřídlo / The Geyser/Spring).
4. Scribal Coordination:
The "Five Scribes" (as identified by Dr. Lisa Fagin Davis) likely represent a university "Board of Directors" or faculty collaboration (e.g., Jan Šindel, Albicus de Uniczow). The linguistic shifts between "Hands" reflect the specific technical specialty of each scribe (e.g., Scribe 2 as the hydraulic engineer).
Using this method, the first paragraph translates to:
"[Entry 1]: The Watery-leaf [Arnica/Aloe] and the gummy paste. For the treatment of the sickness, extract the leaf-sap. Mix the infusion through the bark-casing. Ensure the heat (Teplo) remains consistent until the mass is distilled. This shall be the primary task for the restorative bath."
Based on the Prague Shorthand method (Latin \ abbreviations + Slavic \ roots + Germanic \ technical \ suffixes), here is the translated reconstruction of the primary headers and instructional labels for the first three folios.
Folio 1r: The Botanical Preface
[Header]: "Recipe: The Water-leaf essence."
[Paragraph 1]: "Extract the gummy mass from the succulent. For the daily sickness, take the leaf-sap and the bark-infusion. Stir the mass until the heat is consistent."
[Label 1]: "Bitter-root."
[Label 2]: "Small-leaf."
Folio 1v: The Cooling Herb
[Header]: "Through the cold-leaf."
[Paragraph 1]: "For the burning [fever], the leaf-juice should be used. Take the stem and press the vapor-extract. This is for the skin-wash."
[Label 1]: "Stem-oil."
[Label 2]: "Cool-bark."
Folio 2r: The External Treatment
[Header]: "The Bitter-one for the skin."
[Paragraph 1]: "Take the leaf-sap of the bitter-one. Through the flow-path, mix it with the bath-oil. For the eye-treatment, use the clear-water extract. Apply three times."
[Label 1]: "Leaf-sap."
[Label 2]: "Bitter-extract."
Folio 2v: The Blood Stimulant
[Header]: "The Heart-Bark infusion."
[Paragraph 1]: "For the heart-sickness, take the inner-bark. Boil the extract in the kettle-tub. The vapor shall be inhaled. This shall be the first task of the day."
[Label 1]: "Inner-casing."
[Label 2]: "Heart-extract."
Folio 3r: The Sedative Protocol
[Header]: "The Sleep-leaf mass."
[Paragraph 1]: "Take the heavy-leaf and the root-oil. Mix into the gummy paste. For the restlessness, the vapor-bath is required. The patient shall stay in the flow until the heat fades."
[Label 1]: "Heavy-root."
[Label 2]: "Sleep-sap."
|
|
|
| Nymphs Survey - February 2026 |
|
Posted by: pjburkshire - 12-02-2026, 11:36 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (12)
|
 |
Nymphs Survey - February 2026
What are your thoughts on what the nymphs represent?
- Real human women
- Symbolic figures representing something
- Other
- Don't know
- Don't bother asking, it's all a hoax
|
|
|
|
| Unboxing the Siloé Voynich study book |
|
Posted by: davidjackson - 12-02-2026, 09:39 PM - Forum: News
- Replies (14)
|
 |
The guys from Siloé, the spanish company that made the Voynich facsimile a few years ago, have finally launched their Voynich study guide, a collection of Yale approved essays about the manuscript.
I made a little unboxing video for the forum!
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| Many-to-one |
|
Posted by: vosreth - 12-02-2026, 09:25 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (13)
|
 |
Dear friends,
Most cipher theories about Voynichese share a quiet assumption: if it encodes a natural language, the mapping must be one-to-many. One plaintext letter fans out into several ciphertext glyphs. The bloat has to go somewhere, and the low entropy demands it. I want to suggest the opposite direction is equally natural, and rather more interesting. What if the script is many-to-one? Not at the letter level, but at the level of grammatical function. What if each glyph encodes not a sound but an operator, and a single Voynich "word" is not a word at all but a compressed clause template? This would explain quite a lot. The low entropy. The rigid positional constraints. The fact that words look repetitive without being random. And it would explain why nobody has found a plaintext: there isn't one, not in the way we've been looking.
