https://www.voynich.ninja/ Tue, 16 Jun 2026 20:03:58 +0000 MyBB https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5815.html Sat, 13 Jun 2026 18:52:26 +0000 Jimmy123]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5815.html
Do you think it is impossible that some theory is correct? Do you think that one theory is impossible? Please share your thoughts]]>
Do you think it is impossible that some theory is correct? Do you think that one theory is impossible? Please share your thoughts]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5810.html Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:56:16 +0000 SpamBot]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5810.html
0.Based on the pictures alone, I make the assumption that it is some work of science (lecture notes, textbook, research etc.)
1.Since there are suggestions that the manuscript was used often, I make the following proposition: manuscript is not "cyphered", it is written in its own language. Otherwise you would need to decypher it every time you need it and it wouldn't practical (especially if the "cypher" doesn't have a simple solution).
1.1 Who wrote it: some private society (masons, their subgroup, the Order of Dagon or whatever).
1.2 Why own language: my grandma speaks Polish whenever she doesn't wants others to listen to her phone conversations. Here the reason might be similar: if you are a secret society, then with a language known only to the initiated, you can hold conversations anywhere without eavesdrop. As a bonus, if you have members from different countries (speaking different languages), then you have universal communication tool.
2.Why plants look exotic (and not like their real counterparts): the manuscript was dictated by someone (for ex. professor to a student), thus the one who draw them didn't saw the actual plants, he only had the word descriptions of them. This also explains why there are several handwrites (1 student writes the book, while others do some other tasks, then rotate)
3.If geometry books taught me anything, then it's that shitty drawings are always accompanied by a textual explanation. Thus it's reasonable to assume that the plant pages of the manuscript contain words for leaves, root, flower etc. We (and by that I mean You, the researcher) can extract words common for all the plant pages and try simple substitutions (X is "root", Y is "leaf") until we get a meaningful sentences, the rest of the words (from the plant section) can be picked logically. But it should be kept in mind that some words most likely are written with mistakes.
4.Additionally, with the help of a Botanical Expert, we can pinpoint (a biome) the location where the manuscript was written (since it's unlikely that the author was a traveler). Studying the history of the place may give hints about the order (maybe other similar works could be discovered there, maybe even the order itself)]]>
0.Based on the pictures alone, I make the assumption that it is some work of science (lecture notes, textbook, research etc.)
1.Since there are suggestions that the manuscript was used often, I make the following proposition: manuscript is not "cyphered", it is written in its own language. Otherwise you would need to decypher it every time you need it and it wouldn't practical (especially if the "cypher" doesn't have a simple solution).
1.1 Who wrote it: some private society (masons, their subgroup, the Order of Dagon or whatever).
1.2 Why own language: my grandma speaks Polish whenever she doesn't wants others to listen to her phone conversations. Here the reason might be similar: if you are a secret society, then with a language known only to the initiated, you can hold conversations anywhere without eavesdrop. As a bonus, if you have members from different countries (speaking different languages), then you have universal communication tool.
2.Why plants look exotic (and not like their real counterparts): the manuscript was dictated by someone (for ex. professor to a student), thus the one who draw them didn't saw the actual plants, he only had the word descriptions of them. This also explains why there are several handwrites (1 student writes the book, while others do some other tasks, then rotate)
3.If geometry books taught me anything, then it's that shitty drawings are always accompanied by a textual explanation. Thus it's reasonable to assume that the plant pages of the manuscript contain words for leaves, root, flower etc. We (and by that I mean You, the researcher) can extract words common for all the plant pages and try simple substitutions (X is "root", Y is "leaf") until we get a meaningful sentences, the rest of the words (from the plant section) can be picked logically. But it should be kept in mind that some words most likely are written with mistakes.
4.Additionally, with the help of a Botanical Expert, we can pinpoint (a biome) the location where the manuscript was written (since it's unlikely that the author was a traveler). Studying the history of the place may give hints about the order (maybe other similar works could be discovered there, maybe even the order itself)]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5803.html Fri, 05 Jun 2026 23:37:02 +0000 ololololo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5803.html Also, don't forget that I'm not making any claims here; this is just MY OPINION, and you may have a different one (and I would love to hear it ) !

What can we say about scribe A? First of all, this person knows how to write beautifully. Of course, it can't be called calligraphy, but it's definitely noticeable that he writes evenly, even without lines, and his letters are uniform and clear. One of the best examples of this is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 011346.gif (Size: 242.08 KB / Downloads: 176)
The first two volumes were written by him alone.The first folios (especially 1-3) were written by his hand. Starting from page. But folio 4 already contains traces of the scribe C's intervention (f26v and f31), and so on. 
First, he could have been a professional scribe, as evidenced by his rather skillful writing style. This suggests that he is most likely the author of the notes on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f116v. It is possible that he has written other books as well.
Second, he clearly understood what he was writing (in any case). This is evidenced by the confidence in his handwriting, as well as the fact that his "language" (Voynich A) differs from the language of other scribes. It is possible that the differences in language are a result of the fact that scribe A knew a little more about what he was writing. I also suggest comparing the lines written by scribe A and the lines written by scribe B:
Tsheoarom shar or chor olchsy chom otchom oporar (f3r)
qokchdy chcthy lo dsheckhy qokain chckhy lshedy okeedy (f75r)
Maybe this examples they are not entirely accurate and do not reflect the general pattern of language differences, but you may notice that while scribe A often repeats a single character, scribe B tends to copy an entire word with slight variations. 
Thirdly, he may well be the author of the manuscript. Since he was a good writer and seemed to understand what he was writing, he could have been the creator of what we call voynichese (i.e., a code, a system of abbreviations, transcriptions, etc. I still respect the opinions of other users, so we'll avoid being too specific).

What can we say about the scribe C? His handwriting is minimalistic and "blurred":

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 013405.gif (Size: 124.99 KB / Downloads: 175)
However, the blurring does not always occur, and there are cases where the handwriting is similar to that of scribe C, but more distinct:

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 013537.gif (Size: 221.25 KB / Downloads: 177)
First, scribe C was most likely an assistant to scribe A. Since they first wrote a section together, it cannot be said that scribe A invited scribe C only to reduce his workload. However, it is worth noting that scribe C often writes more than scribe A, as exemplified by f34r. 
This is not a result of his small handwriting, or at most only partially so (perhaps because of his small handwriting, he was able to fit more text on a page, and so was entrusted with such work).

Secondly, he was probably also aware of what he was writing. You see, while Herbal A and Herbal B have visible differences, if you compare Herbal B and balneology, you can also find quite a few differences between them. Since scribe C was likely "hired" before scribe B and worked on the same section as scribe A, he may have known a bit more about the cipher. This is also evidenced by the fact that he is entrusted with working with diagrams, and as we know, the vocabulary of astro- and cosmology cannot be unambiguously assigned to any particular language.
Thirdly, apparently, he was sometimes... very lazy (f65r looks like it wasn't finished).

What can you say about scribe B? And there's a lot to be said about him...
Let's start with the handwriting. In general, his handwriting is quite standard and does not have any distinctive features. The glyphs are even, and the letters are clearly visible. The overall appearance of the handwriting seems somewhat rushed, as if the person was writing quickly.
I assume that the first pages written by scribe B are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f58v. On voynich.nu, the text on these pages is described as "a transitional stage between A and B". However, this is not a fact, as the handwriting could also belong to scribe A. 
One of the distinctive features of scribe B's handwriting is the lines - they are not always straight, and there is often very little space between them. Sometimes, the author even falls off the lines, as seen in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps he was simply tired).
First, scribe B writes exclusively in Voynich B, and his version is the most different from Voynich A (I don't think it needs to be explained that the botanical and balneological sections are different).
Second, the texts of scribe B are always larger than those of scribes A and C. It seems that he was almost always given larger texts. This suggests that he was likely a hired individual who was employed by scribe A to reduce his workload.
Thirdly, it may be that scribe B did not understand what he was writing at all, or that he was writing nonsense on purpose. The text he wrote is characterized by a lot of repetition, similar words (usually placed next to each other), and a generally low level of text variability (this is especially evident in f75r, but it is also reflected in other pages of balneology). Such a drastic difference may indicate that he most likely wrote it himself (it is unlikely that the author gave him something to copy, as he could have done it himself if he had the strength to give scribe B a sample), and most likely, if he wrote it meaningfully, it was not always accurate or meaningful. There is an example of a rather unusual word taken from the Rosettes and clearly written by the scribe B:

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 022735.gif (Size: 197.95 KB / Downloads: 175)
It is quite long, consists only of "vowel" characters, and has two consecutive double letters. For the entire manuscript, this word is too strange. Although this is an isolated example, it raises questions about the meaning of this word and whether scribe B may have "slacked off" on other pages.
This person also seemed to be very interested in drawing betonies, but he wasn't always successful...

