+- 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 - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 02-03-2026
(02-03-2026, 10:57 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do different gestures have a different meaning?
I assume they do, but what it is, is anybody's guess at this point, but I am sure deeper research will reveal exactly what they mean. I think the overall gesture of one hand pointing up and another down is an expression of the hermetic principle "as above, so below." That I am certain is the general and common underlying meaning, whatever the variations.
But the variation can mean something related to the way a stone's power would, or not, affect the star's influence, depending on whether the star influence is regarded as malefic or benefic when the degree falls in a certain constellation, thereby prompting the use of a particular stone to limit or enhance the influence. If a star is regarded as influencing stones, it can do the same with plants, animals, and humans. So, the underlying structure of the Lapidary can be governing the use to which the Zodiac month degrees are put in the VM.
Say, someone is born on a particular Zodiac month birth chart, that is regarded as exalted or harmful for a planetary or star influence. An astrologer physician would say, "wear this stone" on that day when your birthday arrives, or "avoid this stone" since it will make the malefic influence worse. Likewise, he could say, "drink this plant essences or mixtures on that day, to make the positive power more effective, or to ward off any malefic effects."
As I had stated before, the detailed Voynich Zodiac month nymph gestures must be serving to visually instruct what can be done or not on those degrees/days of the Zodiac month, and in this sense, Zodiac calendar use is the most precise way of keeping track of it. Those French month names are simply errors by people who were reading the VM like us and just noted the names down. They are errors.
Christian or other calendar month days can vary and are imprecise nominal day indicators. If you follow "on May 10 wear this stone (or drink this mixture, or bathe in this essence) ..." in one year, it can fall on a different degree of Zodiac and you will be in serious trouble. Besides, given Zodiac degrees are 360 and calendar months 365 or about that, with the leap years withstanding, you do NOT follow regular calendar months, but follow Zodiac degree observations and become star map literate.
For someone wanting to make sure precisely what to do they had to know their Zodiac month and star maps, and in those days without present day lights, it would have been magnificently visible what star is where and when from your castle's rooftop, or anywhere, and using an astrolabe you could do actually a pretty good job of finding the exact degrees or even minutes, if you know how to use it, or if you have a court astrologer pharmacist instructing you.
I am certain the Lapidary figure gestures are not incidental or simply errors and omissions. What the specific gesture variations mean, I don't know yet, in either book, but I will study them more carefully myself and encourage others to do the same, if interested of course. But there is no question in my mind that the Zodiac calendar nymph figures and gestures are books in themselves, carrying important meanings.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 07-03-2026
1.
I did some more research on the Alfonxo X Zodiac chart degree figures following my last post, and in the process, I think, I have solved the longstanding question about how to count the Zodiac degrees represented by the "nymphs" in the Voynich manuscript.
Please let me know if the solution I will share below had already been learned, since I did not find it elsewhere.
If what I have found is regarded as reasonable, we may have now a way of identifying the stars (and their names) in the Voynich manuscript in the Zodiac charts, if they parallel the same in the Lapidary, generally speaking. I don't think the degree labels in the VM refer to stones, but to stars (or, if not, perhaps less likely, the plants they are influencing, rather than stones). The so-called recipe list would then be an ordered way (for 360 degrees) of explaining star-plant influences.
If we know the order of counting the nymph degrees from Pisces on (if that is the order in the VM), then the recipes would follow that order from one Zodiac chart to another. This may even explain the missing recipe items since they may have been removed as corresponding to the also removed Capricorn and Aquarius Zodiac charts (just speculating here).
First, I just want to update a few things, before that important observation regarding the degree counting system in the Lapidary and the Voynich manuscript.
2.
First, those specific images for degree figures I shared in my last post was from a later edition of the Lapidary (1880s). The chart degree figures are depicted differently in an original/earlier version (16th c., that is 1500s—I will provide link to it further down this post).
I am sharing below this post the Aries and Taurus charts from both to compare.
