Decoding the Voynich Symbols

[Mark Knowles]

Except that historically with problems it is not unusual for people to make breakthroughs that others have not spotted.

In such a short period of time?  Something that was so obvious that a solver could pinpoint it within minutes/hours/a few day but went unseen by everyone else for decades?

It's probably due to how media over-simplifies and over-sensationalizes discoveries, but I have seen a perception that the Linear B decipherment was due to Michael Ventris suddenly having the genius insight to look for place names on the Linear B tablets. But this line of inquiry was the culmination of his years of forensic analysis of the Linear B glyphs and earlier insights/discoveries, and the analysis and discoveries of others (Ventris certainly did not adopt the common approach of Voynich solvers to deliberately ignore existing work!). 

Maybe it's just me... but I don't think there are any such low-hanging fruits left in the VM that have been missed by everyone over the years.  I do believe there are still plenty of medium-high hanging fruits waiting to be discovered with a bit of work, since there are so many different aspects that can be analysed in different ways.  We've seen a few of these in the work produced in the last few years.  

But the idea that the great breakthrough could be obvious seems unlikely to me.   Especially since we already know that there exists this massive trap in the VM that makes so many people passionately believe they have made the great breakthrough when they haven't.

There can often be a very significant element of luck involved in breakthroughs. The Voynich manuscript is a very large document with so very many research avenues to explore. It may be that on one of the many pages there is the key to deciphering the manuscript which has either been overlooked or insufficiently studied. Things can often seem obvious when the solution is found, but may not seen so obvious beforehand.

The key is what you mean by the word "obvious". This is almost a semantic question.

The idea that there is a special trap or feature unique to the Voynich manuscript that makes people believe they have made a breakthrough, when they haven't, doesn't make sense to me. The Voynich is a very tough problem, so it is not surprising that people arrive at false solutions. I admit it is annoying when people repeat the same flawed method as someone else without a knowledge of their predecessor's mistakes.

I still find it amazing that I strongly believe the rosettes folio represents a map, whilst others strongly believe the rosettes folio represents a wide range of other things. The fact that we can't agree on something so basic indicates to me how far we have to go to make progress. Ultimately, we are left to rely on the verdict that time will come to.