+- 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 - pjburkshire - 13-02-2026
I meant was, why not write it in a language that people can read? Who did she expect to read it? If she didn't want anyone to read it, why publish it at all?
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 13-02-2026
(13-02-2026, 03:35 AM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I meant was, why not write it in a language that people can read? Who did she expect to read it? If she didn't want anyone to read it, why publish it at all?
Ok, now I see what your question is. Thanks.
My sense, currently, is that she was leaving a record of her legacy in a way that would have survived the scrutiny and possible destruction by her sworn enemies.
I am actually not sure that it could not be read and understood in 1400s even as it is. It may have been actually readable then. We sometime ignore the vast timespans between periods associated with this manuscript.
From 1400s to 1600s a long time had passed, and local dialects, abbreviations used, and so on, may have changed in time that an accessible text in 1400s may have been less readable two centuries later.
But I have not ruled out the possibility of her using ciphers (not super complicated ones, but those made possible by invention of her own idiosyncratic abbreviations and short-hand systems) to keep the text less accessible to others.
Also, I have noted that those who removed important quires and sections of the manuscript in subsequent centuries, likely to make it marketable to Rudolf II, or (also) to suppress her identity as its author, must have made the VM even more enigmatic than it would have been in 1400s.
Her interest was not in “publishing” it in the sense of making it most readable to all. Her interest was in creating a work that could survive as her keepsake for future generations, since she had lost basically all her close relatives in her final years. If you draw a painting you want to leave as legacy, your point is not to scratch it to make it more readable. You share your art hoping it will give others a sense of who you were, what you believe in, and what you went through.
Her interest was to leave a keepsake that was in her preferred language(s) and tongue, telling her story, building on a handbook that she had used in her life for botanical and astrological interests.
I think some of the material she added in her retirement years may have been also inspired by her Christian faith (I think she had Franciscan leanings, seeing her faith as part of nature, than in subservience to the official church, with who she had lots of troubles) to make her final peace with God, including implied symbolic baptisms implied in the balneological section.
Unfortunately, you have to wait since I am not able to prepare material in a rush for this post, and I am also researching this material as I move along.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 15-02-2026
1.
In this post I want to introduce some aspects of the life of the Countess Margaret of Tyrol (1318-1369) to show, to the extent possible, how in my view they can provide a backdrop to the motivation behind authoring and leaving behind a legacy work such as the Voynich manuscript.
Please don’t expect to see detailed engagement with the Voynich manuscript itself in this post. This is just to show why, by the end of her life, she would have been deeply motivated to leave behind a legacy-manuscript such as the Voynich manuscript. I will hopefully elaborate more on manuscript linkages to her life in later posts.
Given the length of what follows, I am just sectioning them off with numbers, roughly thematically. Hope it helps a bit.
2.
Her life-story is very odd and, in many ways, both incredibly sad and demonstrative of her courage and steadfastness despite lifelong enemies surrounding her.
In a way she was the target of some of the most slanderous attacks as a woman in European history, from which I think she still came out victorious in standing up for herself and legacy. In my view the Voynich manuscript can be regarded as her answer to history and what she endured.
The best way I can describe it is that she faced a lifelong threat of “legacy massacre”—one that in fact was realized sadly to a great extent, except that due to her acumen, in her final years, she managed to take certain actions, that could have included leaving behind a legacy manuscript that has survived despite the historical odds in the Voynich manuscript.
She also succeeded in her final acts in choosing for her legacy interests between the lesser of the evil foes surrounding her, abdicating to a side that at least (albeit less directly) continued her blood line, which was important for her in those times.
3.
When I originally researched her biography, I had arrived at the notion that despite the challenges she faced, she ended her life in a sort of “comfortable retirement” following her abdication of powers in 1363.
But now I think that she spent her post-abdication final 5-6 years in Vienna in a sort of “golden cage” in exile from her beloved Tyrol, having been betrayed literally by all around her amid a legacy massacre.
The decision she made to abdicate to the Hapsburgs was the lesser of all evils, in her view, and in that sense, she stamped her own preference on the circumstances. But her final years were spent in exile, preventing her from living in her homeland in Tyrol.
