Voynich manuscript finally deciphered?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

How about it?

Yep. In this 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 yet?

A new quote from Cheshire in this detailed piece.

Next up, someone needs to decrypt this article, which asserts that “Cheshire was a Dominican nun as a writer.”

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.

That looks like it was written in proto-Romance and run through Google Translate.

It still makes a lot more sense than Cheshire’s “translations.”

My favorite part:

The whole site is like that. Here is an article from your field.

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.

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.

Cheshire tells Fox News that the lurkers support him in e-mail:

But he can’t name any of those southern European scholars, or get any of them to support him publicly?

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.

Here 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.

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.

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.

New article, linking to this devastating flock of tweets.