Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Nikolai21

Secrets of the Voynich manuscript.

65 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jaylemurph

History is constantly being re-written as new data is uncovered and new methods of analysis are developed. That’s not even a question. That’s a basic truth of the field, and has been since somebody read Herodotus and said, “That doesn’t sound right.”

And we have plenty of scientists around, but I don’t speak for them. I’m an historian, as in one of those people you’re trying to deal with, evidently in as childish a manner as you can. And as a historian, I can tell you you can’t translate something that was never language to begin with. You’ve done exactly what the creator intended, though — to sink an inordinate amount of time into a fool’s errand and to not see the forest for the trees. 

I’d be willing to bet that your “translation” mirrors your own belief system to a statistically improbable extent — you’re not translating, you’re projecting, and nothing you’ve provided here makes a glimpse into the deeper recesses of your mind particularly palatable. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nikolai21

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

 I ask you not to comment on my materials from now on. It's insulting to me.

 

1 hour ago, Nikolai21 said:

 I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

dzvhWqo.jpg

Edited by toast
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
12 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

This is the distortion of history. The encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1771, should be trusted more. In the manuscript of Voynich there is a description of this state (sheet 86).

Yes, I trust a book written BEFORE WESTERN CIVILISATION REACHED AUSTRALIA. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I wonder if it was created by someone with a mental illness? Not trying to be insulting but having a had a virtual thumb through, there is a lot of imagination put into it. Just a curious thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  

 

OK, let us try a different approach.

WHY is the 1771 encyclopedia Britannica the relevant reference book?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

I have a bit of a biology and medical education. Lets hear it! 

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I wonder if it was created by someone with a mental illness? Not trying to be insulting but having a had a virtual thumb through, there is a lot of imagination put into it. Just a curious thought.

That's possible... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

1) Which is precisely the point. In the 248 years that have elapsed since the publication of your reference, a plethora of new facts have been added to our knowledge base. Documents, archaeological data, genetic data, etc.

In addition, as Jayle has been attempting to inform you, the interpretation of the "new " information is, from the perspective of a historian, subject to enhanced cultural understandings.

Lastly, one suspects that you are relying on that particular outdated reference because it somehow supports your pre-conceived desires for the outcome of your "translation."

Now, back to the point that you have been avoiding. Feel free to provide us with a specific date related to Great Tartary.

And an additional question: By what means can you demonstrate that Greg Kondrak, whose expertise and methodology is distinctly different from your own, is even aware of you or your project?

Edit: Addition.

.

Edited by Swede
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
17 hours ago, Nikolai21 said:

History can only be supplemented by new facts.  Further discussion with You requires medical education. I don't have that education. Learn your lessons.

No, history can be and is re-written. A good example is the view of the Germanic and Eastern tribes present in Central and Western Europe in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries CE — Vandals, Alans, Goths (Visi- and Ostro-), Huns, et al. 

For centuries, they were regarded as “barbarians” whose actions demolished the Ronan Empire. Through the course of the 20th Century, as sociological and economic analysis was developed a new data on the period was uncovered, this idea was largely abandoned. The fall of the Empire is considered to be a complex event, with several contributing factors. 

No such subtlety is to be found in centuries old encyclopedias. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

No, history can be and is re-written. A good example is the view of the Germanic and Eastern tribes present in Central and Western Europe in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries CE — Vandals, Alans, Goths (Visi- and Ostro-), Huns, et al. 

and the current archaeological discoveries showing that the Huns peacefully interacted with the country folk and just went after Rome and their aristocracy. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On 4/28/2019 at 6:29 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

OK, let us try a different approach.

WHY is the 1771 encyclopedia Britannica the relevant reference book?

 

 

And crickets....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

 

And crickets....

Hi Jodie

Let's leave Jiminy out of this, he didn't do anything.Image result for jiminy cricket gif

jmccr8

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
On 4/27/2019 at 2:12 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Or would you prefer your medical doctor to use techniques from the 18th century to cure your ailments?

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
4 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

I identify you as a leech, drawing the life out of any thread you engage in.

As for 'poor' Nicolai, I'm confident he can answer for himself, without you defending him.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I identify you as a leech, drawing the life out of any thread you engage in.

As for 'poor' Nicolai, I'm confident he can answer for himself, without you defending him.

Oh Dear! Apparently you did not get it. Lend me your brain, I did not come on this thread to praise Caesar, but to bury him. You all have killed him already, what is there to defend? Or rather, killed his bull.

God Gives and God Takes Away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

It came to my understanding today that the Voynich manuscript has been tentatively determined to be an obscure midieval "short-hand" medical writing specific to dealing with the gynecological issues of women; with herbs, bathing and astrological charts to guide remediation of ailments.

It was meant to be read by a doctor, not the populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
7 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Excellent analogy. You were, no doubt, wanting to point out leeches and the lancet. One a blood sucker, the other leading to blood loss. There's bad blood here, bleeding on the sand. One lonely bull in the ring and a whole lot of matadors. Poor Nikolai, don't you know that the spectators never cheer for the bull? 

Who says people don’t cheer for the bull?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Who says people don’t cheer for the bull?

You, for one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk

What we have here is a failure to communicate! Let's us get the bull straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
8 hours ago, pallidin said:

It came to my understanding today that the Voynich manuscript has been tentatively determined to be an obscure midieval "short-hand" medical writing specific to dealing with the gynecological issues of women; with herbs, bathing and astrological charts to guide remediation of ailments.

It was meant to be read by a doctor, not the populace.

Actually it is not isolated to one side, and not specific to the gentle gender, as there are suggestions on how to reduce a very, very large prostate too. A cure for male prostration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
28 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Actually it is not isolated to one side, and not specific to the gentle gender, as there are suggestions on how to reduce a very, very large prostate too. A cure for male prostration?

"gentle gender"? Have you ever MET a woman?? They're RUTHLESS.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
56 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

"gentle gender"? Have you ever MET a woman?? They're RUTHLESS.

Apparently not, if they are as you say. But is there not always an exception to the rule? Would you believe me if I said that I have met at least one exception? My mother, Ruth, no less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windowpane

Voynich manuscript deciphered.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Voynich manuscript deciphered.

I had a look at the "paper" and it doesn't pass the sniff test for me (I still think it's an old fraud and is mostly gibberish though I could be convinced otherwise by better information."

But the starting premise is one that we've seen too many times on this message board and other spaces on the Internet.  To quote from the paper itself: "Unbeknownst to the scholarly community, the manuscript was written in an extinct and hitherto unrecorded language as well as using an unknown writing system."  But luckily newly minted Dr. Cheshire was able to figure it out, thanks to his degree in theology, after encountering the manuscript while finishing his dissertation and studying it for a mere two weeks.

Color me skeptical.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.