https://www.voynich.ninja/ Wed, 05 Aug 2026 18:29:30 +0000 MyBB https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5996.html Sun, 02 Aug 2026 22:03:48 +0000 Damiro]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5996.html
Language is Old High German form and variations are:
[*]
fisc
[*]fisk
[*]fisch
[*]fish
[*]fisg
[*]variants beginning with v, including visc, visch, and visg

- Most likely phonemic ?



Theory derived from:
- The amount of letters/symbols.
- The assumptions regarding the origin of a scribe
- The year it was written (1400s to 1500s)
- In my language (Slavic) we say "fish" for this zodiac as well.

The only thing that does not match well is the shape of symbols...]]>
Language is Old High German form and variations are:
[*]
fisc
[*]fisk
[*]fisch
[*]fish
[*]fisg
[*]variants beginning with v, including visc, visch, and visg

- Most likely phonemic ?



Theory derived from:
- The amount of letters/symbols.
- The assumptions regarding the origin of a scribe
- The year it was written (1400s to 1500s)
- In my language (Slavic) we say "fish" for this zodiac as well.

The only thing that does not match well is the shape of symbols...]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5995.html Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:38:36 +0000 JustAnotherTheory]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5995.html

  007.png (Size: 49.48 KB / Downloads: 114)

I challenge this reading. My reading is as follows: "anthiton (o)lebadeia". These two words represent two ancient Greek cities, close to one another geographically, known for their connection to an ancient oracle ritual called the oracle of Trophonios. Before going further, I would like to show these cities as they appear in 15th-16th century maps. Please note the strikingly varied and sometimes different naming of these cities in contemprary maps.


  002.png (Size: 286.24 KB / Downloads: 116)

(Map from 1508 Rome, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- ESlg/2 A.gr.b. 981


  003.png (Size: 401.01 KB / Downloads: 115)

(Map from 1486 Ulm, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Inc.c.a. 1820 a)


  001.png (Size: 20.86 KB / Downloads: 115)

(Map from 1462 Bologna, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Rar. 124)


  004.png (Size: 297.06 KB / Downloads: 117)

(Map from 17th Century, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Mapp. 13)

Here's a side-by-side descirption of these two cities in a Latin geography book:


  005.png (Size: 256.01 KB / Downloads: 116)

As you can see, there are many different spellings and namings for these two cities. And my proposal for the interpreration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the following:


  006.png (Size: 51.19 KB / Downloads: 114)

But the geographic proximity of these cities and the apparent similarity with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not the only reason I'm making this suggestion. In Lebadeia, in ancient times, the cult of Trophonius was active. In particular, an oracle was present in one of the caves nearby the city, where some incredible things (allegedly) occured.

In order to consult the oracle, a person had to prepare themselves:

• eat a series of sacred herbs,
  
• bathe in the River Herkryna,
  
• drink from two rivers called Lethe and Mnemosyne,
  
• and then descend into a cave.
  

What happened then in the cave is, to put it mildly, an apparent supernatural horror show. Most participants were so frightened that they were unable to speak for days, sometimes weeks. They witnessed, apparently, the god Trophonius himself in person, revealing to them the secrets of the universe. This often included strange depictions of the cosmos, the heavens, people turning into stars and so forth.

We have two major accounts of the happenings inside the cave of Trophonius. One is from Plutarch's De Genio Socratis, while the other is an eyewitness account from the historian and traveller Pausanias.

Unfortunately, not much remains of Lebadeia/Olebadia/Livadia today. There are some archeological findings, such as this sun face:


  figure_011.jpg (Size: 66.04 KB / Downloads: 116)

Trophonius is often depicted as a beekeeper:


  sdf.jpg (Size: 22.16 KB / Downloads: 116)

The surroundings of the city are abundant with warm water springs and ancients baths:


  654.png (Size: 509.73 KB / Downloads: 115)

So... in conclusion, here is a theory that has the merit, at least, of being completely different from any others presented here before  


______________________

References: 

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Rar. 124 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- ESlg/2 A.gr.b. 981 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Inc.c.a. 1820 a - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Mapp. 13 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]]>

  007.png (Size: 49.48 KB / Downloads: 114)

I challenge this reading. My reading is as follows: "anthiton (o)lebadeia". These two words represent two ancient Greek cities, close to one another geographically, known for their connection to an ancient oracle ritual called the oracle of Trophonios. Before going further, I would like to show these cities as they appear in 15th-16th century maps. Please note the strikingly varied and sometimes different naming of these cities in contemprary maps.


  002.png (Size: 286.24 KB / Downloads: 116)

(Map from 1508 Rome, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- ESlg/2 A.gr.b. 981


  003.png (Size: 401.01 KB / Downloads: 115)

(Map from 1486 Ulm, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Inc.c.a. 1820 a)


  001.png (Size: 20.86 KB / Downloads: 115)

(Map from 1462 Bologna, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Rar. 124)


  004.png (Size: 297.06 KB / Downloads: 117)

(Map from 17th Century, München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Mapp. 13)

Here's a side-by-side descirption of these two cities in a Latin geography book:


  005.png (Size: 256.01 KB / Downloads: 116)

As you can see, there are many different spellings and namings for these two cities. And my proposal for the interpreration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the following:


  006.png (Size: 51.19 KB / Downloads: 114)

But the geographic proximity of these cities and the apparent similarity with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not the only reason I'm making this suggestion. In Lebadeia, in ancient times, the cult of Trophonius was active. In particular, an oracle was present in one of the caves nearby the city, where some incredible things (allegedly) occured.

In order to consult the oracle, a person had to prepare themselves:

• eat a series of sacred herbs,
  
• bathe in the River Herkryna,
  
• drink from two rivers called Lethe and Mnemosyne,
  
• and then descend into a cave.
  

What happened then in the cave is, to put it mildly, an apparent supernatural horror show. Most participants were so frightened that they were unable to speak for days, sometimes weeks. They witnessed, apparently, the god Trophonius himself in person, revealing to them the secrets of the universe. This often included strange depictions of the cosmos, the heavens, people turning into stars and so forth.

We have two major accounts of the happenings inside the cave of Trophonius. One is from Plutarch's De Genio Socratis, while the other is an eyewitness account from the historian and traveller Pausanias.

