voynich research from mexico

[ZamnaMx]

I prefer to work with academics on the methodology — debating results without a method is pointless.

There are probably less than 10 academics in the world that could offer the kind of critical feedback and support in credibility you are looking for. Every single one of them receives enough theories, questions and suggestions on the VMS to fill their whole work week, while none of that is part of their actual job description. In other words, no matter how good your work is, your chances of getting one of them to engage with your theories based on vague emails are basically zero. Even if you include details on how you came to your conclusions, your chances are barely rising. That is nothing personal, just the reality of academia where everyone with some level of public recognition has to say no to 90-99% of requests due to workload. The main problem with AI is that the production of texts that are not immediately recognizable as nonsense has risen significantly, i. e., academics are approached about reviews etc. even more often.

Finding a publisher for a series of books will hardly change this situation either, by the way. There are volumes of Voynich literature published independently or by smaller publishing houses that nobody reads, once again because there is too much material available. You need to distil your work down to a short paper that can be easily peer reviewed. This forum would probably give you the best feedback on such a paper, since most academic journals could not find qualified reviewers and would either reject for that reason (the quality ones) or print anyway but find no readers once again (the predatory ones).

I think it’s a bit rude to say that I send “vague emails.”


That comment feels quite dismissive and, frankly, insulting.

My work is not based on “theories” or “magical translations.” It is a philological and linguistic methodology of scientific and doctoral-level rigor, designed to produce a real and fully reasoned translation without subjective interpretation.
The process is reproducible, verifiable, and built on linguistic and historical evidence.
Yes, I am aware of the level of noise and confusion that surrounds the Voynich Manuscript, and I also understand that some people feel a sense of ownership over something that, so far, no one has truly decoded.
However, the Voynich is not the property of any particular group or person, and neither the approval nor the disapproval of a few individuals determines the validity of anyone’s work.
That is precisely why I have approached this project from a professional academic perspective, seeking to collaborate only with qualified experts.
I have already been in touch with Yale University, and they suggested looking into these research communities.
So, no — I can’t thank you for a comment that begins with an assumption and an insult.
Regards,
Álvaro López