30-11-2025, 12:27 PM
Okay, I will try to sum it up what you said and how I see it.
The text in VM isn't natural text because it would be already cracked. But most probably it isn't gibberish as well.
In your first post, 8 years ago you were much more concrete like:
Today you seem not to be very attached to this initial, detailed theory. Generally if I may say so you seem to me to be kind of humanist mind and cryptoanalysis and statistics aren't your favourite area.
You enjoy giving us different cultural referrences because they could be important and one who eventually cracks Voynich would have to know them and think like a medieval man. But you don't have any advanced theory about the nature of the text. Neither you don't have your own decipherment of parts of the text.
Is that fair said? Would you agree?
The text in VM isn't natural text because it would be already cracked. But most probably it isn't gibberish as well.
In your first post, 8 years ago you were much more concrete like:
Quote:Two moons joined above with a line form a bench and could be the full moon and new moon. The gallows on the benches signify parallel astronomical locations: (t) and (k) on bench without eclipse; (p) and (f) on bench with eclipse.
Today you seem not to be very attached to this initial, detailed theory. Generally if I may say so you seem to me to be kind of humanist mind and cryptoanalysis and statistics aren't your favourite area.
You enjoy giving us different cultural referrences because they could be important and one who eventually cracks Voynich would have to know them and think like a medieval man. But you don't have any advanced theory about the nature of the text. Neither you don't have your own decipherment of parts of the text.
Is that fair said? Would you agree?