Who is the author of VM?

[Mark Knowles]

Has someone hacked Rene Zandbergen's account as the messages that he "appears" to be posting here do not seem like the kind of messages that Rene would typically post? If that is not the case then it makes one wonder if old age has caught up with him.

[Koen G]

Where does this idea come from that there are names on the first page? It's the first time I hear about that.

[tavie]

I definitely do remember reading somewhere a suggestion ages ago (at least 3 years ago) that the right-aligned words on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could be the authors' names/signatures.  But wherever it was, I recall someone also said that this would probably have been an anachronism.

I thought the Ulrich thing was just a joke when I read Rene's first post here.

[ReneZ]

Where does this idea come from that there are names on the first page? It's the first time I hear about that.

This is from way back, in the earlier years of the mailing list.
It is easy to find arguments against it, for example that there are other cases of such 'titles' on other pages. But then again that is also not definite proof against it...

What is a bigger problem is that I have not been able to find any other words that would be the result of this alternative transliteration. In particular not the other three cases on f1r.

[BessAgritianin]

Where does this idea come from that there are names on the first page? It's the first time I hear about that.

Let me ask with other words- You did have discussions with many who believed to have found the key of translation of VM.
What do they translate for fr1? The point is that the people who "translate" something, inclusive me are often deceived in their own investigations. They are far from deceivers, because they really believe in what they research. But who provided a truthful contents of fr1? 
What does fr1 say? Yes there is some name or at least description of the author. He is not an Italian, sorry. He is not a German, sorry. He is not a Turkish, sorry . He is not a Moravian, sorry for this group of believers too. But he is an ancient carrier of knowledge. I am sure in my translation of this part, but I cannot interpret everything correctly, because the time interval is enormous to be able to understand completely the author, who has definitely more knowledge than any of us todays, and because I thing the writers have encoded the text not to be understandable by common people. 
The modern docs have the computer to read about their findings of the disease and have the computer to describe the medicine. Then they have the all powerful pharmacy, which provides that medicine. This ancient healer knows about the diseases, knows about the plants and minerals, knows about the moments when to apply and how and makes himself the curing process. How can we find a todays specialist who has knowledge in all these ancient directions?

[Mark Knowles]

The name of one of the scribes is Ulrich.
But I can't read the text.

Well, it is only a wild guess, of course, but there is some logic behind it.

Clearly, this is just a hypothesis, and I am not betting any money on it, but it is not completely out of thin air.

I guessed, charitably, that someone else made these comments or that they might be a joke as they seemed so flimsy.

Anyway, the weakness of these arguments and the confident initial statement of his idea, makes me think that my arguments for my authorship identification are strong by comparison.

Rene generally avoids stating theories, which means he is rarely criticised on the basis of those theories, which is convenient; if you rarely stick your head above the parapet then you are unlikely to get shot down. On the rare occasions that he does present a theory they always seem quite weak and not thoroughly thought out as in this case.

[igajkgko]

The point is that the people who "translate" something, inclusive me are often deceived in their own investigations. They are far from deceivers, because they really believe in what they research.

[..]

I am sure in my translation of this part, [..]

You do seem to understand the issue. That you are sure is not a convincing argument for anyone else.

But who provided a truthful contents of fr1?

No one so far, most likely.

[tavie]

Rene generally avoids stating theories, which means he is rarely criticised on the basis of those theories, which is convenient; if you rarely stick your head above the parapet then you are unlikely to get shot down. 

I have a lot of respect for those few who have been studying Voynichese for many years and have somehow managed not to fall into the giant trap at the start of the Voynich labyrinth, and also somehow the sneakier traps lying after it. I would like - but without much hope - to be like them in the future!  Many public theories so far seem to share the same trait of their supporting evidence being inversely proportionate to their owner's degree of certainty.  Not joining them doesn't seem to me to signify cowardice.

[Koen G]

Many public theories so far seem to share the same trait of their supporting evidence being inversely proportionate to their owner's degree of certainty.  Not joining them doesn't seem to me to signify cowardice.

Exactly. As soon as someone becomes too convinced of their own theory, it feels to me like they are trying desperately to sell me some bogus product. Why dig a trench somewhere based on insufficient evidence?

[Aga Tentakulus]

@Mark
I also thought that Rene was making a joke with ‘Ulrich’. Hence ‘Ulrich von Lichtenstein from Gelderland’.
From the film ‘A Knight's Tale’, German title ‘Ein Ritter aus Leidenschaft’.

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

If you read it, the knight really did exist.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So I thought to myself, but now Rene is doing it properly.