In the older edition, as you can see, the degree figures are depicted differently as angel heads and likely wing hands (?) in front. They are clearly also suggesting variations, in this case based on the directions the faces are turning, and how their wings are crossing each other in front (I guess).
Are these also signifying something (some face left, some right, some front, some bottom, some up)?
I compared the same degrees across the two editions and could not tell how the hand gestures in one symbolically parallels the face or wing front gestures in another edition. I still think that in the 1800s edition the figures are generally expressing the "as above, so below" hermetic principle, but it may be just that edition's way of depicting the charts. The principle is obvious as a core notion in the whole Lapidary.
But clearly, there are variations in the older edition also, otherwise they would have been drawn exactly the same.
3.
In the older 1500s edition, only Aries (first in the Zodiac months) is given degree figures (as if telling the reader, I assume, "follow the same in later charts, so we won't repeat the numbers again"), and in the rest they are blank (as you can see from the Taurus chart comparisons). What this tells me is that if the gestures were significant, they would have been also shown in the rest of the Zodiac charts in the older 1500s Lapidary edition, but they are not. They are blank.
Conversely, in the later 1800s edition, where the degree figures are given for all Zodiac charts, when you compare the gestures for the same degree across charts, it is not necessarily the case that they remain the same for that degree across different Zodiac charts.
One may think that the degree figure gestures signify degree numbers somehow (sort of, figures giving numbers of the degrees), but if that was the case, we would have to see consistency of the 30-degree gestures across the Zodiac charts in the 1800s edition.
So, it may well be the case that in the edition samples I shared in the previous post, the variations mean something. It does not seem likely that they are just printing incidentals, though the latter can't be ruled out for some as scribal errors and omissions.
I am still not sure about what the variation meanings can be, but they are there even in the older edition even more visibly. While I am inclined to think that they were meant to convey degree numbers visually, which explains why they are left blank in the charts after Aries in the older 1500s edition, the variations depicted across the editions are still noteworthy.
As a side note, I found another copy of the later edition which shows more details for some figures missing in the earlier edition. So, it is possible the variations were scribing or printing incidentals for some degree figures. But, again, I cannot be sure, because some variations (including the face directions in the original edition) in the 1500s edition or switching of hands pointing up and down in the 1800s edition are noteworthy.
4.
What is most important to notice, however, is the way the degrees are counted, and even numbered, across BOTH editions. So, there should be no doubt about it.
Consistently, the direction of 30-degrees counting start from 9 (or 10, see below, if tilted a bit in the older 1500s edition) o'clock moving counterclockwise, which is the same way the 12 houses are numbred and counted in astrological birth charts.
This is a very significant observation that can now give us a sense of how to count the degree nymphs in the Voynich manuscript, with the VM's own style withstanding.
The older 1500s edition of the Lapidary is even tilted, so the first degree begins slightly up at around the 10 o'clock. This plausibly supports the observation that the scribes in the Voynich manuscript seemed also to start pupulating the charts from the 10 o'clock.
This can be just an incidental style of the older Lapidary edition degree sections. However, if there is a variation there, why not consider it for the Voynich manuscript style, especially if they are meant to be (and seem to have been) signifying the 10 o'clock spot across the manuscript astrological images for some reason.
In the older Lapidary edition, the tilt is important to consider, since in the charts after the Aries, degree numbers (or head figures/gestures) are not given, so without considering the tilt as being consistent throughout the Zodiac charts, one would not know exactly which is the 30th or first degree of that chart lies.
5.
Note that the Lapidary's degree counting system for each Zodiac month is just a convention used for its introducing the order of the 30 degrees of each Zodiac in visual form.
The Lapidary 30-degree charts basically serve as a "blow up" (magnification) of the 30 degrees in the conventional 360 circle of the 12 Zodiac months. Instead of a pie chart section of 30 degrees for each Zodiac month, we now have a circle depicting the degrees to allow for showing the constellation star markers for each degree. But the order of their counting MUST remain in the same usual way they are counted in the 360-degree circle.
However, this magnification does not have to be just in one ring. They could be presented in two or even three rings, purely as a matter of style. So, if you want to show bigger figures for each degree (as in the Voynich manuscript, using nymphs) you can easily run out of space, so you have no choice but show them in two (or even three) rings.
This is exactly why, in my view, we find the rings in the VM.
For example, some charts in the VM are depicted as an inner ring of 10, and outer ring of 20. Or, if things did not fit, they could do three rings (for Scorprio and Sagittarus). If they wanted to split a Zodiac chart into two for a substantive reason, such as in Aries and Taurus, the same could be and has been done (for example, 5 in the inner ring, and 10 in the outer ring, and I have an explanation for the 29 nymphs in Aries, which is in any care represented as a labeled star in the center of the chart, but will tell in later posts).
In both rings, you would start with the 9 o'clock item as the first in the ring, and doing the counting counterclockwise, starting from the inner ring and counting to the middle and outer ring (if needed, for space reasons).
Whether in one ring, or two or three rings, there would be no substantive significance for how they are placed, therefore. It also does not really matter if they nymphs are close to each other or apart from one another, since there is no locational significance in the Zodiac month chart in the VM. The point of the Zodiac charts is simply to offer an orderly way of the degrees 1-30, whether in one, two, or three rings, that is done like in the house counting system, counterclockwise.
I am showing below this post a 4-item schematic representation of how the same counting order starting from 9 or 10 o'clock could be used and this can therefore apply to the Voynich manuscript. I have created the grids for the three possibilities (one, all 30 on one ring, two for the split into two for each month, and another where a third ring became necessary.
Therefore, I think those Zodiac charts where you see four nymphs on top are depicted because more space was needed, or the scribes were not careful in placing them to fit into two rings. But their presence for that chart leads me to argue reasonably that the counting in the VM charts should start from the inner ring set, moving to the middle ring (and then on to an, if existing, outer ring).
It may be a challenge in some VM Zodiac charts in the VM to decide which is the first, but I would lean on choosing the one at 9 o'clock or just below it as being the first to count in any of the rings. Whether it should start from the one on a 10 o'clock location is possible, but only deciphering results may decide that question.
If the Voynich manuscript is following generally the counting pattern and direction of the Lapidary, we can be close in identifying the degree and associated stars in the VM, and therefore see if their labels can be textually deciphered in relation to the known names of stars (with all the troubles of reading the text and languages withstanding).
6.
Just as a general explanation of the Lapidary charts to understand what they aim to do, in the constellation depictions, the point is to locate the star(s) in the constellations depicted, and by consulting Ptolemy's Almagest, it is claimed that it would be easy to know which star is being referred to (they are actually noted in a Spanish description file of the Lapidary Julian (JB) had linked on his site in 2016, for which I will provide a link below).
So, if you look closely at the constellation figures, you will see one or two circles or stars on differnt parts of even the same constellation image for different degrees, suggesting which star (or two) of them are being considered for that degree. I think this is the equivalent of the star strings the nymphs are holding in the Voynich manuscript. But the nymphs are representing the star, not a constellation.
The basic idea of the charts is this. For each Zodiac chart, each degree is assigned a stone which is supposedly influenced by the star(s) in that constellation on that degree and has certain properties. This does NOT mean there are 360 unique stones across all the charts. Some stone assignments for degrees across the Zodiac charts may be repeated, since different stars in different Zodiac months may have different kind of influences on the same stone.
So, if someone needs a healing or talismic effect to result, let us say, he or she would look up which stone can provide it and by looking at the Zodiac chart degrees where a star would enhance those effects, one will wear (or use through other ways of applying) the stone on that degree.
7.
In the VM, the nymphs are often depicted (unless for a reason not) facing and walking clockwise. This is in fact accurately done, even though the degrees are counted counterclockwise, and this is a basic astrological convention.
Imagine you are holding a grid of 360 degrees up toward the sky, divided by the 12 Zodiac months, each having 30 degrees. You will find that the fixed star constellations are moving clockwise, like a shadow-show. Relative to us that is what is seen (even though we know today that our Earth and we on it are ratating counterclockwise).
