• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Voynich Manuscript dated

King of the Americas said:
Thank you for the information.

Is has NOT been decoded...? Not at all...?

Do you know if it CAN be decoded? I mean, are the decoders saying they're on it, with potential leads or is everyone completely stumped indicating it is all just made up gibberish?

Several of the pictures I've seen look like ripe opium pods. Are the plants known, or are they just made-up images intended to go hand in hand with the made up gibberish?
Click to expand...

You could read the thread and find out.
 
King of the Americas said:
Thank you for the information.

Is has NOT been decoded...? Not at all...?

Do you know if it CAN be decoded? I mean, are the decoders saying they're on it, with potential leads or is everyone completely stumped indicating it is all just made up gibberish?

Several of the pictures I've seen look like ripe opium pods. Are the plants known, or are they just made-up images intended to go hand in hand with the made up gibberish?
Click to expand...


Some plant are not known, and one theory is that it is all gibberish (intentional or not). if it is the case, then naturally it can't be decoded.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
My theories are:

1. It is a mid-to-late 16th century hoax to get a bunch of money. [snip]

2. It is the work of a 15th century con man. ....
Click to expand...

Basically I agree with #1, with more of the "con man" angle from #2. I was just reading about this a few days ago.

So here's Rugg, studying the Voynich on his own and asking himself: If I were living in the 16th century and wanted to make a book that looked mysterious but was really gibberish, how could I do it cheaply and easily? He deliberately searched for low tech tools capable of generating text that seemed random. In his reading, he came across an encoding device called the Cardan Grille, first described in 1550 by Girolamo Cardano.

Using such an encoder, Rugg figures it would take a smart fraudster an hour or two to write an entire page. A Voynich-size book might take about three or four months to create with illustrations. The time and effort would definitely be worth it: In the Elizabethan era, Rudolph II, the Holy Roman emperor, became fascinated with the beautifully wrought manuscript (he believed it was the work of 13th-century philosopher Roger Bacon) and paid 600 gold ducats for it - about $30,000 today.
Click to expand...

"Scientific Method Man"
By Joseph D'Agnese
Wired 12.09 - September 2004

A companion page shows you how to make your own "indecipherable" manuscript.

Beyond the matters of the Voynich Manuscript, I thought the article was an interesting look at a way to try to improve the scientific method.
 
Sherman Bay said:
My personal opinion is that it is the scribblings of a medieval scholar at play. He invented a world and had fun describing it and filling it with creatures and fanciful plants not unlike what he knew. Did he intend to deceive or just titillate? Maybe it was just a notebook of scribbles with no other motive. How could he have seen what the future would do to his creation? Maybe the future is over-analyzing it. Cf. Motel of the Mysteries.

This is entirely consistent with the known data. Think...wouldn't a 15th Century version of The Onion look a lot like this?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why this hasn't been posted yet:
voynich_manuscript.png
 
King of the Americas said:
Who reads entire threads here? I thought it was okay to read a title of a thread, and just start posting random stuff that has already been stated or asked?
Click to expand...

For myself, I'll read it if it's five pages or less, skim it up to ten, and just jump in after reading the first and last pages otherwise. This one is just two pages, so it shouldn't be too hard to read. Even so, I would maybe suggest the Wikipedia article as a better source for general answers.
 
Aepervius said:
Some plant are not known, and one theory is that it is all gibberish (intentional or not). if it is the case, then naturally it can't be decoded.
Click to expand...

I scanned a few pages of it, as a VERY amateur code maker and decoder, and I only found a few scattered repetitions, but absolutely nothing that led me to believe 'I' could do anything with it besides look and feel dumber.

That said, 'I' wouldn't know the difference between a great code and utter gibberish, if it slapped me in the face...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom