# 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:** 9
**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, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/161 "2019-05-19T04:09:09Z")
> [@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.” \* If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don’t like, and actually address the criticisms of 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, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/162 "2019-05-19T04:15:10Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > 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. He has a MBA, no scientific degree. He makes computer games. His book appears bunkum, but only from a couple pages available and from reviews. He CHOOSE that review to appear on his page. And if Colibri is right, this guy is wrong also. Either this guys is just as deluded as Cheshire, or the Manuscript can be decoded- but incidentally Pellings system doesn’t work, either. Like when debating the Pyramids, you drag in Hancock. You lose all credibility. And you wont even acknowledge it. Note that Pelling wrote “BECOME A VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT EXPERT IN JUST 5 MINUTES…” And by “acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript” you mean the guy\* sez\* he is as he runs a website dedicated to \*his \*theories, and attacking any that disagree with HIS theories. This article in CSICOP debunks Pelling (and everyone else), but does agree with \*\*Colibri \*\*in that he thinks it is a hoax. [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/01/the\_voynich\_manuscript\_the\_book\_nobody\_can\_read/?%2Fsi%2Fshow%2Fthe\_voynich\_manuscript\_the\_book\_nobody\_can\_read](https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/01/the_voynich_manuscript_the_book_nobody_can_read/?%2Fsi%2Fshow%2Fthe_voynich_manuscript_the_book_nobody_can_read) I am starting to think Colibri may be right. But if he is then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to make a buck at it selling to credulous audiences, like the Fortean times sells to. Which makes Pelling a huckster, and Cheshire a honest scientist who just happens to be wrong. ---
**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, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/163 "2019-05-19T04:19:57Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don’t like, and actually address the criticisms of Cheshire. I did, I said “She does seem quite reputable, unlike Pelling. That doesnt look good for Cheshire.” But if your theory is correct, and that article in CSICOP agrees with you, then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to milk a credulous public of their money, which Cheshire, like a good scientist, published in a peer reviewed Journal. ---
**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, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/164 "2019-05-19T04:25:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But if your theory is correct, and that article in CSICOP agrees with you, then Pelling is just as wrong as Cheshire except Pelling is trying to milk a credulous public of their money, which Cheshire, like a good scientist, published in a peer reviewed Journal. > [@Colibri](#): > > If you were a good debater, you would stop harping over and over on a cite you don’t like, and actually address the criticisms of Cheshire. How about it? ---
**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, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/165 "2019-05-19T05:42:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Note that Pelling wrote “BECOME A VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT EXPERT IN JUST 5 MINUTES…” Yep. In [this](http://ciphermysteries.com/2008/07/20/become-a-voynich-manuscript-expert-in-just-5-minutes) blog post from 2008. Where he says “the VMs is a mysterious old handwritten book that nobody can read. Not even me!” and “we still know basically sod all about the VMs.” He says that he hasn’t decrypted it in a post two years after the publication of the book where the straw man you are flogging is supposed to have claimed to have decoded it. Are you getting tired of [winning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment) yet? ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/166 "2019-05-19T14:46:19Z")
A new quote from Cheshire in [this](http://www.brinkwire.com/science/the-voynich-manuscript-may-not-have-been-cracked/) detailed piece. > [@](#): > > In an email to MailOnline, he wrote that his work was ‘largely intuitive’: > He said: ‘I could just see that it was possible. My unrelated academic work involves a lot of thought experiment and lateral thinking, so I employed a similar technique. > ‘The most important thing is to think creatively and play with ideas, but always go for the most likely possibilities. That is known as Occam’s razor, in scientific circles. > ‘Thus, the language proto-Romance was deduced to be the most likely for the time and place, even though there were no other known examples.’ Next up, someone needs to decrypt [this](https://www.ccdiscovery.com/researchers-want-to-have-deciphered-voynich-manuscript) article, which asserts that “Cheshire was a Dominican nun as a writer.” ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/167 "2019-05-19T15:02:59Z")
> [@Gerard Cheshire](#): > > ‘Thus, the language proto-Romance was deduced to be the most likely for the time and place, even though there were no other known examples.’ Cheshire deduced the place from a fanciful and completely unconfirmed interpretation of one set of illustrations, and the date he assigns is a little later than the most likely carbon dating of the MS. And even if this imaginary language existed, it would have been a millennium earlier. So his ability to evaluate “most likely” is suspect to say the least. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Next up, someone needs to decrypt [this](https://www.ccdiscovery.com/researchers-want-to-have-deciphered-voynich-manuscript) article, which asserts that “Cheshire was a Dominican nun as a writer.” That looks like it was written in proto-Romance and run through Google Translate. > [@](#): > > For years be preached to such breakthroughs, and most of the researchers as nonsense dismissed. The manuscript has already been decrypted as Hebrew, old Turkish, or even the Aztec language of Nahuatl. Weight got Cheshires article but because it appeared in the journal “Romance Studies”. It still makes a lot more sense than Cheshire’s “translations.” ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/168 "2019-05-19T15:18:44Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That looks like it was written in proto-Romance and run through Google Translate. My favorite part: > [@](#): > > For the renowned US-from the middle ages, researcher Lisa Fagin Davis, the Cheshire-theory “nonsense”: “Sorry people, Proto-Romanesque, there is not”, tweeted you. The whole site is like that. [Here](https://www.ccdiscovery.com/the-number-of-insectivorous-birds-back-in-europe) is an article from your field. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/169 "2019-05-19T19:56:29Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > How about it? I see, so **Darren Garrison** can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn’t respond, eh? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2019, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/170 "2019-05-19T20:12:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I see, so **Darren Garrison** can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn’t respond, eh? You’ve responded approximately 5,921,419 times. We get it, already. The problem is, you’re not responding to much of anything _else_. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/171 "2019-05-19T21:11:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I see, so **Darren Garrison** can keep pushin Pelling the pseudoscientist, But I shouldn’t respond, eh? You’re not trying to address any of Pelling’s criticisms, all you’re doing is bashing Pelling. And that doesn’t give any more credibility to Cheshire. As you often do, you’re falling back on arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments instead of actually trying to address any of the facts. You say Cheshire has credibility just because he has a Ph.D. (which is actually in a different field than linguistics) and the article was in a peer-reviewed journal. You say Pelling’s criticism’s must be false because of what you allege about his background. But you don’t actually factually address the arguments or my or other people’s criticisms. Also as you often do, you’ve failed to read citations in other posts in the thread, or get wrong what they say. You haven’t try to evaluate Cheshire’s (or Pelling’s) arguments objectively. Instead, you hijack and distract by repeatedly attacking Pelling on personal grounds. This is not the way to get anyone to take your opinions on the matter seriously. ---
**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 20, 2019, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/172 "2019-05-20T20:22:48Z")
Cheshire [tells Fox News](https://www.foxnews.com/science/voynich-manuscript-mystery-alien-code) that the lurkers support him in e-mail: > [@](#): > > “I might add, that the information has actually been available for two whole years and in that time many southern European scholars have verified its efficacy, simply because they speak Romance languages and can therefore intuitively see that it is correct,” ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2019, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/173 "2019-05-20T22:11:36Z")
But he can’t name any of those southern European scholars, or get any of them to support him publicly? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/174 "2019-05-21T02:41:59Z")
The Voynich manuscript has been decoded (differently) more times than Noah’s Ark has been found. ---
**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 21, 2019, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/175 "2019-05-21T04:26:31Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The Voynich manuscript has been decoded (differently) more times than Noah’s Ark has been found. It would be interesting to tabulate how many different languages it has been alleged to be. Bonus points if the language is imaginary, like proto-Romance. ---
**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 21, 2019, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/176 "2019-05-21T05:38:07Z")
[Here](http://ciphermysteries.com/the-voynich-manuscript/voynich-theories) is a partial list. Some other solvers show up in the comments–the very first asserts that it is "The Heavenly Language” and the plants illustrated were from the Garden of Eden. ---
**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 21, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/177 "2019-05-21T15:25:27Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > the plants illustrated were from the Garden of Eden. I don’t know if they were from Heaven, but they sure aren’t anything from Planet Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Rough\_Draft](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@Rough\_Draft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rough_Draft)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/178 "2019-05-21T15:57:50Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I don’t know if they were from Heaven, but they sure aren’t anything from Planet Earth. As someone with only a casual interest in the Voynich Manuscript, I find this particularly noteworthy. Only a few people have even attempted to relate the botanical illustrations with known plants, and they’re not very persuasive (Sunflowers? Really?). If all those botanical images are clearly fantasies, it strongly suggests to me that the entire manuscript is. ---
**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 21, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/179 "2019-05-21T16:20:57Z")
> [@Rough\_Draft](#): > > As someone with only a casual interest in the Voynich Manuscript, I find this particularly noteworthy. Only a few people have even attempted to relate the botanical illustrations with known plants, and they’re not very persuasive (Sunflowers? Really?). > > If all those botanical images are clearly fantasies, it strongly suggests to me that the entire manuscript is. I’ve said this before, but if this is meant to be a real herbal, it’s the worst one ever produced. At best, the illustrations are inaccurate, but more often they are fantastic mishmashes of features from entirely different plants. If the object was to convey information about known plants, the author/illustrator failed miserably. AFAIK the plants illustrated in most medieval herbals are reasonably identifiable with known medicinal plants even without the text. Those in the Voynich MS are not. ---
**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 23, 2019, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/180 "2019-05-23T04:41:04Z")
[New article](https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/has-voynich-manuscript-code-solved-cracked-no-peer-review-process/), linking to [this](https://mobile.twitter.com/benjcartlidge/status/1128987248597315585) devastating flock of tweets. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113.md?page=10)