In this sense, the Voynich manuscript can be regarded as a way of celebrating and telling her botanical, astrological, spiritual, and “mother nature” worldview and (in my view Franciscan leaning) Christian faith and life-story. It highlights her achievements as a keepsake for a message she wished to pass on to future generations.
4.
This, for me, explains why she would have been extremely motivated to leave behind a manuscript that would independently tell her life’s story and she planned that it be put to more durable vellum several decades later (in early 1400s) when she felt her enemies would had passed away by then.
The original parchment she used and finalized in 1300s may have already begun showing its age and it makes sense that she would plan its being put to more durable vellum posthumously. She would have been inclined to present her manuscript text in such form that would not be easily deciphered, even though its association with her would have been noticed given some information given in the manuscript images at least.
I am now strongly inclined to believe that she would not have risked allowing others, especially unknown hired scribes later to be assigned posthumously, to interpret and “translate,” in cipher or not, her text during the posthumous vellum production. I think she would have wanted to make sure the text is as ciphered or expressed in her preferred language(s) and dialects as she would have wanted it to be, and the scribes later were merely expected to transfer them to vellum.
Even, in the likelihood that the later scribes could understand it, the ciphering was not something they had to perform from scratch, but they would have been expected to transfer to the vellum what was in Margaret’s original parchment—of course any negligence or errors they made in the process on their own withstanding.
I think the missing Capricorn and Aquarius Zodiac charts may have in fact been major foldouts making graphic and textual (in cipher) illustrations of what transpired in her final years following her abdication, and the losses of relatives she suffered around that time. If so, I would not have been surprised for those Zodiac months to be also split into 15/15 segments amid fold-outs for more focus. If so, unfortunately all that now have gone missing.
I am inclined to believe that the removals were done in Medieval (rather than modern) times on purpose to suppress her identity, whatever being their motivation (including making it more marketable as an enigmatic book).
The Voynich manuscript is, in my view, a manuscript that has been tampered with in terms of removal of sections. Apart from removing an entire (likely planetary astrological charts) section in quire 8, the literal cutting of Capricorn and Aquarius charts pages with razor is its most glaring evidence.
I don’t know what else one would need to consider the cutting out of those pages as a possible “smoking gun,” and “crime scene” evidence, whatever the reasons may have been (i.e., identity suppression and/or marketing of an enigmatic text).
5.
Countess Margaret of Tyrol (1318-1369), also known as Margaret “Maultasch” (some regarding the latter as a label for slander, meaning pocket-mouth, others believing it is taken from a castle she was associated with) was born in 1318 in Bolzano (now in Italy, then in South Germany) to a house of Gorizia in the Bavarian-Austrian Meinhardiner lineage/dynasty lineage.
She would have identified herself above all as Tyrolian, and from the House of Gorizia, I think, but heritage-wise would have associated herself as a blend Bohemian (in terms of ancestry) and Bavarian (in terms of political associations). Her father had been King of Bohemia during 1306-1310.
She was highly well-educated to read and speak Latin (as an official language of diplomacy and for legal matters) and Middle High German (Bavarian-Austrian dialect). She must have been familiar with South Bavarian in Tyrol and Corinthia regions, and local dialects such as Ladin. She may have even spoken old French, given it was also a language of nobility across Europe around then.
She may have even spoken Slovenian, given the regional context of her upbringing as a member of the House of Gorizia. To speak to the local population, she would have needed that, from what I have learned.
Her legacy was up for grabs by all those surrounding her lineage, because her family controlled the most important Alpine passes. Basically, Luxembourgs, Wittlesbachs, and Hapsburgs wanted to take over her legacy because the Alpine passes were strategic geopolitical assets. The strategic location of Tyrol as a bridge region also explains why she grew up in a deeply multilingual cultural context.
You can research her story online of course. But I will try to give a schematic overview of what happened to her, the times she lived and how she still persevered. I am new to researching her life myself, so those of you who know better please feel welcome to correct any errors I make in the following.
6.