Unfortunately, not much remains of Lebadeia/Olebadia/Livadia today. There are some archeological findings, such as this sun face:


  figure_011.jpg (Size: 66.04 KB / Downloads: 116)

Trophonius is often depicted as a beekeeper:


  sdf.jpg (Size: 22.16 KB / Downloads: 116)

The surroundings of the city are abundant with warm water springs and ancients baths:


  654.png (Size: 509.73 KB / Downloads: 115)

So... in conclusion, here is a theory that has the merit, at least, of being completely different from any others presented here before  


______________________

References: 

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Rar. 124 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- ESlg/2 A.gr.b. 981 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Inc.c.a. 1820 a - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 2 Mapp. 13 - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5992.html Sun, 02 Aug 2026 04:05:34 +0000 Damiro]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5992.html
Not sure if anyone has noticed before, but there is a striking similarity between the unknown device of Trajan column and the Voynich water piper or whatever those are.



and this drawing (Page 78)



PS this is my first post, I just joined because youtube kept suggesting the videos, also not sure what is the proper image hosting server people like to use here.

Any thoughts, opinions?

Cheers!]]>
Not sure if anyone has noticed before, but there is a striking similarity between the unknown device of Trajan column and the Voynich water piper or whatever those are.



and this drawing (Page 78)



PS this is my first post, I just joined because youtube kept suggesting the videos, also not sure what is the proper image hosting server people like to use here.

Any thoughts, opinions?

Cheers!]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5973.html Mon, 27 Jul 2026 23:54:31 +0000 NineofTails]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5973.html https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5944.html Tue, 21 Jul 2026 01:19:35 +0000 conlangyalesbaby]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5944.html I believe the general consensus that the masses are stumped by MS-408, not only by the originality of it's script, but by what the actual glyph's could represent.  The possibility of a decryption is out there, yet knowing the behavior of the MS-408, I doubt it would relate to any known language with fluent grammar.  Well behaved sentences from a language with a decryption, I guarantee will not happen with MS-408.  Even a straight across substitution using "Eva" would still show irregular behavior of its said language.  Serious cryptologists like Turing, Friedman, Tilman and Currier all gave it a shot to try and give meaning to MS-408 without success.  Does this imply the MS-408 design was meant to thwart decryption, especially with the world throwing into the ring with no complete translated message that's coherent?  I say yes, sorry!  Let's face it Yale covets' an obscure duck that has no quacking language, maybe it does have some meaning, but nothing fluent.

When I say meaning it maybe be enough to show the world what is in MS-408, however it will not be like reading Edgar Allen Poe!

Here is the other side of the coin, if it is a conlang solely constructed to have meaning for an in group of ?????? when decoded than the language maybe alien.  However what decryption option is the one to show the alien text?  Are they people like I just said or are they the fallen?  Now I know I just left some readers behind.  The whole document seems like a cover up and I'm digging deep because, MS-408 has been around for an enough time to already be translated.

People go off on a tangent about gobeliegook, hoax and so many ai translations then we are always stuck at staring at MS-408 dead ends.  Or is there a group referencing MS-408 as there lost language from a previous decryption?  If it is an alien language does it have a cross reference to a known language and here is where I have too let go or I will get in trouble.  You have enough, farewell.


  cult.JPG (Size: 72.74 KB / Downloads: 144) ]]> I believe the general consensus that the masses are stumped by MS-408, not only by the originality of it's script, but by what the actual glyph's could represent.  The possibility of a decryption is out there, yet knowing the behavior of the MS-408, I doubt it would relate to any known language with fluent grammar.  Well behaved sentences from a language with a decryption, I guarantee will not happen with MS-408.  Even a straight across substitution using "Eva" would still show irregular behavior of its said language.  Serious cryptologists like Turing, Friedman, Tilman and Currier all gave it a shot to try and give meaning to MS-408 without success.  Does this imply the MS-408 design was meant to thwart decryption, especially with the world throwing into the ring with no complete translated message that's coherent?  I say yes, sorry!  Let's face it Yale covets' an obscure duck that has no quacking language, maybe it does have some meaning, but nothing fluent.

When I say meaning it maybe be enough to show the world what is in MS-408, however it will not be like reading Edgar Allen Poe!

Here is the other side of the coin, if it is a conlang solely constructed to have meaning for an in group of ?????? when decoded than the language maybe alien.  However what decryption option is the one to show the alien text?  Are they people like I just said or are they the fallen?  Now I know I just left some readers behind.  The whole document seems like a cover up and I'm digging deep because, MS-408 has been around for an enough time to already be translated.

People go off on a tangent about gobeliegook, hoax and so many ai translations then we are always stuck at staring at MS-408 dead ends.  Or is there a group referencing MS-408 as there lost language from a previous decryption?  If it is an alien language does it have a cross reference to a known language and here is where I have too let go or I will get in trouble.  You have enough, farewell.


  cult.JPG (Size: 72.74 KB / Downloads: 144) ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5937.html Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:02:14 +0000 Daniel1992]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5937.html

The medical knowledge gap that started it
Early 15th century European medicine was still mostly bloodletting, prayer, and humoral theory. Meanwhile the Islamic Golden Age and Persia had already produced serious empirical medicine - Avicenna's Canon of Medicine is the obvious example, with pharmacology and surgical knowledge way ahead of anything being taught in European universities at the time. That knowledge wasn't sealed off from Europe - it was leaking in steadily through Venetian trade networks and the Crusader contact zone, and Venice's trade routes ran straight up through the Alpine passes into Northern Italy and Southern Germany. Which, notably, is the same general region most researchers place the Voynich's origin.

The Church didn't just discourage foreign or "pagan" science, it had criminalized it outright - Pope John XXII's 1326 bull Super illius specula explicitly equated unauthorized astrology and alchemy with demonic heresy. So if you're a physician in 1410s Alpine Europe with Arabic-derived medical texts, you're not looking at a fine, you're looking at a stake.

And the Church was actively enforcing this in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. The Council of Constance ran 1414 to 1418 - the largest assembly of clergy, physicians and scholars in Europe at that point - right on the edge of the Alps. And it wasn't a passive gathering: on July 6, 1415, Jan Hus was burned at the stake there for heresy, in front of the assembled Church establishment. If you're a physician holding "infidel" medical texts, that's about as unambiguous a warning as you're going to get.

