Voynich manuscript is gibberish?
Ka
Secret of historic code: it's gibberish
Mystery of manuscript that foxed scholars for centuries is solved
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 25, 2004
The Observer
It is covered with drawings of fantastic plants, strange symbols and naked
women.
Its language is unknown and unreadable, though some believe it bears a
message from extraterrestrials. Others say it carries knowledge of a
civilisation that is thousands of years old.
But now a British academic believes he has uncovered the secret of the
Voynich manuscript, an Elizabethan volume of more than 200 pages that is
filled with weird figures, symbols and writing that has defied the efforts
of the twentieth century's best codebreakers and most distinguished medieval
scholars.
According to computer expert Gordon Rugg of Keele University, the manuscript
represents one of the strangest acts of encryption ever undertaken, one that
made its creator, Edward Kelley, an Elizabethan entrepreneur, a fortune
before his handiwork was lost to the world for more than 300 years.
'It was bought by Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia for 600 ducats, an absolute
fortune for that period,' said Rugg, whose paper on the manuscript is
published in the journal Cryptologia. 'People clearly thought it contained
arcane secrets and great knowledge and were prepared to pay to learn them.'
Unfortunately, after only a few years in Rudolph's care, the manuscript was
lost and was not seen again until it surfaced in Frascati, Italy, in 1912
when it was bought by a Russian antiquarian called Wilfred Voynich.
The manuscript - written on vellum in neat and clear handwriting,
illustrated with watercolours - is now a prize exhibit at Yale University.
However, those who have attempted to unravel its meaning have had a singular
lack of success even though they include some of the world's greatest
codebreakers such as John Tiltman, head of Britain's codebreakers at
Bletchley Park, and William Friedman, whose team broke the Japanese Purple
cipher during the Second World War.
The fact that an Elizabethan document could be written in a code that has
defied a century's attention by the world's greatest code-breakers is the
most astonishing aspect of this amazing document.
Some of its strange characters look like Roman numbers and Latin letters.
Others are unlike any symbol seen before. The language seems to have
structure, however, and forms a pattern, albeit one unlike any other
language on earth.
Apart from those who believe it is the handiwork of aliens or survivors of
great lost civilisations, there are cryptologists who claim the Voynich
manuscript is written in early Ukrainian script while others say it is a
form of Chinese.
Despite these claims no-one has been able to translate the document. Nor
have claims that the script is a simple hoax been sustained.
'The manuscript exhibits so much linguistic structure that a hoax appears to
require almost as much sophistication as an unbreakable code,' says Rugg in
his paper.
But now the computer expert and his team believe they have found the secret
of the Voynich manuscript.
They have shown that its various word, which appear regularly throughout the
script, could have been created using table and grille techniques. The
different syllables that make up words are written in columns, and a
grille - a piece of cardboard with three squares cut out in a diagonal
pattern - is slid along the columns.
The three syllables exposed form a word. The grille is pushed along to
expose three new syllables, and a new word is exposed.
Rugg's conclusion is that Voynichese - the language of the Voynich
manuscript - is utter gibberish, put together as random assemblies of
different syllables.
'People thought the manuscript had great meaning - some form of alchemy,
perhaps,' said Rugg.
'In fact, it was created by Kelley as a deception to make him money. He
succeeded. The Voynich manuscript was the Elizabethan equivalent of the
Hitler diaries.'
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/04
Alex Sumner
"Ka" <sims...@occultmail.com> wrote in message
news:rFVQb.344$F51...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1130832,00.html
>
> Secret of historic code: it's gibberish
>
The irony being that the word "gibberish" actually derives from "Geber-ish"
i.e. like unto the encrypted writings of the Alchemist Geber.
AS
http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/
"EHNB" - http://www.geocities.com/alex_sumner/ehnb.htm
Gnome d Plume
**** Alex:
Good point that. It seems every 15 years or so some clever individual
comes up with what he says is the "real" secret behind the *Voynich
Manuscript* and publishes a book on it. The last one was, as I recall,
the *Cathar Endura Rite* a sort of ritualized euthanasia that Dr
Kavorikian would love--but there was nothing in the MS graphics to
support this conclusion. That author said that it was written in an
obscure Flemish dialect that had then been encrypted with a cypher
alphabet---kinda like Navajo written in Greek. What none of these
Voynich decoders seem to realize is that there really are unbreakable
codes and undecipherable ancient languages--until you find the key.
We have a present day mythos that big mainframes at NSA can break
anything. If so why can't we read Linear B, or Rongo-rongo? Even the
old book code, if used with a St Cyr slip (three sliding alphabets) is
a daunting proposition for the best cryptographers. If the (code) book
used were to be written in Lower Duriac with an Armenian alphabet
transposed into Cyrilic it would be impossible.****
Good Magick!
Gnome
Old Coyote
> "Ka" <sims...@occultmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rFVQb.344$F51...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1130832,00.html
> >
> > Secret of historic code: it's gibberish
> >
>
> The irony being that the word "gibberish" actually derives from "Geber-ish"
> i.e. like unto the encrypted writings of the Alchemist Geber.
No, I don't think so.
"
With this system, it was possible to develop algebra, named after the
Muslim book of maths, Al-Jibr
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A952832
Same story a math teacher told me many moons ago, seems to be
the accepted fable anyway.
Alex Sumner
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Alex Sumner" <alex_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bv2orq$caj$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Ka" <sims...@occultmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rFVQb.344$F51...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1130832,00.html
> > >
> > > Secret of historic code: it's gibberish
> > >
> >
> > The irony being that the word "gibberish" actually derives from
"Geber-ish"
> > i.e. like unto the encrypted writings of the Alchemist Geber.
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> "
> With this system, it was possible to develop algebra, named after the
> Muslim book of maths, Al-Jibr
> "
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A952832
>
> Same story a math teacher told me many moons ago, seems to be
> the accepted fable anyway.
>
Agi thagink hage jagust sagaid thagat bagecagause wagantaged tago clagaim
thage glagoragy fagor hagis agown pragoffagessagiagon.
Agalagex Sagumnager
:-)
David R. Jones
--until you find the key.
>We have a present day mythos that big mainframes at NSA can break
>anything. If so why can't we read Linear B,
We can read linear B, it's archaic Gk. composed in a syllabary. It's
Linear A that defies translation. Chadwick's The Decipherment of
Linear B is a good introduction to how Michael Ventris deciphered it
back in the 1950s
Love Jones
Dennis
the Voynich Manuscript. We heard about this thread.
Gordon Rugg, who has the Elizabethan hoax theory, has
this site:
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/staff/g.rugg/voynich/index.html
I haven't seen his Cryptologia article, where he
discusses his idea in detail, yet. We've discussed
this on the list. The majority think his idea can't
account for many of the details seen in the Voynich
text.
For as much or as little as you want to know about the
Voynich Manuscript:
See the links on this site for images of the Voynich
Manuscript:
http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/voynich/index.html
I'd be glad to discuss it further!
Yours,
Dennis
whatnext
that it is a fake. it just means that the manuscript is actually
something other than grammatical language. that opens up other
possibilities. could be a book of divinations or letter combinations
like raymond Lully suggests.
" <sims...@occultmail.com> wrote in message news:<rFVQb.344$F51...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
silver skar
or the beale ms./ cipher hoax thingamjig...
what's that?! is gibberish same as hoax?
i've seen some web versions o' voynich ms.
some purty derned interesting things pop up with a decent google search,
though this of course only means the subject is not totally irrelevant
or foreign. this seems notable.
like enochian- if it's a joke, it's elaborate enuf to qualify as at
least somewhat erudite in its labyrithine logik
dee and kelly sort of scary guys really
the queen's conjurer makes offhand ref to EK
nice google entry on voynich:
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~bpn2f/ENLT255/voynich.html
picture page 2:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~paasivir/crypt/images/voy2.jpg
one:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~paasivir/crypt/images/voy1.jpg
zero:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~paasivir/crypt/images/f3v.gif
n-1
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8389/voygal1.htm
n-2
http://web.bham.ac.uk/G.Landini/evmt/
n-3
http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/staff/g.rugg/voynich/full_manual.html
silver skar
Magickal Nature
> whatnext wrote:
> > just because an algorithm was found in the manuscript doesn't mean
> > that it is a fake. it just means that the manuscript is actually
> > something other than grammatical language. that opens up other
> > possibilities. could be a book of divinations or letter combinations
> > like raymond Lully suggests.
> >
> >
> >
> > " <sims...@occultmail.com> wrote in message news:<rFVQb.344$F51...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1130832,00.html
> >>
> >>Secret of historic code: it's gibberish
> >>
> >>Mystery of manuscript that foxed scholars for centuries is solved
> >>
> >
>
> or the beale ms./ cipher hoax thingamjig...
>
> what's that?! is gibberish same as hoax?
>
> i've seen some web versions o' voynich ms.
>
> some purty derned interesting things pop up with a decent google search,
> though this of course only means the subject is not totally irrelevant
> or foreign. this seems notable.
>
> like enochian- if it's a joke, it's elaborate enuf to qualify as at
If the system is in danger of being a joke, does that imply there is
no expirence with it? I Would have to say that if one was to make use
of the system rather than treat it as simply an intellectual object,
this matter could be more completely decided - at least so far as the
experimenter was concerned. but then its pretty understandable with
the culture driven program running full tilt to discourage such things
as probable nonsense that one would simply decide to remain open, yet
skeptical in such matters. Perhaps its worth saying that in all
likelyhood nothing else other than actual expirence for ones self can
really give an answer to someone (and, that one alone)... in fact,
even with such expirence for ones self, passing the information to
someone who is set against or even just skeptical could have the
effect of pushing them further away from experiencial knowing...
(thats not always a bad thing... lol)
this is probably taking this thread a bit off topic....
Tom
"Magickal Nature" <perfe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:99f53e5a.04020...@posting.google.com...
>
> If the system is in danger of being a joke, does that imply there is
> no expirence with it?
Just because it's gibberish doesn't mean that we can't imbue it with meaning
on our own. It just means that it's highly unlikely that any two people,
working independently, will experience the same thing from it.
Magickal Nature
Just so its clear, i was refering to Enochian language.
Old Coyote
You seem to be implying that the document in question is some
variant of Enochian. If so I doubt it, it seems likely that it
would have been tried by now.
As far as the voynich thingy goes, someone finding a consistent
algorithm in it is not necisarily the last word. There is no
rule saying the thing couldn't have been encoded with more than
one algorithm. No rule saying multiple algoriths would have to
be serial for that matter.
A very cursory examination of the situation might shed some light:
In the first place, the ammount of effort required to decode the
manuscript (which only ammounts to difficult reading) would certainly
not compare to the ammount of effort required to create it.
In the second place, assuming the conclusion offered by the debunkers
is correct, then we would have to assume that the persons who created
the manuscript were consumate cryptologists and con artists, seeing as how
no-one could pull off the feat of decoding it until now, 400 years later.
These conclusions do not particularily fit the story provided. It
does not seem likely that anyone would go to such lengths merely
for a few ducats. This is a very long document we are talking about,
something over 300 pages. Then too there is a law of economy in cons; the
veneer is never thicker than it needs to be to get out of sight with
the money.
It seems a lot more likely that the thing was painstakingly created
by someone with real motivation, and the algorithm the intrepid code
miester discovered is just a blind. Probably it simply can't be decoded
without a key, which can't be guessed and therefore is lost.
On the other hand, even if it were decoded it probably wouldn't say
anything particularily special, except perhaps in the dusty language
of historians. IMO it has a lot more value as a mystery and an object
for meditation anyway.
Dennis
>
> These conclusions do not particularily fit the story provided. It
> does not seem likely that anyone would go to such lengths merely
> for a few ducats.
It's only fair to say that the purchasing power of 600
gold ducats
now is several hundred thousand US$.
> This is a very long document we are talking about,
> something over 300 pages. Then too there is a law of economy in cons; the
> veneer is never thicker than it needs to be to get out of sight with
> the money.
Yes.
> It seems a lot more likely that the thing was painstakingly created
> by someone with real motivation, and the algorithm the intrepid code
> miester discovered is just a blind.
