Re: pdf

[Big Jim <bigjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you all for allowing me to voice my views. This will be my last word 
on this subject. I believe in my work.



> Big Jim,
>
> I am sorry but I have to say this is so much nonsense. The Voynich
> manuscript is not written with words like 'tchedy' but in its
> own character set.  Surely that is obvious to you !!!!!


Im sorry, but when I look at the Voynich Letters compared to Latin 
equivalents there is too much similarity in a lot of cases. I do understand 
your position. Ten years ago I had hit a wall in my studies. I realized 
that the mistake made by the ancient scribes and priests, that of letting 
the meanings of the most ancient words slip into oblivion, hence the need 
for determinatives, was the very thing that kept us from 
understanding  ancient information. I had to know more. I began a study of 
language that took me to its very core, at least in the Mesopotamian area.
When I began this I saw as you do now. Language as logic.  Proto language 
was not based on logic. It was a visual agglutinative style of 
writing.  The proto Sinaitic Aleph was based on a concept that traces back 
to at least 7000 bc as a temple symbol. It had a meaning. This meaning was 
known and kept for thousands of years. Its base idea is creation. It took 
me years to understand why. Now I know why. And when I apply that meaning 
to ancient words and combine that meaning with the meanings of other 
consonants I can translate that word. Its all visual.

Although this is not the case here with the Voynich, the same idea of 
visual approach is being used. Exactly as the word FUDI was visually hidden 
in the manuscript.  Now there is no word FUDI in Hebrew. BUT...F and U are 
derived from vav.  There is a Hebrew word structure, FDI.  Vav daleth yod. 
Its meaning is exactly in context with the translation I have been doing. 
That of confessing sins. It is derived from FDH, which means Knowledge. 
Again another point that comes out in translation.
And then there is the picture on the 3 page foldout. To me this cinches it. 
The cyclical galactic core explosion is real. It has been proven. It comes 
again and again in our history. The severity of the explosion dictates the 
effects felt on earth. The last big hit we experienced caused the rapid end 
to the last ice age. It is coming again. When is unknown. But the cycle, 
the same cycle talked about in the Voynich, the cycle of the Eye, which Eye 
is an effect of the blue star explosion, is coming again. I find this all 
much too coincidental.

I am not making the Voynich speak. I am applying what I know and it works. 
Just like I applied a visual technique to the word Virgo and completely 
contradicted modern etymology and said,   no, Virgo is not derived from the 
Latin root Varg. It was a deliberately constructed word from Semitic base 
ideas to form a new word that hid a specific meaning. It translates "the 
destruction of Mankind".  At this point laughter abounds. But the laughter 
is halted when we trace back in history the actual time of the AGE of 
Virgo. A time that exactly fits the arrival of the effects of the last 
superwave. A time that WAS mankind's destruction.
My approach is unorthodox. But I have proven time and time again that I am 
right. I will prove this right too.




>   If not,  look at
> the images of the pages.  The 'tchedy' is merely a representation
> of the Voynich word in  English characters so that it could be
> copied by a typewriter and then onto a character based computer
> system.  The characters 't' , 'd'  etc  were assigned by people in the
> twentieth century in an almost arbitrary way. They could well
> have used any other permutation of letters. Surely you understand this !!!


I have had this said to me on a few occasions. It was not told to me when I 
began this. If it was, I more than likely would never had tried to 
translate. But I didnt know. So I translated. And it worked. And it 
continued to work. I am not deluding myself. I see demonstrated over and 
over that this is the correct approach.




> In another transcription scheme this 'tchedy' could have been 'mxsgt'
> or anything !!!

