# Voynich manuscript finally deciphered? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 10, 2018, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113 "2018-09-10T17:54:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/141 "2019-05-18T19:27:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I cant translate anything using his system. But the few short snippets match the pictures. _That’s because he made the translation match what he tells you the picture represents!_:smack: In most cases, there is no reason to assume the illustration is of what he says the word is. The whole thing is circular. And actually, as I pointed out, in the case of the “children,” the words he transliterates 1) aren’t even temperaments. Since when are “buzzing,” “on the edge,” “cloudy,” “golden bird,” and “oiled” temperaments? 2) even though he chose words from three different languages spread over 2000 miles apart, the only way he can get the words to even vaguely to match temperaments is to imagine they are being used in outlandishly figurative ways. You really don’t get this whole methodology thing, do you? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/142 "2019-05-18T19:40:04Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > In medieval art, often size was used to indicate how important figures were. More important people were drawn as bigger. That’s assuming that the figures were drawn to plan rather than some being made smaller because the drafter was running out of room. > [@Musicat](#): > > You could be right; this is not my level of expertise. But it is not out of line to say, “Cite?” It was common to illustrate more important people larger, as for example [Edward the Confessor](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/496xn/p02m3z15.jpg) in the Bayeux Tapestry. In the Voynich illustration, the larger figures are wearing tiaras or some other headgear, and have much more elaborate hairdos, suggesting they may be noblewomen and the others lesser members of their court. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/143 "2019-05-18T20:02:51Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > And actually, as I pointed out, in the case of the “children,” the words he transliterates 1) aren’t even temperaments. Since when are “buzzing,” “on the edge,” “cloudy,” “golden bird,” and “oiled” temperaments? My favorite is where he claims that “life-force pots” means pregnant women. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/144 "2019-05-18T20:09:13Z")
I’ve been unable to find out the title of his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Bristol website or his own websites, which is distinctly odd. He only cites himself twice in his own article, both to articles listed as “preprints” and not actual publications. Many of the other references in his article also look rather dicey. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/145 "2019-05-18T20:24:34Z")
> [@Rough\_Draft](#): > > Nick Pelling wrote a book on the Voynich Manuscript and has created a website about it (and other ciphers), but I can find no indication anywhere that he claims to have “solved” it. Where are you getting your information? Pelling talks about his ideas in new comments today, starting [here](https://ciphermysteries.com/2019/05/18/gerard-cheshire-star-wars-space-teapots-and-royal-roads#comment-391036). On a related topic, look in the comments from [the blog entry I mentioned earlier](https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/10/gerard-cheshire-vulgar-latin-siren-call-polyglot) for comments by Rick Sheeger: it has been noticed that “Richard Sheeger” is a perfect anagram for Gerard Cheshire, so you can add sock puppeteer to his resume. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/146 "2019-05-18T20:30:16Z")
Check out [this](https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/10/gerard-cheshire-vulgar-latin-siren-call-polyglot#comment-381954) hilarious comment from Sheeger/Cheshire: > [@](#): > > The kind of people who work in academia don’t have egos and they tend to be passive by nature, so they find this sort of pseudo-intellectual noise rather unpleasant and unnecessary. They studiously get on with trying out ideas and they don’t offer them to the arena unless they are sure they have something worthwhile to present. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/147 "2019-05-18T20:42:04Z")
Nm. Misread. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/148 "2019-05-18T22:18:24Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Check out [this](https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/10/gerard-cheshire-vulgar-latin-siren-call-polyglot#comment-381954) hilarious comment from Sheeger/Cheshire: You’re not going back to that beloved of Fortean times pseudoscientist nutcases again, with his competing Manuscript book/theory? The reason why I am not buying any of you other cites is because you haven’t conceded this Pelling guy is a total woo-woo nutcase. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/149 "2019-05-18T22:35:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You’re not going back to that beloved of Fortean times pseudoscientist nutcases again, with his competing Manuscript book/theory? > > The reason why I am not buying any of you other cites is because you haven’t conceded this Pelling guy is a total woo-woo nutcase. A general rule of thumb in life for finding the right answer is to find the side that you are on and pick the opposite. I am just _devastated_ at your disapproval. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/150 "2019-05-18T22:39:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The reason why I am not buying any of you other cites is because you haven’t conceded this Pelling guy is a total woo-woo nutcase. Yeah, that’s _totally_ rational. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/151 "2019-05-18T23:00:45Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You’re not going back to that beloved of Fortean times pseudoscientist nutcases again, with his competing Manuscript book/theory? You’re not going to increase Cheshire’s credibility, or your own, by attacking Pelling. > [@](#): > > The reason why I am not buying any of you other cites is because you haven’t conceded this Pelling guy is a total woo-woo nutcase. Why should anyone value your opinion until you concede that Cheshire’s ideas are total bullshit as well? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/152 "2019-05-18T23:29:23Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You’re not going to increase Cheshire’s credibility, or your own, by attacking Pelling. > > Why should anyone value your opinion until you concede that Cheshire’s ideas are total bullshit as well? Because they haven’t been debunked yet by anyone but Pelling. And Pelling is a nutcase. Of course Cheshire could be wrong, but I am not enough of a expert to say one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/153 "2019-05-18T23:38:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because they haven’t been debunked yet by anyone but Pelling. _I_ just debunked them.:dubious: And apparently you haven’t been following the commentary by other experts such as Fagin Davis. > [@](#): > > Of course Cheshire could be wrong, but I am not enough of a expert to say one way or the other. As I said, you don’t have to be an expert in a field to detect bullshit argumentation. And if you’ve read all the commentary here so far, and other commentary on line besides Pelling’s, you have more than enough information to say he is wrong. And if you still can’t tell, that’s your problem, not a problem with your expertise. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/154 "2019-05-18T23:56:01Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > _I_ just debunked them.:dubious: And apparently you haven’t been following the commentary by other experts such as Fagin Davis. > > … Where was Fagan Davis cited here? And sure, if you say so. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/155 "2019-05-19T00:14:19Z")
