22-05-2025, 04:59 AM
Let me answer from the side of solution finders.
When Champollion deciphered the Rosetta Stone, he was working outside the mainstream Egyptology.
Heinrich Schliemann, who famously discovered Troy- was an amateur archaeologist.
They both were mocked by the official science then, until they had enormous success in their work and achieved the goal, unachieved by the brightest wits then.
Like Schliemann Voynich solvers are often dismissed as cranks. Scientists complain over many "crank" theories, but offer no clear way to separate signal from noise.
Academics fear chaos, when they engage amateurs, but let us define what "good" looks like.
For example - launch a "Voynich challenge platform" and pose specific questions, like: Decipher this foil contents.
Does the proposed solution match the manuscript patterns.
Can on other sections the method be applied and results replicated, etc.
Then no one will be offended because will understand that his/her theory does not really work.
BR: Vessy
When Champollion deciphered the Rosetta Stone, he was working outside the mainstream Egyptology.
Heinrich Schliemann, who famously discovered Troy- was an amateur archaeologist.
They both were mocked by the official science then, until they had enormous success in their work and achieved the goal, unachieved by the brightest wits then.
Like Schliemann Voynich solvers are often dismissed as cranks. Scientists complain over many "crank" theories, but offer no clear way to separate signal from noise.
Academics fear chaos, when they engage amateurs, but let us define what "good" looks like.
For example - launch a "Voynich challenge platform" and pose specific questions, like: Decipher this foil contents.
Does the proposed solution match the manuscript patterns.
Can on other sections the method be applied and results replicated, etc.
Then no one will be offended because will understand that his/her theory does not really work.
BR: Vessy