  Снимок экрана 2026-04-02 135600.gif (Size: 25.97 KB / Downloads: 173)

  Снимок экрана 2026-04-02 171616.gif (Size: 50.28 KB / Downloads: 175)

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 023351.gif (Size: 74.08 KB / Downloads: 173)
Total, in my opinion:
Scribe A is a professional, most likely an author or at least an expert in Voynichese.
Scribe C worked with Scribe A and clearly understood Voynich.
Scribe B may have been a hack or just a klutz. In any case, the question arises as to whether the texts he wrote make sense.]]> Also, don't forget that I'm not making any claims here; this is just MY OPINION, and you may have a different one (and I would love to hear it ) !

What can we say about scribe A? First of all, this person knows how to write beautifully. Of course, it can't be called calligraphy, but it's definitely noticeable that he writes evenly, even without lines, and his letters are uniform and clear. One of the best examples of this is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 011346.gif (Size: 242.08 KB / Downloads: 176)
The first two volumes were written by him alone.The first folios (especially 1-3) were written by his hand. Starting from page. But folio 4 already contains traces of the scribe C's intervention (f26v and f31), and so on. 
First, he could have been a professional scribe, as evidenced by his rather skillful writing style. This suggests that he is most likely the author of the notes on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f116v. It is possible that he has written other books as well.
Second, he clearly understood what he was writing (in any case). This is evidenced by the confidence in his handwriting, as well as the fact that his "language" (Voynich A) differs from the language of other scribes. It is possible that the differences in language are a result of the fact that scribe A knew a little more about what he was writing. I also suggest comparing the lines written by scribe A and the lines written by scribe B:
Tsheoarom shar or chor olchsy chom otchom oporar (f3r)
qokchdy chcthy lo dsheckhy qokain chckhy lshedy okeedy (f75r)
Maybe this examples they are not entirely accurate and do not reflect the general pattern of language differences, but you may notice that while scribe A often repeats a single character, scribe B tends to copy an entire word with slight variations. 
Thirdly, he may well be the author of the manuscript. Since he was a good writer and seemed to understand what he was writing, he could have been the creator of what we call voynichese (i.e., a code, a system of abbreviations, transcriptions, etc. I still respect the opinions of other users, so we'll avoid being too specific).

What can we say about the scribe C? His handwriting is minimalistic and "blurred":

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 013405.gif (Size: 124.99 KB / Downloads: 175)
However, the blurring does not always occur, and there are cases where the handwriting is similar to that of scribe C, but more distinct:

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 013537.gif (Size: 221.25 KB / Downloads: 177)
First, scribe C was most likely an assistant to scribe A. Since they first wrote a section together, it cannot be said that scribe A invited scribe C only to reduce his workload. However, it is worth noting that scribe C often writes more than scribe A, as exemplified by f34r. 
This is not a result of his small handwriting, or at most only partially so (perhaps because of his small handwriting, he was able to fit more text on a page, and so was entrusted with such work).

Secondly, he was probably also aware of what he was writing. You see, while Herbal A and Herbal B have visible differences, if you compare Herbal B and balneology, you can also find quite a few differences between them. Since scribe C was likely "hired" before scribe B and worked on the same section as scribe A, he may have known a bit more about the cipher. This is also evidenced by the fact that he is entrusted with working with diagrams, and as we know, the vocabulary of astro- and cosmology cannot be unambiguously assigned to any particular language.
Thirdly, apparently, he was sometimes... very lazy (f65r looks like it wasn't finished).

What can you say about scribe B? And there's a lot to be said about him...
Let's start with the handwriting. In general, his handwriting is quite standard and does not have any distinctive features. The glyphs are even, and the letters are clearly visible. The overall appearance of the handwriting seems somewhat rushed, as if the person was writing quickly.
I assume that the first pages written by scribe B are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f58v. On voynich.nu, the text on these pages is described as "a transitional stage between A and B". However, this is not a fact, as the handwriting could also belong to scribe A. 
One of the distinctive features of scribe B's handwriting is the lines - they are not always straight, and there is often very little space between them. Sometimes, the author even falls off the lines, as seen in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (perhaps he was simply tired).
First, scribe B writes exclusively in Voynich B, and his version is the most different from Voynich A (I don't think it needs to be explained that the botanical and balneological sections are different).
Second, the texts of scribe B are always larger than those of scribes A and C. It seems that he was almost always given larger texts. This suggests that he was likely a hired individual who was employed by scribe A to reduce his workload.
Thirdly, it may be that scribe B did not understand what he was writing at all, or that he was writing nonsense on purpose. The text he wrote is characterized by a lot of repetition, similar words (usually placed next to each other), and a generally low level of text variability (this is especially evident in f75r, but it is also reflected in other pages of balneology). Such a drastic difference may indicate that he most likely wrote it himself (it is unlikely that the author gave him something to copy, as he could have done it himself if he had the strength to give scribe B a sample), and most likely, if he wrote it meaningfully, it was not always accurate or meaningful. There is an example of a rather unusual word taken from the Rosettes and clearly written by the scribe B:

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 022735.gif (Size: 197.95 KB / Downloads: 175)
It is quite long, consists only of "vowel" characters, and has two consecutive double letters. For the entire manuscript, this word is too strange. Although this is an isolated example, it raises questions about the meaning of this word and whether scribe B may have "slacked off" on other pages.
This person also seemed to be very interested in drawing betonies, but he wasn't always successful...

  Снимок экрана 2026-04-02 135600.gif (Size: 25.97 KB / Downloads: 173)

  Снимок экрана 2026-04-02 171616.gif (Size: 50.28 KB / Downloads: 175)

  Снимок экрана 2026-06-06 023351.gif (Size: 74.08 KB / Downloads: 173)
Total, in my opinion:
Scribe A is a professional, most likely an author or at least an expert in Voynichese.
Scribe C worked with Scribe A and clearly understood Voynich.
Scribe B may have been a hack or just a klutz. In any case, the question arises as to whether the texts he wrote make sense.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5798.html Wed, 03 Jun 2026 23:10:54 +0000 ololololo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5798.html Well, when I wrote my last post, I didn't think about sharing my opinion on this... I think it would be better if I wrote it in a separate post.

During my independent study of the Voynich manuscript (which took about a year), I came to the conclusion that Voynich is most likely a cipher based on numbers. I am not a cryptology expert, but I will try to explain how I came to this conclusion.
Let's start with what I wrote about in the previous post, which is that the text of the Voynich manuscript (or rather, the mechanism of word formation) is very similar to classical substitution: all words consist of a fixed set of characters and bigrams arranged in a certain order. Here you might think that I am reinventing the wheel, having in mind the concepts of "prefix-midfix-suffix" or Stolfa's "crust-mantle-nucleus" model (in fact, this is what some initially thought), however, this is not quite the case. The set of supposed minimal substitution units that I have compiled demonstrates some more dependencies besides the dependencies of position in the word.
I would like to suggest that you look at this from a different angle. If we can easily decompose any word in the manuscript into such minimal units, but at the same time we clearly see that this is not a regular "symbol-symbol" substitution, then we can use regular numbers to help us.
First, I'll add a list of the "letters" I've generated:
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s, 
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, qo
3). All gallows and EVA x.
Pay attention to the digrams al-ar and ol-or. Their peculiarity is that in such a combination they repeatedly appear both in words and standing alone. But by swapping the letters (ol-or to lo-ro, al-ar to la-ra), these properties are immediately lost, and the structure of words becomes "more fragmented" (let's take the word for example oralar. It can be decomposed as ol-ar-ar, and as o-la-ra-R. I think you can immediately see the difference between three bigrams and two extra letters around the edges. In addition, there are no words "lara" or "rala" in the manuscript). This remarkable property of bigrams suggests that the letters of the Voynich manuscript are not Latin letters, but numbers. 
But if they were Arabic numerals, swapping the digits in a number would result in a different number (for example, 41 becomes 14, 310 becomes 103, and 80 becomes 08), and the meaning would not be lost. However, in the case of digrams, the opposite effect is observed. This already suggests that Voynichese is a cipher based on Roman numerals, as they have the same property: if you take the number 41 = XLI and swap the IXL, you will not get a whole number, as it does not follow the rules of Roman numerals.
This "position effect" manifests itself both at the level of individual semantic units (as in the example with bigrams) and at the level of multiple words and the entire text (this manifests itself in the form of the "prefix-midfix-suffix" pattern). Given the historical context (specifically, the realities of the 15th century, the author's tools, and capabilities), I assume that the Voynich manuscript's cipher is a kind of nomenclature that is additionally encrypted using the letters of an artificially created alphabet (this is not entirely unusual, considering that it was a standard substitution technique for the time, similar to the Theban alphabet), which encrypts both letters and abbreviations.

