- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
- Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
-
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
DG97EEB > 15-05-2026, 08:28 AM
(15-05-2026, 08:25 AM)Radim Dobeš Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But it always did. I'm not dismissing your particular hypothesis. I'm saying that there are some established methods. You're talking to Diane O'Donovan a lot who is an art historian. She can tell you how to proceed.(15-05-2026, 08:17 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem is here are 10s of thousands of images that "match". I'm not expert, but from everything I've read on art history, that's just not how it works...The burden of proof is significant and doesn't rest on superficial exemplars.
And what if these pictures also coincide with a certain text, go one after the other as in the text and even on many pages in a row. As I already wrote, it will take several years before they stop solving recipes and herbs and baths. Plants are just another layer of code to make it look like a plant at first glance. But thank you for the answers, it is valuable knowledge for me how scientific research and professional science work. I understand that accepting a hypothesis nowadays requires a lot of persuasion and evidence.
As for the text, given no one can read it, it's a moot point. If you happened to find images that were broadly similar and text that had the same kind of shape, you'd have something suggestive of, but still not proof... There's no quick path here as proven by the last 100 years of failure... -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
PatrickZ > 15-05-2026, 07:35 PM
(15-05-2026, 08:05 AM)Radim Dobeš Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'll just try a little experiment and put some pictures in here. If this is not evidence for any theory other than balneological, then we'll never move forward and we can call it whatever we want. I don't need to be right, I'd like the decipherment to move forward.
With all due respect, When i look at the pictures you presented while appreciating the efforts, i see Adam, Eve, underlying transformation and acquisition of knowledge, and there transition from God image to knowledgable human being, not just two naked Adam and Eve.
So I strongly disagree, balneological is what you see, but the evidences of the meaning could be transformative, symbolic bodies: Nature unveiled, hidden generative knowledge, the writer(s) hide a secret...
MOVING FORWARD:
And when the secret is unveiled its Alchemy (transformation at multiple levels) (maybe? from plants to medicinal but i doubt that as well...because Alchemy is multiple levels) and this is exactly what i see, NOT balneotherapies from 14-15 century, because what would be the purpose for encrypting balneotherapies technics from the 14-15 century anyway...
The secret must be really important...not just Girls taking a bath.
But maybe you are right who knows ? and maybe that's the reason nobody deciphered the VM so far...
Think of it like you are in the top scientific(Alchemy) knowledge in the 14-15 century highly educated in multiple languages, multiple sciences, with mathematics and cryptography and need to hide a secret that could kill you if discovered...then you become inventive keeping it secret, and so inventive that the secret still hold 600 years...later. -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
Radim Dobeš > 16-05-2026, 07:49 AM
Here you can see how the mind works. I posted the pictures without comment and you imposed your own view. The pictures are taken out of the context of my post in the thread that VM is the Book of Enoch. There is the entire explanation and it is related to the sixth day of God's creation of the world. On the contrary, I am the one who is trying to demolish the constructs about herbs, pharmacology and balneology. The Book of Enoch provides much higher knowledge, where the highest level of alchemy is predicated on spiritual transformation. It is essentially the golden grail. Enoch is Thoth, Hermes Trismegistor and Metatron in one form. My mistake for not mentioning that. But I did it intentionally so that the post would not be moved. -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
JoJo_Jost > 16-05-2026, 07:54 AM
Never try to convince someone who is already convinced... -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
JoJo_Jost > 16-05-2026, 09:03 AM
sry, doublepost... deleted -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
eggyk > 16-05-2026, 01:54 PM
(12-05-2026, 11:10 AM)PatrickZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do you distinguish a genuine discovery from the endless stream of speculation, projection, fraud, and self-proclaimed breakthroughs?
Honestly, I don't believe it's necessary to convince everyone, or even a majority of people to have your solution seriously considered.
(13-05-2026, 02:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.History is full of examples where practically all the experts in a field rejected what was in fact a correct and ground-breaking discovery/solution/invention.
