# New research strengthens hoax hypothesis for Voynich manuscript

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-strengthens-hoax-hypothesis-for-voynich-manuscript/220476>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 22, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-strengthens-hoax-hypothesis-for-voynich-manuscript/220476 "2003-12-22T16:43:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-strengthens-hoax-hypothesis-for-voynich-manuscript/220476/1 "2003-12-22T16:43:56Z")

</div>

This isn’t so much of a question as an update on previous GQ threads on the [Voynich MS](http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/). The most recent such thread here was [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=188697). Mods, please feel free to move this if appropriate.

Anyway, the Voynich manuscript (VMS to aficionados) is a unique document. It is also unintelligible. A good description from the mailing list site is:

> [@](#):
>
> Mysteries surrounding the Voynich Manuscript have puzzled researchers since the earliest surviving report in the seventeenth century: we have no clear idea of its date, its author, its provenance, the meaning of its script, or even the meaning of its drawings. The first known owner was the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II (1552-1612), who bought it from an unknown seller for 600 ducats. The author of the manuscript was then thought to have been the 13th-century monk and scholar Roger Bacon (1214?-1294?), but this attribution now appears to be much too early.

They hypothesis that the manuscript was a hoax designed to defraud Rudolf has been raised multiple times. A [recent study](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/03355/253466.stm) now lends further support to this hypothesis. One recurring objection to the hoax hypothesis is the amount of work that would have needed to go into it would have rendered any profit minimal at best. The new study:

> [@](#):
>
> …details how one person could have used 16th coding technology to generate the VM’s entire text within two to three months. The illustrations could have been inserted quickly, as well.

I thought the VMS buffs here might be interested in the news report.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\
**Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-strengthens-hoax-hypothesis-for-voynich-manuscript/220476/2 "2003-12-22T17:23:20Z")

</div>

I’m not an aficionado, but nevertheless, I’m interested to know about this new study (especially since the scam hypothesis, always seemed the most likely to me and I like being right 😃 ).

By the way, where are we suposed to post such threads (I mean new informations about some topic commonly debated on this board)? It’s not a question, nor a debate, just infos. So, is the GQ board the most apropriate in this case? I can’t think of another one but perhaps the mods would think otherwise…