Why letters and abbreviations?

I came to this conclusion because the list of "letters" I provided is quite flexible. For example, it is easy to see that ch and sh are equivalent (in the sense that words using these letters are almost identical to each other: chey - shey, cheody - sheody, char - shar, chdar - shdar, chckhy - shckhy).

It's not suitable for letters alone, or for abbreviations alone, but it's fine for both.

**

With bigrams, we can conduct a small experiment that shows features that are not typical for substitution. Let's exclude ee(es), ch/sh, and qo from the list. From the remaining list, we can select al-ar and ol-or. We can generate a pair of words by taking a pair like ol-*-in and replacing the asterisk with ai: olaiin, oraiin, and alair. These patterns are not typical for regular substitution, but they align well with the typical numerical cipher-nomenclator. Thus, we should read the words of the manuscript not as words, but as an ordered sequence of numbers, e.g. chey as 50-10-5 (this is not a translation, this just an example of how it might look).

It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to do!

Maybe that's true, but it's possible, even for the 15th century, plus, given that the manuscript is a product of collective labor, the argument about its bulkiness loses weight, because a group of skilled people would definitely be able to encrypt the text faster than a single person.

It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to read!

The manuscript is essentially not a work of fiction, but a reference book (all herbals are reference books), which means that the reader does not have to spend time deciphering the entire book. By knowing the key, they can apply it to the relevant pages without any problems. 

Apparently, the book was not written for a wide audience (as evidenced by its design and lack of decryption), but for someone who at least knew the key. This suggests that there should have been no difficulties... if the book had fallen into the right hands .

...And super-highly interested fact...

Let's look at the top right corner of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page. In the context of the Roman numeral version, it takes on a new meaning...


  Снимок экрана 2026-06-04 020314.gif (Size: 89.01 KB / Downloads: 243)

Rotate the red symbols 90 degrees to the left, and you will get the Roman numeral 102. Such a bold coincidence, and on the first page... Could this be the key?

P.S. I am not an expert, and what I have written may be complete nonsense. The purpose of this post is not to prove that I am right, but rather to reach out to you, to find out your opinion, and to discuss this version together.
I hope this will help whoever deciphers the Voynich manuscript.]]> Well, when I wrote my last post, I didn't think about sharing my opinion on this... I think it would be better if I wrote it in a separate post.

During my independent study of the Voynich manuscript (which took about a year), I came to the conclusion that Voynich is most likely a cipher based on numbers. I am not a cryptology expert, but I will try to explain how I came to this conclusion.
Let's start with what I wrote about in the previous post, which is that the text of the Voynich manuscript (or rather, the mechanism of word formation) is very similar to classical substitution: all words consist of a fixed set of characters and bigrams arranged in a certain order. Here you might think that I am reinventing the wheel, having in mind the concepts of "prefix-midfix-suffix" or Stolfa's "crust-mantle-nucleus" model (in fact, this is what some initially thought), however, this is not quite the case. The set of supposed minimal substitution units that I have compiled demonstrates some more dependencies besides the dependencies of position in the word.
I would like to suggest that you look at this from a different angle. If we can easily decompose any word in the manuscript into such minimal units, but at the same time we clearly see that this is not a regular "symbol-symbol" substitution, then we can use regular numbers to help us.
First, I'll add a list of the "letters" I've generated:
1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s, 
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, qo
3). All gallows and EVA x.
Pay attention to the digrams al-ar and ol-or. Their peculiarity is that in such a combination they repeatedly appear both in words and standing alone. But by swapping the letters (ol-or to lo-ro, al-ar to la-ra), these properties are immediately lost, and the structure of words becomes "more fragmented" (let's take the word for example oralar. It can be decomposed as ol-ar-ar, and as o-la-ra-R. I think you can immediately see the difference between three bigrams and two extra letters around the edges. In addition, there are no words "lara" or "rala" in the manuscript). This remarkable property of bigrams suggests that the letters of the Voynich manuscript are not Latin letters, but numbers. 
But if they were Arabic numerals, swapping the digits in a number would result in a different number (for example, 41 becomes 14, 310 becomes 103, and 80 becomes 08), and the meaning would not be lost. However, in the case of digrams, the opposite effect is observed. This already suggests that Voynichese is a cipher based on Roman numerals, as they have the same property: if you take the number 41 = XLI and swap the IXL, you will not get a whole number, as it does not follow the rules of Roman numerals.
This "position effect" manifests itself both at the level of individual semantic units (as in the example with bigrams) and at the level of multiple words and the entire text (this manifests itself in the form of the "prefix-midfix-suffix" pattern). Given the historical context (specifically, the realities of the 15th century, the author's tools, and capabilities), I assume that the Voynich manuscript's cipher is a kind of nomenclature that is additionally encrypted using the letters of an artificially created alphabet (this is not entirely unusual, considering that it was a standard substitution technique for the time, similar to the Theban alphabet), which encrypts both letters and abbreviations.

Why letters and abbreviations?

I came to this conclusion because the list of "letters" I provided is quite flexible. For example, it is easy to see that ch and sh are equivalent (in the sense that words using these letters are almost identical to each other: chey - shey, cheody - sheody, char - shar, chdar - shdar, chckhy - shckhy).

It's not suitable for letters alone, or for abbreviations alone, but it's fine for both.

**

With bigrams, we can conduct a small experiment that shows features that are not typical for substitution. Let's exclude ee(es), ch/sh, and qo from the list. From the remaining list, we can select al-ar and ol-or. We can generate a pair of words by taking a pair like ol-*-in and replacing the asterisk with ai: olaiin, oraiin, and alair. These patterns are not typical for regular substitution, but they align well with the typical numerical cipher-nomenclator. Thus, we should read the words of the manuscript not as words, but as an ordered sequence of numbers, e.g. chey as 50-10-5 (this is not a translation, this just an example of how it might look).

It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to do!

Maybe that's true, but it's possible, even for the 15th century, plus, given that the manuscript is a product of collective labor, the argument about its bulkiness loses weight, because a group of skilled people would definitely be able to encrypt the text faster than a single person.

It's inconvenient/impractical/difficult to read!

The manuscript is essentially not a work of fiction, but a reference book (all herbals are reference books), which means that the reader does not have to spend time deciphering the entire book. By knowing the key, they can apply it to the relevant pages without any problems. 

Apparently, the book was not written for a wide audience (as evidenced by its design and lack of decryption), but for someone who at least knew the key. This suggests that there should have been no difficulties... if the book had fallen into the right hands .

...And super-highly interested fact...

Let's look at the top right corner of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page. In the context of the Roman numeral version, it takes on a new meaning...


  Снимок экрана 2026-06-04 020314.gif (Size: 89.01 KB / Downloads: 243)

Rotate the red symbols 90 degrees to the left, and you will get the Roman numeral 102. Such a bold coincidence, and on the first page... Could this be the key?

