Voynich Net Forum

A new blog post, with some old and some new CAD models. I put it under "imagery" instead of news, because it seemed appropriate here:

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/02/2 ... ipt-in-3d/

Rich.

Hi Rich,

your 3-D pictures are really good, well done! In the picture of the central rosette you depict 6 pillars or lamps. There are 7 in fact. Of the seventh you see only the lamp stand but not the shade or head! That’s how the author fooled the people for centuries now. He shows everything but something (one item or so) is always hidden or incomplete. But the number 7 is crucial here. Put ‘city 7 lampstands‘ in Google and take aside all the news from contemporary interior designers and you have the answer. You know my opinion from the theory-thread. I’ll put more about this in coming days.

Regards,
PS

Hi ProxyS: Thank you for the nice comments about my 3D images.

" In the picture of the central rosette you depict 6 pillars or lamps. There are 7 in fact. Of the seventh you see only the lamp stand but not the shade or head! That’s how the author fooled the people for centuries now. He shows everything but something (one item or so) is always hidden or incomplete."

But I have to say I've looked closely again and again at the Rosettes pillar/towers/lamps and I don't see any evidence of a 7th tower. I traced out the visible and implied (behind the awning) towers, and don't see the extra base you are referring to.
The closest I can see is that on the rear right tower, which I have outlined in brown, the right side of where the column should come is slightly to the right of a little extra line... which I've also marked in brown. Can you explain where the base you see, is? I've no problem with extra towers, I just don't see the evidence of one.

It also becomes very difficult when we assume things are left out by the writer/artist to confuse us. This opens a whole giant... infinite really... can of Voynich worms. At that level of interpretation the possibilities are literally endless.

Rich.

Hi Rich,

you count the short lampstand at the bottom of the canopy of stars to the lamp above the canopy and on the right side this single line as the stand of the other lamp above the canopy. For me this lamp on the right side hasn’t any visible stand at all and this one on the left is a stand of the seventh hidden lamp. But as I wrote I think these uncertainties and different perceptions is exactly what the author intended to achieve.

Let me explain my opinion this way: all theories base on some assumptions, even mathematics has its unprovable axioms. My axiom is here that the author was a sensible and reasonable man. The more I deal with VMS the more I’m convinced that he was a high educated, very intelligent person. I even believe that he could understand ancient Aramaic, but this I try to cover in the other tread.

The question arises if such a person would spend years to create something meaningless and useless. In one picture and text on this folio he points to the value of limited time given to each of us…
But coming from the assumption that we have here a reasonable man and a meaningful work we instantly come to the conclusion that this book was intended to be understood, by someone, at a particular point of time, when the time is ripe. But definitely not by anyone and everyone and immediately. The last is more than proven as nobody can do it until now but can be this will change.

These who shouldn’t understand it were not ignorant. Books of Hebrew tradition were always in danger to be burned. So a very subtle balance was needed to fool the first and enable the second to read, an ingenious balance. Therefore, this concurrent showing and hiding, therefore this built-in confusion about the numbers etc.
And I’m sure, once we get over the first hurdles of understanding the author will support us to decode every word of this book. In fact, his short explanations how to interpret the images on the foldout p. 85-86 document this.

Regards,
PS

ProxyS wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:28 pm

Hi Rich,

you count the short lampstand at the bottom of the canopy of stars to the lamp above the canopy and on the right side this single line as the stand of the other lamp above the canopy. For me this lamp on the right side hasn’t any visible stand at all and this one on the left is a stand of the seventh hidden lamp. But as I wrote I think these uncertainties and different perceptions is exactly what the author intended to achieve.

Regards,
PS

Hi Proxy: I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you mean. The only marking of any kind that is at all out of place is the little line at the base of the top right pillar... and that is only out of place because it does not quite line up for where the pillar's column would end up, but is very slightly to the left of it.

That cannot be for another, un-drawn pillar, because then the visible pillar and the un-drawn one would have to occupy the same space. And that would not make sense. If you mean by "this one on the left is a stand of the seventh pillar", then again it does not follow, because that base lines up perfectly with the top left pillar. That is the one I have outlined in olive green.

I see no extra base for an extra pillar. All the bases are accounted for, and the line below the canopy for the brown pillar is clearly intended as part of that pillar appearing below the canopy. There are many unclear things in the Voynich, but I have to say I think this is one of the clearest, sorry.

ProxyS wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:28 pm

Let me explain my opinion this way: all theories base on some assumptions, even mathematics has its unprovable axioms. My axiom is here that the author was a sensible and reasonable man. The more I deal with VMS the more I’m convinced that he was a high educated, very intelligent person. I even believe that he could understand ancient Aramaic, but this I try to cover in the other tread.

