+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: No text, but a visual code (/thread-2384.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
RE: No text, but a visual code - Oscroft - 25-08-2026
(25-08-2026, 11:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It matters very little to me if I’m called arrogant at my age, something I have never been. It strikes me as more arrogant to say, as Oscroft does, that it is not necessary to present an alternative idea in order to reject a hypothesis. You simply reject it because you feel like doing so.
You just said you're not arrogant, and then immediately proved yourself wrong! How can dismissing people who dare to disagree with you as prejudiced, and tell me "You simply reject it because you feel like doing so", be anything other than arrogant?
And did I actually reject your hypothesis? I don't believe I did. I merely explained that the reasoning you used to decide that it's the only possible hypothesis is flawed - that's all.
Anyway, I see you're not open to anyone else's opinions but your own, so I'll bid you good luck and farewell.
RE: No text, but a visual code - ololololo - 25-08-2026
(25-08-2026, 11:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you want me to say? It’s what would have occurred to a child.Why should I believe you?
RE: No text, but a visual code - ololololo - 25-08-2026
And, Antonio, it seems strange that you ignore the participants’ questions and consider their objections to the theory to be prejudices.
Do you believe that this forum was created specifically for you and for your theory?
RE: No text, but a visual code - Linda - 25-08-2026
[quote="ololololo" pid='90210' dateline='1787635916']
@Linda, the point isn’t to prove Antonio wrong, but to assess subjectivity. Where can I find similar details, and how can I understand these ideas myself?
Subjectivity is the problem I think.
A good explanation doesn’t consist of saying, for example, “these are pipes, so something is flowing out of them, so this something is flowing somewhere,” or “I see it as pipes,” but rather of clearly stating what this argument is based on and how it can be proven.
You're right, it is not explanation, it is description, seen though a subjective lens.
Let’s assume that Antonio assumes that the planets are marked inside the spheres. How can he prove that Rosetta, located at the top left, is the Moon? He can prove this by noting that it has a yellow color, that it can be divided into two parts — crescents — and that it is located opposite Earth (or in the same row as Earth).
I’m sorry for starting to explain, but it’s for the sake of completeness
Yes I understand, that is why I have used the word story, because what he describes does not hold any solid historical background or link to real observations per se except in very vague terms. I call it world building. Maybe I do it myself with my own theory (literally, in fact) but it is based on something people were actually doing at the time, the craft of cartography. I know of no precedent to stars in tubes affecting plants, generally it is rays, streams, or currents (the last two sound more like my take, though, but Antonio has mentioned that the nymphs are simultaneously fluid as well, so this seems to have been dealt with). But there are tubes in the vms, so Antonio is building them into his construct in order to include them as well. Maybe they are crystalline and allow the rays to travel through them, like fibre optics. I can see it, but to me it is a new idea, not based on precedents of the time. If this is the work of someone with new ideas then I suppose it could be the case.
However i note that if it is all about star influence on plants, why is there not more about that, like when to plant or harvest, it is all just left as a vague ethereal mist of influence, it doesn't appear to explain the actual features of that sort of thinking.
RE: No text, but a visual code - Linda - 25-08-2026
(25-08-2026, 11:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I didn't say read the text, but rather interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript.
This was just replied to in the post previous to yours. The graphical languages we see in many other manuscripts of the time aren't used here, or if they are, are used in different ways.
Quote:In the early 15th century, educated people would have known how to do so. Two hundred years later, when Baresch lived, it might have been a bit more difficult for them. However, Baresch knew it was a medical book, and that is what it is. It is not an encyclopedic compendium of various subjects, but a codex with a single theme.
I think this is a more individualized work, ie the mnemonics employed are meaningful to an individual, not to the educated, many, per se. It's a medical book? It surprises me that you say this? I thought it was about star influence on plants? That it was all astrological or astronomical?
Quote:Baresch’s description is minimal. He did not mention the Rosettes foldout, but he did speak of alchemical content—surely referring to the female figures in Quire 13. He did not see women bathing.
I agree that the description is minimal and we can't even be sure he was talking about this book. But yet you do a complete turnaround to use his words toward proving your stance, so i will point out that he used the word chemical, not alchemical, and regardless, your theory incorporates neither of these as far as I know? You are just saying he didn't see women bathing, so it must be that they are stars influencing plants? That doesn't follow. Seems like a logical fallacy at play again.
Quote:It matters very little to me if I’m called arrogant at my age, something I have never been. It strikes me as more arrogant to say, as Oscroft does, that it is not necessary to present an alternative idea in order to reject a hypothesis. You simply reject it because you feel like doing so.
It is arrogant to say something can be nothing but what you say, knowing full well many people reading your posts have offered up other takes on it. It is not arrogant to say that it is not necessary to offer up an alternative idea in order to provide criticism of your explanation. Oscroft merely told you that to say it can be nothing but is an example of the Holmesian fallacy, and did not reject your hypothesis in so doing, but merely rejected your statement that it can be nothing but. You would have to prove that without employing logical fallacies.
Quote:ololololo, I’ve seen your wonderful Rosettes treasure map, with two cities, the sea, a mountain, a lake, and three temples. And in the center, the island with the treasure that must be guarded, with all these cannons surrounding the coast. What do you want me to say? It’s what would have occurred to a child.
What is 'what would have occurred to a child'? Ololololo's take, or yours? A child's take might be completely appropriate, for all we know it might have been meant for a child. To me they are both varying takes on a very difficult iconographic diagram. But at least i can see where Ololololo gets the ideas, i can see the canons, castles, rocks. I think what Ololololo is going for is something that can be seen to have evolved from some known iconography, like asking how can you prove or at least better describe how the moon rosette depicts the moon, and same for the others, why would tents be used to depict planets? I can see where the temple idea comes from the tents, but as to which planet is which, i think we are waiting for further explanation, but afaik you haven't fully identified the rest as to which is which or how they would influence anything from these locations? Do the closer ones to the earth influence more than others? Do they regulate the influence of the ones farther away through the pathways? It seems complicated. There is much left unexplained.
