[Interview] Ksenia Chepikova about the Voynich Manuscript

[Anton]

A friend of mine dropped me the link. The interview is in Russian, and as far as I can see there are no English subtitles unfortunately.

Unfortunately, these days I haven't had enough time yet to view it in full, the first ~20 minutes that I got into are mostly descriptive, what's the VMS, its history and all that. The description of the video, however, announces the subject of whether the VMS is, or is not, a "modern forgery" as the main subject of the talk.

What I did not like from the onset was the suggestion that the VMS may be a palimpsest. I recall that the statement that the VMS is not a palimpsest was the one most unanimously (pardon me this) approved in our sadly abandoned Voynich facts endeavour.

A quick search showed me that Dr. Chepikova is from the University of Jena. I don't remember her name mentioned in any of the Voynich discussions however.

The Russian speakers who happen to watch the video in full please be welcome to add to this; so will I when I have time to watch it further.

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

[Anton]

Just noted that there is the option of automatic translation on Youtube, have no time to check the quality, can only hope that it's decent!

[Wladimir D]

I didn't learn anything new. A good salad of versions and other people's historical research taken from Wikipedia.
She is clearly not a member of the ninja community and has not personally studied the text.
For example, her statement that there are no single-character words in the manuscript. She doesn't know that the months are written in different ink.
Her opinion is not a forgery by Voynich, the Manuscript was written in the early 16th century, on older parchment.

[Ruby Novacna]

This video is not intended for Voynich enthusiasts. It is a general presentation of the manuscript at the suggestion of one of the channel's viewers. The presenter is a "science journalist" who has published two books on the history of astronomy, if I understand correctly. She did not claim to be an expert on either encryption or Voynich, she quoted two articles: Guy and Torsten and his co-author. For the rest of the research on the manuscript she uses the term "they".

[Anton]

Her opinion is not a forgery by Voynich, the Manuscript was written in the early 16th century, on older parchment.

Were there any interesting arguments toward this point of view?