(08-10-2016, 04:39 AM)stellar wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 10:03 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 09:59 AM)stellar wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 09:44 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, you're seeing what you want to see.

You left out some of the shapes that are there and misread ones that aren't. Why are you ignoring the shapes next to the "name" that are more clear than the ones you marked?


Also, it's a bad idea to write over the marks. It's better to write next to them or to use dots (small ones), rather than lines that obscure the actual image.


Good research is about figuring out what is there.
Bad research is assuming what is there, and who wrote it, and imposing that idea on the data.


And why would John Dee misspell his own name when it's hidden under the paint? It's spelled Ioannis (not Ioaniss).

I agree to disagree and I feel you make this judgement in haste for some internal reason.  You dismiss everything I do; so there is definitely an agenda which I feel you have.  I'm not attacking you and I know you are brilliant by the way you write and understand language.

I don't know why he would misspell his own name maybe some deflection like what is happening in this moment with you and I.  Maybe he left and came back later to start with an, i then added an S who knows.  Maybe he was afraid of being found out.  I believe he was under a great deal of stress and money was on the line and this text must have been hard to produce for it tiny size.

There's a lot you could learn from some of the people here who do very careful, very well supported research. I do not dismiss what they do.

You want quick results, instant gratification. You're creative and energetic, but you're not willing to take the TIME it takes to get real results. Check your work, double-check with other sources, don't try to impose your expectations on the data and your work will NOT be dismissed. Then you will have a chance of being taken seriously.

I have no agenda, only a commitment to good research and finding the truth. If you're not trying to do that, if you decide in advance John Dee did this, then you are prejudicing your own results and you may miss important clues leading to real answers.

To my knowledge the research is only supported until we all agree that a word or words of the voynich glyph's have produced real results and are truly decoded, not like Stephen Bax, because he has academia on his side.  Stephen Bax has explained to me that this voynich script is not a cipher at his site. The pictures are nice and some are obvious that is why what I have done is historical.  My associations have given them meaning from the glyph's.  So right now I only agree on my method  that it is true and maybe a few here like it, but I believe some day my work will be referred to many times.

Truth should be open to everyone's input until further deduction proves otherwise. Anyone in the Voynich Community who has access to the Beinecke Library should view this leaf under a microscope. Like I said it took me days to find and its perhaps the only clue for authorship of the VMS.  Furthermore this signature proves my assumption correct that John Dee is the author if verified by a microscope.  I am taking the high road on that, because I would like to know that result.

Also can you prove that my method of numerology is incorrect?  What are the odds of lining up a Zodiac in traditional manner like I did and then finding many labels consistent to my cipher?  Have you ever decoded words from the Voynich Manuscript using a cipher that you constructed and if you have lets see it.  My work is a huge paradigm shift for approaching the voynich manuscript and it has produced results like no other method.  Maybe you could learn from me as well!  Your agenda is clear and its very dismissive of my work without realizing the facts of my cipher to the imagery and themes which show a profound correlation to them.

Yes I agree I am learning from others, but you are my greatest critic and at every turn its pure negativity.  I think every post you have dismissed my work, wow.  You can't even say like Thomascoon, nice work or what an effort?  As a matter of fact I would like to say thank you for all your efforts and nice work, because I know you have spent years on this document.  And after years of looking at it could you please tell me what language you think it is in?  Please don't patronize me about research and you have no idea the amount of time I have spent on this.


...