We mostly think so.
> Probably it simply can't be decoded
> without a key, which can't be guessed and therefore is lost.
No. This would only be true of a one-time pad.
> On the other hand, even if it were decoded it probably wouldn't say
> anything particularily special, except perhaps in the dusty language
> of historians.
Probably, but one never knows. It might contain the
secret of
eternal life - or the author thought so, as one scholar
suggests.
> IMO it has a lot more value as a mystery and an object
> for meditation anyway.
<sigh> Been there...
http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/voynich/index.html
Dennis
Dennis
Dennis
>
> some purty derned interesting things pop up with a decent google search
Here are images of the whole Voynich Manuscript, with
a lot more
color pictures:
Here in plenty of information:
Dennis
Magickal Nature
> perfe...@msn.com (Magickal Nature) wrote in message news:<99f53e5a.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ckuTb.8592$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Magickal Nature" <perfe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:99f53e5a.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > If the system is in danger of being a joke, does that imply there is
> > > > no expirence with it?
> > >
> > > Just because it's gibberish doesn't mean that we can't imbue it with meaning
> > > on our own. It just means that it's highly unlikely that any two people,
> > > working independently, will experience the same thing from it.
> >
> > Just so its clear, i was refering to Enochian language.
>
> You seem to be implying that the document in question is some
> variant of Enochian. If so I doubt it, it seems likely that it
> would have been tried by now.
no i am not implying it is anything of the kind. as far as i know,
the manuscript was already decoded and turned out to be a replacement
alphabet with several languages used... something like that anyway.
my remark was directed to the Question of Enochian itself as a "joke"
... all i am/was saying is that there need not be a doubt there if
one was to make some experiments. Eventually, things might be more
clearly understood (in a personal way)if taken past the need to
intelectualize them, and put them into use.
>
> As far as the voynich thingy goes, someone finding a consistent
> algorithm in it is not necisarily the last word. There is no
> rule saying the thing couldn't have been encoded with more than
> one algorithm. No rule saying multiple algoriths would have to
> be serial for that matter.
>
> A very cursory examination of the situation might shed some light:
>
> In the first place, the ammount of effort required to decode the
> manuscript (which only ammounts to difficult reading) would certainly
> not compare to the ammount of effort required to create it.
>
Ever try your hand at linguistic alchemy? You could probably find
something by Crowley which talks about it in no great detail, except
to imply that alot of the work is blinded by it.
(not refering to the manuscript....)
Old Coyote
> OldC...@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote) wrote in message news:<bacaf0e0.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > perfe...@msn.com (Magickal Nature) wrote in message news:<99f53e5a.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ckuTb.8592$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > > "Magickal Nature" <perfe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:99f53e5a.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > If the system is in danger of being a joke, does that imply there is
> > > > > no expirence with it?
> > > >
> > > > Just because it's gibberish doesn't mean that we can't imbue it with meaning
> > > > on our own. It just means that it's highly unlikely that any two people,
> > > > working independently, will experience the same thing from it.
> > >
> > > Just so its clear, i was refering to Enochian language.
> >
> > You seem to be implying that the document in question is some
> > variant of Enochian. If so I doubt it, it seems likely that it
> > would have been tried by now.
>
> no i am not implying it is anything of the kind. as far as i know,
> the manuscript was already decoded and turned out to be a replacement
> alphabet with several languages used... something like that anyway.
I think you need to pay closer attention.
> my remark was directed to the Question of Enochian itself as a "joke"
It's not a joke.
> ... all i am/was saying is that there need not be a doubt there if
> one was to make some experiments.
Really? I think it is incredibly foolish to do anything
if one doesn't have some idea of what one is doing.
> Eventually, things might be more
> clearly understood (in a personal way)if taken past the need to
> intelectualize them, and put them into use.
Well I can see our paths have diverged here,
so best of luck to you in your 'experiments'
> Ever try your hand at linguistic alchemy?
No. Nor ghost-hunting, enochian, kirrilian photoghraphy, or
any of the other bazillion incredibly obvious ways in which
people can divest themselves of any real responsability
by making themselves into complete asses.