This wasn't only about survival
My theory is this was also about money. Medicinal bathing - balneotherapy as i understand it - was seriously lucrative in this period. Physicians and guilds who had superior, more effective treatments (baths, herbal preparations, dosing regimens derived from more advanced Eastern pharmacology) had a real competitive edge over rival practitioners and rival towns. So I think what we're looking at is a physicians' guild or syndicate with two overlapping reasons to hide this material: they'd be executed if the Church found "infidel" science in their possession, and separately, they didn't want competing physicians or guilds stealing their treatments and undercutting their income. Trade-secret protection plus heresy protection, at the same time, from the same document. That dual motive is, I think, a better explanation for why they didn't just bury the source texts under a floorboard - hiding isn't enough when you also want to keep using the knowledge yourself without a rival guild copying it.

By this point cryptography was already a real profession - papal secretaries and royal courts had codebreakers doing frequency analysis on substitution ciphers. If you just Caesar-cipher a Latin translation of an Arabic text, and it gets cracked, you're dead, and so is your guild's monopoly on the treatment. So instead of encrypting a known language, I think they built something closer to an invented notation system (William F. Friedman) - an a priori language organized around categories rather than spoken vocabulary. This actually matches the modern statistical work: the text follows Zipf's law and has real word-structure and entropy patterns consistent with meaningful information - but it doesn't match the underlying structure of any known spoken language. That's exactly what you'd expect from a constructed notation system rather than an enciphered natural language - no natural-language "key" to find because there wasn't a natural language sitting underneath it in the first place.

Why the words are so short
Something that convinced me is the shape of the words themselves. 240 pages of decent vellum works out to something like 14 to 15 calves, which isn't nothing - vellum was a real expense, and a finished multi-volume set of that size would also be a pain to physically hide or move around if you ever needed to. If you're trying to cram several treatises worth of material (herbal/medical stuff plus a whole separate astronomical section) into one book you can actually carry and conceal, you're going to need some form of serious shorthand. That's not a new idea for the period either - Tironian notes had been around for centuries at that point, and the whole concept behind them is a single stroke standing in for an entire word, prefix, or common phrase. Scribes copying legal or ecclesiastical documents used systems like this all the time to save time and material.

What's interesting is that Voynichese looks like it's doing something similar. The words are strange in a very specific way, almost none of them run longer than 8 or 10 characters, there's basically no doubling of letters, and you don't get the kind of irregular, messy variation you'd expect from a word in an actual spoken language. It behaves more like a constrained set of building blocks getting recombined over and over. To me that's more consistent with each "word" acting as something like a compressed tag or instruction rather than a word in the normal sense - closer to how a note-taking shorthand collapses "the patient should boil the root for three hours" down into a handful of marks, rather than how someone would actually write out a sentence.

Why the text changes character between sections (Currier A/B)
The herbal section deals with descriptive/botanical data, while the pharmaceutical section handles preparation and dosage. The astronomical section deals with positional/cyclical data - degrees, houses, timing. If you're building a notation system for compression, you can't use the same symbol logic for "root" and "planetary degree" - the underlying data types are just too different. So I think the Currier A/B split isn't two languages, it's the same compression system straining differently against two different kinds of source material, plausibly worked on in parallel by different specialists within the guild (the manuscript does show five distinct scribal hands, and there are no corrections or erasures anywhere, which reads more like fluent transcription of already-organized material than someone inventing content on the fly).

Timeline as I see it

• 1404–1438: vellum C14 range
  
• 1414–1418: Council of Constance - possibly the point where physicians/scholars from different areas converged and pooled source material under cover of a legitimate gathering
  
• July 6, 1415: Hus's execution: the likely trigger that turned "let's hide this eventually" into "we need this encoded now"
  
• 1415–1420ish: the actual writing
  
• Fashion and architecture in the illustrations (hairstyles, hats, tunics, and specifically the swallowtail/Ghibelline merlons on the castles - a known regional signature of North Italian/Alpine construction) all point to pre-1430, consistent with the C14 window and consistent with the scribes drawing what was physically around them at the time.
  

The actual point of this post, where I think the missing piece is
None of the above gets anyone a translation, and I think people sometimes oversell "cracking the logic" as equivalent to cracking the text. What I think is actually missing is a physical key (Rosetta Stone) some kind of reference document the guild would have needed internally to keep their own notation consistent across scribes over multiple years, especially given the two-domain (medical/astronomical) split. A guild encoding valuable trade secrets wouldn't operate purely from memory; there'd almost certainly have been an internal reference list, even an informal one.
Given the Constance connection, my guess is that if anything like that survived, it's more likely sitting uncatalogued in a regional Church, guild, or municipal archive near Constance/Lake Constance than in a well-known collection - the kind of document that wouldn't have been recognized as significant unless someone was specifically looking for Voynich-adjacent notation. The other possibility I keep turning over: the Habsburgs apparently acquired a lot of documents from this region, maybe there is some related material - including a key, or reference notes, or even correspondence about it - could been archived and could still be sitting somewhere in the Viennese court archives uncatalogued as because nobody was looking for it.

That's really the actionable part of this theory, if there is one: has anyone here done archive work specifically in the Constance regional archives, or in the Viennese Habsburg court records, looking for guild/physicians' notation systems or references to a "hidden" or "coded" medical text from this period? That seems like the piece that would actually move this from plausible narrative to testable claim, rather than more statistical work on the manuscript itself.

Happy to be told I'm missing something obvious, genuinely posting this to get it stress-tested, not to declare victory.]]>

The medical knowledge gap that started it
Early 15th century European medicine was still mostly bloodletting, prayer, and humoral theory. Meanwhile the Islamic Golden Age and Persia had already produced serious empirical medicine - Avicenna's Canon of Medicine is the obvious example, with pharmacology and surgical knowledge way ahead of anything being taught in European universities at the time. That knowledge wasn't sealed off from Europe - it was leaking in steadily through Venetian trade networks and the Crusader contact zone, and Venice's trade routes ran straight up through the Alpine passes into Northern Italy and Southern Germany. Which, notably, is the same general region most researchers place the Voynich's origin.