P.S. I am not an expert, and what I have written may be complete nonsense. The purpose of this post is not to prove that I am right, but rather to reach out to you, to find out your opinion, and to discuss this version together.
I hope this will help whoever deciphers the Voynich manuscript.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5791.html Mon, 01 Jun 2026 17:25:01 +0000 ololololo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5791.html 1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, q
3). All gallows and EVA x (appears rarely and only in Voynich B).
*I can't be sure about e, because it can double like letter i, and I think the combination es is like in.
Although I doubt it, you can consider chy/shy and dy to be separate bigrams if you want. Ol, or, al, ar included in the list of bigrams because they are statistically inseparable (there are many separate ol and or, as well as parts of words: chol, poror, ykor and etc).
In fact, these combinations can be used to create any word in the manuscript, for example:
daiin = d+ai+in
chey = ch+e+y
chedy = ch+e+d+y
dy + d+y(unbelievable)
shapchedyfeey = sh+a+p+ch+e+d+y+f+ee+y (or sh+a+p+chedy+f+ee+y)
rchseesy = r + ch + s + ees + y
qokaiin = q + o + k + ai + in
otolaiin = o + t + ol + ai + in
doaro = d + o + ar + o
It looks bulky, but it seems to be true, as you can see, words are made up of not only individual letters, but also of bigrams.
If the encryption algorithm is based on substitution (which is likely to be the case, as there is nothing more appropriate for the 15th century than substitution), then the substitution alphabet contains between 26 and 28 letters (26 if we consider e, ee, and es to be equal and ignore x, which is only found in Voynich B). By the way, the Latin alphabet contains 26 letters.
In my opinion (just in case it's interesting), the letters of the mysterious alphabet are hidden behind numbers, and the numbers are hidden behind the Latin letters themselves. This can explain the presence of bigrams, which are not typical for regular substitution.
Although... at the same time, this is a convincing argument in favor of mystification, as this method can produce as many words as you like.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, text made by translator.]]> 1). Single letters: o, d, e*, y, r, l and maybe s,
2). Bigrams: oi, ai(an), or, ol, ar, al, om, am, in, iin, ee (es)*, ch/sh, ir, il, im, q
3). All gallows and EVA x (appears rarely and only in Voynich B).
*I can't be sure about e, because it can double like letter i, and I think the combination es is like in.
Although I doubt it, you can consider chy/shy and dy to be separate bigrams if you want. Ol, or, al, ar included in the list of bigrams because they are statistically inseparable (there are many separate ol and or, as well as parts of words: chol, poror, ykor and etc).
In fact, these combinations can be used to create any word in the manuscript, for example:
daiin = d+ai+in
chey = ch+e+y
chedy = ch+e+d+y
dy + d+y(unbelievable)
shapchedyfeey = sh+a+p+ch+e+d+y+f+ee+y (or sh+a+p+chedy+f+ee+y)
rchseesy = r + ch + s + ees + y
qokaiin = q + o + k + ai + in
otolaiin = o + t + ol + ai + in
doaro = d + o + ar + o
It looks bulky, but it seems to be true, as you can see, words are made up of not only individual letters, but also of bigrams.
If the encryption algorithm is based on substitution (which is likely to be the case, as there is nothing more appropriate for the 15th century than substitution), then the substitution alphabet contains between 26 and 28 letters (26 if we consider e, ee, and es to be equal and ignore x, which is only found in Voynich B). By the way, the Latin alphabet contains 26 letters.
In my opinion (just in case it's interesting), the letters of the mysterious alphabet are hidden behind numbers, and the numbers are hidden behind the Latin letters themselves. This can explain the presence of bigrams, which are not typical for regular substitution.
Although... at the same time, this is a convincing argument in favor of mystification, as this method can produce as many words as you like.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, text made by translator.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5787.html Sun, 31 May 2026 15:20:59 +0000 maskci]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5787.html
(I wont be able to run any programs for the below protocol so this is why Im posting this here)

As per You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

..apparently the deviation is significant eg. 2.5 for Voynichese compared to 3.5-4+ for Latin or Greek and other such metrics.

Assuming:

-> When copying and glyphizing they might want to further obfuscate, eg cutting out words, we standardize the scribes' behavior into potential patterns of 'organic transformation'

Methodology:

First data set - Take a body of texts they might have had access too, ideal assumption, texts plausibly available to a Central European scribe in the early 15th century, Latin herbals, Arabic medical texts, Hebrew manuscripts, and similar period-appropriate works.

Second set - broader - assuming we may not know precisely what materials the scribes had access to -  casting a wider net across contemporaneous written traditions.

Run simulations against VMS and preferably whole and in parts by scribe author, as well as permutations, to find patterns of 'organic transformation' potentially done by the scribes that yield Voynichese 2.5 or other metrics from transforming the originals using various patterns.

Expected results:

We might find out an array of algorithms that are logical to a human scribe that produce the 2.5 distribution instead of 3.5 or 4+. Some of them look UNCANNILY PROBABLE EG skip first 3 lines and last 3 of a standard page over a 40 page window surprisingly yields this. Bonus points if we find out scribe 2 taught scribe 3 their tactic and 1 and 4 had their separate method, and they both yield 2.5 by copying the middle of the page in a circle.

Potential difficulties: 1. Too many probable patterns yield it. 2. Can't discern scribes (small difficulty)

Finalizing: potentially get a hoax hypothesis that is A to Z(pun intended) a functional hypothesis, describing the full process of the scribe crafting it for the gold grab, that actually makes sense because of their psychology when creating the VMS.


I hope for someone here to run it and let us know the results?]]>
(I wont be able to run any programs for the below protocol so this is why Im posting this here)

As per You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

..apparently the deviation is significant eg. 2.5 for Voynichese compared to 3.5-4+ for Latin or Greek and other such metrics.

Assuming:

-> When copying and glyphizing they might want to further obfuscate, eg cutting out words, we standardize the scribes' behavior into potential patterns of 'organic transformation'

Methodology:

First data set - Take a body of texts they might have had access too, ideal assumption, texts plausibly available to a Central European scribe in the early 15th century, Latin herbals, Arabic medical texts, Hebrew manuscripts, and similar period-appropriate works.

Second set - broader - assuming we may not know precisely what materials the scribes had access to -  casting a wider net across contemporaneous written traditions.

Run simulations against VMS and preferably whole and in parts by scribe author, as well as permutations, to find patterns of 'organic transformation' potentially done by the scribes that yield Voynichese 2.5 or other metrics from transforming the originals using various patterns.

Expected results:

We might find out an array of algorithms that are logical to a human scribe that produce the 2.5 distribution instead of 3.5 or 4+. Some of them look UNCANNILY PROBABLE EG skip first 3 lines and last 3 of a standard page over a 40 page window surprisingly yields this. Bonus points if we find out scribe 2 taught scribe 3 their tactic and 1 and 4 had their separate method, and they both yield 2.5 by copying the middle of the page in a circle.

Potential difficulties: 1. Too many probable patterns yield it. 2. Can't discern scribes (small difficulty)

Finalizing: potentially get a hoax hypothesis that is A to Z(pun intended) a functional hypothesis, describing the full process of the scribe crafting it for the gold grab, that actually makes sense because of their psychology when creating the VMS.


I hope for someone here to run it and let us know the results?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5779.html Tue, 26 May 2026 17:03:38 +0000 Thorsten]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5779.html I think I've figured it out!
 
Hello everyone,
 
I am aware that announcements of an alleged "solution" to the Voynich manuscript are viewed with justified skepticism. The research history of this manuscript is marked by numerous attempts at interpretation, which on closer inspection have not proven to be viable. This is precisely why I consider a critical classification of one's own approach to be essential.
 
The method presented here is neither a spontaneous idea nor a speculative quick shot. Likewise, the approach is not based on AI-generated interpretations or freely constructed assignments of meaning. Rather, the basis of my work is a systematic examination of the manuscript over several years.
 
The focus was in particular on the investigation of recurring character sequences, the analysis of possible linguistic patterns, the reconstruction of historical writing and abbreviation practices, and the examination of plausibility in the cultural and linguistic context of the 15th century. All results were continuously validated against the text itself and checked for consistency, repeatability and contextual reference.
 
In the meantime, I have reached a point where I consider the viability of the procedure to be sufficiently resilient to put the results so far up for public discussion.
 
I would therefore like to expressly invite you to critically examine the method, formulate counter-arguments, propose alternative interpretations or apply the method independently.
 
If the approach proves to be flawed, a critical analysis will show. However, if it is upheld, it could result in a new approach to understanding the Voynich manuscript.
 
Thank you very much for your attention and willingness to deal with the results.
 
Thorsten
_____

Why I believe the approach worrks

• The application of my method is reproducible.
  
• The procedure corresponds to the possibilities and methods of his era.
  
• After using the method, the text remains fluently legible without additional deciphering aids.
  
• Recurring words make comprehensible sense when used again in the respective context.
  
• The text that has already been translated gives a consistent picture in its entirety.
  
• The content fits plausibly into the historical and cultural environment of the 15th century.
  
• At the same time, the content provides a comprehensible explanation for why the text was written in a veiled form in the first place.
  

 
Reply
Based on my translations to date, the following working hypotheses and conclusions currently emerge:
 

1. In my estimation, the manuscript is written in a form of Middle High German.
   
2. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is probably neither a plant book nor an astronomy work. Rather, the illustrations seem to have a deliberately misleading character. Already in the first paragraph on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. there is, according to my interpretation, a reference to this intention to conceal.
   
3. The text does not form fluid sentences in the modern understanding. Instead, keyword-like word sequences are created, which are more reminiscent of notes, mnemonics or thematically grouped thoughts. This is particularly evident on folio f1v: to the right and left of the plant representation, independent blocks of meaning are created. I consider the recurring formation of such interrelated fields of meaning to be a strong indication of the viability of the method.
   
4. The pages translated so far indicate that the manuscript may have been intended as a kind of collection of advice or knowledge for the courtly environment. The focus seems to be on questions of cohabitation, sexuality, partnership and dynastic marriage – especially under the conditions of politically motivated unions.
   
5. For example, I interpret the diagram on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a representation of different forms of marital cohabitation. According to my current reading, four possible models are described there:
   • a marriage with accepted extramarital relations
     
   • the idealized or socially expected form of marriage
     
   • a relationship with an exclusively sexual partner within the household
     
   • a form of cohabitation marked by jealousy
     
   
   

 
Hypothesis
A final test for the following working hypothesis is still pending:
 

1. The Zodiac section seems to me less like a meaningful word assignment and more like a kind of word or reference collection. According to my current impression, this section served the author as a control or reference work - for example, to record abbreviations, terms or meanings already used and to avoid unintentional duplication. A memory aid within a system that is presumably strongly influenced by individual rules of memory.
   

