There’s absolutely nothing new in that article. You’ll note that I mention in post #43 that the manuscript was dated to somewhere between 1404 and 1438. Nothing new has been discovered.
I will go for the theory that it is a demo for that new contraption called a “book” 
The code is just the equivalent of the lorem ipsum placeholder text…
ROFL, I like that =)
And I will comment on the carbon dating …
Salvaged materials. You can find blank or palimpsetable materials in manuscripts of the appropriate age, it would simply take a lot of effort to find them specifically, and making ink and tints from period recipes is not impossible. Do it yourself forgery kit. Artists have been know to forge art by getting a wooden panel of the correct age and mixing paints using the right recipes for their time period.
On the subject of art forgery, I especially liked the book I was Vermeer, which detailed how Han van Meegeren successfully forged Vermeer paintings. Definitely a fascinating read.
I’ve always been of the impression that it’s a combination “Faux Rarity” designed for some 15th Century nobleman with a collection of rare books and the Ducats to expand his collection, with an element of “It’s from Cathay, you know… Who knows what riches are there? Might be worth financing an expedition…” thrown in as well.
Given the immense power of modern computers and advances in the field of Cryptology, I honestly think that if the Voynich Manuscript actually said something in a “real” language, it would have been conclusively established by now- even if what it said was still a matter for debate.
As an amateur linguist, I think the aspersions cast; that it is a hoax or a forgery are much too latent in history and premature in judgement from a temporal dating. Perhaps it was an alchemical language, or an “artificial language” as we know it today? We are losing languages and dialects and technical readings of ancient language at an unprecedented rate, even today.
Since no other copy of this language has been found, and it doesn’t relate to any known language ever, no matter how obscure, I’d say the chances of it being an example or remnant of a true language are remote, and the chances of it being made up just for this one purpose are much greater.
It wouldn’t necessarily have cost a lot to produce.
Paper and ink weren’t that rare and expensive in early renaissance Europe. A reasonably well-off person with a decent education and a fair bit of spare time could have put it together. Not everyone was labouring in the fields from dawn to dusk.
I’m imagining the son or daughter of some rich merchant or landowner, having a touch of OCD, making it as a hobby. A creative person, or a couple of people (maybe siblings), in a boring situation, having access to paper and pens… it seems very do-able to me.
It would have cost a bit to commission something like this, but it wouldn’t cost much for someone(s) to do it as a hobby.
All valid points… for a single-page document. Not so much for a 240-page manuscript. Unless you think someone scraped 240 pages and didn’t screw up once.
close. very close.
A study published last week:
If I had either the money or the access to books of the correct age it would not be impossible. If you have access to some european libraries, you could with some degree of difficulty harvest enough pages to do something like this, it would take [shudder] destroying the written content of lots of pages of whole books stolen. I wouldn’t do it using pages ripped out of books, you would need to use the large folio sized books to get the folded size to be bound properly but if you get a few books of the right page size [when bound] and unbound them to strip the ink off, write your new ancient manuscript pages and rebind them. You could even salvage the binding materials for reuse.
If I can think of doing it, some forger can do the same. It would be laborious, but if the money at the end is good enough [or the tingle of seeing your practical joke in a museum somewhere] then I see no barrier to it being done.
I found this in the October, 1986, Cryptologia article. There are at least 3 articles in that publication of interest, but they are behind a paywall and they want $44 for access to each, so I think I’ll pass. Here’s an excerpt:
This last statement is the most telling of all. If this did actually represent a language of any kind, and it was used by more than one person, it would be logical and likely that other examples would exist. There was no shortage of pens, ink and paper at the time that could explain a total lack of other works.
No matter how the text is analyzed, it can always be said that it was just one smart person with a lot of imagination who put this together, for whatever reason.
Imagination, fantasy and cleverness explains it pretty handily. Otherwise, you’re going to have to explain why 100% is nonsense from every conceivable angle.
From a reference in Post #91:
This reminds me of the claims that crop circles must be genuinely made by aliens because a natural process couldn’t bend the stalks without breaking.
I just saw this: The Code Unchopped, Read what no one else has read, by Thomas Edward O’Neil. At last! Someone has translated the book!
But a quick scan of random pages – all that Amazon has available – suggests that the author is interpreting the language much as Nostradamus fans do when they attempt to connect his predictions to real history. The connections are tenuous and far-fetched at best. The O’Neil book looks like random scribblings of someone more demented that the original Voynich author.
So, to answer the OP, not much, not yet.
And I see no reason it could not be a bogus book actually written in the 1600s as a scam for some con game or another - look how many people would invest in something totally stupid like a trip to visit the land of Prester John, or to find the Northwest Passage, or a shortcut to the spice islands. <shrug> though as I said, I can think of one way to make a totally 1600s seeming book with work. And addressing the modern chemical on the pages [damned if I am going to look it up, but it was one that at one point in time around 100 years or so was used as a cleaning liquid] it could have been used to spot clean some of the pages and therefor contaminated the book enough to ping detection and the book still could have been done as some sort of con job in the 1600s.
[and I might point out that at one time when I was working as a 3d shift security guard I calligraphed on faux parchment a ‘spellbook’ for AD&D transliterating the english alphabet into an imaginary ‘magical’ alphabet as a Christmas present for a friend. If I had access to real parchement from 1600, and got off my lazy arse and made a batch of oak gall ink, which I had made previously as an A&S entry for an SCA event, and got out the ground pigments from a different A&S project I too could have put together a bogus grimoire. :dubious::rolleyes:
Ohhh look, I don’t have to wait for Pennsic to buy ground pigments, I can get them offline and don’t have to grind my own!!! And a how to guide describing how you can make your own, and how they determine details about antiques. Anybody got a really really old book they want to donate to making a forgery? <evil smily>
This remind be of Poe’s great detective story, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, where those who overheard the murder, who themselves represent various language groups, don’t recognize the voice they heard as a language they recognize. It turns out…
It was an orangutan
So, while ‘ancient hoax’ is still a contender. It could still be something that was never intended to be astronomy or astrology or pharmacy or art or code.
Yes, that’s certainly a possibility. Personally – and it’s only conjecture, with no solid proof – I think it was a clever artist with time on his hands, a slightly warped mind (like many of us artistic types 
), a little “folk art” talent, and a vivid imagination. Many artists keep sketchbooks and often “try out” ideas in pencil before committing paint to canvas or preparing something for publication. Maybe we can put this book somewhere in one of those categories without having to postulate any dark, nefarious deed.
Maybe the artist did it over the years, a few illustrations at a time, as the spirit moved him. It’s not an impossibly large task if you’re not in a hurry.
So whoever wrote the Voynich got that part right, at least!
(responding to my own post #94)
I just obtained a copy of the O’Neil “Unchopped” book. As I suspected, it is indeed the undecipherable ravings of a kook. Here’s a YouTube sample straight from the crazy horse’s mouth.
Probably the illustrations