- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
No text, but a visual code
- No text, but a visual code
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Linda > 26-08-2026, 05:07 PM
[quote="Antonio García Jiménez" pid='90257' dateline='1787693142']
When I spoke about the prejudices against accepting my theory on the Rosettes, I was thinking precisely of you: ololololo and Linda. Both of you have published theories on the forum suggesting that it is a map of some part of the Earth. In other words, you are not objective.
I may have my own theory but that doesn't preclude my ability to read other ideas and consider them, or to see the gaps in my own theory. I have mostly said I can see und understand what you are saying, so I don't know why you think I have prejudice against your theory, I, along with ololololo simply lament that most of the connections come from your own construction, rather than anything the rest of us can compare with. For instance, your comparing of a somewjhat similar design in the corners of an astronomical manuscript with the iconography of the Rosettes and saying, see, astronomical people did use this motif, that to me does not follow. A lot does not follow, it originates, with you. That is fine, it is an interesting construction, but please don't say things like medieval people would have seen it the way you do without showing us that they did.
You brought up St Albert the great and it seemed ironic, because he believed that faith and observation support each other. Here we only have faith to go by, if we are to accept your theory fully.
Linda, don't twist my words. Of course it is a medical book, and of course it deals with the influence of the stars on medicinal plants. Therefore, it is a book of medicine and astrology, as was common at the time. What Baresch says in his letter is chymicorum arca, which is not merely chemistry, as you claim, but also alchemy, since the two were intertwined at the time.
I am corrected, thank you, i was going by what someone else had said, thought about looking it up but did not. But what did I twist? Your thread is called no text, but a visual code, which you say is made up of astronomical symbols that must have astrological importance and everything is one subject, how the astronomical influences affect the plants. I did not recall any mention that it was a medical book until the statement I was replying to, I am not certain you made that clear before. In fact, it almost seems as if you read that statement too, looked it up, and decided it fits well into your world to combine medicine with the astronomical and astrological aspects, so now, it is a medical book, with that statement as its support, but I can accept that.
I see, Linda, that you like ololololo's treasure map, and you also say that the Rosettes could have been made for a child, with all those castles and cannons. You missed the volcanoes, though; some people see them on the map. Incidentally, there are cannons with barrels of all sizes. Perhaps this would merit an in-depth study.
Again, 'like', not really, more like understand, grok, see. I understand what is being referred to by cannons, I realize these are your star tubes which transport the influence to the plants. I don't actually have an explanation for these items, sometimes i think Stolfi is right that they were drawn later as decorative filler. May I ask why they are different sizes in your understanding? Different sized stars? I do see volcanoes in the rosettes, I think they are mnemonics. When I say the rosettes could have been made for a child, I mean in whatever capacity it was meant, it could be a magical fairy land for all I know and the tubes are for the children to play with.
I'm sorry if this post came across as a bit sarcastic.
I apologize if any of my posts portray any animosity in them, I hold none toward you, as I said, I can see your world, it is an interesting world, but I am simply unconvinced as yet that it is the world of those who set it down on parchment, and sometimes this leads to frustration, when things don't seem to align completely logically. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Oscroft > 26-08-2026, 07:10 PM
deleted -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 27-08-2026, 11:06 AM
ololololo, why are you such a cheater? How would you know what ReneZ is thinking or not thinking? If he prefers not to say anything, he must have his reasons. I only said that he classifies the Rosettes as a cosmological page.
I have shown you two cosmological pages that share elements with the Rosettes, which is a clear indication that they are related. You ask me to lay out the arguments for what I’m thinking at any given moment, and when I show you proof, you dismiss it with some excuse. In reality, you don't want to learn.
Linda, I accept your apologies, but please read what I write. Over time, I have given many reasons why the Rosettes are a cosmological representation. In my last post, I provided further evidence, but you prefer to keep thinking that it is a magical fairy land. You don't want to learn either.
If there is one thing that particularly bothers me, it is you saying that I have never claimed the Voynich is a medical book—until now. Please read the attached document from May 2018, when I first started contributing to the forum. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
ololololo > 27-08-2026, 11:34 AM
(27-08-2026, 11:06 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I only said that he classifies the Rosettes as a cosmological page.
You emphasize the inclusion of Rosettes in the cosmological section as if it were significantly important. The designation of this section as cosmological originated primarily with Newbold.
(27-08-2026, 11:06 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How would you know what ReneZ is thinking or not thinking?
I’m not allowed to speak on his behalf. But, as I understand it, you wanted to use his words to make it seem like your theory has merit. Otherwise, I don’t see the connection between the truth of your theory and the claim that ReneZ associates Rosettes with cosmology.
This is roughly equivalent to the following statement: Jorge Stolfi believes that all symbols in VMS are subject toYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which means he fully agrees with my theory about Roman numerals.
Do you believe me? Oh, set aside your bias
(27-08-2026, 11:06 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If he prefers not to say anything, he must have his reasons
So, you believe that deep down he agrees with your theory?
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
ololololo > 27-08-2026, 11:39 AM
Again, Antonio, the only thing you’re doing is self‑abasement. Instead of proving your theory or discussing other ideas (for example, I’ve already suggested that you read my proposals in the thread about the connection between astrology and the Rosettes), you give derogatory nicknames to other versions, declare everyone to be biased, and say what someone likes, what someone finds interesting, and what sins are characteristic of whom.
Your theory has potential for the most part. At the beginning of this thread, you described Voynichese as a magical language, and that’s a rather interesting proposal. We have a possible candidate for the title of magical nonsense — Book of Soyga. The notorious tables from it were constructed according to a certain algorithm, but we cannot understand whether they have any meaning at all (I’m not talking about their purpose, but about whether there was any meaning in the text at all and what they themselves meant). -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 27-08-2026, 12:01 PM
You're such a cheater!
I’m going to tell you this very clearly, so see if you can get it through your head: I don’t care what ReneZ—or anyone else—thinks about the Rosettes, because I know I’m right. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
ololololo > 27-08-2026, 12:14 PM
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Koen G > 27-08-2026, 12:23 PM
A general observation on internet discussions: when a conversation is going nowhere because all parties will obviously keep disagreeing, it is almost always better (and certainly more elegant) to step out or move on to a different topic. Given the last reply "I know I’m more right than you are", it seems clear that we're well past that point... -
RE: No text, but a visual code
ololololo > 27-08-2026, 12:46 PM
I'm sorry, Koen. I won’t justify or blame anyone. I’m always ready to discuss ideas, and if Antonio wants to, I’m always open
My last message was directed at a similar message: “I know I’m right.” I don’t know how else to respond. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 27-08-2026, 01:23 PM
ololololo, since we are both right, it is pointless to keep arguing. Good luck.