+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Blog Post] Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. (/thread-5411.html)
Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Wladimir D - 28-02-2026
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In Russian. Use a translator.
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Jorge_Stolfi - 28-02-2026
(28-02-2026, 09:15 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In Russian. Use a translator.
I hacked at the Voynich Mauscript for several years around 2000, then kept away and joined this forum only last year. So I missed most of your posts. Thanks for creating that combined summary!
However it is a lot of stuff to take in all at once. On a quick reading, I see some observations that seem novel, and some that seem old. Some interpretations that I agree with, some that are intriguing, some that I think are misguided because of wrong assumptions.
In particular, I believe that all analyses of the drawings and writing that focus on small details, such as handwriting, are misguided because they ignore the extensive retouching that the book has suffered long after it was created. There is plenty of evidence for this retouching on every page -- but one will not see that evidence if one starts with the tacit assumption that all the ink we see is original (the "Pristine Ink" theory).
Another misleading initial assumption that many have been making is that the person who put the quill to vellum was the Author himself (the "Author was the Scribe" theory). And some even assume that he composed the text as he was writing it, without writing a draft on paper first (the "Brain to Vellum" theory) Many interpretations become untenable if (as is most likely) the Scribe and the Author were distinct persons (the "Scribe not Author" theory), and the Scribe was only copying from the Author's draft without understanding the text (the "Ignorant Scribe" theory)
The details of the shape of each glyph, such as the position and shape of the plume on Sh, are indeed all over the place. However, in order to claim that those differences are significant (the "Steganographic Code" theory), one would have to show that they are discrete: that for each glyph there is a small set of clearly distinct ideal "sub-glyphs", such that the actual shapes of that glyph cluster around those ideal shapes, with relatively few intermediate/ambiguous forms. Is that the case? My impression (visual only, not actually measured) is that the shapes of each glyph form a continuum with no obvious clusters. If there are indeed multiple ideal sub-glyphs of Sh, they must be so many, and so close together, that they cannot possibly be distinct letters. For one thing, the obvious sloppiness of the Scribe would get them all mixed up.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Rafal - 01-03-2026
Hello Wladimir,
Your work is definitely known in Voynich circles and some like Diane O'Donovan value it very highly.
Your latest post is actually a compilation of many different small observations from many years. Some of them seem for me very interesting, another a bit speculative and going too far like the constructed language concept.
Personally I would break this big post into several smaller posts.
Do you expect any discussion here? Is there anything you would like to know people's opinion about it?
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - oshfdk - 01-03-2026
I find the stray t on 116v interesting. It remains visible in some IR02 images, when most of the ink is already transparent. I think I'll try running linear regression on it.
Edit: however, after comparing 116v and 116r I think it's possible this image of t is a combination of a couple of vertical vellum defects or scratches and two loops from 116r.
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Wladimir D - 01-03-2026
Rafal!
About half of the information in this blog hasn't been published before. I'm open to informed criticism and answering any additional questions. Please keep in mind that I don't speak English, and double-translating the question and answer can distort the meaning.
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Rafal - 01-03-2026
Okay, so I would have such questions:
1. Do you think that the text is meaningful or meaningless? If I understood correctly you say in your blog that Currier A i meaningful and Currier B isn't. Is that right?
2. Do you have a theory who made Voynich Manuscript and why?
3. What do you think of idea that Voynich Manuscript was cut at the bottom, at the roots? See my thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I would be curious about your opinion as you noticed a lot of details in the manuscript.
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - Wladimir D - 03-03-2026
I believe language B is completely nonsense. I still have hope that language A can be deciphered, and perhaps even linked to the images.
As for the author (the initiator of the idea), I don't have a specific person. But it must have been someone who had access to a large archive of manuscripts.
Because there are indications that some bifolios were previously twice (three?) as large vertically. Something similar to the dimensions of a ROS sheet. And when these tall sheets are cut horizontally, we see the tips of the drawings at the bottom in the scans.
When dividing bifolios 27-30 horizontally, it was necessary to remove some of the roots of all the drawings so that no significant remnants of the lower tier drawings remained.
It appears that there are also remnants of a drawing on 22v in the lower left corner. This is on the same bifolio as 19v.
For information on trimming sheets, see my blog. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If Diana believes the Zodiacs were previously in scroll form (see her blog comment), then I believe that foldouts 88-89 and Q19 were also stored in scrolls, and when dividing them into their current foldouts, they had to be cut directly along the drawings. I've given examples in the blog.
RE: Some conclusions drawn from twelve years of studying the Voynich manuscript. - eggyk - 03-03-2026
(01-03-2026, 01:53 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I find the stray t on 116v interesting. It remains visible in some IR02 images, when most of the ink is already transparent. I think I'll try running linear regression on it.
Edit: however, after comparing 116v and 116r I think it's possible this image of t is a combination of a couple of vertical vellum defects or scratches and two loops from 116r.
Yes, it seems to be almost certainly bleedthrough from 116r, which can be seen nicely with one of the MSI images. There does seem to be a vertical deformity (the light area) running between the two loops, which is probably why it looks like the vertical lines from t.