20-02-2026, 06:04 PM
There is a tradeoff in this kind of theory between the idea that the text has been hidden in the pictures and the idea that it can be recognized. It is not unresolvable, but it demands a much higher bar for explanation. We need to know:
We see a lot of "looks like" assertions, and nothing here stands out as different from them. The question is, what sets yours apart and rules out the obvious objection that these drawings "looks like" a great many things?
- How this imagery was recoverable for an in-group. For example, how could the artist expect people holding the Voynich to recognize the roots as scales in the first image, and link it to the Enoch text? How can *we* know they could expect that?
- Why it wasn't recoverable for the people who were not supposed to know? They were hiding it from someone, so who were they and why would this be opaque to them?
We see a lot of "looks like" assertions, and nothing here stands out as different from them. The question is, what sets yours apart and rules out the obvious objection that these drawings "looks like" a great many things?

