Voynich Net Forum

I believe the sources for the Voynich forgery can be identified and traced back to very specific books and items, in many cases. This post shows and describes many of them, and also gives the reasons these identifications and sources support modern forgery:

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/04/1 ... h-forgery/

Rich.

I updated my recent blog post, to add the 2018 observations by Koen (source of lobster, mermaid and bull in the Buch der Natur):

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/04/2 ... h-forgery/

Rich.

Excellent work Rich and if there was a Noble prize for this sort of research on this matter you should receive it!

You have proved to me that the Voynich Manuscript is a modern forgery! Although, I alluded too that the scales of balance implying that it could be an original, it is true the people creating the Voynich Document were obviously using materials in a modern era that were from past histories. There is to many anomalies for the document to be created in the early 15th century especially with history which you have painstakingly pointed out.

I don't understand why Yale does not investigate its document like you have. Is it ego, money, corruption or ignorance? I bet since the text cannot really be understood and it has thrown everyone off this maybe the sole reason why Yale holds it in high regard even if a few people may know its true Provenance date or if anyone does at all.

But this is why I'm here I think I can relate why the text is meaningless:

There are some voynich words of bigrams which are two letters in the voynich manuscript that reversed form words in the voynich too. To me this disobeys normal language for there are too many of them. Yet the only way they achieved a Zipf relation to language was to use a separate document list of normal language words associated to voynich words which glyphs were randomized and some words lengths were not equal to the original language. My guess is after the Voynich document was completed the list was burned thus locking the voynich to a language distribution yet no cipher could uncover it. The obvious bigrams show this method, because no language has that many words when spelled backward that form words within the same language. To me the only way the voynich would ever be properly decoded is if this list turns up so we can distribute the original language words to the gibberish.

Too further complicate the matter the entire Voynich Manuscript may not be a public published document that it was copied from and could be burned as-well. Yes the Voynich Manuscript was copied from a meaningful text, but in turn randomized with its tokens and word lengths when compared to its original. Therefore no traditional cipher mechanism can decode it. This is why the Voynich is such a mystery, it came from a language, but I would say it was rendered to gibberish with a Ziph Distribution making it a one time low entropy because it has a Ziph Distribution of words. However these words are too unique to any known language on earth and I can show how its done below.


If the Voynich text was a language than a person would not find very many bigram tokens that are reversed to form words!

My main statement is that the Voynich text is utter rubbish and gibberish which follows a Zipfian law and I understand that.



So if the Voynich is a language than why is this for so many bigram tokens within the Voynich Manuscript?



yk and then reversed to ky

ra and then reversed to ar

ro and then reversed to or

os and then reversed to so

yd and then reversed to dy

do and then reversed to od

che and then reversed to ech

ko and then reversed to ok

et and then reversed to te



Go look for some more gibberish and you get the point as there could be a couple left in the kitty of rubbish. This is utter proof that the Voynich Manuscript is gibberish, a waste of time, complete nonsense, meaningless garbage where so many intelligent people (maybe not) and Yale has hoaxed us all, whether they know it or not for so many wasted hours that most all of us have spent studying this pail of crap. This friggin VMS text will never decode properly and any claim that it has been accomplished is total bs!


Now that I got that out of the way the gibberish maybe covering up meaningful information believe it or not and I can prove how that is done!

Take for instance this little bit of text which no normal decryption method could unravel or decode it. This little bit is actually a famous poem from a great Poet rendered to gibberish by me. I will tell you about it, the words sometimes are not the same length and the letter order is randomly scrambled by me:

My job for you is quite simple, refer to the Zipf distribution list below for any unknown language tokens and compare them to each known token as in English words until the little paragraph is fulfilled, then you have decoded the paragraph in a non traditional cipher method. Each unknown token is just to the right of its English word counterpart. This fun task will display a poetic message. This bit is from a famous poem and Poet. Have fun!

Well Stellarwest thank you for the kind words, and the vote of confidence.

I believe there is an overwhelming circumstantial case for modern forgery, and while that idea angers many who think it is dead wrong, I often find that those who disagree actually don't understand what the the ingredients and premise of the Modern Forgery Hypothesis contains and contends. A recent example of this... there are many, in almost every argument and discussion... but a recent example which caught me off guard was on the Ninja forum, when JKP said I was "hedging my bets" by including medieval comparisons.

That stopped me in my tracks for a moment, while trying to get my head around the claim. I figured it out: He assumed medieval content was evidence of medieval origins, and so that by my including such content, I was "hedging my bets" "in case" the Voynich turned out to be... medieval.

The point being, he didn't realize that of course a fake of a medieval document would have medieval content, and it was therefore an obvious ingredient in my hypothesis. When I see statements like this, it is clear to me that there is a rampant misunderstanding about this hypothesis for one thing, and forgery in general, all leading to a lack of understanding of the very thing that so many argue so passionately against.

And on the contrary, with few exceptions, when one understands the hypothesis, and understands the historical practice and cases of forgery, there is an open acceptance of at least the possibility that the the Voynich can be another one. And a few of those, then, as you do, realize it is the most likely possibility, by far.

Now some may notice I no longer couch my phrasing in timid disclaimers. How much longer should I have? I've backed up and been apologetic for a very, very long time... while genuine theorists openly state their position as fact, while insisting I do no such thing... or I am "unscientific", or treating it as a "faith", or being unfair, or not a "critical thinker". One genuine proponent we all know, who states it is certainly genuine, and it is "impossible" that it is a fake, and even said fake was "dis proven" in an introduction to a Voynich book, actually told me it upset him that I thought that my "opinion was as good as his".

So please understand, I believe I have an overwhelming, and irrefutable... arguable, but irrefutable, as no one every convinces me that there is a reason to discard the premises enclosed by it... case for modern forgery. And in saying so, I am doing no less that thousands of others do and say for their "Genuine 1420 European Cipher Herbal" claim, or some close variation of that. I'm doing no less... and I would contend, in some cases more... scientifically, forensically, logically, critically.

So I pretty much "rest my case" now, I've given it enough time, enough research, enough argument. How many times do we bang our heads into a door, before we accept that the door must be opened before passing through? I've taken my lumps, now I accept the door must be opened, and the Voynich must be a modern fake.

In any case, I will look over your points on the text more carefully as time allows... I admit I have not prioritized, relatively, the linguistic aspects of the Voynich, as I've come to believe and understand that whether or not the Voynich does have meaning is moot to the issue of whether or not it is a fake or real, or old or new.

But my general impression, from everything I have absorbed on the subject, is the same as you have outlined here: I sense the Voynich script is a load of meaningless garbage.

Anyway, sorry for the rant... I've written things like that before, then deleted them before posting... but really, how much longer? I'm not doing it anymore, it helps no one, least of all myself, to not simply say the Emperor has no Clothes, and no one has been able to come close to convincing me otherwise.

Thanks again,
Rich.

... by the way, I do not believe the Voynich was strictly intended to look "medieval", but more Renaissance, as in early 17th century. But as such, as a fake compendium, it has contents from all eras before that, and inadvertently, after it, also...

Rich.