Not enough is known for certain about the VMS for there to be a general consensus on its contents. Sure, certain individuals are and have been convinced of their own solutions, but I would say the consensus view right now is pretty much "I don't know" or "my mind is open to anything at this point".
With this in mind, I would say that convincing even 10-20% of all people that a theory is seriously plausible (not even convincing them it's true) would alone be a large shockwave through the community that would generate huge interest and conversation. The voynich community doesn't really have a 90% consensus on anything in particular, so if everyone disagrees, including those open to hearing the theory, it likely is either wrong, partially wrong, or does not yet have enough tangible evidence to be considered seriously.
To get a theory from "seriously plausible" to "correct beyond any reasonable doubt" is probably a unnattainable goal.
Frankly, anyone who believes their theory is correct beyond a reasonable doubt has likely not considered all of the ways they may be wrong. Just speaking statistically, out of all of the people who think have thought that way, what are the chances that I am the odd one out? Only the most undeniable, slam dunk discovery like "I found a hidden signature that reads 'Written by W.Voynich - 1905'" would make me think that way at this point. But even then, I would expect due process and critisicm on even that discovery. -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
rikforto > 16-05-2026, 04:47 PM
(16-05-2026, 01:54 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(12-05-2026, 11:10 AM)PatrickZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do you distinguish a genuine discovery from the endless stream of speculation, projection, fraud, and self-proclaimed breakthroughs?
Honestly, I don't believe it's necessary to convince everyone, or even a majority of people to have your solution seriously considered.
I do strongly expect a "school" to pop up if a solution is on the right track. Solutions to date have been largely idiosyncratic, in that they rely on the beliefs and interpretations of their progenitor, but fail to win anyone who can advance the theory from a similar starting point. People able to continue and add to that work would be a strong indication that the theory has struck fertile ground. This is neither necessary---there are examples of theories languishing for being premature---nor sufficient---schools have grown up around failed theories. But it is a useful social heuristic in this kind of situation.
Within our little niche community, there is a growing school around the idea that the manuscript is meaningless. Even though I personally think it's premature to declare them correct, I think the fact that multiple people are finding confirmatory lines of evidence of this separate from any one person's understanding of the object is a good sign for that work and reason enough to take it seriously. There are features about that particular hypothesis that makes it easier to build consensus, so this observation is only good to its limits, but it stands out from other active theories that are largely in play on the force of personality of a single individual.
I think of this in line with the notion of a "second" in parliamentary procedure. Is there a second person willing to vouch for the merits of the debate, in this case not just for the sake of debate and foment, but on the substance of proposal? Vanishingly few "solutions" win that first convert. To pick a particularly high profile example from earlier this year, I don't think a single person stepped forward to support phonetic Irish, despite the fact she was shopping around for a coauthor. Again, there can be reasons for this besides it being wrong, and we should be sensitive to that, but it is a bad sign for how convincing it is. -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
Aga Tentakulus > 16-05-2026, 07:54 PM
Every morning when I wake up, it’s the same thing. People see things differently.
Group 1.
They see things that aren’t there.
That’s called imagination.
Group 2.
They don’t see what is there.
That’s called blindness.
Question:
Which group do you belong to?
I’m a realist.
I see what’s there. -
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
Jorge_Stolfi > 17-05-2026, 05:31 AM
(16-05-2026, 07:54 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which group do you belong to?
Easy question. Everybody will say
"I am a realist. if you don't see what I see, you are blind. If you see what I don't see you are hallucinating."
All the best, --stolfi
-
RE: Imagine waking up tomorrow with the solution to the Voynich Manuscript.
eggyk > 17-05-2026, 10:03 AM
Not to become too serious.. but we're missing the most common group (group 3) here!
Group 3:
They see what you see.
However, they don't think it means what you think it means.
That's the key to healthy discussion, and is also by far the most common thing I see here. Even for (genuinely) hallucinating posts, even for AI slop posts. Even when I posted something totally unaccepted, the response was overwhelmingly "No, but you can try to prove it and we will listen".
Long may it continue.
(actually, someone please solve it soon so i can have my life back...)