The Church didn't just discourage foreign or "pagan" science, it had criminalized it outright - Pope John XXII's 1326 bull Super illius specula explicitly equated unauthorized astrology and alchemy with demonic heresy. So if you're a physician in 1410s Alpine Europe with Arabic-derived medical texts, you're not looking at a fine, you're looking at a stake.

And the Church was actively enforcing this in exactly the right place at exactly the right time. The Council of Constance ran 1414 to 1418 - the largest assembly of clergy, physicians and scholars in Europe at that point - right on the edge of the Alps. And it wasn't a passive gathering: on July 6, 1415, Jan Hus was burned at the stake there for heresy, in front of the assembled Church establishment. If you're a physician holding "infidel" medical texts, that's about as unambiguous a warning as you're going to get.

This wasn't only about survival
My theory is this was also about money. Medicinal bathing - balneotherapy as i understand it - was seriously lucrative in this period. Physicians and guilds who had superior, more effective treatments (baths, herbal preparations, dosing regimens derived from more advanced Eastern pharmacology) had a real competitive edge over rival practitioners and rival towns. So I think what we're looking at is a physicians' guild or syndicate with two overlapping reasons to hide this material: they'd be executed if the Church found "infidel" science in their possession, and separately, they didn't want competing physicians or guilds stealing their treatments and undercutting their income. Trade-secret protection plus heresy protection, at the same time, from the same document. That dual motive is, I think, a better explanation for why they didn't just bury the source texts under a floorboard - hiding isn't enough when you also want to keep using the knowledge yourself without a rival guild copying it.

By this point cryptography was already a real profession - papal secretaries and royal courts had codebreakers doing frequency analysis on substitution ciphers. If you just Caesar-cipher a Latin translation of an Arabic text, and it gets cracked, you're dead, and so is your guild's monopoly on the treatment. So instead of encrypting a known language, I think they built something closer to an invented notation system (William F. Friedman) - an a priori language organized around categories rather than spoken vocabulary. This actually matches the modern statistical work: the text follows Zipf's law and has real word-structure and entropy patterns consistent with meaningful information - but it doesn't match the underlying structure of any known spoken language. That's exactly what you'd expect from a constructed notation system rather than an enciphered natural language - no natural-language "key" to find because there wasn't a natural language sitting underneath it in the first place.

Why the words are so short
Something that convinced me is the shape of the words themselves. 240 pages of decent vellum works out to something like 14 to 15 calves, which isn't nothing - vellum was a real expense, and a finished multi-volume set of that size would also be a pain to physically hide or move around if you ever needed to. If you're trying to cram several treatises worth of material (herbal/medical stuff plus a whole separate astronomical section) into one book you can actually carry and conceal, you're going to need some form of serious shorthand. That's not a new idea for the period either - Tironian notes had been around for centuries at that point, and the whole concept behind them is a single stroke standing in for an entire word, prefix, or common phrase. Scribes copying legal or ecclesiastical documents used systems like this all the time to save time and material.

What's interesting is that Voynichese looks like it's doing something similar. The words are strange in a very specific way, almost none of them run longer than 8 or 10 characters, there's basically no doubling of letters, and you don't get the kind of irregular, messy variation you'd expect from a word in an actual spoken language. It behaves more like a constrained set of building blocks getting recombined over and over. To me that's more consistent with each "word" acting as something like a compressed tag or instruction rather than a word in the normal sense - closer to how a note-taking shorthand collapses "the patient should boil the root for three hours" down into a handful of marks, rather than how someone would actually write out a sentence.

Why the text changes character between sections (Currier A/B)
The herbal section deals with descriptive/botanical data, while the pharmaceutical section handles preparation and dosage. The astronomical section deals with positional/cyclical data - degrees, houses, timing. If you're building a notation system for compression, you can't use the same symbol logic for "root" and "planetary degree" - the underlying data types are just too different. So I think the Currier A/B split isn't two languages, it's the same compression system straining differently against two different kinds of source material, plausibly worked on in parallel by different specialists within the guild (the manuscript does show five distinct scribal hands, and there are no corrections or erasures anywhere, which reads more like fluent transcription of already-organized material than someone inventing content on the fly).

Timeline as I see it

• 1404–1438: vellum C14 range
  
• 1414–1418: Council of Constance - possibly the point where physicians/scholars from different areas converged and pooled source material under cover of a legitimate gathering
  
• July 6, 1415: Hus's execution: the likely trigger that turned "let's hide this eventually" into "we need this encoded now"
  
• 1415–1420ish: the actual writing
  
• Fashion and architecture in the illustrations (hairstyles, hats, tunics, and specifically the swallowtail/Ghibelline merlons on the castles - a known regional signature of North Italian/Alpine construction) all point to pre-1430, consistent with the C14 window and consistent with the scribes drawing what was physically around them at the time.
  

The actual point of this post, where I think the missing piece is
None of the above gets anyone a translation, and I think people sometimes oversell "cracking the logic" as equivalent to cracking the text. What I think is actually missing is a physical key (Rosetta Stone) some kind of reference document the guild would have needed internally to keep their own notation consistent across scribes over multiple years, especially given the two-domain (medical/astronomical) split. A guild encoding valuable trade secrets wouldn't operate purely from memory; there'd almost certainly have been an internal reference list, even an informal one.
Given the Constance connection, my guess is that if anything like that survived, it's more likely sitting uncatalogued in a regional Church, guild, or municipal archive near Constance/Lake Constance than in a well-known collection - the kind of document that wouldn't have been recognized as significant unless someone was specifically looking for Voynich-adjacent notation. The other possibility I keep turning over: the Habsburgs apparently acquired a lot of documents from this region, maybe there is some related material - including a key, or reference notes, or even correspondence about it - could been archived and could still be sitting somewhere in the Viennese court archives uncatalogued as because nobody was looking for it.

That's really the actionable part of this theory, if there is one: has anyone here done archive work specifically in the Constance regional archives, or in the Viennese Habsburg court records, looking for guild/physicians' notation systems or references to a "hidden" or "coded" medical text from this period? That seems like the piece that would actually move this from plausible narrative to testable claim, rather than more statistical work on the manuscript itself.

Happy to be told I'm missing something obvious, genuinely posting this to get it stress-tested, not to declare victory.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5924.html Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:40:24 +0000 conlangyalesbaby]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5924.html
Also some formal structure needs to be utilized as an assment tool as to develop for anyone serious who does not upload a Ai theory even if it is a cipher, it needs to be refereed by a group or someone who understands what it would convey if it's repeatable by anyone.