If you were looking at a natal chart (horoscope) you will also find that the "planets" move clockwise in time, retrogrades notwithstanding. The degrees increase counterclockwise.
8.
Overall, the best thing that came out of this consideration for me is that I am now nearly certain that the degree counting in Voynich Zodiac charts must begin around 9 or 10 o'clock in each ring, and proceed counterclockwise, the same way the houses are numbered and counted in birth charts. I think it is reasonable that the counting must begin from the inner ring, moving to the middle ring (and if existing, outer set of nymphs on top of the chart must also be counted counterclockwise).
In the Pisces chart, all nymphs are nude, and you will find in the first Aries chart the first in the inner ring is also nude after the 9 o'clock, then they become clothed. To me that is consistent with the idea of the inner ring nymph degrees are to be counted first, and that nymphs on Aries 1 chart is still nude.
I have no doubt that in the Voynich mansucript the nymph gestures are hermeneutically meaningful in very significant ways, whether or not it is the same in Lapidary editions. As it is always important to keep in mind, the VM does its own thing, even if the degree figure meanings in the Lapidary chart editions remains unknown.
9.
Other forum members have explored the Alfonso X a while ago (back in 2016, I think, and I am sure there were others later I may have missed reading).
In this forum julian (JB) had shared his helpful insights You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and on his own site at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. He had also shared the link to the Alfonso X description of degrees/stone at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which is in Spanish. I agree with him that it is a very helpful file, since it basically gives us the stone names and degree assignments and explanations (In Microsoft Word, if you choose "Translation/Selection" under the Tools menu, you can easily translate any paragraph instantly).
I would not be surprised that the recipe section in the VM serves basically the same purpose of the Spanish file linked by Julian, that is, give a sense of how a star on a degree relates to a plant. This may or may not include how to prepare them, and this is also present in the Spanish text.
ReneZ had offered the links to the older 1500s edition (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). He had linked the 1800s edition (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Marco Ponzi had reflected on related topics in a Stephen Bax site page here You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This is a helpful site as an overview of the Lapidary You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 09-03-2026
I need to clarify and update a few things regarding my last post.
When I referred to the "original" edition in my last post, what I really meant to refer to was the 1500s edition of the Lapidary (I even referred to it as "original/earlier"), which would be earlier than a 1800s edition. But I should have referred to it as just "earlier" (not "original").
As we know Alfonso X lived 1221-1284, and the original Lapidary was a mid 13th century (1200s) work, which I had already assumed in my last post, given that the Voynich manuscript could not have been inspired by it (in my and others' thinking) without the Lapidary being an earlier work, which it is. Alfonso X's Lapidary sources in Arabic/Persian were dated even earlier than 1200s, as we know and is assumed.
But it turns out that the 1800s edition is the earliest/original version of the Lapidary going back to 1250s in its dating (if not, please correct me). It just happens that the 1800s edition is a 1800s (RE)PUBLICATION edition/copy of that original edition. So, this explains the more details found of the degree figures across ALL the extant Zodiac charts in it. So, the figures with hands pointing to above and below is the original version, unless there is another copy version I have not across.
This means that we are in a way back to square one and need to explain the variations in the degree figures (if meaningful) in the earliest 1250 edition of the Lapidary which exist across all Zodiac charts. In fact variation playfulness is done there also by way of colors of benches and the sky backgrounds as well (I forgot to mention), if you look at all of them carefully.
Regarding my comparative inferences from the Alfonso X Lapidary about the order of degree nymphs in the Voynich manuscript, I am open to another way of reading the rings in the latter, which I have also provided alternative images for in this post. I am now more inclined to consider the images posted below as a counting system, but can't rule out the one I shared earlier. Both are possibilities.
In this alternative order, first we begin counting at 9/10 o'clock on the outer ring moving counterclockwise, then we proceed to the same in the inner ring, and then (for those two Zodiac charts) proceed to counting the top four nymph figures, still counterclockwise. The position of each nymph (and their distances from one another) does not have any significance other than its place in the order of the counterclockwise counting, since these Zodiac charts only serve to magnify the 30 degrees in that Zodiac as part of a 360-degree annual chart.
