For more than a century, the Voynich Manuscript (VM) has resisted every tool of human ingenuity. Traditional cryptanalysis, linguistic analysis, and computational modeling have failed to yield a definitive solution. Some claim the VM is a hoax; others believe it conceals an unknown language.
This thesis advances the DAI Anchor Method, a cryptographic-linguistic framework I developed through years of independent research. Unlike earlier attempts, the DAI method identifies recurring triadic anchors --- structural keystones within the script --- and builds meaning outward from their patterned invariance. By combining cryptographic rigor, statistical testing, and morphological mapping, I argue that the VM represents a structured, meaningful language system, not random gibberish.
I dismantle competing arguments, including Timm and Schinner's "self-citation" model, Rugg's hoax hypothesis, and Crowe's statistical skepticism. While acknowledging the manuscript's unresolved nature, I show that morphological regularity emerges far beyond baseline distributions like Zipf's Law.
This work is not the final decipherment but a foundational challenge. My methods demand review, critique, and rebuttal. I invite other researchers to test the DAI Anchor Method --- to refine it, or disprove it. Either way, the era of treating the Voynich Manuscript as statistical noise must end.
Like a responsible parent, I have been trying to pass on to my computer my Superior Pareidolia skills. Specifically, the ability to see inked details that were painted over.
The Painter who applied the semi-opaque tempera colors often painted over inked outlines. Examples are easily seen where these inked strokes were still dark and clear, like (A,B) below.
Besides obscuring those strokes, it seems that the painting also washed away some of the ink, and sometimes deposited it a short distance away, as in (D).
Thus any ink strokes that were already quite faint and faded, like (E), must have become invisible to the naked after being painted over. And that is why we need Artificial Superior Pareidolia.
The idea is as follows.
Take an image of an area which is suspected of having "invisible" drawings or text under some semi-opaque paint.
Select a set of pixels A representative of what one wants to detect, like places where there is definitely ink covered by green paint.
Select one or more additional sets B, C, ... that are to be distinguished from A -- like places where there is green paint with but almost surely without ink underneath.
Look at the colors of those pixels as points of three-dimensional space, within the unit cube where (0,0,0) is black, (1,1,1) is white, (1,0,0) is red, etc. Here is an example with three subsets of a page, representative of blank vellum (red), dark text ink (green), and green paint over blank vellum (blue):
Approximate each cloud ou points A, B, C, ... by a trivariate Gaussian probability density function (PDF). This can be visualized as a fuzzy ellipsoid with varied dimensions along three axes, with some generic orientation in space.
Take each pixel of the image and use Bayes's formula to estimate the probability that the pixel belongs to each distribution A, B, C, ... or is an "outlier" that probably does not belong to any of them.
Write one grayscale image for each set, showing the probability of each pixel belonging to that set.
Ideally we should do this with high-resolution uncompressed multispectral images with frontal illumination and linear encoding. But we don't have multispectral scans for any of the pages that may have significant details hidden under the paint. (The herbal pages have green paint, but the ink that can be seen under it is just boring nervures or leaf outlines. At best, those images could be useful to validate this approach.) And even those that we do have are taken with oblique lighting that creates light and dark spots at every tiny bump on the vellum surface.
So we must do with the Beinecke 2014 scans, which have frustratingly low resolution (some ink traces being only a couple of pixels across), only the three RGB color coordinates, oblique illumination, non-linear "gamma" encoding, and complex JPEG compression artifacts. But, sigh, that is life...
[To be continued]
All the best, --stolfi
[Sorry for the big images, but I couldn't figure out how to insert only a thumbnail of the attachment, with the full version opening on a click. Is that possible?]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
First word in line 6 looks like VMs vords ending with "-in".
First word in line 16 is similar and the first letter in the second word appears similar to VMs "ch".
Other letters "a", "o", "q' and "'9" may be too common?
I've always thought (perhaps even assumed) that the manuscript appears to written left to right and the spacing of the 'words' make best sense if this was the case, but do we have any real 'smoking guns' that show/prove this is definitely the case?
Have any handwriting experts suggested that the hand writing is left to right based on the ductus of the words?
Colin Layfield, Claire Bowern, and I spent a few hours with the Voynich Manuscript yesterday at the Beinecke. At Rene's request, I took some pictures comparing the stains inside the front cover with the wax stains on the Marci letter. They clearly allign in terms of rough size and distance from one another, although the shapes aren't the same, and it's difficult to see how the letter could have been folded and laid into the manuscript in such a way as to leave those stains. So I don't think we can say FOR SURE that those stains are related to the Marci letter's wax, although they certainly MIGHT be. Images here, including a close-up of the watermark:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There are creases of several different folding patterns visible in the Marci letter, but because it has been carefully flattened it is not possible to see exactly how the letter was folded.
I've noticed something possibly interesting on the page f114r.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There is some text of few words which looks like inserted between lines:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It feels weird to me. If it is a continuation of the previous line then it should start at the left edge but instead it is aligned to the right edge.