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 25-08-2026
When I spoke about the prejudices against accepting my theory on the Rosettes, I was thinking precisely of you: ololololo and Linda. Both of you have published theories on the forum suggesting that it is a map of some part of the Earth. In other words, you are not objective.
Linda, don't twist my words. Of course it is a medical book, and of course it deals with the influence of the stars on medicinal plants. Therefore, it is a book of medicine and astrology, as was common at the time. What Baresch says in his letter is chymicorum arca, which is not merely chemistry, as you claim, but also alchemy, since the two were intertwined at the time.
I see, Linda, that you like ololololo's treasure map, and you also say that the Rosettes could have been made for a child, with all those castles and cannons. You missed the volcanoes, though; some people see them on the map. Incidentally, there are cannons with barrels of all sizes. Perhaps this would merit an in-depth study.
I'm sorry if this post came across as a bit sarcastic.
RE: No text, but a visual code - Jorge_Stolfi - 26-08-2026
(25-08-2026, 11:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I didn't say read the text, but rather interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript.
That is what I meant. (Sorry, there was a "not" missing in my post. Baresch was not able to read the images beyond "looks like medical stuff".)
Quote:In the early 15th century, educated people would have known how to do so. Two hundred years later, when Baresch lived, it might have been a bit more difficult for them.
Was it so? By the early 1600s the "scientific" thought was still mostly that of the Middle Age -- alchemy, Aristotle, Paracelsus, Ptolemy, ... Scholars would still read books written in the 1400s or earlier. Those "classics" would lose their relevance only in the 1800s or so.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: No text, but a visual code - ololololo - 26-08-2026
(25-08-2026, 10:25 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ololololo's treasure mapAntonio, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that doesn’t offend me
I don’t think you can criticize this theory on its merits — you can only resort to this kind of mockery.(25-08-2026, 10:25 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When I spoke about the prejudices against accepting my theory on the Rosettes, I was thinking precisely of you: ololololo and LindaI don’t think the Rosettes are a map. I think the Rosettes could be a map. But then their purpose and style would be unclear (after all, you could just draw a city).
Once again, you failed to portray me as biased
I adhere to a fundamentally different principle regarding VMS — we cannot prove or know anything for certain, we can only assume.(25-08-2026, 10:25 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In other words, you are not objectiveFirst, you are either unable or simply unwilling to criticize the messages of other participants. You act as if we are all supposed to believe you by default (or at least not to be indignant). For example, you haven’t put forward a single serious argument against the idea of anatomy; you’ve simply reduced it to the claim that “my greatest theory is more obvious and more brilliant.”
Secondly, are you being objective? You can’t prove or explain your interpretations to me (yes, there is a certain doctrine about the connection between the stars and herbs, but you won’t find, say, a nymph descending to a plant. In other words, I don’t see any serious evidence myself yet, and you, apparently out of arrogance, don’t want to show it to me). Moreover, you perceive your theory as an unconditional truth, resolutely rejecting everything else. This is subjectivity itself.
By the way, all my questions remained unanswered...
RE: No text, but a visual code - Antonio García Jiménez - 26-08-2026
This isn't the first time this has happened to me. For years, there have been forum members provoking me. I don't mess with anyone. Everyone is free to defend whatever they please. Start a thread and say whatever you want. You don't have to read what I write; you aren't obliged to. I’m not here to engage in dialogue with anyone, because it’s pointless. I simply state what I believe, and I am convinced that at least some of the things I say make sense.
Returning to the Rosettes: I am not the only one who sees a cosmological significance in this sheet. On ReneZ's site—which is quite a serious resource—it is classified as cosmological. ReneZ also notes that some people see a map, but makes it clear that there is a certain resemblance between some of the rosettes and cosmological diagrams from the Voynich.
Although he doesn't say which ones, I will: it involves at least two pages: f70r1 and f86v4. In the first one, we see—surrounding a central giant star—the bumps observed in various rosettes. We also see a blue area ending in shapes resembling mushrooms—which are simply the scallop-shaped band. Only the outer scallops are outlined, just as we see, for example, in the rosettes on the right, beneath the one featuring the castle.
On the other page (f86v4), we see an image of the moon surrounded by bumps like those found on the central rosette and others. The page features four human figures interspersed among the bumps, possibly alluding to the seasons of the year.
RE: No text, but a visual code - ololololo - 26-08-2026
(Yesterday, 04:07 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it is classified as cosmologicalI believe this is stated You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It’s called that because it’s referred to as the cosmological section. This doesn’t mean that René, deep down, supports your theory.
(Yesterday, 04:07 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a certain resemblance between some of the rosettes and cosmological diagrams from the VoynichBy the way, yes. For some reason, I haven’t heard this particular thing from you.
Well, actually, in addition to the general similarity, we can find similarities between some Rosettes and Astronomy. More details You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
But this, in fact, has nothing to do with your theory and doesn’t prove it in any way. We don’t know what causes this similarity, or how significant this “similarity” actually is.
(Yesterday, 04:07 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.f70r1Wolkenband is also present in other bands. I tried to match this diagram with the rosettes myself, but I couldn’t do it.
(Yesterday, 04:07 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although he doesn't say which onesFrom voynich.nu:
Brumbaugh considered that the small circle in the lower left corner represents a clock, but this is not followed by anyone as far as I am aware. Some connection with f67v2 seems not unlikely.