 

Steps for decryption
The following steps are required for decryption:

1. A character substitution according to the mapping table
   
2. If necessary, use of the syllable table to determine the beginning and end syllables
   
3. If applicable, identification of the part of speech based on the suffix
   
4. Completion of the letter sequences using a Middle High German dictionary
   
5. If necessary, assign a single letter that can be identified as an independent word to the corresponding word
   

 
 
Sample translation You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. – First section
 
Mittelhochdeutsch
perment mouz vür ûnbedäht, eʒ unhëlsam wît wiʒen, allzemal von bîzeichen wârheit,
verheiʒen schërz iʒ. sîn behëren menschensin. weiʒ êren alleʒ. alleʒ tuoen vnde 
undernëmen wandelbaerlichs iʒ. umbehin wint alich ez sîn allergelûngenst dezem vërs
trügesam einhëllens. Iedoch liuterunge verlieselichs. alde ez diernin überein iʒ üeben
værens. mittelmaeʒic alein gereitʒ kein...                ... underdëʒer wîs
 
Hochdeutsch
Das Pergamente muss auf Unwissende, die das Offensichtliche ausgiebig betrachten und auf der Suche nach dem Inhalt sind, wie ein Scherz wirken, der sich über den menschlichen Verstand erhebt. Was es ehrt: Es wurde alles getan und entfernt, was tadelswerte ist. Alles um es herum wirkt wie etwas Nichtiges. Alles in Allem ist es bestens gelungen, so etwas gegenüber täuschend Übereinstimmend zu wirken. Dennoch sind die Ausführungen verlustreich. Ansonsten stimmt das Mädchen zu: es wiederholt ausüben gefährdet uns. Diese Mittelmäßigkeit allein reizt keinen ... 

  ... AUF DIESE ART UND WEISE

 
English (Automatically translated)
To the uninitiated—those who scrutinize the obvious at length while searching for the true substance—the parchment must appear as a jest that transcends the limits of human intellect. To its credit: everything objectionable has been scrupulously purged or removed. Everything surrounding it seems utterly trivial by comparison. All in all, it has succeeded admirably in presenting such a deceptively convincing facade. Nevertheless, the execution itself is flawed. In this regard, the girl concurs: attempting this again would put us in peril. This mediocrity alone holds no allure for anyone... 

... IN THIS MANNER

 

I have  published some selected pages on my Google Drive (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) for review. The previous deciphering of 10 pages resulted in a preliminary dictionary with currently about 800 entries.
 
In addition, I also provide the substitution table I use, including its derivation, as well as an overview of the identified prefixes and suffixes and an example sequence for the translation to make the procedure comprehensible and reproducible.
 
I would like to point out that all materials are still subject to an ongoing revision and validation process. In particular, the assignment of individual Middle High German words remains the subject of continuous examination due to the reduced spelling and the associated scope for interpretation.
 
I am aware that I will not have hit all the words correctly. Therefore, the procedure itself should be at the forefront of a review.
 
I also ask all those who read the German variant of the word transfer to keep in mind that not only Voynich symbols were transferred, but also a transfer from Middle High German to New High German had to take place. This is deliberately a word-for-word transfer that is as direct as possible using a dictionary. As a result, the text naturally reads a bit bumpy in places.
 
I am not an expert in this field. Nevertheless, I think that the basic context can already be seen.
 
To all those who are now looking for a clear, fixed algorithm, I would like to say: In my opinion, you are already starting from a modern way of thinking. This idea is closely linked to the computer age or to actual cryptographic encryption.
 
The author was probably not interested in creating a mathematically clean system. The aim was to disguise content – and to be able to read it again later. Whether a rule was applied consistently or a mnemonic bridge was sufficient at another point, whether work was done from memory or improvised spontaneously – all these are possibilities of this time.
 
The Voynich manuscript is probably not a text that can be translated with elegant source code at the touch of a button.
 
I therefore think that a serious decryption of the VM will end up with something that seems almost old-fashioned in our time: manual work.]]> I think I've figured it out!
 
Hello everyone,
 
I am aware that announcements of an alleged "solution" to the Voynich manuscript are viewed with justified skepticism. The research history of this manuscript is marked by numerous attempts at interpretation, which on closer inspection have not proven to be viable. This is precisely why I consider a critical classification of one's own approach to be essential.
 
The method presented here is neither a spontaneous idea nor a speculative quick shot. Likewise, the approach is not based on AI-generated interpretations or freely constructed assignments of meaning. Rather, the basis of my work is a systematic examination of the manuscript over several years.
 
The focus was in particular on the investigation of recurring character sequences, the analysis of possible linguistic patterns, the reconstruction of historical writing and abbreviation practices, and the examination of plausibility in the cultural and linguistic context of the 15th century. All results were continuously validated against the text itself and checked for consistency, repeatability and contextual reference.
 
In the meantime, I have reached a point where I consider the viability of the procedure to be sufficiently resilient to put the results so far up for public discussion.
 
I would therefore like to expressly invite you to critically examine the method, formulate counter-arguments, propose alternative interpretations or apply the method independently.
 
If the approach proves to be flawed, a critical analysis will show. However, if it is upheld, it could result in a new approach to understanding the Voynich manuscript.
 
Thank you very much for your attention and willingness to deal with the results.
 
Thorsten
_____

Why I believe the approach worrks

• The application of my method is reproducible.
  
• The procedure corresponds to the possibilities and methods of his era.
  
• After using the method, the text remains fluently legible without additional deciphering aids.
  
• Recurring words make comprehensible sense when used again in the respective context.
  
• The text that has already been translated gives a consistent picture in its entirety.
  
• The content fits plausibly into the historical and cultural environment of the 15th century.
  
• At the same time, the content provides a comprehensible explanation for why the text was written in a veiled form in the first place.
  

 
Reply
Based on my translations to date, the following working hypotheses and conclusions currently emerge:
 

1. In my estimation, the manuscript is written in a form of Middle High German.
   
2. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is probably neither a plant book nor an astronomy work. Rather, the illustrations seem to have a deliberately misleading character. Already in the first paragraph on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. there is, according to my interpretation, a reference to this intention to conceal.
   
3. The text does not form fluid sentences in the modern understanding. Instead, keyword-like word sequences are created, which are more reminiscent of notes, mnemonics or thematically grouped thoughts. This is particularly evident on folio f1v: to the right and left of the plant representation, independent blocks of meaning are created. I consider the recurring formation of such interrelated fields of meaning to be a strong indication of the viability of the method.
   
4. The pages translated so far indicate that the manuscript may have been intended as a kind of collection of advice or knowledge for the courtly environment. The focus seems to be on questions of cohabitation, sexuality, partnership and dynastic marriage – especially under the conditions of politically motivated unions.
   
5. For example, I interpret the diagram on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a representation of different forms of marital cohabitation. According to my current reading, four possible models are described there:
   • a marriage with accepted extramarital relations
     
   • the idealized or socially expected form of marriage
     
   • a relationship with an exclusively sexual partner within the household
     
   • a form of cohabitation marked by jealousy
     
   
   

 
Hypothesis
A final test for the following working hypothesis is still pending:
 

1. The Zodiac section seems to me less like a meaningful word assignment and more like a kind of word or reference collection. According to my current impression, this section served the author as a control or reference work - for example, to record abbreviations, terms or meanings already used and to avoid unintentional duplication. A memory aid within a system that is presumably strongly influenced by individual rules of memory.
   

 

Steps for decryption
The following steps are required for decryption:

1. A character substitution according to the mapping table
   
2. If necessary, use of the syllable table to determine the beginning and end syllables
   
3. If applicable, identification of the part of speech based on the suffix
   
4. Completion of the letter sequences using a Middle High German dictionary
   
5. If necessary, assign a single letter that can be identified as an independent word to the corresponding word
   

 
 
Sample translation You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. – First section
 
Mittelhochdeutsch
perment mouz vür ûnbedäht, eʒ unhëlsam wît wiʒen, allzemal von bîzeichen wârheit,
verheiʒen schërz iʒ. sîn behëren menschensin. weiʒ êren alleʒ. alleʒ tuoen vnde 
undernëmen wandelbaerlichs iʒ. umbehin wint alich ez sîn allergelûngenst dezem vërs
trügesam einhëllens. Iedoch liuterunge verlieselichs. alde ez diernin überein iʒ üeben
værens. mittelmaeʒic alein gereitʒ kein...                ... underdëʒer wîs
 
Hochdeutsch
Das Pergamente muss auf Unwissende, die das Offensichtliche ausgiebig betrachten und auf der Suche nach dem Inhalt sind, wie ein Scherz wirken, der sich über den menschlichen Verstand erhebt. Was es ehrt: Es wurde alles getan und entfernt, was tadelswerte ist. Alles um es herum wirkt wie etwas Nichtiges. Alles in Allem ist es bestens gelungen, so etwas gegenüber täuschend Übereinstimmend zu wirken. Dennoch sind die Ausführungen verlustreich. Ansonsten stimmt das Mädchen zu: es wiederholt ausüben gefährdet uns. Diese Mittelmäßigkeit allein reizt keinen ... 