It may feel like it was inserted later but I wouldn't say so. Notice that the scribe does a weird thing and goes up with the previous line to make a place for it. I made a sketch of it for you.
So how do you think, what happened here? Was the scribe copying text from another source and realized that he lacks place? But why he lacked space? He was writing from top to bottom afterall so he should have space in the bottom.
I was hoping to have something more substantial, however I think I've hit a wall at speculation.
Though, I'd like to show some comparisons that are interesting and a detail that may be significant.
Firstly, we have a missing a label. I believe the label might be EVA "x".
This might suggest "x" has more meaning than other common letters, and problematic clusters of letters such as the below are not meant to be read as a word.
For the second part of this post, I would like to show a 15c German work on St Catherine of Alexandria.
It is not always clear if works are of St Catherine of Alexandria or St Catherine of Siena, they share a name and story, in so much that they were wed to (the often infant) Jesus. St Catherine of Alexandria can be picked out by images of a broken wheel and sword, though they are not always used.
This image shows St Catherine of Alexandria on the left and St Catherine of Siena on the right. The extremely long hair and crown is a tell-tale sign of St Catherine of Alexandria, she is also depicted sometimes as being a rather large lady. St Catherine of Siena tends to be more petite, slender and hooded but this varies and it's not always clear who's who, and some images are labelled as "St Catherine" without specifying which one.. but you can usually make a decent guess with this knowledge.
This is the image (below) I'd like to point out some comparisons to. The Wiki description is "Scenes from the Life of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Germany, c. 15th century, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -This three-part panel was originally part of a large altarpiece whose central image probably represented Saint Catherine with the wheel of her martyrdom. The left-hand panel depicts her vision of the Madonna and Child: the Christ Child did not find Catherine worthy because she wasn't baptised and refused to look at her. The middle scene illustrates her baptism. The right-hand panel presents her second vision of the Madonna and Child: as a baptised Christian she is now worthy in Christ's eyes and she is joined to him in a mystic marriage. The delicate figures reflect the continuing influence of the International Gothic style. Swabian painters of the following generation developed a more harshly realistic style."
While there are differences and nothing substantial to tie in St Catherine of Alexandria or other famous instances, I feel the theme is similar and comparisons of this can be made. The story is of washing away sin and devoting oneself to faith, becoming pure, etc. In this case by baptism and "mystical marriage" to Jesus.
The leftmost panel shows Catherine reaching out (spiritually - pleading/praying hands) to "Madonna and Child" and being ignored, this is shown by the lack of eye contact. I think the comparison speaks for itself.
The central panel shows the baptism. While the overall image is "in water", I think the right most image may show something similar. Maybe the green/blue is unclean/clean, but note the long "this is the important bit" finger, as is often seen in manuscripts.
The right most panel shows the handing of the ring / symbol of marriage. Note that in these two images and the one of both St Catherine show the ring being placed on the right hand.
While the eye contact in this image is unsure as the lady has been drawn with, what I'd call "happy eyes", the image to the right of this shows a considerable change in eye contact to that of the leftmost image, which is consistent with both the example and VM image.
A question I had, and others may, was "is it a ring?". Here is an image from "Der Ring", again German and 15c. (Note extended fingers also) (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Some other details I considered were.
1. "Blue hair". Personally I think it's meant to be fabric over hair. It's up for interpretation.
2. "Pinecone shape". On top of the head of the lady with the ring is a "Pinecone shape". This might be meant to be an decorative item, a non-descript flower or top of a crown with a design. An interesting comparison could be made to a "nard" or "spikenard" which can be seen below in Pope Francis's crest and it is a symbol for Joseph (below) left is the star for Mary, top "IHS" for Jesus. However the nard for Joseph was a later association (around 1600).
The "nard" may be still significant to the overall "theme" however as famously it is known as the very expensive ointment Mary used to anoint the feet of Jesus using her long hair. It is also the symbol of Mary Magdalene. It is a symbol of devotion.
In the below image is a depiction of many virgin saints, full desc here - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The image again shows St Catherine of Alexandria receiving the ring (note wheels on dress). Also in this image is Mary Magdalene, she is the one with the gold container of (nard) ointment, presumably to anoint the feet of Jesus. The other lady holding the hand of Jesus is Saint Barbara.
3. Is the left lady wearing a crown + halo (or such). Obviously it's impossible to say, but I think there's some stylistic similarities
4. St Catherine of Alexandria being depicted as a larger lady (note the neck area in VM).
While this is all interpretation and speculation, I thought the overall the theme of purifying waters and mystical marriage was at least interesting to consider.
Hello, I want to share with you a prompt that I used to dismiss the theory of a very dear friend, who probably used some AI to create his own theory that "deciphers" the Voynich manuscript.I want them to be self-critical of their work and use it, or some variant of equal or greater effectiveness.
My intention is to ensure that no one goes around in circles in their own logic and can focus on more productive work to properly resolve the manuscript. This prompt is perhaps quite specific so I also hope you will adapt it to your own decryption/translation system or model.
Code:
Evaluation Tasks (Perform these tests in order):
1. Internal Consistency Test (Is the system circular?):
· Take a previously unanalyzed page of Voynich text, f31v, which I will provide below.