But that is my very point. It wasnt mxsgt.  It was tchedy.  If tchedy was 
random as you say it would mean nothing.  If a word COULD be made of this 
it would be a freak.  The next word then would be gibberish. Or the 
next...or the next. But it isnt.  TCHE  represents a word!!!  Latin letters 
that represent Hebrew equivalents. The only letter that isnt Hebrew is the 
letter E.  But strangely enough E was derived from H. And strangely enough 
TCHH is a Hebrew word.  DI also is a word.
Is this just a freak coincidence? If it is then the next word should be 
gibberish. If another coincidence then the next word should be gibberish. 
By your logic the odds of every word being translatable is nothing short of 
impossible. But yet EVERY WORD follows at least a skeletal structure  that 
is translatable. Rules are being applied. If these rules are followed 
translation is possible. And these rules are not outrageous.  If a Latin A 
is written, it could be Aleph and it could be Ain. This follows a rule that 
is NOT outrageous to ask. We today write A for aleph and 'A for ain. O was 
also derived from Ain. Again not outrageous to ask. K and C and Q and CH 
are juggled.  Again not outrageous to ask. Compound words that hinge on 
exchangeable letters according to Hebrew grammar is again not outrageous to 
ask. Exchangeable letters themselves according to Hebrew grammar is again 
not outrageous to ask.

Why do you think that the best methods and greatest minds and best 
equipment used to decode this work have failed? It is because simplicity is 
the key...not complexity. One can not find mathematical exactness in the 
midst of chaos. And visual encoding compared to the logical encryption 
process is the same as comparing surrealism to realistic art. Surrealism 
represents. Surrealism is the creation process applied to that which exists 
already. It is a REcreation. It is something new. This process when applied 
to language does exactly the same thing. It creates something new. There 
are hints of what was in a brand new environment. Salvatore  Dali's time 
piece melting over the end of a table does not negate the fact that we know 
it is a time piece.
If you all really believe that the assignment  of these Latin letters was a 
completely random assignment, then I submit to you all, that you were 
working unconsciously to put assignments based on visual similarities in 
construction. You succeeded and never knew it!  If these assignments were 
random I would not be here now defending what I believe. I would have left 
this effort two months ago. I may be crazy but I'm not stupid. I see things 
differently. I always have. I use both hemispheres of the brain and am as 
comfortable with surrealism and creation as I am with a text book. I can 
not help it if I "SEE" something here that is like Dali's watch melting off 
a table. Now my problem is facing a group of people that keep telling me... 
WATCHES DON'T MELT OFF TABLES.




> The same is the case with Hebrew. - Hebrew is not written in
> English characters.

It could be.. if it was encoded as such. The birth of a brand new idea. A 
new creation. If I write ALEPH you know exactly what I am saying. If I 
write ROSH you know what I mean. If i say in Latin letters the first letter 
in the Hebrew alphabet is 'ALP, where 'A = AIN...you know it's a mistake.



>   You could not say, for example, the letter
> Hod  = heh + daleth. The use of the English 'h -o -d' is an artefact
> of the representation of Hebrew in English due to the fact
> that we don't all use a Hebrew font in our email program.

BUT.....if a person WISHED to encrypt a work to ensure it's survival, it 
could be done!!  And that is exactly my point...it COULD be done. Look at 
Nostradamus. They have been pouring over that work for how long?  Is it 
encoded?



> Your method is nonsense !!!!
>
> Nonsense !!!

I disagree...



> People on this group  have been very polite and considerate,
> but I cannot stand this any longer. I just have to say your
> method is absolute nonsense. Absolutely !!


Then why has no one been able to crack this work?     If you want to read 
what the ancients wrote, you need to think like the ancients.  As I said, 
my translation of Virgo completely negates modern etymology for a new 
approach to word construction based on an ancient format. When this time 
period, the Age of Virgo, is place where it belongs in time, around 14,000 
bc, we find the exact time of the last destruction of mankind due to 
exactly the same the same cyclical destruction talked about in the 
Voynich.  According to the established rules, my approach is nonsense. 
According to what I see, the established rules are wrong
I have proof the rules are wrong. And as usual...i stand alone with my beliefs.

I thank you all for your time...
I rest my case.

Jim