• Creation (1404–1438 vellum window). Late-medieval Europe supported markets for “books of secrets,” astrological images, and esoteric medicine. A convincing pseudo-language manuscript could be produced relatively cheaply yet serve high-value ritual and consulting roles.
  
• Use phase (15th century). The manuscript shows wear consistent with handling. Unreadable/arcane texts could operate openly: monastic settings, itinerant healers, court astrologers.
  
• Shift and decline (post-1517). The Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation hardened attitudes toward “magical” books and spurious relics. An unreadable prop without sanctioned theology becomes risky for Protestants and Catholics.
  
• Afterlife (16th–17th centuries). As “duping the locals” gets harder—and penalties greater—the manuscript’s functional value collapses. It survives as an exotic curiosity, eventually sold when it’s no longer useful (or safe) as a working prop.
  

• Herbal (plants/roots). Healer points to a strange plant with dense glyphs: “The remedy is written here.” A potion is prescribed. Plant imagery makes it feel concrete; the text signals hidden expertise.
  
• Astrological (zodiac, stars). For divination: gesture to a zodiac wheel—“Your house this year aligns thus; the text confirms it.” Recognizable symbols guide the client’s imagination; unreadable labels make it authoritative.
  
• Balneological (nude figures, pipes, baths). Esoteric therapies: “These are purifications for health/fertility.” The imagery implies procedure; the script implies exact doctrine only the interpreter can unlock.
  
• Pharmaceutical (jars, roots, compound lists). “Codified pharmacy.” Point to a jar vignette, narrate a “translation,” mix a preparation. The book serves as the credential behind the recipe.
  
• Recipes/Stars (short paragraphs, star markers). Performative instruction: “Each star is a step.” Trace lines as though following a protocol, then deliver a chant, cure, or prognosis. Structure without readability.
  

• A coherent, page-level decipherment that preserves known statistics and yields content matching the imagery domains—showing the book was meant to be read beyond its maker.
  
• Provenance tying it to a didactic or bureaucratic purpose inconsistent with staged opacity.
  
• Material/ink sequencing inconsistent with extended practical handling.
  

• Documents describing unreadable “books of secrets” used in healing/divination ca. 1400–1500 (especially Central Europe).
  
• Inventories, bans, or trials referencing pseudo-alphabet manuscripts pre-/post-Reformation.
  
• Close analogues (e.g., Trithemius/Dee) where cipher-like text doubled as a ritual prop.
  

• Pointers to prior art on “prop/ritual use” models of the Voynich.
  
• Counter-arguments/falsifiers I haven’t considered.
  
• Historical breadcrumbs (inventories, bans, trials, testimonies) mentioning unreadable “books of secrets” c. 1400–1500.
  
• Method ideas to test RITE vs. alternatives (e.g., wear patterns, long-range glyph correlations, material sequencing).
  

(06-09-2025, 10:02 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You might find You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. recent thread interesting. It revolves around the idea of the manuscript being a prop for use in repeated scams.

(06-09-2025, 10:19 PM)GrooveDuke Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but the "backronym" is ChatGpt's construction based on my instructions.

(06-09-2025, 11:26 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Theorists can be wrong 999,999 times, but the one time they are right, they are a genius! Experts don't have that privilege.".
It's not fighting to be right, but the responsibility of experts. Don't take it personally. (I'm not one).

1. Where are the others?
   Do you mean other forgeries in general, or other literary forgeries written for this purpose? A contemporary example is Joseph Smith (with due respect to any LDS members reading this). I believe he actually had plates (witnesses signed affidavits), and I also believe he forged them. When he forged them, he had no way of knowing whether anyone would believe him or join his church—though in the middle of the Second Great Awakening, it was plausible. Does this prove the Voynich did it 400 years earlier? No. But scams have a way of repeating themselves in different places with different social expectations to be fulfilled, the the basic structure is the same.
   