· Apply the proposed dictionary and grammar rules to "translate" it.
· Critical Analysis: Were you able to generate a coherent "translation" without modifying the rules? If the answer is yes, this is not a validity test. It only demonstrates that the system is a self-consistent set of rules. Proceed with tests 2 and 3, which are the crucial ones.
2. Signal vs. Noise Distinction Test (Negative Control):
· Step A: Generate a "Fake Voynich Text". Use the same roots (chol, daiin, etc.) and prefix/suffix rules, but combine them randomly to create a text with the same length and superficial structure as a real page (e.g., f22r).
· Step B: Attempt to "translate" this random text using the same system.
· Key Question: Is the "translation" of the random text equally coherent, or more incoherent, than the translation of the real text?
· Metric: If the random text produces a narrative as plausible as the original, the system has no discriminatory power and is detecting illusory patterns (pareidolia). This test is a "pass/fail". If it fails here, the system is invalidated.
3. Predictive Capacity Test (The most important one):
· Step A: From page f22r, deliberately hide one complete line, for example, line 4.
· Step B: Using only lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of f22r and the system's rules, predict the general structure and key tokens that the hidden line 4 should contain. Do not guess the exact line, but its function. (e.g., "Given the sequence of operations, line 4 should probably contain the result of the process, with roots like daiin and state suffixes like -y or -ol").
· Step C: Reveal the actual line 4 and compare.
· Critical Analysis:
· High Success: If you predicted the presence of specific tokens like daiin or the line's function accurately.
· Low Success: If you only correctly predicted that it was a "result line," but with generic terms.
· Failure: If your prediction does not resemble the real line at all. A valid system must have some predictive power.
---
f31v
podair Sheedy otedy oteedy qotolcheo s arar oteey dkarar als
ytchos ocThey okeeos cheody okeey kchody daiin cheody keedy
ykeeo daiin Shedal okedy okey keody okchey sair okees o lkedy
dair cThedy qokedy okeody chedar oked al ocKhedy okeedy otas
ykeos cheeoy ar aiin
pcheeody qop chedal eeecFhy chefchol or cheef alaiin opal Sheo otar
olteedam ches chol keeol checKhy okeol okal oky cheokar okor ary
yk aiin chee kSheey ychek eeor cheor or checThy okechoked lchey okam
ytecheol Sheoeky okeos aiin acThedy chkaiin chetchey cTheey okear
dar seoar al kar oeeeos cheos aiin o ekeey okeo kor oteol ain
saiin ar cKheos chedy okeey qoear oraiin cheom
And this is the response that the AI generated:
Summary of Results:
1. Test 1 (Internal Consistency): The system is self-consistent and can generate coherent translations in morphological terms, but this does not validate its accuracy.
2. Test 2 (Negative Control): The system fails to distinguish between real and random text, suggesting pareidolia and a lack of discriminatory power.
3. Test 3 (Predictive Capacity): The system has low predictive power, capable of predicting only general elements but not specific details.
Implications:
· The translation system based on functional morphological analysis, while internally consistent, is not valid for deciphering the Voynich Manuscript. The tests indicate that the detected patterns could be illusory and do not reflect a real language.
· It is likely that the system is overfitted to the analyzed data, capturing noise rather than a true signal.
The prompt was generated with AI, so it can stay in this sub-forum and reach the right people.I also want to clarify that although your system may pass all the tests, I do not claim the authority to say that you have solved the manuscript. But maybe you could post it in this sub-forum where the light doesn't reach...Help, get me out of here.
PS: I would like to read those theories that pass the tests
PS-2: I leave the moderators free to do whatever they want with this thread. I'm new and don't know how many things work.Thank you
In Koen's most recent video, he interviewed an expert in historical constructed languages. She mentioned the Lingua Ignota, Enochian, and even more recent examples up to the 18th century. Her argument was that generally those examples feature statistical patterns that are more consistent with natural languages, for example Lingua Ignota mapping directly in syntax to Latin.
But what I found lacking was the discussion of "mathematical", "philosophical" and a-priori constructed languages that gained huge popularity during the 1600s. Wilkins, Leibniz and several others all made or proposed highly structured mathematical conlangs which group all things into a hierarchy and have very well defined, and often alien grammar and semantic systems.
What is to say that the constructed language of the Voynich can't be a constructed language much more similar to these examples than Lingua Ignota?
It would be anomalous for a pre-1600s thinker to devise such a strange and structured mathematical conlang, but everything about the Voynich is already anomalous. It's not a stretch to believe the author likely had a very different thought process to most people of their era, if not most people in all of history.
I think this idea should be taken seriously as an avenue of research, and compare the Voynich Manuscript more to languages like Wilkin's ordered mathematical language, or even modern examples line Ithkuil, than historical examples of constructed languages that closely resemble natural languages, of which there are already very few to compare
sorry to post this thread but it is for me not clear what is the difference between Currier hand and writting hand. I suppose that the scribas are writting hand, but what are the Currier hands?