The question arises if such a person would spend years to create something meaningless and useless. In one picture and text on this folio he points to the value of limited time given to each of us…
But coming from the assumption that we have here a reasonable man and a meaningful work we instantly come to the conclusion that this book was intended to be understood, by someone, at a particular point of time, when the time is ripe... etc.

Regards,
PS

Well certainly, in a general sense and general experience, some works are purposefully enigmatic. I think the Voynich is purposely enigmatic. But where you and I diverge is that I believe the content that we see is enigmatic; and you believe some content was left out entirely, or to a great extent at least, to create further mystery. I don't agree. I've never seen this done, and in my opinion would serve absolutely no purpose. And also, it is dangerous to go down that path, IMHO, because at that point we can assume anything at all of the Voynich... we can make for any purpose, with any meaning. For instance, if the author hid a pillar, then why not ten pillars? We can say there are 16 pillars there, because the author wanted to confuse us, so he didn't draw the other pillars.

I don't know if the content of the work is meaningful or not, I am undecided on that, and have no strong opinions on it. I do tend to think (I lean a tiny bit on the fence in this direction, and hope I don't fall off) it is probably gibberish, or with minimal meaning in some context. But whether it does have meaning or not, is, again IMHO, unrelated to how much time or effort was put into it, or how intelligent or not the creator of it was, or how "reasonable" he or she was. Every single type of person for every single reason under the sun has created both highly meaningful, and totally nonsensical works, of all lengths, at all costs, from easy and fast to laborious and slow.

My point is that assuming or identifying one of the many factors listed, we cannot know any of the others, because all combinations exist historically.

I'm sorry to be so contrary, and I hope you don't take it in a negative sense. I only mean it to discuss the topics you've brought up with my honest feedback.

Rich.

Hello all.

My 2 cents:
I have to agree with Rich that there are only 6 "towers" shown on the folio. A 7th, even if "hidden", would give its presence away by breaking up the symmetrical placement of the other 6.

Best, E

Hi, Rich, E Lillie,

sorry from my side, but I don't see big symmetries:
And a fan of symmetries would hardly accept that this pillar, lampstand is twice as big as the others.

Regards,
PS

Hi ProxyS: I don't want to speak for Mr. Lillie, but my understanding of this:

"A 7th, even if "hidden", would give its presence away by breaking up the symmetrical placement of the other 6."

... is not in aligning the pillar side, as you have. That is not the "symmetry" he is referring to. What he means is the placement of the 6 visible towers. Think of the hub of a car wheel, with 6 sets of studs and lug-nuts, set evenly around the wheel hub. If there is a 7th stud and nut, it would break that symmetry. That is the same exact case with the Rosettes center tower pattern.

You have pointed out another thing with your image, and recreated the same outline I did with my olive green outline of the same tower. And in doing so, I have to say you have pointed out again, as I did, that the base seems to connect quite well to the top as seen above the "awning".

I don't want to sound argumentative, Proxy... and of course please understand I have NO reason to reject your 7th tower, except that I see no evidence of it as you explain.

Rich.

You drew that line, Proxy, but are actually mentioning size I see,

"And a fan of symmetries would hardly accept that this pillar, lampstand is twice as big as the others."

The foreground ones are a bit larger, and this can be explained by perspective. The towers/lamps in the foreground are certainly larger, as would be expected with an attempt at perspective. And no, it is far from perfect. But it does not relate to the symmetry of the towers, which are placed pretty well evenly around the center of the rosette, with no place for an unseen 7th tower.

Rich.

Hi Rich,

ok, we won’t achieve agreement about this number…

For me the number was only a clue on the way: 7 lamps -> New Jerusalem -> tribe names -> Hebrew mystic -> Aramaic -> abjad -> provisional Alphabet.
And on the rosettes page I can find confirmations in the text for this interpretation. However, the main text of the cosmological section, which is in fact a religious section, is not easy to decode, because it’s lyric and in poems there is always some freedom to place verbs and nouns, but I have made good progress so far. Here I have one another story.
I first decided to stay on the rosettes page only which is enigmatic enough. But at the end I could not resist to see if I can apply my alphabet to other sections and was curious what the little ladies are doing. I had no expectations at all and was ready for every kind of message, if any. I found a cluster of clear chars of which I have high correctness confidence.
This is my finding:
mapping into my alphabet (y_z_m_sh_w(b)_sh_w(b))
match into Aramaic (yeza’ mashah ‘abash ‘eb)
Aramaic transcription (yeh’-zah maw-shaw’ aw-bash’ abe)
perspiration draws shrivelled green shoots (fresh green)

So here they symbolise good forces of biology and nature! Winter is nearby over, so hopefully we will see them at work soon.

Regards,
PS