+- 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: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations (/thread-5160.html)
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Mauro - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 06:20 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My identification of Countess Margaret of Tyrol (1318-1365) as the author of the Voynich manuscript...
But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 06:09 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.
I am surprised, Mauro. It seems you have not read my posts. Please try if you can and you will have your answer. There is no point in repeating things again here.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Mauro - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 06:17 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-02-2026, 06:09 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.
I am surprised, Mauro. It seems you have not read my posts. Please try if you can and you will have your answer. There is no point in repeating things again here.
Ah I'm sorry, I confess I just skimmed through them (they are pretty long, and I'm pretty busy). I'm surely not going through all of them before I find the answer (sorry again). Can you please just post it below?
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 06:22 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ah I'm sorry, I confess I just skimmed through them (they are pretty long, and I'm pretty busy). I'm surely not going through all of them before I find the answer (sorry again). Can you please just post it below?
No problem, Mauro. I understand. I think I started that discussion on this page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and some exchanges with Jorge_Stolfi also followed, where I elaborated more.
The point I was sharing was that if we agree that the 1400s vellum was done based on a draft, we cannot assume the draft itself was partial or temporarily done, nor contemporary with it, and it may have as well been a completed handbook left from sometime in 1300s (not older, given the details found in the vellum), one that the author for reasons of her own wished to be subjected to more durable vellum posthumously (when, for instance, most of her foes had passed).
She could have planned, given her instructions, and prepaid for such a project legally in advance, given how important it was for her to leave the manuscript for her legacy. I will try to elaborate more on this topic as I discuss her life more in future posts, now that I have reported my discovery of Countess Margaret as the author of the Voynich manuscript.
My overall point was that the carbon-dating find has narrowed the "solution space" for the manuscript unnecessarily, and the unit of analysis of the manuscript must not be an incomplete 1400s vellum, but one that includes any drafts preceding it, and the complete vellum as a whole must always be kept in mind, subjecting the reasons for the missing parts themselves to questioning.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - oshfdk - 06-02-2026
To me the situation here is similar to what happened previously with the "botrus" claim. It is of course possible that the word in the manuscript does read "botrus", it's just the argumentation for it doesn't look strong enough to me. Same with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works, but I really see no definitive arguments for it so far. There is some similarity between certain Voynich MS images and certain images associated with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, this is an interesting observation worth investigating, however to me this doesn't look like conclusive proof of her authorship or involvement with the manuscript.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 07:18 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me the situation here is similar to what happened previously with the "botrus" claim. It is of course possible that the word in the manuscript does read "botrus", it's just the argumentation for it doesn't look strong enough to me. Same with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works, but I really see no definitive arguments for it so far. There is some similarity between certain Voynich MS images and certain images associated with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, this is an interesting observation worth investigating, however to me this doesn't look like conclusive proof of her authorship or involvement with the manuscript.
Thanks very much for your consideration of my ideas. I understand it is not yet convincing for you. It is increasingly becoming convincing for me, the more I find new things. It is actually incredible how much new findings confirm my earlier hypothesis for myself, things that I did not even see before come up that makes the manuscript more meaningful for me.
Ultimately, each of us will decide what is sufficient proof or not, and based on that will decide how to go about solving the puzzle. I sincerely wish you the best in finding alternative and more convincing answers, but I appreciate the fact that you note "I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works" and also that you noticed facial image similarities, although the facial image similarity has not been treated as evidence in my study, but yes, the similarity is interesting. The study is still continuing and hopefully at some point you will find in more convincing findings.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 10-02-2026
Hi everyone, I want to thank all and those of you who have read and considered my posts so far, despite their lengths and any shortcomings therein, for which I apologize.
I was going to focus in my next post on the topic of the motive for the creation of the Voynich manuscript, and still have other material to share. But ironically, I found myself unmotivated to continue, unfortunately.
On one hand, I am realizing that what I’m sharing is not of interest to others in this forum and there is really no reason to take more of your time and distract you from your more fruitful efforts. On the other, I feel that the basics of what I wished to share in this thread have already been posted for those who may be interested in pursuing them further on their own.
As I had noted in my original post, I was not planning to be around in this forum forever. If and when I get a chance, I will continue and share the rest of my ideas on my website at some point, along with editing of some of the material I have shared here as background.
I thank you for this opportunity. If any questions arise in the future about my posts, I’d be glad to respond in this thread.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Typpi - 11-02-2026
(10-02-2026, 04:38 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On one hand, I am realizing that what I’m sharing is not of interest to others in this forum and there is really no reason to take more of your time and distract you from your more fruitful efforts.
20 pages in 3 weeks seems like quite bit of interest to me.
But the peer review process isn't easy, as you've found out
Good luck to you.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 11-02-2026
(11-02-2026, 12:42 AM)Typpi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(10-02-2026, 04:38 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On one hand, I am realizing that what I’m sharing is not of interest to others in this forum and there is really no reason to take more of your time and distract you from your more fruitful efforts.
20 pages in 3 weeks seems like quite bit of interest to me.
But the peer review process isn't easy, as you've found out
Good luck to you.
Thanks. But what peer review?!
I was and have been more interested in receiving more substantive responses than counting page numbers, but when there is no interest in doing that, I can't do anything about it. But that is NOT peer review. If you count ignoring others work is peer review, that is quite an unreasonable proposition as peer review. I have yet to receive a sustained reasonable reflection on what I shared, pro or con, and those I did receive, I responded to without further response on their parts, so I defended myself where I thought I was correct.
I will be glad to improve anything if I said something wrong, and I have already shared the basics of what I intended to share. But, why take others time for more, when it does not make any difference. Good luck to your scientific peer review standards and judging others work this way.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - oshfdk - 11-02-2026
If the peer review was positive, people would actively agree with the points made. This happens quite often on the forum. Both negative replies and lack of replies mean negative result, as far as I understand the very idea of the peer review. Most likely the ideas either don't appear substantiated or don't appear significant.
This doesn't prove you wrong, but this certainly means that your argument so far is not persuasive. By definition, otherwise there would be active support.