2. Why not alchemy?
   It could be. I’m not claiming it can’t be a coded alchemical book. I can’t prove a negative (that it has no meaning). My theory is disproved if the text is ever deciphered and the text clearly relates to the images.
   
3. Why not just lie?
   Because a great lie needs a believable backstory. The “made to sell once” forgery theories feel weak to me. Yes, there have been big cons (selling the Eiffel Tower, selling the Brooklyn Bridge), and sure, every con man dreams of the big score like Superfly (actually a bad example, I guess. It wasnt a con it was a drug deal) substitute The Sting. But most cons are small-time, repeatable gimmicks built close to accepted truths so they’re believable. Modern equivalents: the Nigerian/419 scam predates the internet; “toll road” text scams are everywhere—you get a message saying you owe a skipped toll, with a real-looking site. If you’re going to pull it off, it has to look real to the rube. A bound, consistent, unreadable “book of secrets” is a durable prop that makes the backstory look real again and again, for years. And it had to be thick because people expected it to be thick. So you have the scribes doing what little kids do when they don’t have enough to write for their essay—you put in filler. In modern times kids use bigger fonts; the Voynich seems to use pictures in a similar way, to my untrained eye anyway. I suppose scholars with more experience with medieval manuscripts would be better suited to say whether the manuscript checks the boxes the average parishioner would be looking for in a fancy book.
   
   Why not just lie?
   The following is Chat’s summation. I like to have Chat make summaries because they’re more eloquent than mine:
   Because props make lies stick. A bound vellum book with consistent glyphs and diagrams is a portable backstory. It lets you do repeat sessions for years, sell “recipes,” read charts, and rotate audiences. The up-front effort pays off as a repeatable business, not a one-shot score.
   Lifecycle I’m proposing
   • Early 1400s build → enters service.
     
   • 15th-century use → heavy handling fits.
     
   • Post-1517 decline → usefulness falls as the climate hardens.
     
   • Later curiosity (Rudolf II era) → practical use gone.
     
   Concrete checks (not vibes)
   • Wear map: uneven grime/handling in specific sections (e.g., baths or zodiac) = real use.
     
   • Rebinding/quires: signs of re-ordering and repair (a working book gets surgery).
     
   • Iconography: baths/herbals with missing furnace/retort gear → looks more like balneology/astrology than lab protocol.
     
   • Materials: inexpensive pigments/inks → “good enough for show,” not a luxury commission.
     
   That’s my lane: prop-book used in practice, not a one-off con.
   

(06-09-2025, 11:57 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-09-2025, 10:19 PM)GrooveDuke Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but the "backronym" is ChatGpt's construction based on my instructions.

I never got into looking at em dashes, but the name was a dead giveaway for me....

1. The Church is well known to have falsified documents, charters, etc.
   
2. Your argument "why not just lie" assumes that the creators knew that alchemy was a fraud and that no one could call them out. Or no one cared. I don't think we can take that as a given.
   
3. I actually don't think I'm thinking in 2025 terms. I am not saying they were worried about a copyright claim. LOL They didn't want someone else coming along and finding their secret. Which is exactly the same reason they would write in code if it really is a code.
   

1. Great wealth is relative. As I frame it, it is a business even if fraudulent, not a get-rich-quick scheme.
   Do you remember Indecent Proposal? A comedian at the time said "Well, no I probably couldn't get someone to pay $1M for a night with my wife, but I might be able to get $100 ten thousand times." or something to that effect.
   
2. It was by someone else? Does the book claim that? Would they have had to claim that? Does it matter one way or another? I don't know what their pitch was. You lean on a trope of the time: exotica, foreign/ancient magic. So that is possible, but not necessary.
   
3. And the reason why I lean toward no meaning is the studies referenced here. The failure of major cryptologists to solve it (although, maybe it just hasn't attracted enough attention yet). The statistical analysis. All argue against language and only the last one manages to generate strings very much like Voynichese. (I am still very impressed by that, because it still doesn't allow us to totally rule out a code.)