• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111
• Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

• Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  stellar > 24-02-2016, 06:08 PM

  The Voynich Manuscript was found in Villa Mondragone by Wilfrid Voynich in 1912. For years it was held by many people and only the author new of its contents. The Voynich glyph's is a cipher likened to the proportion of Mt. Everest. It's complicated structure has had many go to their death beds with out one insight into it. 
  
  
  Now realizing that carbon dating is not perfect and the test done on its vellum suggests a time period of the early 15th century maybe wrong according to my cipher.
  
  My proposal which is backed up by a Latin cipher states June 25, 1111 regarding Folio 67r2'; known as the astrology wheel. Using my cipher without the capital gallows and slanted backslash glyph's, I produced a cipher which came up with a date of January 5, 1111 for folio 1r.
  
  Please go over the links and video and post your thought.  Also my cipher does not include the back slashes and Gallows.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  -JKP- > 24-02-2016, 08:29 PM

  
  
  Using your 1-to-1 substitution code on the central text spiral in this castle ring (where it begins to become more legible) you get:
  
  ??????...   UDED EDEB ETD LIIUSA UR EN U FLE[i]DA AOUSET U UQEN MA UT ETUSET ALESET ALUSET ALETA UQENHA
  
  You might say Talese and variations of it are in there, near the end, but you could take almost any word and create analogs by switching the letters so they fit. Only solutions that provide translations of broader areas of the manuscript than a word or two are defensible without other corroboration for the choice of the word. I don't think the image of the castle is sufficient corroboration. I've found castles that match the pic more closely than Talese and where are the Ghibelline merlons?

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  ReneZ > 24-02-2016, 08:47 PM

  I have followed your contributions to Stephen Bax' blog, and I noted that in the course of your work, you found several surprising confirmations of your working theory. This confirmed you that you are on the right track.
  This is very understandable, and it is happening to many people all the time.
  
  Having seen these confirmations, are you still ready to accept critical comments?
  This seems like an offensive question, but believe me, I have had many exchanges with people proposing solutions who were not at all receptive of critical comments.
  
  The biggest problem in what you propose is that in 1111 there was no Uranus. It was only discovered in 1781 and it was only officially named Uranus in 1850.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  -JKP- > 24-02-2016, 08:55 PM

  I've looked at many hundreds of medieval manuscripts describing both astronomy and astrology.
  
  Astronomers rarely represent information as it is represented in the VMS. They are aware of the actual shapes of the constellations and the relationships of the stars to one another and essentially follow a different tradition than those who think of zodiacs in the astrological sense and simply copy popular pictures of zodiacs.
  
  The VMS follows illustrative tradition rather than scientific tradition which means the star pages and moon-sun wheels are more likely derived from previous descriptions and illustrations in popular books or amateur books than those found in actual astronomical texts.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  stellar > 24-02-2016, 09:26 PM

  (24-02-2016, 08:47 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have followed your contributions to Stephen Bax' blog, and I noted that in the course of your work, you found several surprising confirmations of your working theory. This confirmed you that you are on the right track.
  This is very understandable, and it is happening to many people all the time.
  
  Having seen these confirmations, are you still ready to accept critical comments?
  This seems like an offensive question, but believe me, I have had many exchanges with people proposing solutions who were not at all receptive of critical comments.
  
  The biggest problem in what you propose is that in 1111 there was no Uranus. It was only discovered in 1781 and it was only officially named Uranus in 1850.

  
  Dear Rene,
  
  Imagine a sky at night with no lights on the ground that use electricity.  The ancients called Uranos the sky and even identified it as a star.
  
  

  Quote:Uranus had been observed on many occasions before its recognition as a planet, but it was generally mistaken for a star. Possibly the earliest known observation was by Hipparchos, who in 128 BC may have recorded it as a star for his star catalogue that was later incorporated into Ptolemy's Almagest.[18]

  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  ReneZ > 24-02-2016, 09:45 PM

  This is completely anachronistic.
  Earlier observations of Uranus only became evident when Bode started to analyse its orbit in the 18th Century.
  