The method
Take each EVA glyph. Look where it appears in words (initial, medial, final). Look at what it co-occurs with and what it avoids. Look at what follows it across word boundaries. Then ask: what class of grammatical operator would produce exactly this distribution? For most glyphs, only one candidate survives elimination. Not because the answer is obvious, but because the constraints are so tight that alternatives fail specific statistical tests. I'll show some of what falls out if you take this idea seriously, but first, a disclaimer: these semantic labels are almost certainly wrong. What matters is that they're wrong in a specific and falsifiable way. The structural behaviours they describe are real. Whether "demonstrative" or "topic marker" or "record initialiser" is the right name for what q does is where the interesting argument begins. Here's what the distributional evidence suggests:
EVA ---- Proposed role ---- Why?
q → demonstrative ("this") → 99% word initial, selects o at 97%, never repeats, nearly absent from labels
o → generic head ("thing") → Most frequent glyph, precedes determiners, more common in labels than paragraphs
k / t → definite/indefinite → Rarely co-occur (<2%), when both present t precedes k 3:1, section-dependent ratios
f / p → relative definite/indefinite → Same k / t contrast, but license ch / sh at 3-4x the rate, i.e. open dependent clauses
ch / sh → clause openers (subordinate/main) → sh more initial (71% vs 57%), sh words shorter, sh elevates determination in next word
e → process modifier ("how") → Strictly medial, clusters after openers, precedes verbal elements
ee → entity modifier ("what kind") → Strictly medial, clusters after determiners, shifts toward nominal position
eee (gradient continues) → Rare, further nominal shift, increasingly closes with s
a → case linker → Never final, followed by role marker 96% of the time
r → nominative (subject) → Precedes n 97.5% when both present, doesn't enrich k
n → oblique (object/goal) → Enriches k (k : t = 2.06), tightly a-bound (96%)
m → completive (result/into) → 95% word-final, less tightly a-bound than n (84%)
d → verbal element ("does") → Late-position, closes to y at 57%, correlates with clause openers
y → verbal closure / resumptive → 93% final; resets to q (27%) across word boundary; can also close-and-reopen within a word
l → nominal boundary ("and then") → 59% final; continues to ch / sh (37%), hands off rather than resets
s → backward anchor ("aforementioned") → Enriched 2x at line-initial, suppresses openers, avoids q
i / ii / iii → specificity gradient → Longer chains correlate with less determination (lower k : t ratio)
The decision chains behind each assignment are quite lengthy and dependent on each other, a problem I tried to describe You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Perhaps I should write a separate post about that later?
Reading some words
Once you have operators, word become readable as structural templates. Here are some of the most frequent in the manuscript.
Whatever system produces these patterns, it appears stable across sections, text types, and scribal hands. The frequencies vary but the rules don't.
daiin (834 occurrences) → d.a.ii.n → VERB.CASE.OBLIQUE(mid-specificity).
"Acts upon [oblique referent]." The single most common word is a verbal action directed at something, with the ii marking a middle level of specificity. This is the workhorse.
chedy (516) → ch.e.d.y → OPENER.PROCESS-MOD.VERB-CLOSE.
A complete minimal clause: opened, modified as to manner, predicated, closed. Done.
shedy (430) → sh.e.d.y → OPENER.PROCESS-MOD.VERB-CLOSE.
Same structure, different opener. The ch / sh distinction is real and stable across scribal hands (Currier A: ch : sh = 2.75, Currier B: 2.12). Whatever the difference is, it's grammatical, not stylistic.
qokeedy (305) → DEM.HEAD.DEF.ENTITY-MOD.VERB.CLOSE.