At 12, she was arrange-married in 1330 to a four-years-younger John Henry (1322-1375), the Magrave of Moravia, who was a Luxembourg, presumably so that her legacy could be shared and passed on through them.
She had an older sister, Adelaide, who would have been the sole heir. But Adelaide became chronically ill (in my view, suspiciously, looking back from what later happened) and thus was unable to carry on as sole heir. She died childless and rather young.
So, from very young age Margaret was recognized as her parents’ sole heir. But, in the process things did not go as planned.
First, she ended up hating John Henry, and feelings were mutual, but not all for personal reasons. She began suspecting that the young boy, as they grew up together after being married formally in 1330 (her age being 12, him 8!), was not consummating the marriage (even though he became known as promiscuous with others in time).
Her suspicions were not just personal but legacy related, however, since lack of children meant John Henry would have overtaken her legacy without any of her own blood line continuing.
So, in 1341, as a final measure amid their disputes, she locked him out of a castle after he had gone hunting, and through her lawyers, asked for divorce, arguing that he had been rendered impotent through magic.
It seems in those times that reason was used in such situations. Whether she meant magic was used or not, it is hard to tell, but the very suspicion to me suggests that not only nobles, but even the church, regarded magic as a cause as plausible. That would have implied, perhaps, using some plants for the purpose. This for me also tells that she would have been interested in the topic of magic herself, to ward it off, I assume, but more broadly also.
But the church was not cooperative and the Franciscan William Occam, who was in exile in her region at the time, supported her case on legal ground, setting one of the early examples of civil rights in marital issues.
But she did not give up and decided to marry Louis V, Duke of Bavaria (a Wittlesbach) instead, even when the church had not agreed with the termination of her first marriage (for political reasons as well, in the interests of Luxembourgs, I think). So, without her first marriage having been officially terminated, she married her second husband.
Her second marriage was eventually recognized officially by the church fully in 1359 (a process that started in 1349), the (unofficial) marriage having taken place in 1342.
7.
Her second husband, Louis V was the eldest son of King Louis IV of Bavaria/Germany (Wittlesbach line), and the father for his own interests supported the marriage, since it would mean her legacy would be incorporated into his.
They had a better marriage, and from what I have learned, they had four children, two daughters and two sons.
But the two daughters died in infancy (although given illness and high mortality rates and epidemics of the time, there may have been natural causes, in light of what later transpired, again, one can’t be sure). In any case, that means, no offsprings by way of daughters.
But of the two sons, the older, Hermann, "died" in 1360 (born before 1344). Then her husband, “died” just a year later in 1361, and then her only son left, Meinhard III (born 1344) who would have been her sole heir, “died” two years later in 1363 (19 years old). The circumstances of her only son and heir’s death is also odd; apparently he caught a fever and died while bathing as a cure!
I find the timeline of all these deaths as suspicious and telling of how poisons may have been used to eliminate adversaries in those times. Without even suspecting it, they just died “of illness” in a few years from one another other, around the time formal successions of legacy were to occur, following the marriage of her last son, in fact. Mysterious “political” deaths were not uncommon in those times, of course, but the timeline of how they happened in her life seems odd. And of course we have a reason to be focusing on these events happening in the the Tyrol and broader region.
8.
With the last son’s death, basically all of Countess Margaret’s own Gorizia-Wittelsbach line ended. But the brother of her deceased husband begun a campaign to overthrow her rule, and this was not acceptable to her, since it would mean nothing of her own family line, even distant, would have continued her legacy.
So, she opted for the lesser of the evils of abdicating to Rudolf IV of the Hapsburgs, in a treaty signed in 1363. This required that she leave for Vienna to spend her final years there, away from Tyrol. She received a comfortable living arrangement, though it was basically a golden cage, in exile.
What is strangest (and must have deeply hurt her) and telling of the double-crossing nature of all the foes she faced is that her son’s young widow (named Margaret of Austria) ended up marrying John Henry, Countess Margaret’s first husband!
