Voynich Decoded

[rikforto]

Firstly thank you for your comment and asking about my work, the full methodology is in my progression of papers. 
The plant identification process is straightforward once you understand the manuscript structure. When I identified the red and blue pages were a visual clue, the real plant pages became clear. The actual botanical illustrations are simple and recognisable - they had to be for practical use.

Working through the folios in order: lemon (distinctive yellow/green leaves, single fruit), caper (round leaves, white flower), ivy, herb paris. These are common Mediterranean plants that any Renaissance practitioner would recognise immediately.
The caper identification is supported by Lucrezia Tornabuoni's letters, where she specifically mentions capers at Bagno al Morbo - the geothermal treatment site I've connected to this manuscript. BTW this is the geothermal capital of the world (as per the Volterra website), the 9 radial is a map of this, Bagno al Morbo is the central circle. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. isn't about sperm production directly - it's a chest treatment for clearing phlegm. No flowers on this page because it's not about the reproductive area. The Renaissance understanding of male fertility linked chest health to reproductive function. Excess phlegm in the chest was believed to cool the body and reduce vital heat - the heat necessary for generating semen. Clear the chest, restore proper heat balance, improve fertility.

Every page follows the same pattern, up to f57 anyway.

First, I check the colour. No red/blue = real plant. Red = male page. Blue = female page (female pages also have red to show the blood humor being dealt with).

Then I transcribe the glyphs line by line from the manuscript onto a spreadsheet. I split the glyphs into cell blocks to count the days using the timing markers: o (sunrise), d (noon), n (sunset).

I copy that to another sheet, split each block vertically, and translate using my glyph key. All that information goes into the documentation. The process is numbered in the folders - 1 to 5 for real plants, 1 to 6 for fake plants to include full treatment schedules.

Test it yourself: turn the page. The diagrams are of a human torso on the fake pages - you don't need heads/legs/feet for baby production. 
Hope this answers the questions you've asked :-) It's the most beautiful book and it's so sad that all these people who have had their heads in it for decades choose now to turn away when it's opening up, it had to happen one day....

There are a good many choices that appear arbitrary in this presentation---the division of "real" and "human" plant pages, the assignment of English glosses to the glyphs, and the anatomical structures you claim to see on the various plants. To that last point, I admit to being extremely confused how the lower body ended up between the waist and uterine horns on 19v; if that is what the artist intended, I certainly don't see it. I looked for your papers on Academia, but they appear to have been removed, and since I can only go off what is available, I continue to note there is a real shortage of proof here. For another instance, when you assert that Renaissance thinkers linked chest and reproductive health, I simply don't see that in evidence. This is the sort of place where you'd need to cite someone---either primary sources or a credible expert speaking to this belief---in order to establish this very non-obvious fact.

I have already conceded that I could turn to any page and read off the glosses you've provided, which is why I don't think further interpretations in this vein will add new evidence to your position. If your argument is that you intuited the meaning of these symbols and drawings, you are going to find that people who don't share your intuition are utterly unconvinced. Even people who share your gut instincts on the manuscript should want that to be confirmed by other lines of inquiry, and I simply do not see you trying to provide that.

My papers haven't been removed from Academia: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The Renaissance link between chest health and fertility comes from standard medical texts of the period: These are the ones I'm using mostly.

Avicenna's Canon of Medicine - the authoritative medical textbook used in European universities from the 12th through 18th centuries. The Canon explains humoral medicine: health depends on proper balance of hot, wet, cold, and dry qualities, and the four humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile). Excess phlegm - cold and wet - was understood to cool the body and reduce vital heat. Since vital heat was necessary for generating seed, clearing cold phlegm from the chest restored the heat balance needed for reproduction.

Trotula of Salerno - the most influential medieval text on women's medicine, widely circulated across Europe from the 12th-15th centuries. Trotula's work was based on humoral theory and treated infertility by addressing humoral imbalances. If the womb was too cold or too humid (excess phlegm), warming and drying treatments were prescribed to restore fertility.

The real versus fake plant distinction: Real plant pages have no red or blue pigment. Red marks male treatment pages, blue marks female. This is consistent and verifiable across folios. The anatomical mapping (roots=heart, stem=veins/stem internal fluid pathways, leaves/flowers=torso/reproductive system) is documented in tables for each folio in my Google Drive folder.
I'm working through the manuscript sequentially now, I haven't fully analysed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. yet but I'll probably reach it next week :-)

You have nothing uploaded at that Academia link.

Now that we have two citations from you, I would like to solicit an explanation for both how and why you've applied them. Is their relevance general, and liable to introduce arbitrary analyses that cannot be reproduced? Or do they entail similar rituals as to the ones you've identified? Is there a way to establish any connection between their text and drawings and what you've identified in the VM? This, rather than more unbacked assertions, was what I was hoping to find at the links you sent me. I will also reiterate that I see no evidence for the symbols you've identified. I could quite easily swap all the cells on your spreadsheet---or invent my own---and you have not justified any of those choices, so establishing the connection must be carefully done to avoid a circular or arbitrary argument

Possibly related to that, is there any evidence that the green/red/blue schema you've asserted actually identifies treatment? Yes, there are different colors through the herbology section, but I do not even understand how you expect me to verify the scheme you've given. What process should I be using? (And note, letting it "open up" to me was not reproducible, I already tried, and it did not do so.)

My papers are at that link - if you can't access them, that's a technical issue on your end. The colour coding is visually verifiable on every folio - open the manuscript and look. The video I'm making will show the full methodology. If after watching that you still have specific questions about the process, I'm happy to answer.

Ma'am, no one is denying that the manuscript has colored paint. I am asking how you concluded that it has anything to do with *anything*, let alone the three-fold division of topics you propose