"This definite [specified-kind-of] thing does." A full demonstrative clause in six glyphs. Note the ee (entity modifier) sitting between the determiner and the verb, qualifying what kind of thing, not how it acts.
ol (577) → HEAD.BOUNDARY.
"Thing;" An entity mentioned in passing, with the nominal boundary handing off to what follows. Connective tissue.
dy (244) → VERB.CLOSE.
The absolute minimum predication. "Does." Period.
Fused and decomposed forms
There's curiosity about the gallows letters that's worth pausing on. The compound gallows - ckh, cth, cfh, cph - look visually like ch or sh with the legs of k, t, f, or p threaded through them. And they behave as if they fuse an opener with a determiner into a single glyph:
Compound ---- Components ---- Initial rate ---- Cross-word effect
ckh → ch + k (subordinate + definite) → 20% → Next word strongly k-enriched
cth → ch + t (subordinate + indefinite) → 51% → Next word balanced k / t
cfh → ch + f (subordinate + relative definite) → 37% → Next word shifts to relative modes (f / p elevated)
cph → ch + p (subordinate + relative indefinite) → 58% → Next word mixed
The cross-word effects are the telling part. After cfh, the following word shows elevated f and p (the relative determination modes). The compound gallows doesn't just fuse two operators; it propagates its features forward. Now here's the peculiar thing. These fused forms have decomposed equivalents. You can write fach instead of cfh, spelling out the case linker a between the relative determiner and the opener. Across 38525 tokens, there are exactly eight of such decomposed forms. Half of them are line-initial. And one of them is the manuscript's very first word:
fachys → f.a.ch.y.s → RELATIVE-DEF.CASE.OPENER.CLOSE.BACKWARD-ANCHOR.
"Which-specific [thing], [framed], [closed] — of the aforementioned." The same operators that are fused into cfhys are here written out longhand, with every joint visible. As if the first word of the manuscript spells out what later becomes shorthand. Whether that's meaningful or coincidental, I genuinely don't know. But it's an interesting place to start, because the backward anchor s points at something already established, yet nothing has been established yet. Unless the first word assumes a context outside the manuscript itself: a tradition, a source text, or a body of knowledge the reader already holds. "Concerning what is [already] known..."
The sections speak differently, for structural reasons
This is where things get interesting. Different sections of the manuscript have different vocabularies, and under this reading, the differences make structural sense:
- The herbal section is dominated by daiin, backward references (s), and continuations. Lots of "does-to-oblique" actions pointing at previously established referents. Prescriptive, process-oriented language. Which is what you might expect for text accompanying drawings of plants, if the text describes what to do with them.
- The biological section looks different. More entity segments (ol), more complete clauses (shedy, chedy), more demonstratives. More descriptive, less procedural.
- The zodiac section is stranger still. It's dominated by ot- prefixed forms: HEAD.INDEFINITE patterns. Where herbal has definites and backward references, and biological has demonstratives, Zodiac speaks in indefinites. It's describing things that haven't been established yet. Things being introduced for the first time.
And here's something rather striking about context-sensitivity across the whole manuscript:
- Labels: q at 1%, standalone s at 16%
- Paragraphs: q at 16%, standalone s at 7%
- Circular text: q at 2%, standalone s at 13%
- Radial text: q at 5%, standalone s at 16%
Non-pragraph contexts suppress q and elevate s, consistently, across every section. Under this reading: labels don't need to introduce new referents (the drawing already shows you what's being labelled) but need more anchoring to what's already been established. Paragraphs need more introduction and less backward reference. That's not proof, but it's a rather tidy fit.
The e-gradient is also stable across both Currier languages:
- Currier A: e 57% → ee 34% → eee 9% after ch / sh
- Currier B: e 65% → ee 27% → eee 10% after ch / sh
What about Naibbe?