Do you think a document that has repeatable words at the rate of the MS-408 borders on gibberish?]]>
Also some formal structure needs to be utilized as an assment tool as to develop for anyone serious who does not upload a Ai theory even if it is a cipher, it needs to be refereed by a group or someone who understands what it would convey if it's repeatable by anyone.

Do you think a document that has repeatable words at the rate of the MS-408 borders on gibberish?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5919.html Mon, 13 Jul 2026 18:10:17 +0000 ololololo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5919.html It is possible that this was done by someoneYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This led me to believe that the manuscript was originally more cohesive in terms of its sections.
Couldn't the pharmaceuticals be located near the Botany? This could explain the "Small Herbal" (images of herbs f90r1-f96v), which is located "inside" the pharmaceutical section. It also makes sense - there's no need to separate these two essentially identical topics...]]> It is possible that this was done by someoneYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This led me to believe that the manuscript was originally more cohesive in terms of its sections.
Couldn't the pharmaceuticals be located near the Botany? This could explain the "Small Herbal" (images of herbs f90r1-f96v), which is located "inside" the pharmaceutical section. It also makes sense - there's no need to separate these two essentially identical topics...]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5900.html Sat, 11 Jul 2026 00:59:15 +0000 ThomasHairBrain]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5900.html
This is my first post here and it is quite likely that this is either quite a bad idea or one that has already been tried (although I couldn't find it). 

It also might be a bad idea as this thought was spurred by watching the most recent Voynich Talk video which calls out the use of AI here. I think this method may be distinct from those but if I get banned and the thread gets put in the slop drawer then I probably only have myself to blame.

The basic idea I have is what if someone trained a local AI model from scratch on the VM? A transcription of the manuscript could be fed into it for training and then see what new VM style text it can spit out. Of course we couldn't read this text any more than we could the VM but it might help to understand the characteristics of the text more, see what strings of Voynich script fed to it produce an output with a similar structure to the VM itself and what produce unstructured garbage. See if any sort of prompting can cause the script to break and see if it breaks in interesting and repeatable ways possibly across multiple models.

From what reading I've done it looks like the best approach would be using an LSTM model although even with that we have some possible issues of having material for the AI to work with.

Some possible concerns: 

1. This might be a lot of time and effort chasing basically nothing and there might be little chance of this approach producing anything useful.
2. There is no universally agreed upon character inventory, there appears to be quite a high likelihood of positional variation playing a significant role in the Voynich script and an AI model could simply fail to take this into account. Alternatively variation in style could result in characters that are actually distinct being classified separately. Either one of these problems could result in gibberish or worse - real looking data that is misleading.
3. In order to make it work Latin characters (or other characters a computer can work with without a lot of adaption) would probably have to be used in substitution of Voynich characters, possibly causing issues as some human subjective thinking may be needed here. One approach would be to give every possible variant of a Voynich character a separate character but that could a) reduce the functional training data or b) produce more gibberish. Possibly could be mitigated with using several different competing models.
4. There might be insufficient data to produce anything meaningful even with a workable model.

So what do you lot think, worth pursuing and seeing if any interesting things can be discovered about the Voynich script this way or waste of time?]]>
This is my first post here and it is quite likely that this is either quite a bad idea or one that has already been tried (although I couldn't find it). 

It also might be a bad idea as this thought was spurred by watching the most recent Voynich Talk video which calls out the use of AI here. I think this method may be distinct from those but if I get banned and the thread gets put in the slop drawer then I probably only have myself to blame.

The basic idea I have is what if someone trained a local AI model from scratch on the VM? A transcription of the manuscript could be fed into it for training and then see what new VM style text it can spit out. Of course we couldn't read this text any more than we could the VM but it might help to understand the characteristics of the text more, see what strings of Voynich script fed to it produce an output with a similar structure to the VM itself and what produce unstructured garbage. See if any sort of prompting can cause the script to break and see if it breaks in interesting and repeatable ways possibly across multiple models.

From what reading I've done it looks like the best approach would be using an LSTM model although even with that we have some possible issues of having material for the AI to work with.

Some possible concerns: 

1. This might be a lot of time and effort chasing basically nothing and there might be little chance of this approach producing anything useful.
2. There is no universally agreed upon character inventory, there appears to be quite a high likelihood of positional variation playing a significant role in the Voynich script and an AI model could simply fail to take this into account. Alternatively variation in style could result in characters that are actually distinct being classified separately. Either one of these problems could result in gibberish or worse - real looking data that is misleading.
3. In order to make it work Latin characters (or other characters a computer can work with without a lot of adaption) would probably have to be used in substitution of Voynich characters, possibly causing issues as some human subjective thinking may be needed here. One approach would be to give every possible variant of a Voynich character a separate character but that could a) reduce the functional training data or b) produce more gibberish. Possibly could be mitigated with using several different competing models.
4. There might be insufficient data to produce anything meaningful even with a workable model.

So what do you lot think, worth pursuing and seeing if any interesting things can be discovered about the Voynich script this way or waste of time?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5899.html Fri, 10 Jul 2026 22:53:10 +0000 GracefulShinjo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5899.html
 Among the figures who used Neoplatonism for finding hidden truths/reviving paganism in search of finding the veiled secrets of the world was Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola whose works fused Kabbalah, humanism, Christianity and ancient religious practices to uncover the secrets of existence. 

 So where does this lead the Voynich Manuscript? Well I want to propose that the manuscript was created by an alumni of Padua, a German scholar who studied in the University of Padua and later worked in the Visconti court as an alchemist/philosopher, writing a book that fused alchemy with philosophy via Aristotle’s interpretation and herbalism, perhaps incorporating hidden interest in ancient paganism. Perhaps this writer was the precursor to those like Mirandola and Pletho who sought insight into the universe via studying the religious practices of ancient civilizations. I know this does have holes but theoretically this would mean the Voynich manuscript was part of a greater path of philosophical texts written as a result of rediscovery of texts thought lost, being perhaps one of a few early works that survived.]]>
 Among the figures who used Neoplatonism for finding hidden truths/reviving paganism in search of finding the veiled secrets of the world was Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola whose works fused Kabbalah, humanism, Christianity and ancient religious practices to uncover the secrets of existence. 