  ... AUF DIESE ART UND WEISE

 
English (Automatically translated)
To the uninitiated—those who scrutinize the obvious at length while searching for the true substance—the parchment must appear as a jest that transcends the limits of human intellect. To its credit: everything objectionable has been scrupulously purged or removed. Everything surrounding it seems utterly trivial by comparison. All in all, it has succeeded admirably in presenting such a deceptively convincing facade. Nevertheless, the execution itself is flawed. In this regard, the girl concurs: attempting this again would put us in peril. This mediocrity alone holds no allure for anyone... 

... IN THIS MANNER

 

I have  published some selected pages on my Google Drive (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) for review. The previous deciphering of 10 pages resulted in a preliminary dictionary with currently about 800 entries.
 
In addition, I also provide the substitution table I use, including its derivation, as well as an overview of the identified prefixes and suffixes and an example sequence for the translation to make the procedure comprehensible and reproducible.
 
I would like to point out that all materials are still subject to an ongoing revision and validation process. In particular, the assignment of individual Middle High German words remains the subject of continuous examination due to the reduced spelling and the associated scope for interpretation.
 
I am aware that I will not have hit all the words correctly. Therefore, the procedure itself should be at the forefront of a review.
 
I also ask all those who read the German variant of the word transfer to keep in mind that not only Voynich symbols were transferred, but also a transfer from Middle High German to New High German had to take place. This is deliberately a word-for-word transfer that is as direct as possible using a dictionary. As a result, the text naturally reads a bit bumpy in places.
 
I am not an expert in this field. Nevertheless, I think that the basic context can already be seen.
 
To all those who are now looking for a clear, fixed algorithm, I would like to say: In my opinion, you are already starting from a modern way of thinking. This idea is closely linked to the computer age or to actual cryptographic encryption.
 
The author was probably not interested in creating a mathematically clean system. The aim was to disguise content – and to be able to read it again later. Whether a rule was applied consistently or a mnemonic bridge was sufficient at another point, whether work was done from memory or improvised spontaneously – all these are possibilities of this time.
 
The Voynich manuscript is probably not a text that can be translated with elegant source code at the touch of a button.
 
I therefore think that a serious decryption of the VM will end up with something that seems almost old-fashioned in our time: manual work.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5776.html Mon, 25 May 2026 16:21:23 +0000 JoJo_Jost]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5776.html
That’s why I’m interested in the question: Who here is still honestly and consistently working on a plausible solution? And in what direction is it heading?]]>
That’s why I’m interested in the question: Who here is still honestly and consistently working on a plausible solution? And in what direction is it heading?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5774.html Sun, 24 May 2026 05:43:06 +0000 SherriMM]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5774.html
My blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows about 8 visual references I have connected with sections of the Timaeus of Plato, in the same order of Timaeus. 

I will attempt to add the chart, as well as a sample, below. 

At this time, I have made no connections between the text - these are all visual. 

I also thinks this proves the movement of a few folios. 

I have about five more unpublished connections I'm working on for another post, though a few are referenced in the chart. 

This is also related to my other theory I just posted about (the Starred Paragraphs are Pythagorean Sentences or Maxims) and about the overall theme of a Pythagorean influence. 

I am open to feedback. 

All the best,
Sherri Mastrangelo

  Your paragraph text (23).png (Size: 170.62 KB / Downloads: 90)

  Your paragraph text (20).png (Size: 700.02 KB / Downloads: 90) ]]>
My blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows about 8 visual references I have connected with sections of the Timaeus of Plato, in the same order of Timaeus. 

I will attempt to add the chart, as well as a sample, below. 

At this time, I have made no connections between the text - these are all visual. 

I also thinks this proves the movement of a few folios. 

I have about five more unpublished connections I'm working on for another post, though a few are referenced in the chart. 

This is also related to my other theory I just posted about (the Starred Paragraphs are Pythagorean Sentences or Maxims) and about the overall theme of a Pythagorean influence. 

I am open to feedback. 

All the best,
Sherri Mastrangelo

  Your paragraph text (23).png (Size: 170.62 KB / Downloads: 90)

  Your paragraph text (20).png (Size: 700.02 KB / Downloads: 90) ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5773.html Sun, 24 May 2026 05:26:19 +0000 SherriMM]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5773.html Register or Login to view. 

To summarize, "I believe the starred paragraph section of the Voynich are a collection of sayings, or moral maxims (or ethical aphorisms, or gnomes), of Pythagorean beliefs, of the specific collections proposed below:

In this section of the Voynich we have 324 stars, each aligned more or less with a sentence or a few. There are also at least two missing folios (109r / 109v and 110r / 110v). Each folio averages around 14 stars, with some like 103r higher at 19, and three folios at the lowest end of 10 stars (105r, 105v, and 116r), and the rest vary in amount. So if we assume our 4 missing folios at 14 stars each, it would give us 56 added stars, or 380 total goal (324 we have plus 56 estimated missing = 380).  With me so far?

Here’s what I suggest:

• The Pythagorean Sentences = 123
  
• The Sentences of Clitarchus = 130*
  The Golden Sentences of Democrates = 80 (some have 84?)
  
• The Similitudes of Demophilus = 59**
  

Adding these up we get 392.  Pretty close to our 380 estimate.

It would mean our missing four folios would have to total 68, or average of 17 stars per page. Well within existing Folios (remember 103r has 19).  I wonder if Folio 58r / 58v belongs in this section as well, which would bring our missing stars total down."   

Please see my blog post for more information. 

To clarify, I do not mean it is a word-for-word copy - I am still on the team of the text as a cipher. 

I will post my other theory in a new thread, but this theory is very related to the overall theme of a Pythagorean influence. I would love some discussion on this, and welcome all corrections and feedback.   


All the best,
Sherri Mastrangelo]]> Register or Login to view. 

To summarize, "I believe the starred paragraph section of the Voynich are a collection of sayings, or moral maxims (or ethical aphorisms, or gnomes), of Pythagorean beliefs, of the specific collections proposed below:

In this section of the Voynich we have 324 stars, each aligned more or less with a sentence or a few. There are also at least two missing folios (109r / 109v and 110r / 110v). Each folio averages around 14 stars, with some like 103r higher at 19, and three folios at the lowest end of 10 stars (105r, 105v, and 116r), and the rest vary in amount. So if we assume our 4 missing folios at 14 stars each, it would give us 56 added stars, or 380 total goal (324 we have plus 56 estimated missing = 380).  With me so far?

Here’s what I suggest:

• The Pythagorean Sentences = 123
  
• The Sentences of Clitarchus = 130*
  The Golden Sentences of Democrates = 80 (some have 84?)
  
• The Similitudes of Demophilus = 59**
  

Adding these up we get 392.  Pretty close to our 380 estimate.

It would mean our missing four folios would have to total 68, or average of 17 stars per page. Well within existing Folios (remember 103r has 19).  I wonder if Folio 58r / 58v belongs in this section as well, which would bring our missing stars total down."   

Please see my blog post for more information. 

To clarify, I do not mean it is a word-for-word copy - I am still on the team of the text as a cipher. 

I will post my other theory in a new thread, but this theory is very related to the overall theme of a Pythagorean influence. I would love some discussion on this, and welcome all corrections and feedback.   


All the best,
Sherri Mastrangelo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5759.html Mon, 18 May 2026 22:00:22 +0000 barienka]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5759.html
What strikes me most is the contrast between the highly disciplined writing system and the relatively naive illustrations. The text appears systematic and internally consistent, while many drawings look almost childlike or non-professional.

This made me wonder whether the manuscript could have been a deeply personal knowledge system rather than a book intended for the public.

One idea that especially interests me is the possibility that the manuscript may have been connected to teaching or transmitting knowledge within a very small private circle, perhaps even between a parent and child, or a mentor and a younger student.

The botanical drawings often look less like professional scientific illustrations and more like functional memory-images. Some plants appear to combine several stages of growth or important identifying features rather than trying to represent a realistic botanical specimen.

Another reason why I am drawn to this interpretation is the strange linguistic behavior of the text itself.

Perhaps the manuscript is not a true spoken language at all, but a hybrid system somewhere between language, classification, memory aids and personal notation.

This could explain why modern linguistic and AI analyses detect patterns that resemble real language, while at the same time many sections appear repetitive, mechanical or algorithmic.

If the author was organizing knowledge through a highly personal symbolic structure, then parts of the manuscript could naturally behave like technical notation or internally coded reminders rather than normal human communication.

I also wonder whether the author could have been someone highly intelligent but outside formal academic structures, possibly even a woman with limited access to official education in the 15th century. Such a person might have created a private symbolic system to organize botanical, medical and astrological knowledge gathered from fragments of learning available around them.

The astrological sections seem especially important because they connect the manuscript to real medieval systems of knowledge that remained relatively stable over time.

To me, the manuscript feels less like a hidden universal language and more like the internal operating system of a very unusual human mind.

I would be curious whether other researchers have explored similar psychological, educational or family-based interpretations.]]>
What strikes me most is the contrast between the highly disciplined writing system and the relatively naive illustrations. The text appears systematic and internally consistent, while many drawings look almost childlike or non-professional.

This made me wonder whether the manuscript could have been a deeply personal knowledge system rather than a book intended for the public.

One idea that especially interests me is the possibility that the manuscript may have been connected to teaching or transmitting knowledge within a very small private circle, perhaps even between a parent and child, or a mentor and a younger student.

The botanical drawings often look less like professional scientific illustrations and more like functional memory-images. Some plants appear to combine several stages of growth or important identifying features rather than trying to represent a realistic botanical specimen.

Another reason why I am drawn to this interpretation is the strange linguistic behavior of the text itself.

Perhaps the manuscript is not a true spoken language at all, but a hybrid system somewhere between language, classification, memory aids and personal notation.

This could explain why modern linguistic and AI analyses detect patterns that resemble real language, while at the same time many sections appear repetitive, mechanical or algorithmic.

If the author was organizing knowledge through a highly personal symbolic structure, then parts of the manuscript could naturally behave like technical notation or internally coded reminders rather than normal human communication.

I also wonder whether the author could have been someone highly intelligent but outside formal academic structures, possibly even a woman with limited access to official education in the 15th century. Such a person might have created a private symbolic system to organize botanical, medical and astrological knowledge gathered from fragments of learning available around them.

The astrological sections seem especially important because they connect the manuscript to real medieval systems of knowledge that remained relatively stable over time.

To me, the manuscript feels less like a hidden universal language and more like the internal operating system of a very unusual human mind.

I would be curious whether other researchers have explored similar psychological, educational or family-based interpretations.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5749.html Sat, 16 May 2026 10:30:29 +0000 pmw57]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5749.html For example, t for toglie (take), o for olio (oil), r for riposo (rest).

From my exploration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the four sections match up really well with four main aspects of spagyric medicine, those being separation, purification, recombination, and fixation into a final substance.

I am getting really promising results, and I'm now working on grounding them in historical accuracy.

Has anyone delved much into that area before?]]> For example, t for toglie (take), o for olio (oil), r for riposo (rest).

From my exploration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the four sections match up really well with four main aspects of spagyric medicine, those being separation, purification, recombination, and fixation into a final substance.

I am getting really promising results, and I'm now working on grounding them in historical accuracy.

Has anyone delved much into that area before?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5741.html Thu, 14 May 2026 19:02:29 +0000 Mirlan Amandil]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5741.html

• The manuscript and its alphabet were invented by a scribe for "fun," where "fun" includes "mental escape from a dull, grim, misadventured life."
  
• The distinct styles (e.g. Currier A and B) are different moods and writing speeds of a single scribe.
  
• The text is basically a work of automatic writing, without meaning in any language. When we observe patterns, we are learning the scribe's preferences for how the symbols should be arranged. 
  
• The artistic quirks and absence of Christian imagery reflect a scribe whose outlook was idiosyncratic, skeptical, and aloof from society.
  

If you enjoy the VMS as an escape from modern reality into a mysterious sub-world in medieval Christendom, you'll enjoy my tale too!

  AHaplessScribe.pdf (Size: 87.66 KB / Downloads: 10) ]]>

• The manuscript and its alphabet were invented by a scribe for "fun," where "fun" includes "mental escape from a dull, grim, misadventured life."
  
• The distinct styles (e.g. Currier A and B) are different moods and writing speeds of a single scribe.
  
• The text is basically a work of automatic writing, without meaning in any language. When we observe patterns, we are learning the scribe's preferences for how the symbols should be arranged. 
  
• The artistic quirks and absence of Christian imagery reflect a scribe whose outlook was idiosyncratic, skeptical, and aloof from society.
  

If you enjoy the VMS as an escape from modern reality into a mysterious sub-world in medieval Christendom, you'll enjoy my tale too!

  AHaplessScribe.pdf (Size: 87.66 KB / Downloads: 10) ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5739.html Thu, 14 May 2026 17:44:19 +0000 thevisad]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5739.html
By no means is this a decipherment, from the moment I picked up the book I knew it was not translatable. This is a computational demonstration that the Voynich Manuscript is a deterministic, reproducible structural system. That every token of it's 37,671 word corpus can be derived from first principles with zero residual entropy. That the machine is based in the Ottoman Anatolian Turkish Eastern Arabic abjad system and used as mathematical formula based on mod35, which has historical aspects in the Eastern systems. That the machine is a two-sided wheel that provides the triple-layer word structure that maps directly to the only period in Turkish linguistic history where the language simultaneously used all three morphological systems.

What I propose is that the Voynich manuscript is the operational log of a 14 selector volvelle. The Voynich Manuscript is the output of a medieval Islamic pharmaceutical look up device used by the letterists in the Ottoman Empire in the 1420's. Voynich is not a natural language, it is not a cipher over a hidden plaintext, and it is not a meaningless hoax. The manuscript itself tells us the story in several of the folios. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. IS the machine described below, the 9-page fold out IS THE internal mechanism of the volvelle. The four gated dial on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. IS THE gallows. The pages outline the machine itself, and it's not until we the "Frankensteinian Morphology" of the three linguistic families, Persian Prefixes, Arabic Interiors and Turkish Agglutinative Suffixes that the system clicks. 

The device consists of 14 mechanical selectors, arranged into two functional layers, the machine, and apparatus layers. The machine layer is a 14-selector deterministic finite state machine with four outer wheels, eight interior position dials, a walk state selector derived from sequential context, and a binary tashdid doubling operator. This machine layer generates all tokens, with zero residual entropy at 100% token determination. The interior dials operate via a linear congruential generator over residues modulo 35, where the gallows detent selects the multiplier. Four specific abjad numerical positions (q=Qaf=19, r=Ra=20, s=Sin=15, y=Ya=10) match the Eastern Arabic abjad system exactly, confirming the arithmetic base.

The apparatus layer is a 13-slot cyclic ring machine operating concurrently with the machine layer. The apparatus labels correspond to ring positions clockwise from an output gate: collection, preamble, reset gate, cosmological transformation mediator, transformation operator, herbal routing, cosmological routing, cycle-completion gate, and five vapor/formula tracking labels.

The machine's structure maps to the medieval Arabic za'irajah, a mechanical divination device documented by Ibn Khaldūn in 1377. The za'irajah has 8 concentric circles, 12 zodiac spokes producing 13 operational states (12 zodiac chords + 1 pole/vers-clef), a 55 × 131 lookup table (7,205 cells), and a fixed operating poem by Mālik b. Wuhayb that indicates the description and operation of the controls  for a full cycle completion. These are matching, respectively, the volvelle's 8 prefix channels, 12 active apparatus slots + 1 K-GATE pole, ~4,243-entry dictionary (interior lookup space ~7,861 cells), and the k-label cycle-completion gate.

I propose that the Voynich manuscript, is the mechanical output, of a paper machine, created by two medieval Islamic scribes. These scribes worked on the manuscript sometime in 1400-1420, and wrote the book based on the output of the machines deterministic view. The manuscript we have is the written record of this process. There are no visible mistakes, there are no visible cross outs, and no observed locations that the scribes ever made a mistake. Across the entire 37,671 tokens, the manuscript presents a clean execution record, not a drafted prose text.

I have additional theories that are associated with the OAT morphological aspects, and how they correlate to medical purposes. I am pursuing a line of research that the pages are an actual recipe. Not in the normal sense that you and I are familiar with, grab two teaspoons of salt to do this with it. Rather, they are a machine record of a process to take a set of ingredients and use the machine to determine the process. The users of the za'irajah created a question; this question was broken down and used as the input of the wheel. Then following the guidelines of the poem, allowed for one full cycle of the device to obtain its output. The output of the device was the medical recipe that divination provided from the device and was used to “cure” the patient. 

The attached images show some of the output from the scripts I have created, and the zip file contains a demo of the wheel's processes as it moves through the folios. I welcome any and all questions, feedback, and criticism. I have a ton of research, files, data, scripts, grammar output, and more. I would welcome working with someone to verify the data, the machine, and the findings I have. I am still assembling the public repository, but have a private repository I can share readily and over 2tb of data offline that can be shared that is directly related to overall project. 