The widow (Margaret of Austria) was a sister of Rudolf IV, whose father, Albert II of Austria had favored the marriage of Maultasch’s son to his daughter. She married Maultasch’s son in 1358. She was 12 when she married Maultasch’s son, aged 14, at the time. The son died in 1363. In 1365, his widow (Margaret of Austria) married John Henry (Maultasch’s first husband). In 1365, her brother, Rudolf IV, who was regarded a powerful Hapsburg on the rise, “died” from a “fever.” Then, oddly, in 1366, the widow also died! So, Margaret Maultasch had observed all this in her exile in Vienna, before she died herself in 1369.
9.
Although the Luxembourgs (by way of John Henry) benefited from the above in the short-term, in the long-term the Hapsburgs were strengthened. Hapsburgs took over not only her legacy but also double-crossed her with the Luxembourgs, and in the long term gained the upper hand over them, as the Luxembourg’s influence faded by the 1430s.
For Countess Margaret who had cousins among the Hapsburgs, despite all the losses and humiliations suffered, this would have been a lesser of the evils than her legacy being taken over by her second husband’s brother, being a Wittelsbach. At least she was abdicating to a lineage that included her bloodline in part.
From 1365-1369, she spent her time away from Tyrol, having lost her (second) husband, all her children, witnessing her bride marrying her first husband! Like a domino, all her closest relatives and others around her “died.”
I think her “retirement” years could have provided an opportunity for her to put her final touches to a botanical, medicinal, astrological, and spiritual handbook she had used in her life, through which she also made her peace with her faith and God as well before she died in 1369 in Vienna, where she is buried.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Typpi - 15-02-2026
I did some reading about her and her life was pretty sad, I agree
She even ended up excommunicated by the Pope at one point.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 20-02-2026
Since my last post, I have been doing deeper research on the life of Countess Margaret "Maultasch" particularly in very reliable German sources (thanks to some excellent translation tools available today, since I do not read German). I will share more of their details sometime in the future, if interest is expressed.
Much of what I shared previously in the last post about her life have been reconfirmed, except for an important, most interesting, update regarding her older sister, and also some updates/adjustments re. her children's number and fate.
1.
First, regarding children, it appears she may have had five children, not four, with her second husband.
The first was a son, given birth a year after marriage, who "died" soon after birth due to a painful foot ailment, and other maliciously blamed it on her second marriage controversies. His name was not Hormann and is not known, perhaps since he died very soon after birth.
Then she is reported to have had two sons, Hormann and Meinhard III, seven years into her marriage, but by 1352 only one had survived (so the other son's having lived by 1360 has been recently rejected).
She is reported to have had at least two daughters who "died" young. Names of children who died young, especially girls, were not usually recorded.
So, the only son who survived is Meinhard III who "died" in 1363, as I reported in more detail in my last post.
It has been noted that Countess Margaret "Maultasch" could have had more children had it not been for frequent travels and missions of her (second husband) away from home.
2.
The second, more important update, is regarding her sister, Adlheide (b. 1316 or 1317). It appears that not only she did not die young, but outlived Margaret and died in 1375 (six years after Margaret's death in 1369)!
But she remained chronically ill throughout her life, in the sense of needing constant care physically, likely because of a childhood accident. Not much is known about her illness and how debilitating it was, but in novels she has been portrayed as bright and intelligent. Being physically ill does not mean she was mentally so. In fact, a lifetime of physical immobility may have given her ample time to learn.
Her not having died young does not, for me, necessarily negate my "legacy massacre" interpretation at all, since she was for all practical purposes not a legacy threat to Margaret's enemies due to her illness, also given the more details I have learned about where she was being taken care and is buried. She was in safe hands (read further below).
The notion of "legacy massacre" threat is something I have hypothesized given the odd timeline of the deaths of everyone around her, as I outlined in my previous post. Even if others or even experts think it is not likely, I will still doubt it, since no one can be sure and facts of the events are strange and nobody is going announce they poisoned their enemies! It does not make sense how quickly and suddenly all those folks died just around the time her sole heir and legacy was being decided.
