Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption News

The Voynich Manuscript May Have Been Decoded 320

Posted by kdawson
from the ask-a-navajo dept.
MBCook sends word on a possible solution to the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript, which we last visited nearly 6 years ago. "The Voynich Manuscript has confounded attempts to decode it for nearly 100 years. A person named Edith Sherwood, who has previously suggested a possible link to DaVinci, has a new idea: perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words. There are three pages of examples from the herb section of the book, showing the original text, the plaintext Italian words, and the English equivalents. Has someone cracked the code?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Voynich Manuscript May Have Been Decoded

Comments Filter:
  • It Hurts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:21AM (#30296334) Journal

    perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.

    Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?

    More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants? Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com]. Not like this [edithsherwood.com]. I mean, come on! Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin?

    Here's a real gem:

    This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated. This was further supported by reading Wikipedia’s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.

    You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.

    This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript. Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual. The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation. But it oddly won't work for 99% of the manuscript. Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense.

    If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work. Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us. And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ianare (1132971)

      Well, she does say she doesn't speak Italian ... If this is true then I'm sure someone familiar with medieval Italian will come along and decode the whole thing. As for the labeling, yes of course it's 'bullshit', the manuscript is recognized as being fiction for a long time now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Umm... really? The manuscript has still yet to be decoded at all -- how would we go about determining that it is fiction?
        • by ianare (1132971)

          Simple : the illustrations are clearly not representation of reality.

          Though I suppose it could be the same kind of fiction found in the bible or other religious works - in some cases based on reality, but clearly distorted.

          • Re:It Hurts (Score:4, Interesting)

            by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @02:13PM (#30299906)
            The illustrations are clearly not a literal representation of reality, but they could certainly be a figurative representation of reality used to elucidate the accompanying non-fiction text. If you looked through any modern science text book, the often bizarre figures and illustrations used to clarify the point could very easily be construed as fiction to one who was not familiar with the format.
    • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:39AM (#30296476) Journal

      Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?

      She calls for help from people knowing medieval Italian. Apparently she used a reference book on the medieval Italian name of certain plants ot get these hints. She makes the interesting suggestion that this was written by a child, maybe mimicking scientists he knows be drawing "obvious" stuff, i.e. the plants in the garden and in the kitchen, and "hiding" his discoveries using a code used by scientists of the time.

      You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.

      She referred to Wikipedia as an inspiration to explore an anagram-based lead. Not such a bad thing to do.

      If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.

      That was the theory that sounded the most plausible to me too, but these new leads and discoveries call for more investigation, I would say.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by radtea (464814)

      If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.

      That's an interesting idea, with the key word being "artist". The almost complete lack of errors and corrections in the text strongly suggest that it's nonsense rather than any kind of encoded message. Considered as a weird kind of autistic art, that might be kind of cool, although by far the more likely solution is that John Dee or one of his associates created the thing as a fraud to bilk gullible aristocrats or royalty (Charles

    • Well, it could just be a randomly generated joke.

    • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Funny)

      by JasterBobaMereel (1102861) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:50AM (#30296590)

      So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....

      For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....

    • Unless... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jDeepbeep (913892) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @10:16AM (#30296846)

      Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense.

      That is, unless the manuscript is using a collection of ciphers (one for each section perhaps?), in which case, one key won't unlock everything.

      Just a thought.

    • by SharpFang (651121)

      I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com]. Not like this [edithsherwood.com]. I mean, come on!

      But maybe the manuscript author didn't. I mean, the whole mystery aside, we all know the level of accuracy of scientific texts of that time. The fact it is hard to decode doesn't mean it is true.

    • by careysub (976506)

      ... If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work. Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us. And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.

