hello /x/
im looking for something in particular.
from memory, it's suppose to be a book with a bunch of flora that is not found on our planet, written in a language nobody can decipher.
last time i saw it, it wasn't proven to be a hoax and people were baffled. i'm interested in following up on it to see if theres been any progress on its origins or whether or not some guy wrote it while he was off his meds.
The Voynich manuscripts
>>17063725
Took me a while, since I could only remember it started with a "v", but here it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
>>17063739
Oh, I guess I should have refreshed quicker. But at least I gave OP a link.
>>17063753
>>17063739
thanks guys much appreciated
The age of the object makes it really hard to prove anything. The thing seems to be legitimately from 15th century, so we really have no way of knowing what was up with this thing unless someone can figure out what the text says. The otherworldlyness of some of the flora pictured might just come down to the author's unfamiliarity with plant species and being creative with how they look/copying another illustration he/she saw. There are so many possibilities, but unfortunately I doubt we will ever know.
>>17063837
im looking now on some of the comments cryptographers made about the 'letters' and the frequency of letters in the words etc.
really is odd.
but this shit gets me so god damn excited/deluded
i know its been known for a while now, but just looking through the pages gives me that feeling of charting the unexplored....
>>17063878
>im looking now on some of the comments cryptographers made about the 'letters' and the frequency of letters in the word
don't they suggest that this is more likely to be gibberish than code?
>>17063905
well from what i gathered, it comes across as gibberish when using single-substitution alphabet deciphering. but the 'words' do seem to follow some sort of phonological or orthographic laws.
so yeah, not considered gibberish, just gibberish when using pic related
>>17063898
op here, this is pretty great. This outlook is essential on this board, i think.
>>17063725
IIRC the manuscript was an elaborate con linked to some snake-oil tier scam artist back in the day. Maybe it was just put forward that stuff like this was common in periods like that, idk. Manuscript is pretty cool, though. I probably woulda bought it just to display as art.
>>17064061
True that. It's hard to walk the line around here with all these extreme points of view from one side or the other. Usually end up getting shit flung at you from both sides.
>>17063959
I think whatever algorithm they tried to
crack it with it just turned out that the body of text can I no way represent any form of logically written language. The order or letters and vowels and the absurd frequency of some characters compared to others don't make any sense. The "descriptive" words next to and in the drawings however might uphold real language. There's this one guy claiming he's used pictures of plants and old names of plants as comparison to decipher those. I didn't really read that deep into it, it seemed sort of legit while scanning through his paper.
>>17063725
I enjoyed listening to Terrence McKenna talk about it. Very informative, not just on his opinion but it catches you up to speed on research that was done on it already by cryptographers and experts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg1k-k5eAZ4
>>17063725
Possibly the beginnings of translation:
http://www.beds.ac.uk/news/2014/february/600-year-old-mystery-manuscript-decoded-by-university-of-bedfordshire-professor
You might also like this, OP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Seraphinianus
