Who actually wants the Voynich solved?

[R. Sale]

The ones between 3:00 and 6:00 are different having smooth borders all the way around the outside.

Also note the patterned marker in the text circle at 7:30.

[Grove]

Tolerance doesn’t mean agreement to me. I also find bizarre claims like speaking to dead people or aliens etc… to be far less than helpful, but I can choose not to engage with them. For questionable observations I like to think,  even if I find something doubtful that I can say out loud that it isn’t exactly convincing without being insulting.

Nowadays, I mostly just read what people are thinking. Even some misguided theories can cough up something that might not have been observed before. Honestly, I think that’s true of most of my early research into the VMS.

[ReneZ]

There is not only the sentiment that it seems as if some people don't want to see a solution.

I have frequently been confronted with an explanation why I don't want to see a solution. (Usually when asked to comment on a solution, and not responding as positively as expected).

This is simply because then all the time I would have spent on this would have been for nothing. 

Beside the faulty logic, this is another example of people being so convinced about something that no counter-argument can change the opinion. (Even facts, for that matter)

[Koen G]

This is simply because then all the time I would have spent on this would have been for nothing. 

I suspect the mechanism behind this is that theorists can only imagine an approach to the manuscript similar to their own. They think you're dug in somewhere, fortified your location with barbed wire and shoot down any theory that moves elsewhere. 

There is a grain of truth to this, in the sense that we're all human and vulnerable to the biases that affect the human mind. But those who value critical thinking and the objective weighing of evidence do their best to eliminate these biases, while theorists feed them until they burn like a roaring flame.

[nablator]

When you turn to the transliterations of "Glen Claston" , it shows quite normal h2 values near 2.9, which is quite ok for medieval texts, while Takahashi and Zandbergen translits stay at 2.1 ~ 2.3. Or has somebody made a mistake?

Yes. You.

h2 = 2.87 is for the entire voyn_101.txt file.

h2 = 2.59 without metadata (folio and line numbers, line ends "=" and "-"), with spaces and with (or without) half-spaces.

I haven't seen a medieval text in any language with h2 under 3, unless it is very short. Normal for medieval Latin texts without abbreviations, majuscules, punctuation is 3.3.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Stefan Wirtz_2]

Yes. You.

h2 = 2.87 is for the entire voyn_101.txt file.

h2 = 2.59 without metadata (folio and line numbers, line ends "=" and "-"), with spaces and with (or without) half-spaces.[..]

Oh really, did I?

These were not my numbers; I don‘t calculate a „solution“, just do some counting.
My source was quoted, you can still see digits like 2.89… there.
So you say that Glen Claston collected all of it, even line numbers, and came out with a h2 near 2.90 by that?

Where are your numbers from?
Obviously this is very depending upon size of alphabet and the individual understanding of all written characters.

Your reply was quite a great success for you: but where is the mistake, finally?

[Oscroft]

This seems like a suitable thread for my first forum post. I've had a passing interest in Voynich since I first heard about it a few decades ago. I have some exposure to cryptography and to language structure - but nowhere near the expertise to have a go at Voynich! But I am certain the vast majority of people with an interest in it want it to be solved... and I really hope I'm still around to see the day it happens.

I've also read a number of claimed solutions - published in other places, and here in this forum. And, as others with more knowledge than me have pointed out, they all fall victim to the same basic mistakes... which have been well explained here (and in Koen's YouTube channel).

The obvious challenge to anyone who claims to have cracked the secret is: "So tell us what it says then!" And they invariably can't. Nobody has come plausibly close. People are convinced they're right about what it is, where it came from, even what language it is or is based on... but they haven't a clues what it says.

Scepticism, critique, challenge... those are the exact way theories should be challenged, and are vital approaches to help focus and improve ideas. It's a positive constructive approach, not one of negativity.

Of the ideas currently being discussed here, not one comes close to convincing me. But I'm grateful to the people who put in the effort and present their ideas. I find some of the things people unearth quite fascinating. And who knows... maybe one of the links they find in an otherwise flawed theory could provide a link for someone else with another idea?

I really hope people keep offering their ideas, and I hope others keep critiquing them. And I'd urge authors to be as open as possible to critique - critique is the lifeblood of research, and should never be personal or derogatory.

[ololololo]

but they haven't a clues what it says.

In the case of VMS, it is very difficult to determine the encryption algorithm on the spot. It is also not surprising that we can roughly know the contents of the encrypted text in advance. 
We have a rough understanding of what the cryptograms of Beil should contain and what language they are written in, but we are unable to decipher them.

[Oscroft]

but they haven't a clues what it says.

In the case of VMS, it is very difficult to determine the encryption algorithm on the spot. It is also not surprising that we can roughly know the contents of the encrypted text in advance. 
We have a rough understanding of what the cryptograms of Beil should contain and what language they are written in, but we are unable to decipher them.

Oh yes, I appreciate that partial answers can often be found and can be extremely valuable... I just think some researchers could be better received if they're less grandiose about their claims. The "I've solved it, I know for certain what it is" approach makes readers more sceptical because it suggests unwillingness to consider they might be wrong - and it can turn people away from considering what might actually be some good, if only partial, ideas.

[ololololo]

but they haven't a clues what it says.

In the case of VMS, it is very difficult to determine the encryption algorithm on the spot. It is also not surprising that we can roughly know the contents of the encrypted text in advance. 
We have a rough understanding of what the cryptograms of Beil should contain and what language they are written in, but we are unable to decipher them.

Oh yes, I appreciate that partial answers can often be found and can be extremely valuable... I just think some researchers could be better received if they're less grandiose about their claims. The "I've solved it, I know for certain what it is" approach makes readers more sceptical because it suggests unwillingness to consider they might be wrong - and it can turn people away from considering what might actually be some good, if only partial, ideas.

You're right