Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Ahmet Ardıç]

And while I'm at it, bananas didn't leave Indonesia, Philiphines and, or Malaysia until the 17th century. And probably came to us via Africa.

[The methodology here appears to be that when the imagery supports the Turkish theory, it is accurate and realistic; when it doesn't, it's because the artist/author's memory is failing.  So there's little point in discussing the imagery at all here.]

Dear Tavi,


I do not fully understand. Have you stated that you find our claim that some of the plant names we have presented coincide with the drawing on the same page, partially realistic? For example, do you think that the drawing made on the page where we read the word SESAME with its phonetic form unchanged in 600 years (with the spelling of SESAME) may also belong to the sesame plant? Or do you not think? So, did you realize we might have found some plot word match, or do you think it might be an anagram or a coincidence overlap?

If you think it might be an overlap, how many of the close to 100 drawing word overlaps we share on our page do you find realistic or how many of them are unrealistic?

The question is not whether the author has the ability to paint. I also not use selectively pointing visuals to support "my Turkish theory".

I must say clearly that we are only giving examples of readings that can be done with an alphabet transcription.

Moreover, since some of our inferences seem quite radical, Turcologists who often do academic studies in Turkey and Azerbaijan are also skeptical in general because of this family project/study.

For example, we say that the author encodes the first letter of each line written from top to bottom. We say that the original intent of the author may have been to spy and/or, if he is a physician, he may have made these readings difficult in order to share his knowledge only with certain people.

Then, in the coded places, I point out that she/he may have given information that we guessed to be military from time to time, with using terminology as if he/she were like reporting to someone.

These are not easy to say. When I say these things to a Turkologist, they think that a family with "advanced" imagination is wasting their time, and in fact, I don't think they are wrong in giving this reaction. I think they are biased. It is not the diploma we have that makes us knowledgeable or intelligent.

I am an electrical engineer with a master's degree in my profession. My job is to design building projects, and some of which include factories and/or industrial automation units. By controlling the electrical flow in the electrical automation process, I am trying to predict in advance what kind of path I will follow in complex circuits and where I will eventually reach. In other words, I think I am rational and conscious, and I can consciously perceive where I am be on wrong way or where I am not. There is no such thing as coincidence in our business, and there is no room for coincidence in the sciences that go together with mathematics. But Linguistics can allow a certain degree of coincidences and anagrams. In the field of history, you can produce historical terminologies from an eye of the winner, and you can also pump the information you produce in this way. So much so that this has been done throughout history.

In linguistics, you can do anagram readings to a certain extent. For example, it is not very difficult to do this in short text inscriptions. If we're working with a few words, we can suggest some readings in every language in the world. Here, we are talking about a book written on approximately 240 pages and with approximately 40 thousand words. It is not possible to proceed by anagram or coincidence here. If I could read an anagram for 240 pages, I should be able to declare myself as the other God. (Or the God of all anagrams.)

I'm not doing this for money, or for personal gain, or for intangible satisfaction, or just because I'm a nationalist. I don't care what anyone thinks about me because of my VM readings. Do you think that, I'm not going to say what I believe just because someone else will look at it with suspicion.

I will not allow the professors and turcologists of the universities I send information to evaluate our work according to their egos or prejudices. If there are those among them who belittle our work, I will crush them with my linguistic knowledge, and they will disgraced in academic area.

There are already experts in some academies who have understood that the content of VM is in Turkish. We are in frequent contact with them. We are not discussing whether or not the Voynich manuscript contains Turkish or not. The content of the discussion is all about which pronunciation of the words should be added to the translation or what the meaning content of the word 600 years ago was or the dialect of the author,... etc.

Discussions in this area are already a frequent occurrence in linguistics. Likewise for Voynich manuscript texts, there will probably be linguists who will read and translate the same sentences in different ways for many years to come.

People will examine and think about many details on this subject, and they will learn some new things as they go into details.


First of all, it was underestimated in academia that we were running this business as a family project. Later, many linguists did not take the files we sent them seriously and did not even look at them. Probably some of them trashed the files we sent.

Do you believe that a Turkologist working in Turkey or Azerbaijan or elsewhere in the world can say "We see Turkish in the Voynich Manuscript content" just for nationalistic reasons or out of sympathy? If no one sees Turkish in the content, they will not say they have seen Turkish. Doing the opposite would be unethical and would destroy the reputation of these people along with their professional career. An honorable person does not resort to fraud, pretend to believe what he does not believe, or use deception.

It won't do any good to show suspicion each other with insinuations between the lines or compressed into sentences.

Is the purpose of this group to understand and read the contents of the Voynich book? Or is the content necessarily intended to be read in one of the European languages? I think that whatever language the author wrote, it will be read in that language. In other words, this issue is not up to you or my will, if we are each trying to understand the content, we cannot do this in the form of fighting each other. This is a process that can be carried on with the clash of ideas, but it is useful to leave aside the implications that are made towards us in this process.

The aim is to try to solve this riddle together and by helping each other. And I don't want to think that the claim that the content is in Turkish may have offended some people. Because that would be meaningless and it is beyond the main purpose. For this reason, I don't even want to think that perceptions can be created intentionally or unintentionally, which will make our work seem worthless or as if we said things we didn't say by hiding behind the words.

We do not especially tweeze the images drawn in the Voynich book in order to mislead others.

Are you saying that; "I accept pictures if those supports my theory but I am blameing the author's drawing ability when it does not fit?"

Why do we do this?

If you've read it, you'll remember that in one of my previous comments, I mentioned as a possibility that the author might not have cared too much whether the pictures on the pages were realistic or not.

In fact, since I think that more than one person wrote the articles, I do not ignore the possibility that the drawings were made by more than one person in the same way.

In addition to that, I also stated that the same plant name can be used for very different plants in different dialects of the Turkish language, and for this reason, linguists should cooperate with botanists, knowing the plant naming in the Old language.

There are many other possibilities as well.

So if some people here going to continue to try to muddy ATA work in that way then I won't be able to understand your or their main purpose. I don't know why the author drew some plants well and some badly. I'm talking about possibilities here.

Let go of allusions and focus, if possible, on what we wrote and what evidence we showed.

Or, if you say that the content of the work cannot be in Turkish, let's not waste each other's time by writing comments to each other in vain on this page.

So I say throw away the indirect allusions and write clearly whatever you have to say directly. Do you think that I accept some drawings that just because those supports our theory, but when it doesn't work for me, do I blame the author's drawing ability? Or have I actually presented this issue as just one of multiple possibilities, along with many other things, in my comments?