• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations
• Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  Mauro > 7 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 06:20 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My identification of Countess Margaret of Tyrol (1318-1365) as the author of the Voynich manuscript... 

  
  But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > 7 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.

  
  I am surprised, Mauro. It seems you have not read my posts. Please try if you can and you will have your answer. There is no point in repeating things again here.

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  Mauro > 7 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (7 hours ago)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But, the vellum has been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to 1404-1438 with 95% probability. Margaret of Tyrol (1318 – 3 October 1369, says wikipedia) was long dead.

  
  I am surprised, Mauro. It seems you have not read my posts. Please try if you can and you will have your answer. There is no point in repeating things again here.

  
  Ah I'm sorry, I confess I just skimmed through them (they are pretty long, and I'm pretty busy). I'm surely not going through all of them before I find the answer (sorry again). Can you please just post it below?

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > 6 hours ago

  (7 hours ago)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ah I'm sorry, I confess I just skimmed through them (they are pretty long, and I'm pretty busy). I'm surely not going through all of them before I find the answer (sorry again). Can you please just post it below?

  
  No problem, Mauro. I understand. I think I started that discussion on this page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and some exchanges with Jorge_Stolfi also followed, where I elaborated more. 
  
  The point I was sharing was that if we agree that the 1400s vellum was done based on a draft, we cannot assume the draft itself was partial or temporarily done, nor contemporary with it, and it may have as well been a completed handbook left from sometime in 1300s (not older, given the details found in the vellum), one that the author for reasons of her own wished to be subjected to more durable vellum posthumously (when, for instance, most of her foes had passed).
  
  She could have planned, given her instructions, and prepaid for such a project legally in advance, given how important it was for her to leave the manuscript for her legacy. I will try to elaborate more on this topic as I discuss her life more in future posts, now that I have reported my discovery of Countess Margaret as the author of the Voynich manuscript.
  
  My overall point was that the carbon-dating find has narrowed the "solution space" for the manuscript unnecessarily, and the unit of analysis of the manuscript must not be an incomplete 1400s vellum, but one that includes any drafts preceding it, and the complete vellum as a whole must always be kept in mind, subjecting the reasons for the missing parts themselves to questioning.

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  oshfdk > 6 hours ago

  To me the situation here is similar to what happened previously with the "botrus" claim. It is of course possible that the word in the manuscript does read "botrus", it's just the argumentation for it doesn't look strong enough to me. Same with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works, but I really see no definitive arguments for it so far. There is some similarity between certain Voynich MS images and certain images associated with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, this is an interesting observation worth investigating, however to me this doesn't look like conclusive proof of her authorship or involvement with the manuscript.

• RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

  MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) > 5 hours ago

  (6 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me the situation here is similar to what happened previously with the "botrus" claim. It is of course possible that the word in the manuscript does read "botrus", it's just the argumentation for it doesn't look strong enough to me. Same with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works, but I really see no definitive arguments for it so far. There is some similarity between certain Voynich MS images and certain images associated with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, this is an interesting observation worth investigating, however to me this doesn't look like conclusive proof of her authorship or involvement with the manuscript.

  
  Thanks very much for your consideration of my ideas. I understand it is not yet convincing for you. It is increasingly becoming convincing for me, the more I find new things. It is actually incredible how much new findings confirm my earlier hypothesis for myself, things that I did not even see before come up that makes the manuscript more meaningful for me.
  
  Ultimately, each of us will decide what is sufficient proof or not, and based on that will decide how to go about solving the puzzle. I sincerely wish you the best in finding alternative and more convincing answers, but I appreciate the fact that you note "I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works" and also that you noticed facial image similarities, although the facial image similarity has not been treated as evidence in my study, but yes, the similarity is interesting. The study is still continuing and hopefully at some point you will find in more convincing findings.
• Next Oldest Next Newest