You should see my Dungeonmaster file…
It’s a possibility, but, as Chronos says, the illustrations seem to disfavor this option—particularly because, as stated in the article, they’re likely due to different illustrators. But anyway, I think the reactions to Gibbs’ theory found in the collection of links erysichthon posted pretty much suffice to lay this idea to rest. (I mean, of course, it may still be correct, but if it is, Gibbs hasn’t provided anything like a sufficient case for it.)
Oh, agreed.
They cast doubts but do not actually debunk.
Yeah, they do. The claim that he deciphered it is bogus. He provides no evidence that he has done anything of the kind.
Think of Egyptian hieroglyphs pre-Champollion. The burden is on the would-be decipherer to in fact decipher the text, into intelligible Latin for example. There is no reason to be generous where the cited article is concerned, as it does not even rise to the level of poor scholarship. For instance, there is no statistical analysis or entropy study showing it is even plausible that the text is a list of recipes in abbreviated Latin, or Nahuatl, or whatever the author claims without evidence. Let’s consider it bullshit until proved otherwise.
What I would think would be fatal for the hypothesis that each character represents an abbreviated word is that there are only about 20-30 common distinct characters, plus a few dozen much rarer ones. It’s absurd to think that such a lengthy text could contain so few distinct words and still be meaningful. Also the groups of characters that are usually interpreted as representing words obey rules: certain characters appear only at the start of words, or in the center, or at the end. This would be unlikely if each character represented a word.
Gibbs’ goal was to sell books. He’ll probably succeed.
To the tens of people dying to know the truth about the Voynich manuscript 
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.
Gibbs is making the claim. He’s the one that needs to provide evidence. He hasn’t.
Read the articles. That has been a common idea. It is certainly not original with Gibbs.
I’m not sure what you’re confused about. His point is that if the book were written in the way Gibbs claims it would be useless. And that’s pretty obvious.
In other words, people who actually know something about the manuscript.
This of course is a complete misrepresentation of the articles. They give ample reasons why Gibbs idea is wrong independent of his lack of any credentials.
Please explain how you can write a treatise on women’s health using no more than a few hundred different words. The idea is ludicrous.
It’s really quite simple. If someone claims to have a translation, then you ask “Indeed? Then what is the translation?”. If they don’t reply, it means that they don’t actually have what they claim to have.
So, what you and he are saying, when you get down to cases, everything is D&D? I ask because other people I know would agree.
And that CAD file, Brother, is it DWG, DXF, or something more arcane?
If you want people to take that statement seriously, perhaps you should remind us when, in all history, you have ever stated here that you considered a pseudo-scientific theory to be debunked.
I dont support pseudo-scientific theories, at all. This is hardly one. What makes you call this hypothesis , compared to all the others (none of which “solved” the manuscript)- pseudo-science?
I have many times posted against Antivaxxers. Polygraphs. Homeopathy.Astrology. Moon landing conspiracy theories. “Traditional Chinese medicine”. The Chi Theory of acupuncture, and others. How about you?
I also think Phenology,2012 millenarianism ,Ancient astronauts, Bermuda triangle, Hollow earth, and a host of others are bunkum.
I was one of the early CSICOP members.
And, ad hominen attacks like this dont belong here.
Suppose I announced on the Dope that I had discovered a secret message hidden in your username, and that each letter in “DrDeth” stood for an English word. And suppose I dramatically revealed that the hidden message in your username was “Desperately Red Droopy Elemental Tithing Helicopters.” You’d tell me that I was fucking nuts, because (1) the “hidden message” is gibberish, and (2) there are thousands of possible words for each letter in “DrDeth,” so I could make your username mean anything I wanted.
Well, that’s exactly what Gibbs did.* It’s stupid, and it wouldn’t be any less stupid if he was an academic with a Ph.D.
*I’m talking about his alleged deciphering of the text. His claim that the illustrations show that the VM is a medical treatise is plausible, but that idea has been floating around for many years. It’s not exactly a breakthrough to suggest that a book with lots of pictures of herbs might be about herbal medicine.
This is very good to hear. Though I’m somewhat surprised you don’t see the similarities between the way this writer skirts around actual evidence and the way writers on those issues skirt real evidence. There are patterns to the advocacy of pseudo-science. They should be taken into account when a new “explanation” by an “outsider” without academic expertise threatens to overturn standard opinion. See pseudo-Shakespearean commentary for an equivalent.
Just look at any thread in which both of us have posted. We have never been on the same side even once. I’m always on the scientific side. I am here as well. And you… find this convincing.
What’s the likelihood of this manuscript being a Wise Woman’s herbal reference guide?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/wisewomen
I doubt that an ordinary wise woman would have had the resources to produce a 200+ page profusely illustrated book on vellum. AFAIK vellum would have been fairly expensive at the time.
“always on the scientific side.”:dubious: And you seem to be implying I am not.
The writer here has not yet fully publish. This is a teaser. Nor did i say in any way shape or form this guy is right, I said “But so far, it is the most convincing theory I have read.”
So, show me a more convincing “solve” one that convinced you?