  Nobody ever called it Uranus before that time.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  david > 24-02-2016, 09:54 PM

  Ditto for Neptune - that was 19th century prediction, wasn't it?

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  david > 25-02-2016, 08:51 PM

  Just re-read the beginning post and something jumped out at me.
  
  The Chateau de Foix is not in Aragon. Aragon is a province of Spain, and the castle's name you mention is in French. A quick look online shows that Foix castle is in Ariege, France.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  stellar > 26-02-2016, 12:13 AM

  (24-02-2016, 08:29 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Using your 1-to-1 substitution code on the central text spiral in this castle ring (where it begins to become more legible) you get:
  
  ??????...   UDED EDEB ETD LIIUSA UR EN U FLEDA AOUSET U UQEN MA UT ETUSET ALESET ALUSET ALETA UQENHA
  
  You might say Talese and variations of it are in there, near the end, but you could take almost any word and create analogs by switching the letters so they fit. Only solutions that provide translations of broader areas of the manuscript than a word or two are defensible without other corroboration for the choice of the word. I don't think the image of the castle is sufficient corroboration. I've found castles that match the pic more closely than Talese and where are the Ghibelline merlons?

  The castle I found if you read the link at my site is not the final castle from my cipher.  It had a small resemblance thats all.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  

  ---

  (25-02-2016, 08:51 PM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just re-read the beginning post and something jumped out at me.
  
  The Chateau de Foix is not in Aragon. Aragon is a province of Spain, and the castle's name you mention is in French. A quick look online shows that Foix castle is in Ariege, [i]France.

  
  In medieval times boundaries were not modern like they are now in 1111.  Anyway its not my choice as a final Castle.
  

  ---

  (24-02-2016, 09:26 PM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (24-02-2016, 08:47 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have followed your contributions to Stephen Bax' blog, and I noted that in the course of your work, you found several surprising confirmations of your working theory. This confirmed you that you are on the right track.
  This is very understandable, and it is happening to many people all the time.
  
  Having seen these confirmations, are you still ready to accept critical comments?
  This seems like an offensive question, but believe me, I have had many exchanges with people proposing solutions who were not at all receptive of critical comments.
  
  The biggest problem in what you propose is that in 1111 there was no Uranus. It was only discovered in 1781 and it was only officially named Uranus in 1850.

  
  Dear Rene,
  
  Imagine a sky at night with no lights on the ground that use electricity.  The ancients called Uranos the sky and even identified it as a star.
  
  

  Quote:Uranus had been observed on many occasions before its recognition as a planet, but it was generally mistaken for a star. Possibly the earliest known observation was by Hipparchos, who in 128 BC may have recorded it as a star for his star catalogue that was later incorporated into Ptolemy's Almagest.[18]

  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Rene,
  
  You may have a point about the name Uranus but Uranos was an ancient sky God, but I'm not 100% convinced it was not used by the author in folio 67r2 and I know neptuni was not known as a planet. If these planets were visible on a dark night like Uranos as a spec that does not sparkle who knows.  The date of 1111 is a miracle that you can't rap your head around.  Especially Saturnus position in 67r2
  
  
  
  
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Voynich Manuscript year dated 1111

  -JKP- > 26-02-2016, 02:48 AM

  According to the substitution code you posted, that doesn't say "sunrtusa" (anagram for Saturnus), it says "sunrdusa" which could just as easily mean "Surandus" (ancient musical instruments) or "Sudranus" or "sud Urans" (south Urans) or "sud ranus" (south Ranus) or "sun radus" or "sun duras" (harsh sun) or "sundrasu" (disintegrate).
  
  
  When you apply a substitution code to a word here or there that doesn't work for the rest of the text, then you have to ask yourself whether the similarity to recognizable words is coincidental or due to the basic similarity of vowel-consonant balance in most languages.
• Next Oldest Next Newest