[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Your original approach and insight into an interpretation of the VMS shows
considerable thought and a great deal of personal commitment. You have reached deep
down into your personal experience and understanding of language evolution and
developed a method which you believe will lead to an accurate interpretation of the
manuscript. Thank you for sharing these ideas with us. What I have learned is that
it is not necessary to convince us that an approach to an interpreation is either
valid or accurate. This we would intuitively recognize and understand once an
indisputable translation is provided into a modern language that we can understand.
The only person that you need to convince on the method of interpretation or
deencryption is yourself. It seems that the harder one tries to convince others
that their method of deencryption is the correct approach to use the more sceptical
they view that individual's approach. We are certainly willing to voice our
opinions and recommendations but are not necessarily willing to learn a new
'language' along with all its grammatical complexities before we even begin to
realize an accurate translation of the text under study. It is not necessary for us
to undertake this additional learning. What needs to be done is to provide an
accurate translation in a language that we understand, simply, clearly, and
precisely. Even one complete page of text indisputably translated will be a very
good start. Dali did not have to convice those who viewed his art in his methods of
drawing for them to appreciate the artwork. What he created was new and original.
We appreciate and enjoy the art as it is presented. If we choose to study the
artist's intention and learn more about the science of his artwork, then that is a
personal choice. We would all like to enjoy our quest for an interpretation of the
VMS, but I do not think that we are asking to be convinced that any one method is
better or more accurate that another. "The facts will speak for themselves." We go
to movies to see the picture, not to see a documentary about how it was made. That
can come later. Thank you again for sharing your ideas with us. Hopefully, you will
be able to share with us undeniable and meaningful results. I would caution you,
though, to be absolutely convinced of your methodology, otherwise you may become
quickly discouraged and just quit. Be flexible enough to modify your approach if
you find that it isn't working to your satisfaction.
Big Jim wrote:
> 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
> >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.