10 replies to this topic

[UM-Bot]

The mysterious 246-page Voynich manuscript named after Wilfred Voynich who obtained it in 1912 has been dated to the 15th century and found to be genuine according to researchers at the University of Arizona.

"An mysterious unintelligible manuscript that has puzzled researchers for decades has been dated to the 15th century and found to be genuine, according to US studies that were presented Thursday by Austrian broadcaster ORF. "

View: Full Article | Source: Monsters and Critics

[Clobhair-cean]

[Juanita Rose Violini]

Excellent and Hilarious. The Voynich Manuscript truly is the Most Mysterious Manuscript in the World.

[questionmark]

Nobody doubts that the paper is "genuine" or the binding is "genuine" or that it was written in the 15th century. The doubts are whether it contains something substantial or is a creation by some member of the guild of quacks and then sold to make gold or the philosopher's stone.

[Razer]

questionmark, on 05 December 2009 - 03:34 PM, said:

Nobody doubts that the paper is "genuine" or the binding is "genuine" or that it was written in the 15th century.

If nobody doubted it than those people that tested it must feel pretty silly.  

[questionmark]

Razer, on 05 December 2009 - 10:08 PM, said:

If nobody doubted it than those people that tested it must feel pretty silly.  

Probably it will be up for sale again soon and they needed some "expertise".

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 05 December 2009 - 03:34 PM, said:

Nobody doubts that the paper is "genuine" or the binding is "genuine" or that it was written in the 15th century. The doubts are whether it contains something substantial or is a creation by some member of the guild of quacks and then sold to make gold or the philosopher's stone.

Spot On! It is from the time period, but it just doesn't say anything.

[DrunkDwarf]

questionmark, on 05 December 2009 - 03:34 PM, said:

Nobody doubts that the paper is "genuine" or the binding is "genuine" or that it was written in the 15th century. The doubts are whether it contains something substantial or is a creation by some member of the guild of quacks and then sold to make gold or the philosopher's stone.

Actually, there were historians who doubted when it was made, believing that it was much more modern. Thats what the study was in response to.

Until the manucript is deciphered, nobody can really say what it contains, if anything. Its an interesting item for its unusual qualities alone.

[Siara]

DrunkDwarf, on 07 December 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

Actually, there were historians who doubted when it was made, believing that it was much more modern. Thats what the study was in response to.

Until the manucript is deciphered, nobody can really say what it contains, if anything. Its an interesting item for its unusual qualities alone.

Interesting.  Aren't historians beginning to create a data base of vellum DNA? It seems like they could figure out where the vellum was originally made by doing a DNA analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------
In the thirteenth century Hildegard von Bingen painted pictures of her migraine hallucinations and defined them as visions (a fact that interests me since I hallucinate during migraines, too).  I've always wondered if the Voynich manuscript was something like that... a manuscript in someone's intuitive, personal language.

[questionmark]

DrunkDwarf, on 07 December 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

Actually, there were historians who doubted when it was made, believing that it was much more modern. Thats what the study was in response to.

Until the manucript is deciphered, nobody can really say what it contains, if anything. Its an interesting item for its unusual qualities alone.

Since the McKenna tests (1991) I thought it was generally accepted that the manuscript was "real" in as far as the ink and the parchment goes.

In the history of the book it is said that it was bought by Rudolf II, that plus the dating now makes the finger point even more to the guild of quacks. His majesty squandered a fortune trying to find the philosopher's stone.

[DieChecker]

Wikipedia has been updates some since the last time this subject started floating around. I still tend to believe the Crytography experts and their computers that say there is no understandable patterns to the writing that would indicate language. Basically that it is gibberish disguised to look like language.
http://en.wikipedia....nich_manuscript