The key here is that, in my view, the reason the rings exist in the Voynich manuscript Zodiac charts has to do simply with spacing the larger size of nymphs for degrees for the 30 per chart counting. The essential point is that the counting starts (like house counting in Zodiac) at 9/10 o'clock moving counterclockwise across the rings one way or another.
I realize none of this may be of interest to others to consider as usual, but I wanted to clarify things for the record.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Jorge_Stolfi - 09-03-2026
(09-03-2026, 03:44 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am open to another way of reading the rings in the latter ... The position of each nymph (and their distances from one another) does not have any significance other than its place in the order of the counterclockwise counting, since these Zodiac charts only serve to magnify the 30 degrees in that Zodiac as part of a 360-degree annual chart.
Not sure what is your whole claim, but I agree too that the meaningful contents of each VMS Zodiac diagram is only the ordered list of 30 (or 15) labels, each associated with one degree of the Ecliptic; and the approximate correspondence of the 30 (or 15) degree arc covered by each chart with a Western Zodiac sign and a Western calendar month (although the month may have been an addition by a later owner).
It is possible that the meaningful contents includes also the number of rays of each star (visual magnitude?) an/or the position of the nymphs' arms (elevation above the ecliptic?), but my hunch is that they are random choices by the "Artist"/Scribe.
In particular, I agree that the division of the two bands into sectors is not significant and was determined by the space taken by each nymph. Except that the Artist was totally unable to plan the layout before he started drawing, so he often ran out of space and had to hack it. Which is my explanation for the "overflow" nymphs above some diagrams, and for the missing nymph and central label of Pisces.
Quote:In this alternative order, first we begin counting at 9/10 o'clock on the outer ring moving counterclockwise, then we proceed to the same in the inner ring, and then (for those two Zodiac charts) proceed to counting the top four nymph figures, still counterclockwise.
Based on the evolution of the style and the cramping of some nymphs, I believe that the "Artist" drew the nymphs clockwise starting from around 12:00; and probably inner band first, then outer band, then "overflow".
But of course that need not be the order in which the labels were written, or were supposed to be read. In my view the Artist himself had no idea of what those diagrams meant, other than they had to do with astrology.
It is possible that the Author provided only the list of 30 (or 15) labels, and the Artist then drew the diagrams and nymphs in the order above, then wrote the labels -- in the same order or in a different order, of his own choice or specified by the Author.
But the diagrams also include text rings. I find it impossible that our sloppy Artist could lay down a given line of text in a ring without a huge gap or huge overlap. So it seems more likely that the Author gave the Artist a sketch of each diagram with the text rings and labels already in the desired places, in a 5 + 10 or 10 + 20 arrangement.
The text rings were obviously meant to be read clockwise. The starting point seems to be around 10:30 rather than 09:00 or 12:00, but that is uncertain: the wider gaps we see in the rings may be where the Artist (who knew only the alphabet but could not read the language) started copying them, rather than where the reading was supposed to start. And the "notched square" design in some of those gaps may be just an aesthetic hack that the Artist added to fill a gap that he himself created while copying each ring.
Since each label is written in the same clockwise direction as the text rings, it seems more likely that the order of the labels, as intended by the Author, was clockwise too. But that inference is admittedly shaky. I suppose that there are many examples of Western circular diagrams where each sector label is to be read in one direction, but the sectors are to be read in the opposite direction.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 10-03-2026
Thanks.
Since we can't yet read the lables or the circular texts on the Zodiac charts, any argument for their being meant to be read or written clockwise (or not) would be speculative. That is probably the most fundamenal difference between our methods.
I am not caring about text deciphering for my own reasons currently, since I believe the visuals are in fact interpretations of the text the author(s) have tried to share. Of course, that may be diametrically opposite to your approach (since you see the visuals as mere decorations), leading me to understand why you (and some others) have been pursuing a text-based strategy for decades.