Maybe we have been too hard on ol’ Gerard–[the mob might have his girlfriend](https://www.amazon.com/Voynich-Deception-Mr-Michael-Lancashire/dp/0992813018)! ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/156 "2019-05-19T02:01:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Where was Fagan Davis cited here? She was cited in various links above, such as [this one.](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/no-someone-hasnt-cracked-the-code-of-the-mysterious-voynich-manuscript/) > [@](#): > > Fagin Davis naturally had strong opinions about this latest dubious claim, too, tweeting, “Sorry, folks, ‘proto-Romance language’ is not a thing. This is just more aspirational, circular, self-fulfilling nonsense.” When Ars approached her for comment, she graciously elaborated. And she didn’t mince words: > > > [@](#): > > > > As with most would-be Voynich interpreters, the logic of this proposal is circular and aspirational: he starts with a theory about what a particular series of glyphs might mean, usually because of the word’s proximity to an image that he believes he can interpret. He then investigates any number of medieval Romance-language dictionaries until he finds a word that seems to suit his theory. Then he argues that because he has found a Romance-language word that fits his hypothesis, his hypothesis must be right. His “translations” from what is essentially gibberish, an amalgam of multiple languages, are themselves aspirational rather than being actual translations. > > > > In addition, the fundamental underlying argument—that there is such a thing as one ‘proto-Romance language’—is completely unsubstantiated and at odds with paleolinguistics. Finally, his association of particular glyphs with particular Latin letters is equally unsubstantiated. His work has never received true peer review, and its publication in this particular journal is no sign of peer confidence. [Lisa Fagin Davis,](https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/about/) Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, actually _is_ an expert in this field. There’s plenty of other criticism by others, not just Pelling. Try reading some of the other links above, as well as links in the news stories about this. Reactions by experts have been uniformly negative (when they could keep from laughing), which is why the University of Bristol pulled their press release and distanced themselves from Cheshire. > [@](#): > > And sure, if you say so. Thanks for the acknowledgement. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/157 "2019-05-19T02:42:30Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > She was cited in various links above, such as [this one.](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/no-someone-hasnt-cracked-the-code-of-the-mysterious-voynich-manuscript/) > > [Lisa Fagin Davis,](https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/about/) Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, actually _is_ an expert in this field. She does seem quite reputable, unlike Pelling. That doesnt look good for Cheshire. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/158 "2019-05-19T02:44:38Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > A general rule of thumb in life for finding the right answer is to find the side that you are on and pick the opposite. I am just _devastated_ at your disapproval. You know, a good debater would have said something like this \*“Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so.” \* Instead you double down on the sarcasm and refuse to admit your cite was bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/159 "2019-05-19T03:19:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You know, a good debater would have said something like this \*“Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so.” \* The man is [an acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&biw=1408&bih=703&ei=g5zgXIvXBZKItQWju6mQDA&q=%22voynich+expert%22+%22nick+pelling%22&oq=%22voynich+expert%22+%22nick+pelling%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3737.6689..8141...0.0..0.1501.1501.8-1......0....1..gws-wiz.7W_LJk6IuOw) who has been writing about it and other undecyphered documents for well over a decade. He makes no claim as to having decoded it, but has written a book speculating on the history of the document and possibilities as to how it is encrypted. The site is not dubious, the guy is not a crackpot, he can’t help that _Fortean Times_ gave a positive review to his book on the subject. He has more credibility in the clippings from his pinky toe than you have in your entire body. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/160 "2019-05-19T03:23:34Z")
Here is a post from Pelling from today (that I linked earlier but didn’t quote) > [@](#): > > …in very many ways, I developed my Averlino theory straight out of the mainstream of Voynich research – for example, the cryptanalytic side of Curse offers an account of Voynichese conceptually very close to that put forward decades previously by Brigadier John Tiltman (and I tried to make this debt quite clear in the book). At the same time, I tried (in the historical parts of the book) to explore the historical consequences of what it would mean if Averlino’s little books of secrets (that he appears to have compiled in the early 1450s) were in fact the source material for what ended up as the Voynich Manuscript. This exact technical approach – hypothesizing authorship of a contested document, and then examining the consequences – is what mainstream historians have done for decades: so this was normal historical stuff. > Moreover, I generally tried hard to build on previous work and scholarship: unlike arguably the majority of Voynich theories, I didn’t offer up any kind of alt.history take on events, or attempt some kind of shocking rewrite of the history books etc. > As I hope you know, I have always fully acknowledged the possibility that my Averlino hypothesis might well turn out to be wrong: in fact, I spent a lot of my research time consciously trying to find historical evidence that would disprove it, but was not able to. > In summary: I still think that what I put forward was as close to a fully-fleshed-out mainstream historical theory concerning the Voynich Manuscript as anyone has yet achieved, and I built that from the inside of historical discourse, not as a crackpot outsider. > PS: while the system I proposed combined verbose cipher (e.g. the glyph groups qo/ol/or/al/ar/ee/eee/ain/aiin/aiiin etc all encipher a single token each), in-page transposition (possibly via Neal keys), and 15th century abbreviating scribal shorthand (e.g. contraction and truncation), it didn’t obviously include polyalphabetic substitution, sorry if that somehow wasn’t clear. That isn’t the temperament of a crackpot, unlike the bombastic clown that you have hitched your wagon to. And the fact that you didn’t know about other detractors to Cheshire shows that you haven’t even bothered even reading the multiple links posted in this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113.md?page=9)