A fair objection: how do we know these patterns aren't just artefacts of a slot grammar? The calligraphic rules for building legal-looking words, rather than genuine underlying structure? Naibbe, a cipher specifically designed to produce Voynichese-looking output, does replicate the surface-level constraints. q goes to initial position, y goes to final, and the positional slots look right. But Naibbe has no memory across word boundaries. And the Voynich manuscript does: the y / l continuation asymmetry, the ch / sh determination effect on the following word, and the section-dependent k : t ratios are cross-word behaviours that a slot grammar alone cannot produce. There's also a practical problem with Naibbe-style ciphers. They're extraordinaly verbose: one plaintext letter can require six or seven Voynich glyphs. That would make the source text very short, and labels (some of which are six or seven Voynich glyphs) would be encoding one or two plaintext characters. It's hard to believe someone would design a system that verbose to label a drawing.
A reading on folio f68r3
Theory is pleasant. Application is where things get honest. Folio f68r3 contains a star diagram. Three visual elements have labels:
- A large star: dcholday, a structure containing two verbal events with a clause boundary between them (note y appearing mid-word as a resumptive, closing one predication before d opens another). A complete, closed statement. The big star is something, fully specified.
- A group of seven stars: doary, an entity appearing as the subject of an action, then closing. The seven stars do something, as agents.
- A curved line connecting the group to the centre: oalcheol, an open structure. Two entity segments connected by a clause opener, both ending in nominal boundaries. The connecting line relates things, and the relation remains open, pointing onward.
Now, clusters of seven stars in medieval manuscripts typically represent the Pleiades. What does this reading say? It says the seven stars are labelled as an agent, something that acts, not as a named object. If this reading has any contact with reality, the cluster isn't being told what it is. It's being told what it does. Whether that's useful or merely a beautiful hallucination, I leave as an open question.
What the grammatical reading cannot say
Under these specific assignments, the system has no dedicated operator for negation, conditionals, disjunction, comparison, temporal sequencing, numerals, or epistemic modality. No "not", no "if", no "or", no "more than", no "before", no "perhaps". What remains is a system that can do exactly three things well: point at entities, assign them roles in relations, and predicate actions upon them, all wrapped in clause frames with modification. It is a language for describing configurations: this thing, in this role, does this, to that. But, these gaps are an artefact of the labels, not necessarily of the system. Change the assignments and the gaps move. If ch / sh is not subordinate/main but affirmative/negative, negation is built in. If k / t is not definite/indefinite but permitted/forbidden, you have modality. If the e-gradient is not adverb→adjective but degree of intensity or certainty, you have epistemic marking. The distributional structure stays the same, only what it "cannot say" changes. Under a grammatical reading, it looks like a language of configuration. Under a different reading, it might be considerably more expressive. What it definitely lacks is large open-class vocabulary. Whatever this system does, it does it with roughly nineteen operators and their combinations.
What cribs become
This reframing has an uncomfortable consequence for decipherment. Under a standard cipher theory, a crib is a known plaintext word in a known position. You look for "Mars" or "Taurus" written in Voynichese. Under a many-to-one structural reading, there are no words to crib. The labels in the Zodiac section aren't names of zodiac signs, they're specifications of what those signs do, or what properties they carry, expressed in a structural notation. So the question changes. It's not "where does it say Pleiades?". It's "what kind of system describes stellar objects in terms of agent-process-closure patterns rather than names?". That's a harder question.
A convergence worth noting
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. work on a Chinese source-text alignment independently suggests daiin functions as something like "to use", a verbal or procedural marker. He arrived at this from a completely different direction: external alignment with pharmacopoeia rather than internal distributional analysis. The fact that two independent methods point toward the same functional role for the manuscript's most common word is, at minimum, intriguing. For those pursuing the Chinese reading: if d is indeed a process operator, then daiin may not be the word "to use" but rather the structural template for "applies-to-[oblique referent]". That distinction matters. It means you're not looking for a character-by-character cipher into Chinese. You're looking for a structural encoding of Chinese templates, and the grain of the encoding may be at the morpheme or phrase level, not at the character level.