I think if there is a counterclockwise order to the nymph degrees order, which is my suggestion based on comaprative example of the Lapidary, the labels and circular texts should follow the same order as far as the Zodiac charts go, if they are each associated specifically with the nymph degrees rather than being narratives.
If not associated with the nymph degrees (which I doubt), perhaps somthing clockwise may be happening with the text, but I doubt it and I don't really care to find out about it now. These Zodiac charts serve only to organize in a specific counterclockwise order the degree figures (with their insignia and gestures) starting at 9/10 in the rings.
The visuals are plenty rich and meaningful for me to study, and I am sorry to see so much time has been spent on the text that has taken away from understanding the visuals better in the context of the mindset of its time. The Lapidary's order of reading the degrees should have been noticed and learned a long, long, time ago.
As far as what was written first or not, implicating how the page was drawn by the author(s)/scribe(s), it is anybody's guess, and does not matter to me. It does not matter where they started drawing them, at 12 or anywhere else. We can argue about secondary incidentals for another 600s years, but it makes more sense to focus first on essentials and those incidentals that may have essential significance. I don't plan on being around this VM research for decades, even a year, sorry—whatever the results.
I have now more reason to believe that the counterclockwise counting is going from outer to inner rings (and then to top, if needed for those two Zodiac charts) and they start at around 9 o’clock but will explain it later. I am still not fully decided on it.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Jorge_Stolfi - 10-03-2026
(10-03-2026, 01:53 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since we can't yet read the lables or the circular texts on the Zodiac charts, any argument for their being meant to be read or written clockwise (or not) would be speculative.
The shape of the paragraphs and other details (like the spacing at the end of lines) show that Voynichese was definitely written from left to right. But, agreed, that does not imply that the items in a Zodiac diagram should be taken in clockwise order.
Quote:We can argue about secondary incidentals for another 600s years, but it makes more sense to focus first on essentials and those incidentals that may have essential significance.
I agree with that, too, but in a different sense. Far too much time has been wasted analyzing details of the drawings that are clearly decorative -- or, worse, additions by late owners, like the colors and certain "enhancements" by BEEEPers.
Again: in the Zodiac diagrams, specifically, I believe that the significant contents is only the text rings, the labels, and the approximate correspondence to Western zodiac signs. Which seems to be the case also for most astrological diagrams in other Western manuscripts.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 11-03-2026
(10-03-2026, 10:13 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.… Voynichese was definitely written from left to right …
I agree with that, too, … are clearly decorative -- or, worse, additions by late owners, like the colors and certain "enhancements" by BEEEPers.
All the best, --stolfi
Congratulations, Jorge Stolfi. You have been omnipresent and have appeared to be assuming that AFAYK you are omniscient, and now have achieved omnipotence as far as the rules of this forum go. Almost there to being a god. What's the secret?
You have already figured it out. VM visuals are just decorations (done!) and you recently declared its text, in part, matched convincingly (to you) with another text, leading you to promise the rest of the text will be deciphered in due course.
I am not seeing any signs of you doing that, or perhaps I missed it, since I did not join this forum to study the Stolfi manuscript. Are your further findings about the text still in the pipeline? Should you not be working on that solution instead of distracting yourself (and me) in this thread?
So, what is the first paragraph, sentence, or word of the VM on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (or anywhere else other than those you already have solved in the recipe section) saying?
I stopped commenting in other threads fearing anything I say will be (understandably) misunderstood as advancing mine, but you seem to be cherishing it and pursuing it without impunity.
Even when someone offers something new, you just "agree" with it, as if you already knew, which is a sign of omnipotence, not acknowledgment, I think.
It is quite remarkable, by "agreeing" followed by a "but" you can advance your own decoration theory in other threads quite tactfully, distracting them from their work in the meantime. Two birds kissed at the same time.
I did not even say anything about questioning the left to rightness of the text in the Voynich manuscript, generally speaking, but you had to attribute it to me and comment on it any way, when I already said in a post just prior to it that I am not caring about textual solutions at this time.
Is this a way of decorating your comments in a way that you advance your own theory in other threads in disguise? Interesting!