And the culprit, in my view, is her first husband, John Henry, again my own suspicion. Amid such a domino effect of deaths it seems he is the one who survived last. He died in 1375. In any case, that is just my plausible speculation.
My sense is that given the deep animosity and hatred between him and Countess Margaret, he may have retained insider contacts in Margaret's household since childhood and after being expelled by her, or he knew how to get his way into her or her relative's kitchen or travel plans!
In those days, if the woman was a higher status sovereign and sole heir, the arrange-married young husband would go to live in her residence, than vice versa. So, he had already been a household member for years with Margaret before he was expelled by her.
3.
What is most interesting about Adelheide story, however, is that throughout her life she was taken care of the Dominican nuns monastery at Logundo founed in 1241 (later called Maria Steinach convent in South Tyrol, and is actually buried there and died as a convent sister!
In fact, the important women's monestary was founded by Margaret and Adelaide's grandmother, who is also buried there, and for which it was founded. Had Margaret not been exiled, she may have as well been buried there, in my view.
Their parents also founded a carthusian men's monestary (Allerengelsberg) a few years after Margaret's birth, a strictly silent cloister in South Tyrol at Schnals Valley.
Re. the Dominican nun's organization at Logundo, their father was adamant (I think obviously because he had a sick daugher being taken care of there, and another daughter as sole heir) to give women more power in governing the convent, since still men were being assigned to run the place.
The Dominican nun's monastery is most interesting given the Dominican tradition's fame for being the astronomer/astrologer and natural science esoteric inclined and I assume nuns (and priests in their male monasteries) were highly educated and interested in those topics. They would have certainly had their own medicinal plant garden and pharmacy, especially to take care of the ill in their sisterhood. Countess Margaret is reported to have a pharmacist on board, which would have obviously also a plant specialist, and why would she not drawn on the nun's resources to help her sister and her own household and court, when needed?
4.
Now, legend has it that the Logundo Dominican nun's monastery was founded on a spot where two "doves" sat on a stone by a "river" (hence the name "Steinach"). That seems to explain what we see on f86v3, just before the rosetta foldout! The two figures "hiding" on that page may as well be our two sisters, or, their grandparents who had founded the nun's monastery in 1241!
The latter speculation being plausible or not (it is to me), new findings about Margaret's sister have led me to update my hypothesis, considering that in its production her sister and Margaret's association with that nun's Dominican contvent may have played also key roles.
Margaret was in exile in Vienna during her "golden cage" retirement from 1363-1369, and Adelhaide must have still been taken care of in the Dominican nun's convent in Logundo, where she is buried. This means, they may not have daily contacts, and not likely possible for Margaret to visit her regularly, or perhaps she could visit for personal reasons when needed (but not live, in Tyrol, as part of her exile arrangements).
But Margaret was her closest relative and caretaker throughout her active public life in Tyrol, and the possibility of her having been inspired to leave not just her own but also her ill sister's legacy based on the tradition of learnings in the monastery in Logundo (which they ancestors had founded and parents helped fund) is now, for me, quite plausible.
The effort could have been mutual in fact, but finalized by Countess Margarent "Maultasch" in her "retirement years" since she would have wanted to make sure it is legally left for later vellum production after her enemies had died (recall, John Henry was still alive when she died in 1369).
It seems their family had been more interested with monastic and esoteric side of Christianity, and not too enthusiastic about the offical church. That also explains why Countess Margaret "Maultasch" would find support and interest in a Franciscan William Ockham (or Occam) spending his exile in Tyrol.
Perhaps, the Dominican nuns monastery at Logundo may end up being the ground zero of where its inspiration came from.
Good luck with your own preferred efforts in VM research.
5.
"Ursprung des wirtigen gottshaus und closters Stainach bei Meran gelegen.