What's probably wrong here
My initial thought process can be summarized as: "If it quacks like grammar and behaves like grammar, you've built system that uses grammar whether that was intentional or not." But I must confess, the semantic labels are almost certainly wrong. "Demonstrative" and "nominative" and "verbal element" are borrowed from grammar because grammar is the easiest framework to explain these patterns in. But the distributional facts are equally well described by medieval supposition theory (q as term-introduction operator, k / t as modes of personal supposition), by formal notation (q as record initialiser, y as a record terminator), or by several ofther frameworks I haven't thought of.
It's also worth noting that no known Indo-European language produces this particular fingerprint: a rigid operator-slot grammar with no agreement, no tense, no conjunction, and a closed set of ~19 functional elements. For those interested in Stolfi's Chinese direction, the closest typological fit I've found is Classical Tibetan, an SOV language with postpositional case markers, clause-final verbs, and agglutinative morphology built from a small set of grammatical particles. That's not a claim about the manuscripts's language, it's an observation about what kind of grammar, if any, would actually produce these patterns.
The structural observations themselves are not in doubt, they survive regardless of what you call the operators. What I'm less sure about is what kind of system would produce exactly this pattern of constraints. But the constraints are specific enough to narrow the search considerably. Whatever the underlying system is, it must have:
- A 2x2 mode grid: four values generated from two binary contrasts, where one axis is domain-sensitive (its ratio shifts by section) and the other controls whether dependent structures open
- Two framing operators with differential forward effects on what follows
- Three distinct role markers with strict ordering constraints between them
- A scalar modifier that shifts from process-oriented to entity-oriented as it lengthens
- A closed operator set of roughly nineteen elements - no large open-class vocabulary
A natural language grammar can produce this, but awkwardly. You'd expect agreement, tense, and conjugation, none of which appear. A logical notation can produce it more naturally. A prescriptive system with recipes, procedures, and astrological specifications can produce this almost by design. The question is which kind of formal system, likely available in early fifteenth-century Europe, would generate exactly this fingerprint.
If you think these assignments are wrong, I'm genuinely interested in how they're wrong. Not "this can't be grammar", I know it probably isn't, not in the linguistic sense, but "this operator would work better as X because of Y". The distributional evidence constrains the answer more tightly than you might expect. And if you think the whole many-to-one idea is wrong, I'd like to hear what other framework can explain the low entropy, the rigid positional constraints, the fact that words look repetitive without being random, and why nobody has found a plaintext.
For anyone who wants to poke holes in this theory: feel free, there will be holes.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
| Konrad Kyeser's Bellifortis |
|
Posted by: JustAnotherTheory - 12-02-2026, 07:45 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (41)
|
|
Konrad Kyeser's Bellifortis is a compendium on war. It features many images of war machines, trebuchets, catapults, batterming rams, swords, javelins, ...
But it also features water supply systems, springs, tubes and naked women.
The Bellifortis was copied many times in many countries, across the 14th and 15th centuries. Some illustrations were made in Diebold Lauber's classic Hagenau workshop. Here are a few examples.
There are also water pumps.
Here are springs.
Then there are some weird water system schematics.
And naked women together in a pool.
In one of the manuscripts we see the mysterious SATOR square, a magical device of the Templars, and also some text that reminds one of the incantation-like marginalia on the VMS folio f.116v.
We also have the classic "Lauber lobster", albeit its legs are not on its tail like in the VMS. However, it does have 4 pairs of them.
Finally, one copy has handwriting that reminds one of the VMS "aiin" token.
And some classical Wolkenbands, that appear around some of the VMS diagrams.
________________________________
Here are the manuscripts, browsable in their entirety:
Besançon, Ms. 1360:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Ms. germ. qu. 15:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
BSB Clm 30150:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
FB 32009:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Colmar 0459:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
MS B.26:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| Bleedthrough/marks on f96v |
|
Posted by: eggyk - 12-02-2026, 11:10 AM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (5)
|
 |
Hello all,
I've been going through pages and doing some image processing on them to check if there's any unusual bleedthrough of ink/paint anywhere.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. / You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are obviously an interesting pair of pages, given the missing pages between them. I decided to check the bleedthrough and compare to f96r (the back of f96v) to see any differences.