      This is an interesting possibility, but a problem with this hypothesis is that the Voynich Manuscript exhibits a statistical property of natural languages called Zipf's Law ("the frequency of any word is inversely proportional to its rank in a word frequency table"). Possibly the postulated artist produced imaginary symbols following this law? It would be interesting to see if studies of work created by autistic individuals commonly possess this property. If this is not a common pattern then this possibilit

    • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by divisionbyzero (300681) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @10:31AM (#30296984)

      It seems like you're being a bit harsh. She seems like an amateur doing amatuerish work that has found something suggestive. It's not like she tried to get it published in a journal or claims to be a some sort of professional. Sure she has a phD after her name but that doesn't mean she is trying to claim he phD applies to Voynich Manuscript. Maybe I'm being naive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by reg106 (256893)
      Personally, I like

      This picture also depicts the union of a sperm with an ova, indicating an extraordinary insight into human reproduction.

      and then

      I postulate that Leonardo da Vinci wrote the Voynich Manuscript circa 1460 when he was about 8 years old.

      Meanwhile [wikipedia.org],

      An early microscope was made in 1590 in Middelburg, The Netherlands.

      How exactly did a youthful da Vinci figure out what an ova and sperm look like? If Leonardo da Vinci (as a child) could sketch sperm and ova over 100 years before a crude microscope was invented and almost 200 years before Hooke and Leeuwenhoek, then that alone would be an astonishingly significant discovery. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that Leonardo would build a microscope, discover cell biology, and not bother to write something up about it as an adult. He wa

      • Hey! I rather fancy the idea of an 8-year-old getting sperm and egg donors for his research.

        Er...

      • This what you're talking about? [edithsherwood.com]

        How exactly did a youthful da Vinci figure out what an ova and sperm look like?

        Go ask him.

        It's perfectly reasonable to imagine something before it's observed; especially given his extraordinary talent for comparative reasoning. It can be explained by assuming he had a knowledge of horticulture [wikipedia.org]; which he then applied to animal reproduction. After all, it has a long-enough history. His later drawings of flying machines clearly show he was capable of this type of imaginative play.

        Or, perhaps, the image doesn't depict what she claims. It's perfectly reasona

    • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @11:00AM (#30297326) Homepage Journal

      Since you're not a botanist (nor am I) how do you know what garlic looked like 600 years ago? When corn was first cultivated, it looked like what we call "baby corn" today. It wasn't until centuries of selection and cross-breeding that we got the much larger corn that everyone knows.

      That said, I agree with your premise that this is a shaky "solution", but I wouldn't rule it out based on that evidence.

      • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Informative)

        by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:37PM (#30298536) Journal

        Since you're not a botanist (nor am I) how do you know what garlic looked like 600 years ago?

        Well, here's an illustration from the 15th century [wikimedia.org]. Notice any bulbous feature that is lacking in the Voynich sketch? Notice they don't even bother to depict the root system in the 15th century sketch unlike the Voynich. My point was, not a single one of those plants relayed the distinguishing features you would obvious take care to note on the plant--all she offers is the leaf of stachys that has a hilarious tuber below it in the Voynich sketch but nothing in her botanical book! An obvious stretch of the imagination is the rose bush with no roses.

        When corn was first cultivated, it looked like what we call "baby corn" today. It wasn't until centuries of selection and cross-breeding that we got the much larger corn that everyone knows.

        I'm not sure where you found information that plants have changed dramatically in a few hundred years. While it's true that they have changed dramatically over thousands of years and since the advent of agriculture, 600 years is not the same as 6,000 years [nsf.gov]. While you're kind of right that thousands of years changed plants, I assure you that most if not all of today's plants look the same as they did 600 years ago.

    • If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.

      I agree, but:

      I suggested that a young (around 8 to 10 years old) Leonardo da Vinci was a likely author.

      He's not exactly unknown, is he?

    • In one linked prior page, she says

      Some people have considered the possibility that Wilfred Voynich forged the Voynich Manuscript. Wilfred Voynich’s business was in buying and selling old manuscripts and again it is unlikely that he would have copied from French and Italian manuscripts written after Roger Bacon’s death or seen early Tarot cards like the Visconti-Sforza pack.

      Then three paragraphs later, she says

      If Wilfred Voynich considered Roger Bacon a suitable 13th century author of the Voynich Manuscript, ...

      She can't have it both ways. Either Voynich was too smart to have made such a clumsy mistake, or he was not. She makes it clear that both of these are her own opinions: first she disagrees that he would have been so clumsy as to fake it in a Roger Bacon style, then she says he considered Roger Bacon a possible author.

    • Re:It Hurts (Score:5, Informative)

      by vegiVamp (518171) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:32PM (#30298472) Homepage
      I generally agree with your rant, but I'd like to point out that the Allium family has more than just regular garlic. A wild plant that's called 'daslook' here (look is garlic) of that family, does look a lot more similar to the drawing: http://www.waterwereld.nu/images/daslook2.JPG .

      Ah, wikipedia is helpful again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allium_ursinum

      The leaves are quite nice in a salad, too :-)
    • by IorDMUX (870522)
      What I find very telling and most undermining to this hypothesis is the simple fact that soybeans were not introduced to Europe and the United States until the 18th century, and did not become a significant crop until the 20th. Given that the Voyinch manuscript is thought to be from the 15th - 16th century, the supposed translation [edithsherwood.com]--which claims to identify a soia = soybean plant--has quite a bit of explaining to do.

      ... along the same lines, do you notice any resemblance between the "soybean" illustration
    • Re:It Hurts (Score:4, Informative)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @02:38PM (#30300192) Homepage Journal

      I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like [wikispaces.com]. Not like this [edithsherwood.com]. I mean, come on!

      http://vegetablesofinterest.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/28/rare_ripe_garlic_shoots.jpg [typepad.com]

      http://ballardfarmersmarket.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/green-garlic/ [wordpress.com]

      http://inpraiseofsardines.typepad.com/blogs/2006/02/spring_is_just_.html [typepad.com]

  • by John Guilt (464909) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:23AM (#30296348)
    Oh, that was Voynich Manuscript...that's different. Never mind.
  • The link is at least more likely than to Leonardo da Gary Indiana.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Culture20 (968837)

      The link is at least more likely than to Leonardo da Gary Indiana.

      or Leonardo da Ninja Turtle

  • Really now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bluesman (104513) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:30AM (#30296396) Homepage

    I know nothing about this manuscript except what is written in this article, but if it's anagrams, a simple analysis of the letter frequency would have revealed that.

    • by Trepidity (597)

      The article itself doesn't seem to claim it's anagrams. In fact, it's not clear it claims anything at all, besides "cc" standing for "on" wherever it appears (or maybe only some of where it appears). The main thesis seems to be that if you squint at it, read it as sloppy handwriting, replace a few letter-pairs with something else they cipher for, and ignore words that don't fit this scheme (assuming they were thrown in to confuse), it might make sense. But that's a pretty ad-hoc hypothesis, and not much is

      • by Trepidity (597)

        Oh, oops, I was reading the wrong one of her articles (the 2nd one linked). The first one does indeed claim it's anagrams. Which, indeed, don't explain the strange letter-frequency and word-length-frequency distributions (or at least don't by themselves explain it).

    • I think letter frequency actually supports the theory of anagrams. If my recollection is correct, the manuscript's frequency of letters and the frequency of the length of words strongly mimics that of a natural language. This is why many people think that it is neither a random hoax, nor something completely made up. Instead, the suspicion is that there is something real going on - the question is though, whether the language is merely transformed, a secret real language, or whether it's just a regular lang

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by denzacar (181829) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:33AM (#30296422) Journal

    Wasn't Voynich Manuscript already solved by Randall Munroe? [xkcd.com]

    • by DrYak (748999)

      In fact, the working hypothesis of TFA's Author is that the manuscript may have been written by a young - still child - Leonardo, playing around with anagrams and trying to make an imaginary book out of common plants.
      Not that far from children playing "Druids & Dicotyledon 1st Edition"

  • The key to discovering the secrets of this manuscript are to be found by first finding Wilfrid Voynich's Bacon Factor.
  • by Cornwallis (1188489) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:34AM (#30296446)

    It says:

    Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Megaweapon (25185)

      It also says:

      Form eyeball-size pieces from the dough
      Roll in the powdered sugar
      And say the Magic Words:
      "Sim sala bim bamba sala do saladim"

    • by bmo (77928)

      Mod parent up for best literary reference.

      --
      BMO

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by donaggie03 (769758)

      It says:

      Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."

      NO NO NO! Whoever heard of "A Canticle for Voynich" ?? It just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

  • Hypothesis testing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeOptimusPrime (875888) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:38AM (#30296470)
    Hypothesis: The manuscript is anagrammatic Italian.
    Corollary 1: The manuscript should contain appropriate letter frequencies for said language.
    Corollary 2: The manuscript should contain all relevant letters.
    Conclusion: Neither Corollary 1 nor 2 are true, thus hypothesis is rejected.
    ...
    ???
    ...
    Add to the annals of the internet.
    • by bytesex (112972)

      Only if the amount of words is large enough to have said letter frequencies and said relevant letters. I find the examples given very, very convincing. That doesn't mean that other examples are unconvincing, nor that most examples simply aren't given. But there may just be an explanation for that. As in: written in another language, or using another method of obfuscation.

  • Oh Crap! (Score:3, Funny)

    by AnotherBrian (319405) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:38AM (#30296472) Homepage

    Like we need another lame Dan Brown book+movie.

    Also, http://xkcd.com/593/ [xkcd.com]

    • by Verdatum (1257828) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:55AM (#30296634)
      I said the same thing when this was still in "recent". If there's been genuine cryptanalysis on it, and there has, an anagram cipher would show up immediately. I can't find any information on who this edith sherwood (Ph.D!) is, but a simple google search on her name popped up with that informative link.
      • One of the posters above read the article rather than Slashdot's headline. She is apparently postulating medieval Italian. Would cryptanalysis reveal that? Because I am otherwise inclined to agree and write her off as another Zecharia Sitchin [wikipedia.org].
        • by Verdatum (1257828) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:08PM (#30298168)
          Yes. Yes it would. If the claim is that it's just a substitution + anagram cipher, then the character frequencies would stay the same as the plaintext of this language. And even for ancient languages, these frequencies are known. Even despite the fact that ancient writing tended to be phonetic, and thus varied greatly on dialect; philologists take all this into account. The conclusion is that the frequencies don't match any of them. And no cryptographer is going to analyze an ancient document and presume it will translate to modern Italian. That'd be about as stupid as postulating that it was penned by an 8 year old Leonardo Da Vinci...oh wait.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @11:00AM (#30297332)

      I dont know why people cant accept that this thing is just a fun little hoax from 500 years ago. 16th century people had senses of humor and mystery too. Someone concocted it for shits and giggles or perhaps from a serious mental illness. Its a shame this person isnt around today to hear these tales of connections with da vinci, aliens, etc. Shame, for now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.

      • Hey, quit projecting your pompassitude.

        How do you know who does and who doesn't think the Voynich manuscript was a hoax? You haven't heard what I think about it.

        And I call your Dan Brown and raise you an Umberto Eco.

      • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @11:42AM (#30297828)

        now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.

        Dan Brown IS real. You Dan Brown deniers are the real conspiracy nuts. "It's a ghost-writer" "It's plagiarized from aliens" "My dog is Dan Brown" Nutters all.

    • It does seem to be kind of old "news" if you can call it news.. The bottom of the page in TFA says Copyright 2002...
  • by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:44AM (#30296530) Journal

    "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis ut nibh et nunc scelerisque vestibulum non ac diam. Sed porttitor mauris a lorem tempus faucibus.

    This is a test of my new pen."

  • It's a cook book!

  • I know it seems outlandish for something of that time period, but isn't it even remotely possible that someone could have created this document just for the purposes of confounding scholars? Perhaps it started as a joke for a collegue and got out of hand, or just happens to be the work of a mad man. Perhaps there is nothing to decode.
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      It's certainly possible, but it's incredibly long and detailed to be a hoax.

      I'm reminded of a scene from Star Trek DS9 when Dr Bashir is trying to cure an engineered disease and has the following exchange with Jadzia (paraphrased):

      Bashir: "There is no cure. The Dominion saw to that. These people have been suffering with this disease for hundreds of years and I arrogantly thought I could cure it within a week.".