 So where does this lead the Voynich Manuscript? Well I want to propose that the manuscript was created by an alumni of Padua, a German scholar who studied in the University of Padua and later worked in the Visconti court as an alchemist/philosopher, writing a book that fused alchemy with philosophy via Aristotle’s interpretation and herbalism, perhaps incorporating hidden interest in ancient paganism. Perhaps this writer was the precursor to those like Mirandola and Pletho who sought insight into the universe via studying the religious practices of ancient civilizations. I know this does have holes but theoretically this would mean the Voynich manuscript was part of a greater path of philosophical texts written as a result of rediscovery of texts thought lost, being perhaps one of a few early works that survived.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5897.html Fri, 10 Jul 2026 20:41:47 +0000 Dirac]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5897.html
New user, I'm sure this idea has been debunked already but on the tiny chance that it hasn't been:

What if what we currently consider to be "letters" aren't letters at all but akin to "strokes" in hanzi? So no connection to phonemes, but each word is still a word, or at least a concept akin to a single Chinese character. This could explain why the inventory of characters is so low (and strangely distributed) for a natural language (Hanzi has around 8 or so basic strokes, which combined in 2d space make a character, Voynichese could be similar but in 1d), and no attempt at pulling phonemic values from them has been successful.

Obviously there is absolutely nothing in the historic record akin to this, and I'm not even sure if this has been repeated in the world of conlanging, but it could theoretically work as a system?


This would however make it significantly harder to actually solve, as the "words" are then relatively arbitrary when it comes to associated meanings.

Any thoughts or ideas as to how this could be proved/disproved?


This is pure and idle speculation, but I'm trying to think of ways that aren't the extremely debunked substitutions, but still would (I believe) conform with the statistical analyses.]]>
New user, I'm sure this idea has been debunked already but on the tiny chance that it hasn't been:

What if what we currently consider to be "letters" aren't letters at all but akin to "strokes" in hanzi? So no connection to phonemes, but each word is still a word, or at least a concept akin to a single Chinese character. This could explain why the inventory of characters is so low (and strangely distributed) for a natural language (Hanzi has around 8 or so basic strokes, which combined in 2d space make a character, Voynichese could be similar but in 1d), and no attempt at pulling phonemic values from them has been successful.

Obviously there is absolutely nothing in the historic record akin to this, and I'm not even sure if this has been repeated in the world of conlanging, but it could theoretically work as a system?


This would however make it significantly harder to actually solve, as the "words" are then relatively arbitrary when it comes to associated meanings.

Any thoughts or ideas as to how this could be proved/disproved?


This is pure and idle speculation, but I'm trying to think of ways that aren't the extremely debunked substitutions, but still would (I believe) conform with the statistical analyses.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5893.html Thu, 09 Jul 2026 19:12:10 +0000 epidemic7]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5893.html I first want to say I have no qualifications besides finding the VMS an incredibly interesting book (and being an occasional conlanger), and I apologize if this theory has already been stated, restated, and debunked ad nauseam, and for any unorthodox terminology used.

My idea is this: although exactly what counts as a letter as opposed to a variation, something in complementary distribution, etc., in the VMS's script is endlessly debated, all the theories that I have seen on the matter agree with 10-14 unique "letters," which is then argued as to whether it is an alphabet, an abjad, etc., but no system can explain the especially low entropy of the VMS text, in comparison to any Latin, German, Italian, or otherwise text in any language whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge.

So instead, assuming that the text has any meaning to it at all, perhaps the "letters" do not represent sound, but instead could be used, sort of as a logography, by combining certain letters and ascribing that sequence to a word, perhaps in combination with certain letters being a semantic category of sorts. For example, I could make "I" A, "sit" B, "on" AA, "the" AB, and "chair" BB, resulting in the sequence "A B AA AB BB" for "I sit on the chair," which, although just to my intuition, would result in a lower entropy than a representation of phonemes in an order, no matter the system devised to turn the words into sequences of characters, as human-assigned patterns would probably have a higher degree of predictability than phonemes. You could then augment this system with, say, "Q" showing that a word is inanimate, and "X" showing that a word is animate, resulting in "XA B AA AB QBB," which may explain the gallows?

I confess to not knowing much of anything when it comes to how text is statistically analyzed, but in assuming this is true, it is still probably impossible to ascertain which letters are "semantic," if such characters do exist, and which are the "building blocks," until and unless the MS is translated, so perhaps one could give a unique identifier to each "word" in the MS (though I know precisely discriminating them is a hard task) and comparing the "relations" of words to one another and then to that of a natural language, which in concrete terms could mean assessing the probability that given some word from the MS, how likely another certain word would follow? And comparing that to the results of some other natural language? That would be my best guess as to falsifying the theory on the merits of statistics.

On problems with the theory, I will say, this mean of statistical analysis seems deceptively simple to the point I would think somebody to have already done this sort of assessment on the MS. In addition this method of "cipher," or perhaps shorthand, to my knowledge is unattested as a method thereof, and in any case would work much better on a more analytical language like modern English rather than Latin, Arabic, or to a lesser extent, German, a sentiment I find strong enough, especially in consideration of a statistic I heard, which may be false, that there are 6000 unique sequences of characters in the MS, that I believe reconciling this fact would require the MS writer to forego articles, declension, and conjugation of whatever language they wrote in, or more likely simplify it considerably, in order to achieve that figure. So testing this hypothesis may require a considerable simplification of the target language one thinks likely to be that of the MS, probably to the point of implausibility. Now, if that figure were wrong, and there was, maybe, 8000, 10000+ "words" in the MS, I would find it more plausible, but this (im)plausibility does rely on an incomplete understanding of the languages it could have been written in, that is to say, if it were in German one might just have to remove the articles to get a "Voynich-like" look, but this borderlines on irrelevancy.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this, if for nothing else than to learn more about the VMS.
Thank you for reading  ]]> I first want to say I have no qualifications besides finding the VMS an incredibly interesting book (and being an occasional conlanger), and I apologize if this theory has already been stated, restated, and debunked ad nauseam, and for any unorthodox terminology used.

