16-04-2025, 04:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 16-04-2025, 04:19 PM by Stefan Wirtz_2.)
(16-04-2025, 04:10 PM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyone who wants to discuss Egyptian hieroglyphics should have studied at least its basics or read at least a few of the fundamental books about it. (Note that this is totally insufficient, but it will help).
Why should the Voynich MS as a subject be treated differently?
There is no need to read about any of the bad proposed solutions, just like there is no need to read Kircher's misguided understanding of hieroglyphics.
Mary D'Imperio's 1970's book "An Elegant Enigma" is now widely outdated, but it stil includes valuable information. There is a point where she writes, after a short list of features of the Voynich MS writing:
"a proposed solution that does not address/explain these point can be rejected" (or something of a similar nature). Not knowing these basic things puts one in an impossible situation.
Note, no "haha" here...
Best example you could give (seriously, no HaHa from me included).
Hieroglyphs studies and all books about it started with the lucky finding of rosetta stones in Egypt by some not-so-sober french soldiers or so.
Until then, all theories and analyses about egyptian were bizarre trash.
Real Science started then, but without that lucky moment, it would still be complete bullshit.
Just like Voynich "research" until today.