04-09-2025, 02:43 PM
The problem with the Voynich Manuscript does not lie in a lack of intellect, but in the way we look at its content. The text is only part of the whole – the real information is hidden in the images and symbols. To perceive it, one must combine analytical thinking with pattern recognition, the ability to read between the signs, and openness to unconventional solutions. Intellect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own – sensitivity to structure and the meaning beyond the letters also matters.
It seems that Pelling intuitively hit the mark, but then decided it was better not to talk about it. After all, the Voynich Manuscript has a way of deceiving even the best researchers – it’s easy to fall into the trap of one’s own interpretations. Suggesting that the images are ‘obscured schematics of mechanisms’ may have been too bold, too uncomfortable, or simply too difficult to prove. I am proving it.
It seems that Pelling intuitively hit the mark, but then decided it was better not to talk about it. After all, the Voynich Manuscript has a way of deceiving even the best researchers – it’s easy to fall into the trap of one’s own interpretations. Suggesting that the images are ‘obscured schematics of mechanisms’ may have been too bold, too uncomfortable, or simply too difficult to prove. I am proving it.