My idea is this: although exactly what counts as a letter as opposed to a variation, something in complementary distribution, etc., in the VMS's script is endlessly debated, all the theories that I have seen on the matter agree with 10-14 unique "letters," which is then argued as to whether it is an alphabet, an abjad, etc., but no system can explain the especially low entropy of the VMS text, in comparison to any Latin, German, Italian, or otherwise text in any language whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge.

So instead, assuming that the text has any meaning to it at all, perhaps the "letters" do not represent sound, but instead could be used, sort of as a logography, by combining certain letters and ascribing that sequence to a word, perhaps in combination with certain letters being a semantic category of sorts. For example, I could make "I" A, "sit" B, "on" AA, "the" AB, and "chair" BB, resulting in the sequence "A B AA AB BB" for "I sit on the chair," which, although just to my intuition, would result in a lower entropy than a representation of phonemes in an order, no matter the system devised to turn the words into sequences of characters, as human-assigned patterns would probably have a higher degree of predictability than phonemes. You could then augment this system with, say, "Q" showing that a word is inanimate, and "X" showing that a word is animate, resulting in "XA B AA AB QBB," which may explain the gallows?

I confess to not knowing much of anything when it comes to how text is statistically analyzed, but in assuming this is true, it is still probably impossible to ascertain which letters are "semantic," if such characters do exist, and which are the "building blocks," until and unless the MS is translated, so perhaps one could give a unique identifier to each "word" in the MS (though I know precisely discriminating them is a hard task) and comparing the "relations" of words to one another and then to that of a natural language, which in concrete terms could mean assessing the probability that given some word from the MS, how likely another certain word would follow? And comparing that to the results of some other natural language? That would be my best guess as to falsifying the theory on the merits of statistics.

On problems with the theory, I will say, this mean of statistical analysis seems deceptively simple to the point I would think somebody to have already done this sort of assessment on the MS. In addition this method of "cipher," or perhaps shorthand, to my knowledge is unattested as a method thereof, and in any case would work much better on a more analytical language like modern English rather than Latin, Arabic, or to a lesser extent, German, a sentiment I find strong enough, especially in consideration of a statistic I heard, which may be false, that there are 6000 unique sequences of characters in the MS, that I believe reconciling this fact would require the MS writer to forego articles, declension, and conjugation of whatever language they wrote in, or more likely simplify it considerably, in order to achieve that figure. So testing this hypothesis may require a considerable simplification of the target language one thinks likely to be that of the MS, probably to the point of implausibility. Now, if that figure were wrong, and there was, maybe, 8000, 10000+ "words" in the MS, I would find it more plausible, but this (im)plausibility does rely on an incomplete understanding of the languages it could have been written in, that is to say, if it were in German one might just have to remove the articles to get a "Voynich-like" look, but this borderlines on irrelevancy.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this, if for nothing else than to learn more about the VMS.
Thank you for reading  ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5888.html Tue, 07 Jul 2026 17:29:28 +0000 ololololo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5888.html er into or in the right places, I gradually crept up on the most Voynich-like result. 
I couldn't create an accurate algorithm that would immediately give me the desired result, no matter how much I wanted to (if anything, I made a cipher based on Roman numerals).
In the course of these attempts, I wondered how accurate the Voynichese itself was. How perfect and accurate is this algorithm from the point of view of cryptology? Is it an algorithm at all?
These questions call into question the usually unconditional "presumption of perfection" (my name for this cliche ), which is implied, in particular, by referring to the "scribe's mistake". For some reason, errors on the part of the author are often omitted. 
One of the difficulties for analyzing Voynichese may be that it is not suitable for analysis as a cipher due to the lack of a clear encryption algorithm. By a clear algorithm, I mean a strictly defined and mathematically clear technique that gives and gives the same result (APPLE - GVVRK, the shift is 6; if I do the same with the word GVVRK, I get APPLE back). You can try to complicate this algorithm by adding non-mathematical rules. In the example with the Caesar cipher, I may want the first consonant to be I, the middle consonant is shifted by 2 again, and the final consonant is not encrypted. So I'll get GIXXRE from GVVRK. It became more difficult to determine the encryption algorithm and the specific substitution method that I used, the letters G and R, unaffected by my crazy rules, will not give me anything (I can shift them back to 6, there will be AIXXLE. Of course, although it's easy to guess the word APPLE, we may be confused by the two XX's in the middle and by the I. Or maybe it's not APPLE, but ACCEPT, but E is put at the end, C = X, and P and T are put in other places?). Briefly, we have the opportunity to blur the algorithm, making it difficult for a stranger to decipher it.

And now we ask ourselves the question - why should the Voynichese be a clear cipher? Why do we believe that the author was so brilliant and talented that he created a great undecipherable method unknown to science? In general, a person who is ignorant of cryptology is not expected to create the cleanest algorithm, but to use conditional substitution as a basis, having previously complicated it. There is nothing supernatural in the fact that Voynichese is unlike other ciphers of its time, because I can also mock an ordinary substitution to bring it to "perfection" without changing the algorithm itself. At this rate, I won't have any trouble, but...
By abusing these so-called "rules", I can't complicate the cipher, but distort it, making decryption difficult even for a person who knows the cipher, especially if these rules are unclear (for example, not "after every first consonant I", but "after some first consonants I"). In theory, it is possible to complicate the cipher so much that decryption will be a great challenge  for the expert (that is, I will ruin it), which should not be. 
And there's no guarantee that Voynichese is not a corrupted cipher. There's no guarantee that even with an algorithm, we will immediately decipher the entire manuscript without difficulty. It is possible that it is impossible to decipher Voynichese a priori (more precisely, it is possible, but the decoding will be incomplete). Perhaps that it's impossible to decrypt Voynichese a priori (or rather, it is possible, but the decryption will turn out to be incomplete) due to the fact that the author knew very little about the logic of ciphers and, without realizing it himself, made his possibly rather simple cipher very difficult to decrypt.

In general, questioning the presumption of perfection applies not only to cipher theory. Some linguistic hypotheses also depend on it, for example, Chinese theory, but to a lesser extent (most likely, the author was not a professional linguist, and his transcription of Chinese could be completely unreadable. Historical example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for Armenian and, maybe, Hebrew, which requires knowledge of the language itself to read).

