Thread replies: 34
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
File: manuscript2.png (571KB, 667x464px) Image search:
[Google]
571KB, 667x464px
I'm sure you all know about this manuscript.
Isn't it a little strange that it's never been translated before though? It is written in a completely unheard of language and it is a full book. There is no way someone way back then would waste all their time handwritting a full manuscript full of spam.
All that's in it are illustrations of plants and pictures of people performing various rituals.
What exactly is the possible meaning behind this? It has still never been translated properly.
>>
>>17424578
extra pic.
This book is so spooky what is it even supposed to be? ?
>>
>>
>>17424596
fuck off.
OP, l am genuinely interested in this weird ass text, if you have more please post.
>>
>>17424578
This includes an excellent historical & linguistic breakdown of the likely source of the text by a member of the team which is working to interpret it:
https://youtu.be/fpZD_3D8_WQ
>>
>>17424596
Fuck off, you dick-inhaling retard, this is completely on topic /x/ material.
>>
>>17425249
Thanks. The weirdest thing is that I'm pretty sure this is the only text written in this language.
The language itself seems to have patterns, and apparent conjugation of words that would make it look like a modern and fully established alphabet language but there is no hints as to the origins.
Learning a complete language fluently takes time and since this manuscript is written entirely in the language it is either someone who spent a very long time creating their own language, or some person or group of people already knew this language and this manuscript was the only remaining piece?
It's also strange for me to see the various drawings interrupting the text by going straight through the same page in a way that it cuts through the text itself.
>>
The apparent plants being documented look so strange too.
Most of them actually bare an acceptable resemblance to what we would expect a simple visual recreation to look like except these drawings are much more sloppy and appear so because it looks like a personal project never intended for release. I don't understand.
>>
6/6
There also appears to be no form of punctuation at all... which is present in some form of most languages. The only formatting seems to be paragraphs and tabs.
The only settling thing about this is the Arabic numerals used in the top-right for page number. Which would at least imply it was a human document. Everything else about this is very sketchy since it's the worlds most mysterious manuscript.
>>
>>17424578
This is the voynich yeah? I think it could be a witty joke by an old intellectual to mess with historians
Or made for the sake of art and aesthetics
>>
>>17426352
The second point seems very plausible.
If this was just an early form of trolling it would be hard to believe since it was so complete and consistent with the patterns making the language look complete. This would have taken so long to write by hand and color in all of the images for it to only have no purpose.
>>
>>17424578
It was probably written by a small group to swindle some gold out of the Holy Roman emperor of the time since he was into alchemy.
>>
File: Socotra-island-thesuiteworld-dragon-dracaena-cinnabari-socotra.jpg (716KB, 2048x1366px) Image search:
[Google]
716KB, 2048x1366px
If I have to guess, I'd say it's some sort of alchemy book or a primitive encyclopedia about plants.
Since most of those plants look weird, I'm guessing that the person who wrote it was either bad at drawing or just making shit up.
Although some of them seem like plants you might find in Socotra.
>>
It was a form of proto roleplay. The guy that wrote is the grand grand grand father of /x/.
>>
>>17424578
its a book about herbs and spices
some of it has been partially decoded allegedly
>>
>>17426341
its a hoax
>>
>>17426464
But why crypt a book about herbs and spices ?
Fear to be consider as a sorcerer ?
Fear of Inquisition ?
>>
>>17426814
maybe there was a group of people that spoke this language
>>
OP, scam artists have existed since the dawn of time. In fact it was a lot easier to get away with shit a few centuries ago, because people simply couldn't fact-check in any real way. As others have suggested, the Voynich. Manuscript is likely an elaborate and amazing tool used to fool someone (likely for money or simply infamy).
>>
>>17424578
you got scammed.
>>
>>17426895
But why make it so elaborate? Cryptography of that period was usually very simple, and yet this thing has stumped experts for over a century – linguists, cryptographers, statisticians who are convinced there is *something* to it, some logic or pattern behind it. I don't think any of the current theories declare it nonsense, at least none backed up by people who know what they're talking about (although obviously the manuscript also attracts both amateurs and paranoid schizophrenics).
Simply put, if money or fame was what they were after, they absolutely didn't need to go this far, and they would have known that.
>>
>>17426947
>But why make it so elaborate? Cryptography of that period was usually very simple, and yet this thing has stumped experts for over a century
How come you wannabelievers always say unfounded crap like "cryptography was very simple blah blah blah." The 15th century was practically the peak of European cryptography, which itself heavily overshadowed code and cipher efforts anywhere else on Earth. That would be the ideal time for a new, unknown and difficult to crack method to be developed and employed.
>>
>>17426947
If you are trying to pull some shit like this on a very rich person (king, emperor etc.) you have better put effort in. If hes into weird shit chances are he has a few experts around him that know their shit and would figure out a lame scam instantly.
>>
>>17426966
>wannabelievers
seriously mate
In the 15th century there certainly was a "blossoming" of the art, specifically among the city-states of northern Italy, but it was by no means the peak. Compared to later cryptography, that of the period was "usually very simple." Practices developed and diversified, and there was something of an arms race in the art, but there was always continuity between new forms, and there is nothing about the VM that reflects its contemporaries in terms of technique or complexity – save for several shared symbols.
Professional cryptographers treat this as genuine, as do historical experts who know more about the context of that period than you or I do. There's no reason to resort to name calling, mate.
>>17427026
I know that there were many scholars in the Bohemian court, but I don't think anyone was on stand-by for statistical analysis of character frequency in a shitty tengwar d&d guide. If the text was encoded or simply faked so as to be undecipherable, yet able to be analyzed as a logical language or cipher, then what's up with all the fake plants? If this is supposed to be undetectable as bullshit, why make up imaginary plants, or draw them so distorted that anyone who didn't do an in-depth analysis of the wonky text would take one look and declare the book as fake as the plants. I mean, that was many people's initial reaction.