(Fol. 31' bzw. 457'). - Als man zölt nach Christi gehurt 1241 jar, es sich begabe,
dass graf Albrecht der leste graf zu Tyrol sambt seiner frauen gemachl, ein kinigin
aus Schotten, am fenster lagen und gedachten ain closter zu pauen, so sy inen
lengst hetten fürgenomen. Jn dem es sye zuetriege, dass zway weisse tauben lange
zeit ob Meran auf dem felt umbgeflogen und nach langen schwaif und flug sich auf
Tyrol nidergelassen. Jndeme es obgemelter graf und sein frau gemochl gesehen und
gedochten an ir lang vorhabente verhaisung, es ain ermanung von got und ain ausstöck
- und markung des closters weren sein, und sachen sollichen tauben nach, wohin
sye sich begeben und sezen weren; in dem sachen sye leztlichen, dass die tauben
sich bei aines ainsigl heisl nidersezten und daselbst verbliben bleiben; und deswegen
an denselben gemelts closter in ehren Unser Lieben Frauen angefangen under der
obgemelten jarzol 1241 zu bauen und den heiligen orden sanct Dominico oder predigerordens
darein gestift, wellichen ursprung und stiftung fleisig beschriben und von
ainem alten gemöl auf obgemelte weis gemerkt und zue getechtnus verhanden." (Marx Sittich v. Wolkenstein, Landesbeschreibung von Sudtirol. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., p. 169)
Google Translation:
"Origin of the host church and monastery of Stainach, located near Merano. (Fol. 31' or 457'). - In the year 1241 after Christ's death, it happened that Count Albrecht, the last Count of Tyrol, together with his wife, a queen from Scotland, were lying by the window and were planning to build a monastery, which they had long intended to do. At that moment, two white doves flew for a long time over the field above Merano and, after a long flight, landed in Tyrol. The aforementioned count and his wife saw it and thought of their long-planned promise, that it would be a reminder from God and a marker of the monastery, and inquired about the doves, where they had gone and settled; in this matter they concluded that the doves settled at a single shrine and remained there; and therefore, in the aforementioned year 1241, they began to build the aforementioned monastery in honor of Our Lady and founded the holy order of Saint Dominic or the Order of Preachers therein, diligently describing its origin and foundation and noting it from an old church in the aforementioned manner and making it available for inspection."
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 25-02-2026
One of the interesting parts of the elephant that can prevent us from seeing it as a whole is how we go about our own ways of seeing it, even if there is something there to be seen—which is not always the case, since we may substitute our own imaginations for what we claim to be seeing.
Before I joined this forum, and still, I had/have not had a chance to read all there is here, or elsewhere online, about the Voynich manuscript research. So, I did not even imagine that some who have been researching it for decades would come to the conclusion, as far as they know, that all or even most (or even some) of its visual features are mere decorations!
Of course, all are entitled to their opinions and I hope they can succeed in convincing others, but that point of view seems odd. With that logic, one can ignore basically everything in the manuscript, and by claiming to have seen the seven stars and read its label, he or she can declare the puzzle solved altogether. That is one reason hoax theories seem not convincing to others, since that is basically a hoax theory (partially or not), decorated as a valid point of view.
If this is what a "theory of origin" is claiming, since I had expressed my agreement with the approach, I would like to clarify that I can't subscribe to this particular approach in any shape or form. "Theory of origin" can mean a whole variety of things, and in my view, focusing on the manuscript's authorship identification primarily by way of its visuals, we can have a much better chance of solving the puzzle, if at all possible.
You find a mysterious ancient painting, parts missing. You can try the best you can to read the mind of its artist by way of its contents, whether the meanings make sense to anyone or not. After all, you can draw a painting in a way that would make sense to you but not to others. And in a work of art it is reasonable to expect the artist would create it in a way that could have many meanings.
But, if you find clues therein that may serve as the signature of its author, despite efforts made by others to erase it, then you can have a much better chance of even understanding why the artist painted what it is. After all, even decorations have a reason to be there as they are depicted, and not in other ways.
Another way of seeing the elephant has been by way of finding other manuscripts that supposedly serve as an inspiration or source for the Voynich manuscript.
It seems odd to me that never it is seriously considered, even choosing that way of going about it, that the influence could have been the other way around. In other words, you are assuming that the Voynich manuscript had not circulated enough to influence other sources on its own, which is, for all practical purposes, contrary to the physical evidence of the manuscript, showing active use and handling.