What are some historical examples of a "corrupted cipher"?
Codex Copiale (but here, rather, an example of a complicated substitution with the addition of zeros) and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (still not deciphered, but it is believed that this is a complicated Polybius square).

How did the owners read this manuscript?
By owners, I mean a team of people who understood what VMS was about and may have participated in its creation. In this case, they have an advantage - they know in advance what should be written, and therefore at some points they can, for example, guess undeciphered words from the context, or even intuitively understand the meaning of what is written without deciphering it (for example, if the balneological section is anatomy, then the reader can take a look look at the illustration, remember what kind of organ it depicts, and from there remember what he knows about this organ. In this case, he probably won't need to decrypt anything anymore).

What should I do with VMS now?
It's worth thinking not about how to create the most warlike cipher possible, but about how we can achieve this result in more mundane and accessible ways. What we can learn from these attempts can be applied directly to the text of the manuscript to find any coincidences or something else...

In any case, it seems to me to be a satisfying food for thought...

What do you think?]]> er into or in the right places, I gradually crept up on the most Voynich-like result. 
I couldn't create an accurate algorithm that would immediately give me the desired result, no matter how much I wanted to (if anything, I made a cipher based on Roman numerals).
In the course of these attempts, I wondered how accurate the Voynichese itself was. How perfect and accurate is this algorithm from the point of view of cryptology? Is it an algorithm at all?
These questions call into question the usually unconditional "presumption of perfection" (my name for this cliche ), which is implied, in particular, by referring to the "scribe's mistake". For some reason, errors on the part of the author are often omitted. 
One of the difficulties for analyzing Voynichese may be that it is not suitable for analysis as a cipher due to the lack of a clear encryption algorithm. By a clear algorithm, I mean a strictly defined and mathematically clear technique that gives and gives the same result (APPLE - GVVRK, the shift is 6; if I do the same with the word GVVRK, I get APPLE back). You can try to complicate this algorithm by adding non-mathematical rules. In the example with the Caesar cipher, I may want the first consonant to be I, the middle consonant is shifted by 2 again, and the final consonant is not encrypted. So I'll get GIXXRE from GVVRK. It became more difficult to determine the encryption algorithm and the specific substitution method that I used, the letters G and R, unaffected by my crazy rules, will not give me anything (I can shift them back to 6, there will be AIXXLE. Of course, although it's easy to guess the word APPLE, we may be confused by the two XX's in the middle and by the I. Or maybe it's not APPLE, but ACCEPT, but E is put at the end, C = X, and P and T are put in other places?). Briefly, we have the opportunity to blur the algorithm, making it difficult for a stranger to decipher it.

And now we ask ourselves the question - why should the Voynichese be a clear cipher? Why do we believe that the author was so brilliant and talented that he created a great undecipherable method unknown to science? In general, a person who is ignorant of cryptology is not expected to create the cleanest algorithm, but to use conditional substitution as a basis, having previously complicated it. There is nothing supernatural in the fact that Voynichese is unlike other ciphers of its time, because I can also mock an ordinary substitution to bring it to "perfection" without changing the algorithm itself. At this rate, I won't have any trouble, but...
By abusing these so-called "rules", I can't complicate the cipher, but distort it, making decryption difficult even for a person who knows the cipher, especially if these rules are unclear (for example, not "after every first consonant I", but "after some first consonants I"). In theory, it is possible to complicate the cipher so much that decryption will be a great challenge  for the expert (that is, I will ruin it), which should not be. 
And there's no guarantee that Voynichese is not a corrupted cipher. There's no guarantee that even with an algorithm, we will immediately decipher the entire manuscript without difficulty. It is possible that it is impossible to decipher Voynichese a priori (more precisely, it is possible, but the decoding will be incomplete). Perhaps that it's impossible to decrypt Voynichese a priori (or rather, it is possible, but the decryption will turn out to be incomplete) due to the fact that the author knew very little about the logic of ciphers and, without realizing it himself, made his possibly rather simple cipher very difficult to decrypt.

In general, questioning the presumption of perfection applies not only to cipher theory. Some linguistic hypotheses also depend on it, for example, Chinese theory, but to a lesser extent (most likely, the author was not a professional linguist, and his transcription of Chinese could be completely unreadable. Historical example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for Armenian and, maybe, Hebrew, which requires knowledge of the language itself to read).

What are some historical examples of a "corrupted cipher"?
Codex Copiale (but here, rather, an example of a complicated substitution with the addition of zeros) and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (still not deciphered, but it is believed that this is a complicated Polybius square).

How did the owners read this manuscript?
By owners, I mean a team of people who understood what VMS was about and may have participated in its creation. In this case, they have an advantage - they know in advance what should be written, and therefore at some points they can, for example, guess undeciphered words from the context, or even intuitively understand the meaning of what is written without deciphering it (for example, if the balneological section is anatomy, then the reader can take a look look at the illustration, remember what kind of organ it depicts, and from there remember what he knows about this organ. In this case, he probably won't need to decrypt anything anymore).

What should I do with VMS now?
It's worth thinking not about how to create the most warlike cipher possible, but about how we can achieve this result in more mundane and accessible ways. What we can learn from these attempts can be applied directly to the text of the manuscript to find any coincidences or something else...

In any case, it seems to me to be a satisfying food for thought...

What do you think?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5879.html Sun, 05 Jul 2026 06:10:07 +0000 BessAgritianin]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5879.html Let us consider the word from f2r-6 row:

  rain.jpg (Size: 20.7 KB / Downloads: 212)

It could be read as:

  Roud.jpg (Size: 39.6 KB / Downloads: 211)
 
Consider that this word appears 144 times according voynicese browser. It is important for the text. Its decoding -too. 
The language is structural and the placement of the glyphs is not random, but ruled based.

Is ambiguity the coder's method?]]> Let us consider the word from f2r-6 row:

  rain.jpg (Size: 20.7 KB / Downloads: 212)

It could be read as:

  Roud.jpg (Size: 39.6 KB / Downloads: 211)
 
Consider that this word appears 144 times according voynicese browser. It is important for the text. Its decoding -too. 
The language is structural and the placement of the glyphs is not random, but ruled based.

Is ambiguity the coder's method?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5866.html Thu, 02 Jul 2026 02:45:47 +0000 dunn.b]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5866.html