>>
>>17426464
>allegedly
Watch this, anon:
>>17425261
>>
The reason that /cryptographers/ are so stumped is because it's not coded.
It's a , literal, reference text, in a language somewhere between slvic & arabic. All the people who used it probably got genocided by crusaders of some sect or other, somewhere along the line, or very few used the written language & were assimilated, localisims subverted into dialect.
>>
>>17427143
Note: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...
>>
>>17427118
>In the 15th century there certainly was a "blossoming" of the art, specifically among the city-states of northern Italy, but it was by no means the peak. Compared to later cryptography, that of the period was "usually very simple." Practices developed and diversified, and there was something of an arms race in the art, but there was always continuity between new forms, and there is nothing about the VM that reflects its contemporaries in terms of technique or complexity – save for several shared symbols.
15th century Italian philosopher Leon Alberti is typically referred to as the Father of Western Cryptography, which is to say the father of relevant modern Cryptography, and credited with the creation of polyalphabetic cipher, a concept which still guides a good portion of non-digital/automatic encryption into the 20th and even 21st century.
Of course, his credit is contested, the works of the collapsing Islamic golden age were sadly poorly preserved, or even actively destroyed by the Catholic Church at that time, but evidence of strong encryption through that era, including possible polyalphabetic usage as much as 5-6 centuries prior to Alberti, are evidenced.
>>
File: read a book nigger.jpg (65KB, 566x480px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 566x480px
>>17424578
>There is no way someone way back then would waste all their time handwritting a full manuscript full of spam.
Why
the
fuck
not?
You fail the moment when you do this retarded assumption without any basis. Humans are seriously not that different now compared to back then. We have countless autists doing pointless shit now and I fucking guarantee you we had them back then as well.
>>
>>17427118
>If the text was encoded or simply faked so as to be undecipherable, yet able to be analyzed as a logical language or cipher, then what's up with all the fake plants? If this is supposed to be undetectable as bullshit, why make up imaginary plants, or draw them so distorted that anyone who didn't do an in-depth analysis of the wonky text would take one look and declare the book as fake as the plants. I mean, that was many people's initial reaction.
As for this, why indeed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Seraphinianus
Oh, right, because it's fun and creative, two things humans are known for indulging in.
>>
>>17427171
I gotta agree, OP is making a lot of unsupported and frankly wild declarations about people, their behavior, the 15th century, etc. to make the manuscript sound necessarily implausible and therefor mysterious. I'd rather just stick with the actual facts of the matter.
>>
>>17427169
Yes, the polyalphabetic cipher is an influential concept. Now look at how it was utilized in that period, and compare it to what is exhibited by the manuscript. I'm not an expert in this, though, so I won't really argue it much further.
Again, I'm going to take the word of actual, literal experts in this field over yours – and I'm not telling you to take my statements as fact, I'm just an internet random. Go look up for yourself what experts have said.
It's not even relevant though, my argument was never that it wasn't a cipher, just that considering its contemporaries and (presumably) its purpose, it's unusually esoteric. You saw a statement you didn't like, and now you can't detach. Advanced 15th century cryptography would only back up my position, not hurt it.
>>17427175
>>17427180
I'm the guy you're talking with, I'm not OP.
Sorry mate.
Your theory is that it was written for shits and giggles? Because a 20th century artist spent a couple years doing something similar? Comparing the situation of Luigi Serafini in the 1970s to anyone's in the 15th century is pretty ludicrous. Also, the argument isn't even that someone wouldn't be inclined to make such a work, since people certainly are, it's that the manuscript gives every appearance of not being that.
The "actual facts of the matter" is that the only consensus on this manuscript is that it -appears- to be genuine, and that it is undeciphered.
That's it, that's all. Just because you've decided it's fake or something, doesn't mean that's the reality of the situation. Actual scholars, experts, not shitposters like us on an imageboard, have reached that consensus. Those are the actual facts of the matter, deal with it namefag.
You don't need to disprove this, since there's currently nothing about it to disprove. It seems to me you just want to shit on it because someone called it "mysterious" – which it literally is. No aliens, no ancient secrets, just a cool manuscript that hasn't been decoded.
>>
>>17427254
No, see, now you're just unraveling into gibberish and yelling.
>>17427254
>The "actual facts of the matter" is that the only consensus on this manuscript is that it -appears- to be genuine, and that it is undeciphered.
Exactly. Although what does "genuine" mean? Obviously someone made it, and almost certainly around the time period mentioned. It could genuinely be a fictional/for fun work like the Codex Seraphinianus.
I haven't declared it fake. I'm sticking with the known facts. However, beyond those two I note above, there isn't much consensus. Actual scholars, experts, etc., agree on those two points and with a few exceptions fall firmly into the "don't know," camp.
>>17427254
>That's it, that's all. Just because you've decided it's fake or something, doesn't mean that's the reality of the situation. Actual scholars, experts, not shitposters like us on an imageboard, have reached that consensus. Those are the actual facts of the matter, deal with it namefag.
>You don't need to disprove this, since there's currently nothing about it to disprove. It seems to me you just want to shit on it because someone called it "mysterious" – which it literally is. No aliens, no ancient secrets, just a cool manuscript that hasn't been decoded.
And this is just you splerging out. What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't even have a simple conversation without going into irrational bullshit meltdown mode like this? Are you like this in real life just freaking out any time someone points out you got a fact wrong?
>>
>>17427254
>Comparing the situation of Luigi Serafini in the 1970s to anyone's in the 15th century is pretty ludicrous.
Why?
Thread posts: 34
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8