If you have excluded the possibility of the so-called "draft" used for the manuscript as having been a full draft and used in 1300s, and you do not subscribe yet to the possibility that it may have been a personal handbook, then you should be considering that it may have itself been a source of inspiration for anything that showed up in 1400s or later. But oddly the elephant is not seen this way also.
Another odd and interesting trend seems to be, aside from this assumption that silence equals peer review, is that those peer reviewing are supposedly themselves in strong grounds as experts in the field.
This is quite odd especially in the Voynich manuscript research, when even claiming experts do not know what is going on in the book.
I mean, can anyone claim to be an expert in the VM research, without considering that they may be wrong, and therefore be a bit more humble in claiming or presenting themselves as experts? I have pointed out even some errors on websites of the experts and they have yet to be corrected, since, perhaps, they did not find the corrections worthy to be even read and acknowledged (A Gemini sign is still described as a Scorpius sign ...).
For decades, as they claim themselves, they have not been able to read a word in the manuscript despite all those magnificent transcription systems that have obvious visual errors as I have pointed out (despite the odd justifications made by those using them), and so on, and, as far as visuals go, some are not even considering that using Zodiac systems would have been the most scientific and precise way of exploring and depicting stars' influence on whatever it is they were studying. Some judge other contributions as if they already have the answer, and how they have gone about doing things is any better than those views they are rejecting outright, valid or not, or in silence.
"Peer review" is a catch phrase than anyone can use to dismiss others' views, just by evoking it. As if expressing an opinion passes as a scientific peer review automatically, rather than as expressing an opinion. So, depending on how long one has been around, one finds it justified to consider oneself as more of an expert than others to judge them worthy or not. Why is there such an assumption is quite hard to understand, especially coming from scientists.
Rather, the opposite may be also true. Those who have researched the topic for decades and claim not having found anything read therein in its text may not be the best judge of anything new that comes up.
First, they may have an interest in proving their own lack of finding results as a justification for what others may be contributing in different ways. "Been there, done that!" is rather an easy way of going about doing "peer review."
Second, they may be expecting that others use the very same ways of seeing the elephant that they have tried for years and decades, and finding others approaches to be different, they summarily pass on their judgments, in silence or not.
But the notion of "peer review" should itself be a topic of scientific evaluation and peer reviewing for those scientifically inclined. No?
As a sociologist of knowledge, and of science, and having been asked to peer review manuscripts (still I am during retirement, but I don't get involved since I don't believe in the validity of the prevailing peer reviewing systems in academia anymore), I have actually studied scientific peer review, published critical studies in an acaemic journal I founed (available in academic databases worldwide), and been a journal editor myself, so I am very familiar with what passes as peer review in universities today.
The notion of blind peer review, be it single or double, is a fallacy that can never EVER exist. It is simply a contradiction in terms, and it is duplicitously used to maintain certain knowledge status quo in academia. As an editor, if you choose among some to peer review, you are already influencing the results, no matter what they say. And if they say A or B, your judging them as worthy or not itself negates the very nature of a "blind" peer review process, since the editor certainly knows who peer reviewed or not.
There is no way any editor can hire supposed blind reviewers, without impressing their own biases or preferences, or judgments, on the process, whether in choosing the reviewers, or reading and judging their opinions. Opinions is all they are. Otherwise, peer reviewers would then need to be regarded as gods (which does not exist in science, supposedly), or that their own peer reviews, or own articles themselves, are not in need of peer review themselves and in turn.
Peer review is essential for science. No question about that. But fallacies of single or blind peer review only serve to mask the reality that even in academic evaluation biases can exist, and they are in fact more inclined to do so when blinded or pseudonymed. You deal with bias scientifically, but transparently acknowledge them in public, not by way of hiding them under blinded carpets. You don't even know who expressed an opinion, where they are coming from, what credentials they themselves have, what interest they may have in expressing their opinions, how many "connections" have been present in processeing their publications, and so on.
The best peer review is one that is entirely transparent, expressed (not silent), not pseudonymed, and available for the scientific public to see and evaluate independently, with the reviewer and the reviewed having an opportunity to directly engage with one another to prove each other right or wrong, or both.