      Jadzia: "Maybe that was arrogant, but it's even more arrogant to think that there is no cure jus

  • by srussia (884021) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @09:56AM (#30296652)
    Hypothesis: Leonardo Da Vinci had a son (perhaps named Bartolomeo). As punishment for Bart's mischief, Leonardo ordered him to write 300 pages' worth of "Non rivelero il segreto di mio padre" using Da Vinci's secret script in mirror image.
  • Doesn't work, you would think he would have been smarter.

  • We take an infinite number of monkeys, and an infinite number of parchments, and eventually one of them will write a new play by that Shakespeare fellow...

  • what (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bistromath007 (1253428) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @10:34AM (#30297008)
    How did it not occur to this dipshit that if the "code" were just Italian anagrams, Italians would've figured it out a long time ago?
  • by joh (27088)

    Have you ever looked at that book? Look at the pictures and you'll know that there's nothing to decode. It's just phantasizing, all made up. There's no reason to waste any time with the text, especially since many people have tried and nobody found any kind of sense in it.

    It's still beautiful, mind you.

    • by uncledrax (112438)

      Yeap.. it's probably some background work for an early Italian role-playing-game written in the old equivalent version of 'Klingon'...

  • by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @11:28AM (#30297680) Journal

    Let's try to stay well clear of pot boilers. Art historians refer to the renaissance polymath as "Leonardo," not as "Mr. Da Vinci." Sidmilarly, Dante, rather than "Mr Alligheri" wrote the Divine Comedy.

  • I happen to be a linguistics major, and I don't want the manuscript to ever be decoded. To me, the manuscript is a symbol of the complexity of language and the depth of human ingenuity and creativity. The fact the best minds of the last 100ish years haven't cracked it reminds me that there is always some further mystery waiting to be solved and that we should be leery of anyone who claims to have all the answers.
  • If you take the third letter of every fifth page divided by the square of the absolute answer to life the universe and everything and add it to a nice, hot cup of tea, you'll get that the book simply lists technological achievements and political issues discussed by anonymous contributors.
  • by noidentity (188756) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:03PM (#30298108)

    In case you don't want to read the article, here are the first two lines they decoded:

    Never gonna give you up,
    Never gonna let you down

  • Da Vinci makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:13PM (#30298246) Homepage
    I'm no handwriting expert, but doing a quick google image search lead to a number of images of Leonardo's work with handwriting to compare against and frankly, it looks like a dead-on match to me. The little X thing he does in place of "ver" not only looks the same, but has the same little incidental serifs and stuff. The occurrences of "l" look the same, the "i"s that look like alphas, the funky "P". Again, I'm no expert, but either the writer was da Vinci or someone copying his writing style.

    The fact that she used tools available on the web to help her out in areas where she's not an expert, ought not be held against her. Personally, I think it shows that she's pretty damn clever.
    • by Verdatum (1257828) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @12:43PM (#30298610)

      Regardless of how much it does or does not look like Da Vinci's hand, I very much agree with your second paragraph. She sounds like a lovely armchair investigator; happily and quietly posting her suppositions on her own website (though the website begs for a CV; it'd be nice to know in what field and from where that Ph.D originates). I find it no different from my enjoyment in tinkering with the Millennium Prize Problems [wikipedia.org] when I have no business doing so.

      The problem I have is with the story submitter. Would it have been so difficult to discover that this paper specifically was debunked 10 months ago, and what was written like the first few days of a breakthrough has yet to come to any fruition. I think it's a little mean to force her to stand up to slashdot peer review. Worse and plain irritating for the summary to be so exaggerant of the claim. If it was like "Here's a cute theory, she thinks it was Da Vinci, and believes she has a couple lines translated!" then a fun discussion would be had by all sans the unwarranted excitement.

  • by don_carnage (145494) on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @02:41PM (#30300230) Homepage
    Is the Voynich Manuscript in its entirety available for public review? I've only seem short page excerpts. Perhaps the right person hasn't seen it yet. (See Mayday Mystery [maydaymystery.org]).

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Working...