Voynich Decoded

[rikforto]

Another user keyed me into the issue and I can now access your uploads. Unless I am missing something, you do not justify your assertions or changes to how you interpret the symbols beyond some vague gestures at late-medieval systems. That you were able to so readily and seamlessly change the meaning of the symbols in your five revisions strikes me as proof that the interpretation you're offering is, at best, arbitrary and unfalsifiable. Mind, I am not saying that your theory should be "locked in" once you publish, but the fact you were able to read many symbols multiple ways without justifying those readings is a better demonstration of the arbitrariness of this system than I would have had the time or inclination to produce. Unless you can systematically show that these symbols have the meaning you assert, the patterns you identify are highly dependent on your subjective gloss and I see no reason anyone should adopt your interpretation.

It's fully documented - all data, counts, and evolution across five papers. The current key shows the glyph shapes and their meanings. The system works consistently across every folio I've decoded. The most up to date key is in every folder, nothing is subjective, it's all from data counts, the only subjective part is Lucrezia Tournabuoni and I got a hot lead on linking her to it too.  Can you show me anyone else who has decoded page after page using a consistent system and published it publicly? So You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is coming up, look or don't look, I'm continuing anyway :-) I'll work on video after work and hand hold you through the entire process.

Perhaps I am being unclear. I believe your decryption (but not, as far as I can tell, plant identification) is internally consistent and reproducible. I also do not doubt that the overwhelming majority of the features you've described---the colors and symbols per se---actually exist in the manuscript, and applying the glosses that you provide in the key is straightforward. Indeed, the fact that you have provided 6 different keys with this property is part of *my* proof that this is quite likely arbitrary.

What I have been driving at is that the logically prior step, namely that of justifying your key, appears to be missing. I have made a good faith effort to solicit or locate that explanation, but so far you have not identified it for me. As near as I can tell everything you've directed me towards is dependent on the readings you have put forward rather than antecedent to it. Unless I gravely misunderstand your argument, the key appears for the first time in 2025 without a breath of circumstantial evidence that it existed beforehand. Can you point to anything specific outside your perception of the manuscript that provides evidence for your key? What prevents me from replacing the words you've put down in any iteration to gloss the EVA script with randomly selected words? Aside from a few of these words being more recent coinages, what distinguishes this list from any of the 6 you've given?