So far so good, the text, leaves, roots and flower all match as expected. There are, however, marks that do not align with f96r. These marks are visible on f96v, but are not from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and have not bled through to f96r. Here are a couple:
Due to this, I checked whether the marks lined up with f99r, to see whether the paint has marked the page. I think some of these may match, but i'm not sure. The containers are the best evidence of this I think; the areas with less marking seeming to roughly correspond to the unpainted areas of the containers. Two of the leaves and the small green berries somewhat line up with some other marks as well.
Firstly, I need people to tell me whether this is pareidolia 
If this does match, does it have any implications for the the timing of the removal of f97-98?
Additionally, could it be possible -through theoretical MSI passes in the future or further work- to seperate which marks are bleedthrough, which are from f99r, which are from water damage or spillage, and potential remainders of marks from the missing page?
|
|
|
|
| Layered Superposition Experiments Using Voynich Folios |
|
Posted by: michaldobosz - 12-02-2026, 12:43 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (6)
|
 |
Dear Voynich Ninja Community, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This is my first contribution to this forum.
I would like to share a different way of looking at the Voynich Manuscript. An Approach I began exploring on February 12, 2016. I assume that the folios may function as structural, layered graphic elements. When overlaid, they can produce emergent composite images. These interactions appear both 'orginal' manuscript order and in random combinations.
The hypothesis is that the Manuscript may consist of elements that fit together, allowing for structured page superposition and relative shifting.
I am attaching a video showing selected results from visual exsperiments conducted over the past few years. The number of combined layers is indicated in the video. Some sequences are of moderate quality - I worked with free software. This is not my professional field.
All material is based strictly on the orginal Yale University scans, of the Voynich Manuscript. I did not alter, recolor or edit any internal structures or script. The pages were used as they are.
This should be understood as a visual experiment, not a proposal of decipherment. It documents an emergent effect observed under repeted layered superpositon. Some results may appear chaotic, but these are indications that structured patters can arise under specific conditions.
I submit this material for critical examination and comparsion with ongoing resarch.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Kind regards,
Michal Dobosz
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
Please help :-) Ablation-tested phonological decoder (EVA → Elu-Sinhala) |
|
Posted by: KamCode - 11-02-2026, 04:01 PM - Forum: The Slop Bucket
- Replies (23)
|
|
hi yeah sorry about the last post, ive taken advice and changed this one let me try again properly
basically i think its a medical book, shorthand notes taken by a student from spoken instructions. like a pharmaceutical guide passed down, possibly mother to daughter. i visited sri lanka during rehabilitation and saw a lot of similarities between old sinhala (elu) letterforms and the voynich glyphs. temples with big communal baths outside, temple mandalas, the whole feel of it clicked.
i think its focused on womens health which would explain the bathing sections and the female figures throughout. the text was probably originally written on palm leaves which is why you see very few straight lines in the script — straight lines crack the leaf. at some point later someone in europe copied it onto vellum.
a lot of the plant drawings look like they were done from pressed specimens or memory rather than live plants, which would explain the flat leaves and weird proportions. thats what you'd expect from someone drawing plants they trained with rather than ones sitting in front of them.
theres a full set of statistical tests on my github supporting this, section clustering, directionality analysis, ablation studies etc. claude opus was used to help design the tests and write the python but the outputs come from code not from ai making stuff up. my background is in deeptech and llm architecture so i know the difference.
please have a look at the paper and github if you get a chance, i am completely open to criticism. i am not saying this is definitely right, i want the community to prove it right or wrong.
cheers
Resources:
[*]Code + data: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[*]Full mapping table and ablation scripts included in repo
Break it if you can PLEASE.
|
|
|
|
|