Call me spoiled through Beinecke’s SIDs, but without a representation of this Voynichese, I’m reluctant to give a judgement in any way. Never forget, the Michitonese on f17r is again only half the size of the regular Voynichese script (which is already tiny); I tried to copy the writing with a sharpened pencil in the same size — it’s tough. So, even if it looks like “oteeeol aim”, who knows what the author had in mind?

My guess is still that it was a preliminary “test” of the encipherment, and the author tried to decipher parts of what he had written to see if the method worked both ways. Perhaps he had to leave parts of the ciphertext in his translation attempt, because here he had blundered when he enciphered the text?

Wild guesses, I wouldn’t bet a penny on it. Not even a Euro cent. ;-)

I don’t see any Voynichese characters there, so I’m not really in a position to comment. I’ve had a look again at the illustrations in your book and in the SIDs, and I have to take your word for it that they are there.

My best guess to justify the existance of Voynichese alongside latin characters (as is undeniably the case in f116v, even if we doubt f17r ;-) is that the marginalia are notes by the VM author by which he examined whether his cipher was two-way (“sanity check”), perhaps after having modified his algorithm underway.

But that’s just because I can’t come up with anything more convincing. It’s a guess, and not even an educated one, unless we can read at least the latin *or* the Voynichese there…

Cheers,

Elmar

I know what you’re saying with #9 (invention of deceptions), but what on earth do you make of the Voynichese in the top margin on f17r, directly after the (apparently Occitan) lettering?

There’s something hugely fishy about that, which I didn’t (I have to admit) do a particularly good job of explaining in my book. Even though I still think I was basically right. :-)

What do _you_ think is going on there? Is this by the original author, or not?

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

I might add:

11) History rewrite: If one has to add to known history, or ignore known history, for it to work. Known history should reasonably fit the theory. This is used conversely by some to detract from other theories, i.e., by rewriting known history to obviate an opposing theory.

12) Rationalizing features as having been added: For instance, if a feature is too new for one’s theory, to assume it must have been added to the VMs at a later date, by someone else; and if it is the right age for one’s theory, then it must be contemporary to it.

13) Focusing: If the theory fits a small percentage of the Voynich, but not the Voynich as a whole, how can it be correct? One must look at every fiber and ink of the entire work, and it must fit all of it. A true plus a false equals a false.

14) Out of character: If one’s suspect, or circle of suspects and influences, needed to suddenly and radically deviate from their normal behavior and output to create the Voynich, then maybe they simply did not create the Voynich.

Great list, thanks… Rich.