Sean Rice aka TheVisad

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  viewer.zip (Size: 1.01 MB / Downloads: 7)

  voyn_topology_fingerprints.png (Size: 288.41 KB / Downloads: 225)

  execution_graphs_all_sections.png (Size: 771.66 KB / Downloads: 226)

  voyn_sweep_control_fixed.png (Size: 80.12 KB / Downloads: 224)

  voyn_sweep_heatmap.png (Size: 136.32 KB / Downloads: 225)

  f57v_role_overlay.png (Size: 129.4 KB / Downloads: 223) ]]>
By no means is this a decipherment, from the moment I picked up the book I knew it was not translatable. This is a computational demonstration that the Voynich Manuscript is a deterministic, reproducible structural system. That every token of it's 37,671 word corpus can be derived from first principles with zero residual entropy. That the machine is based in the Ottoman Anatolian Turkish Eastern Arabic abjad system and used as mathematical formula based on mod35, which has historical aspects in the Eastern systems. That the machine is a two-sided wheel that provides the triple-layer word structure that maps directly to the only period in Turkish linguistic history where the language simultaneously used all three morphological systems.

What I propose is that the Voynich manuscript is the operational log of a 14 selector volvelle. The Voynich Manuscript is the output of a medieval Islamic pharmaceutical look up device used by the letterists in the Ottoman Empire in the 1420's. Voynich is not a natural language, it is not a cipher over a hidden plaintext, and it is not a meaningless hoax. The manuscript itself tells us the story in several of the folios. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. IS the machine described below, the 9-page fold out IS THE internal mechanism of the volvelle. The four gated dial on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. IS THE gallows. The pages outline the machine itself, and it's not until we the "Frankensteinian Morphology" of the three linguistic families, Persian Prefixes, Arabic Interiors and Turkish Agglutinative Suffixes that the system clicks. 

The device consists of 14 mechanical selectors, arranged into two functional layers, the machine, and apparatus layers. The machine layer is a 14-selector deterministic finite state machine with four outer wheels, eight interior position dials, a walk state selector derived from sequential context, and a binary tashdid doubling operator. This machine layer generates all tokens, with zero residual entropy at 100% token determination. The interior dials operate via a linear congruential generator over residues modulo 35, where the gallows detent selects the multiplier. Four specific abjad numerical positions (q=Qaf=19, r=Ra=20, s=Sin=15, y=Ya=10) match the Eastern Arabic abjad system exactly, confirming the arithmetic base.

The apparatus layer is a 13-slot cyclic ring machine operating concurrently with the machine layer. The apparatus labels correspond to ring positions clockwise from an output gate: collection, preamble, reset gate, cosmological transformation mediator, transformation operator, herbal routing, cosmological routing, cycle-completion gate, and five vapor/formula tracking labels.

The machine's structure maps to the medieval Arabic za'irajah, a mechanical divination device documented by Ibn Khaldūn in 1377. The za'irajah has 8 concentric circles, 12 zodiac spokes producing 13 operational states (12 zodiac chords + 1 pole/vers-clef), a 55 × 131 lookup table (7,205 cells), and a fixed operating poem by Mālik b. Wuhayb that indicates the description and operation of the controls  for a full cycle completion. These are matching, respectively, the volvelle's 8 prefix channels, 12 active apparatus slots + 1 K-GATE pole, ~4,243-entry dictionary (interior lookup space ~7,861 cells), and the k-label cycle-completion gate.

I propose that the Voynich manuscript, is the mechanical output, of a paper machine, created by two medieval Islamic scribes. These scribes worked on the manuscript sometime in 1400-1420, and wrote the book based on the output of the machines deterministic view. The manuscript we have is the written record of this process. There are no visible mistakes, there are no visible cross outs, and no observed locations that the scribes ever made a mistake. Across the entire 37,671 tokens, the manuscript presents a clean execution record, not a drafted prose text.

I have additional theories that are associated with the OAT morphological aspects, and how they correlate to medical purposes. I am pursuing a line of research that the pages are an actual recipe. Not in the normal sense that you and I are familiar with, grab two teaspoons of salt to do this with it. Rather, they are a machine record of a process to take a set of ingredients and use the machine to determine the process. The users of the za'irajah created a question; this question was broken down and used as the input of the wheel. Then following the guidelines of the poem, allowed for one full cycle of the device to obtain its output. The output of the device was the medical recipe that divination provided from the device and was used to “cure” the patient. 

The attached images show some of the output from the scripts I have created, and the zip file contains a demo of the wheel's processes as it moves through the folios. I welcome any and all questions, feedback, and criticism. I have a ton of research, files, data, scripts, grammar output, and more. I would welcome working with someone to verify the data, the machine, and the findings I have. I am still assembling the public repository, but have a private repository I can share readily and over 2tb of data offline that can be shared that is directly related to overall project. 

Sean Rice aka TheVisad

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  viewer.zip (Size: 1.01 MB / Downloads: 7)

  voyn_topology_fingerprints.png (Size: 288.41 KB / Downloads: 225)

  execution_graphs_all_sections.png (Size: 771.66 KB / Downloads: 226)

  voyn_sweep_control_fixed.png (Size: 80.12 KB / Downloads: 224)

  voyn_sweep_heatmap.png (Size: 136.32 KB / Downloads: 225)

  f57v_role_overlay.png (Size: 129.4 KB / Downloads: 223) ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5736.html Thu, 14 May 2026 11:27:59 +0000 pmw57]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5736.html
The anagramed plant names that Edith Sherwood has found in the manuscript could well point us towards onomastics and anagrammatismi

Historically names were rearranged in an attempt to reveal its true nature or inner power.
Edith’s work has found many examples of plant name anagrams on the same page that shows that plant.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I think that those were used to reveal the essential nature of the plant. Alchemists (along with Christian Kabbalists, poet diplomats and others) in the 15th century are known to have used this kind of technique. Alchemists used it as a form of protection, to ensure that only a trained initiate would understand the plant’s true medical purpose.

For example:
f4r: cam us: camus (tool for chamoising), Sumac (sumacchio) was used to make leather soft
f7r: onar: (honor the body, allowing it to heal), Arno (arnoglossa, ribwort) was used to join wounded flesh together
f7v: colco: (colcare meaning lay down), Coclo (coccole, bay laural), oil and pigment source must be allowed to settle and lay down to separate the dye

I’m not claiming that much of manuscript was anagramed. We do however have what looks to be clear evidence that plant names were anagramed.

What I am claiming is that onomastics was used in the time period to help reveal the true nature of things, and seems to have been used in a small part in relation to plants in the book.
Is it a stretch? Maybe. It does however though seem to be a waste to ignore this line of questioning.

Also related: Spagyrics wrote in Decknamen (cover names), using magical names for common ingrediants such as calling mercury white eagle.
Eagle - "A Deckname used in the Philalethes treatises for a distillation; that is, sophic mercury of seven eagles has been distilled seven times." from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Obligatory Disclaimer: The above is all my own work, no AI was usef to write it. All spelling mistakes are purely my own.]]>
The anagramed plant names that Edith Sherwood has found in the manuscript could well point us towards onomastics and anagrammatismi

Historically names were rearranged in an attempt to reveal its true nature or inner power.
Edith’s work has found many examples of plant name anagrams on the same page that shows that plant.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I think that those were used to reveal the essential nature of the plant. Alchemists (along with Christian Kabbalists, poet diplomats and others) in the 15th century are known to have used this kind of technique. Alchemists used it as a form of protection, to ensure that only a trained initiate would understand the plant’s true medical purpose.

For example:
f4r: cam us: camus (tool for chamoising), Sumac (sumacchio) was used to make leather soft
f7r: onar: (honor the body, allowing it to heal), Arno (arnoglossa, ribwort) was used to join wounded flesh together
f7v: colco: (colcare meaning lay down), Coclo (coccole, bay laural), oil and pigment source must be allowed to settle and lay down to separate the dye

I’m not claiming that much of manuscript was anagramed. We do however have what looks to be clear evidence that plant names were anagramed.

What I am claiming is that onomastics was used in the time period to help reveal the true nature of things, and seems to have been used in a small part in relation to plants in the book.
Is it a stretch? Maybe. It does however though seem to be a waste to ignore this line of questioning.

Also related: Spagyrics wrote in Decknamen (cover names), using magical names for common ingrediants such as calling mercury white eagle.
Eagle - "A Deckname used in the Philalethes treatises for a distillation; that is, sophic mercury of seven eagles has been distilled seven times." from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Obligatory Disclaimer: The above is all my own work, no AI was usef to write it. All spelling mistakes are purely my own.]]>