# Voynich manuscript finally deciphered?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 73

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113/73 "2019-05-16T22:05:16Z")

</div>

> [@DrDeth](#):
>
> And this guys has actually translated some parts and the translations make sense.

Which, oddly, was pretty much your same reaction the last time a - completely different - supposed solution gained this amount of media traction. So, [for example](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20471802&postcount=49):

> [@Voynich Manuscript](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript/753076/50):
>
> > [@Colibri](#):
> >
> > Yeah, they do. The claim that he deciphered it is bogus. He provides no evidence that he has done anything of the kind.
> 
> Yes, they make that claim, but more actually they _doubt_ that he did so. But where is their evidence?
> 
> Read the articles.
> 
> “I could list a whole load of things that are wrong with this, but I’d be typing all night on a TL;DR post and nobody would care. _sigh_”
> 
> "_On checking around the web I find that a clear majority, if not all, of the most widely known VM researchers agree that Nicholas Gibbs has not solved the VM puzzle. Apart from his theory being a mish-mash, a hodge-podge, a veritable congeries of conflicting theories old and new, he restates what is blindingly obvious to many and long since known amongst VM theorists aka ‘Voynicheros’. …There is so much wrong with Gibb’s ideas that I must pause here or risk my sanity."_
> 
> Here’s one that says"_The idea that the book is a medical treatise on women’s health, however, might turn out to be correct. But that wasn’t Gibbs’ discovery. Many scholars and amateur sleuths had already reached that conclusion, using the same evidence that Gibbs did. Essentially, Gibbs rolled together a bunch of already-existing scholarship and did a highly speculative translation, without even consulting the librarians at the institute where the book resides._"
> 
> Everyone already knew it was a book about women’s health?:dubious:😕
> 
> But another: "_Regarding the validity of his solution, I personally find it lacking in logic. No author would expect a book to be understood by its readers when only the first letter of each word is given; it’s a massive loss of content. And then grouping together those letters so that they appear to be words obfuscates the meaning further. If his analysis that it’s a book about women’s health is correct, it’s the worst one ever written. It could have served no reader."_  
> or is it-  
> It can’t be a book about women’s health?😕
> 
> and just who is attacking Gibbs? “VM theorists aka ‘Voynicheros’”.  
> But as the Atlantic sez:  
> “\*Some of the skepticism of Gibbs’s theory likely has to do with him being an outsider. He does not seem to be known to professional scholars or the amateur Voynich community.” \*
> 
> Their main attack is that he is ( **Oh noes the horrors!!!** ) making a TV special about it. :eek::eek::eek::eek:
> 
> TV special and “not one of us”= ipso facto he is wrong.
> 
> Of course, maybe his “solve” is wrong. I dunno. I am not a “Voynichero” by any means. But so far, it is the most convincing theory I have read.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voynich-manuscript-finally-deciphered/821113)._