As I have quoted it elsewhere, this may be of interest to read again, "“(Mr. Rosen and I) sent our publication to you without the authorization that you may show it to other specialists before it is printed. I do not see any reason to follow your anonymous reviewer’s recommendations (which incidentally are erroneous). In view of the foregoing, I will consider having the work published elsewhere” (Albert Einstein, as quoted in Alice Calaprice 2011:388-389).
Even a valid peer review does NOT guarantee the results being proven eternally correct and true. You can find evidence of that throughout the history of science. In fact, that is what science is all about. There is no final answer, final finding, final word, on anything.
The truth of the matter is that the existing peer reviewing systems have served well the reproduction of hierarchical systems in academia, and blinded/pseudonymed peer reviews, let alone silent ones, have served well in obscuring the sources of opinions expressed, interests involved, and the role established networks can play a role in perpetuating certain evaluative systems and results.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - oshfdk - 25-02-2026
This forum is not an academic journal, I expect that a lot of people here are not scientists (but many definitely are). I would consider "peer review" as used in the context of this forum to mean "review by peer Voynich manuscript enthusiasts". When considering a review by enthusiasts lack of interest usually would suggest failed peer review in the sense that enthusiasts are not very enthusiastic about the material presented. This doesn't constitute proper scientific review and I don't think it makes sense to expect proper scientific review on the forum.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 25-02-2026
(25-02-2026, 08:07 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This forum is not an academic journal, I expect that a lot of people here are not scientists (but many definitely are). I would consider "peer review" as used in the context of this forum to mean "review by peer Voynich manuscript enthusiasts". When considering a review by enthusiasts lack of interest usually would suggest failed peer review in the sense that enthusiasts are not very enthusiastic about the material presented. This doesn't constitute proper scientific review and I don't think it makes sense to expect proper scientific review on the forum.
Thanks for your reply.
You seem to have a crystal ball in trying to notice and explain "lack of interest" in people's minds as meaning A and not B or C, and continue to remind me of it. I don't know why you are doing this, given that you wish to be considered, and I am sure you are, someone very careful about passing judgments and agreeing with a claim, pro or con.
Silence to me means nothing, in terms of what it means. It could be interpreted as pro or con or neutral, or, yes, also as not being interested, generally considered. It can mean you cannot reasonably argue for or against a point made; it could mean I am waiting to hear more; it could mean, I don't care about this viewpoint but I read it any way; it could mean, I don't like long texts, but I don't mind reading others' long texts; it could mean I don't like this guy for valid or invalid reasons, it could mean I know better what the VM is about, and I disagree with this or that or the other; it could mean I like the views, but I am not inclined to share things in forums in general, it could mean X, Y, and Z.
But these presumptions have no evaluative value when silence is made or is interpreted to mean definitively as how you are going about explaining it, do they—even in a "nonscientific" peer review process as you have described correctly as is going on in this forum?
On one hand, one can show numbers of page visits can mean at least some minimal interest (I am not saying that is the case and I don't take them seriously, but, again, if you are looking for interests or lack thereof, some numbers can be used for or against, but you are not considering it obviously). But, on the other hand, conversely, just because some get lots of attention also does not mean their theory is any more or less worthy of attention than others that don't.
This effort is not about popularity goals as far as I am concerned, and obviously had I believed in that, I would have refrained from continuing given the initial replies and thereafter. All I am trying to say is that there are many reasons we may not be able to solve the puzzle, some of which has to do with our own ways of going about engaging or not with others.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 02-03-2026
I did not find any comments regarding this on this forum or elsewhere, but I may have missed it; so please let me know. I guess someone in the past years (or decades) has noticed the different hand gestures of the degree figures in Alfonso X lapidary Zodiac month charts. If not, please note the images below. The comparative implications for the Voynich manuscript and the nymph hand (or other) gestures in its Zodiac month degrees (and the way the VM elephant has been seen) seem obvious.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Koen G - 02-03-2026
Do different gestures have a different meaning?