I have even seen you quoting AI, at length, in posts, presumably to show its errors, though they may also function as boasting that you were cited by it. Your statistical findings seem to bypass the slop bucket quite well!
What is this, a new intelligence, SI?
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-03-2026
(11-03-2026, 05:22 PM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You have already figured it out. VM visuals are just decorations (done!) and you recently declared its text, in part, matched convincingly (to you) with another text, leading you to promise the rest of the text will be deciphered in due course.
Why the sneer?
That the visuals are mostly decoration is my evaluation after studying them for many years, with all the tools I had. (I have easily spent more than 5000 hours looking at VMS images over the last 25+ years.) Plus my experience with drawing and painting. I am fairly confident, but still I admit that I don't have hard proof, and I may be wrong.
That the Starred Parags section (SPS) is a fairly literal version of the Shennong Bencaojing (SBJ), and that "daiin" is a keyword that precedes a list of uses of a remedy, is for me a closed matter. I presented the evidence on the appropriate thread, and I think it is as hard as it could be. If you have serious questions or objections, post them there.
Quote:I did not join this forum to study the Stolfi manuscript
It is definitely not "my" manuscript. But I have bad news: you cannot choose what the manuscript is, nor who the Author was. Reality does not care about your preferences, and obviously you will not like what it has decided.
Quote:I stopped commenting in other threads fearing anything I say will be (understandably) misunderstood as advancing mine, but you seem to be cherishing it and pursuing it without impunity.
I believe that I have kept my arguments and any substantial discussion for each of my theories in its appropriate thread. Are you saying that no one else should be allowed to comment on "your" thread?
I see many people wasting huge amounts of time in misguided analysis of the drawings because they start with the assumptions that paints are original, that the drawings were done by the Author himself, and that every detail in them is deliberate and meaningful.
Unfortunately much of what is written about the VMS implicitly transmits to the reader those assumptions as if they were established facts. We must warn everybody that those are just unproven assumptions, and in fact that there plenty of evidence indicating that they are wrong.
Quote:I have even seen you quoting AI, at length, in posts, presumably to show its errors, though they may also function as boasting that you were cited by it. Your statistical findings seem to bypass the slop bucket quite well!
I have been very careful to not use AI for any statistics, or any analysis of Voynichese. I have used it for translations from Chinese to English and other languages (it takes half an hour or more to obtain a translation of a single "recipe" that does not look obviously wrong.) And I have used it to find things like photos of onion dome churches or Japanese prints of brawls in a bathhouse or how does one get rotated labels on a gnuplot plot.
And I never posted any slop to this forum, on any thread (except for that dialogue, on the thread that was about AI and slop).
All the best, --stolfi
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - R. Sale - 11-03-2026
The details that are relevant and meaningful are the ones that are confirmed in the historical record, during the era 1400-1450 and prior.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 11-03-2026
(11-03-2026, 07:45 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.… We must warn everybody that those are just unproven assumptions, and in fact that there plenty of evidence indicating that they are wrong.
Dreadfully, this sounds like a 1984 Orwellian speech to me! Who is "we"? Are you assuming you speak for this forum as a whole? Are you its sole representative?
Even a recent poll showed the diversity of the views here, many saying they don't know, and some like me may not have even participated in it. Yet, you assume what you have discovered is the truth and try to impose it on others and distract from their efforts, simply because you think you have made up your mind?
I have previously tried to engage with you on your preferred threads, but you simply ignored the questions I was asking. So, I gave up, and this will be my last try even in this thread, since it will distract me from the point of view I wish to present here. Why don't you advance yours in your own threads for your "we"s? I mean, how many times do you wish to repeat your "decoration" theory? We have heard you, no?
You are of course entitled to all your opinions, and you seem to have solved it for good. Good for you. But, the problem I was addressing is not that and in your usual way you are avoiding the main issue; rather, it is your believing that whatever you say is the truth and nothing but the truth as if already universally agreed upon. Just because the matter of your findings were "closed" for you does not mean it has been for closed for others.