Tom O'Neil Posted October 27, 2016 Author Posted October 27, 2016 I submitted that pdf which is an easy read yet very difficult for you to put together so Strange I question your ability to understand anything I put across to you. There is a 3% gap in finding a Welsh word which my system uses for the labels and themes of the voynich. This number system is bullet proof. The word llin is also welsh for flax. I don't think it is my comprehension that is the problem but you refusal / inability to explain what you are doing (beyond numerology which is, as explained already, inherently meaningless. Q14. Why or how are they stripped out? (Reminder: you have not yet answered a single question. Not one. ) Q.15 Please demonstrate that this is the case. List the words and show how you derive them (that will require you to answer the first 10 or so questions as well.) Q16 Please show that you cannot do the same with all other languages. (I would do this but you haven't explained your method yet.) Q14) 9/100=9% therefore 91% is excluded in step 1 yet it is lowered to 3% in finding a word because its a 3 step process. Q15) I don't need to repeat myself. I simply set numbers to the glyph's by first associating them to the Pythagoras table. Then by using a common number system that any word has to equal 1-9. Q16) What I was implying is that people who try to decode the voynich; use a frequency list as a cipher or sound out words using mnemonics which fails, because the glyph's are arranged in such away the words start to fail at a point and create unintelligible sentences.
Strange Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 I submitted that pdf which is an easy read yet very difficult for you to put together so Strange I question your ability to understand anything I put across to you. Your PDF didn't answer any of my questions. There is a 3% gap in finding a Welsh word which my system uses for the labels and themes of the voynich. This number system is bullet proof. Please explain what "3% gap" means and where it comes. Q14) 9/100=9% therefore 91% is excluded in step 1 yet it is lowered to 3% in finding a word because its a 3 step process. Do you really think that is an answer? What is wrong with you? Q.17; Where does that 9 come from and where does the 100 come from? Q15) I don't need to repeat myself. I simply set numbers to the glyph's by first associating them to the Pythagoras table. Then by using a common number system that any word has to equal 1-9. These are the basis of my first three questions. Q1. Where does this table of symbols come from? Q2. What determines the order of these symbols? Q3. How do you know what numbers should be assigned to these symbols? You have not explained any of these. Q16) What I was implying is that people who try to decode the voynich; use a frequency list as a cipher or sound out words using mnemonics which fails, because the glyph's are arranged in such away the words start to fail at a point and create unintelligible sentences. Well, I suppose that counts as an answer. Well done. So when you said "all languages don't work based on rules to decoded the voynich" that is not what you meant.
Klaynos Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 ! Moderator Note Let's make this more official. Strange's questions are not unreasonable. Your lack of answering them is suspicious. Please answer them or this thread will be closed.
Ophiolite Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 I submitted that pdf which is an easy read yet very difficult for you to put together so Strange I question your ability to understand anything I put across to you. Since he is not the only one befuddled by your ongoing comprehensive lack of clarity and focus, one tends to suspect the fault lies somewhere other than with Strange.
John Cuthber Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 Thank you I will post but its going to be an essay lol:) You say that like you think that's a bad thing. Most of the folk here are scientists and we read thousand page textbooks for kicks + giggles. Our ability to read and comprehend isn't the problem. The fact that you have provided no single shred of an explanation is the issue here.
Strange Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 I will take your refusal to explain your methods as an admission that it is numerological nonsense. I think we can now close the thread. 1
Tom O'Neil Posted October 31, 2016 Author Posted October 31, 2016 I will take your refusal to explain your methods as an admission that it is numerological nonsense. I think we can now close the thread. I'm preparing a paper at your request, but I'm trying to make it clear for you. Make sure you post all questions following this post that need answering. https://voynichnumerology.wordpress.com/
DrKrettin Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 A naïve question: if you quote from Dee's son: In addition, Dee stated that he had 630 ducats in October 1586, and his son noted that Dee, while in Bohemia, owned “a booke…containing nothing butt Hieroglyphicks, which booke his father bestowed much time upon: but I could not heare that hee could make it out.” Why do you contend that Dee had written it (on 100-year-old parchment) ?
Strange Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 I'm preparing a paper at your request, but I'm trying to make it clear for you. I'm sure it can't be that hard to explain. Make sure you post all questions following this post that need answering. Really? Oh well, here we go again: You have a table with numbers assigned to "Voynich symbols". 1. Where does this table of symbols come from? 2. What determines the order of these symbols? 3. How do you know what numbers symbols should be assigned to these symbols? 4. How do you know that one set of signals means "scorpion"? 5. How do you know that another set of symbols means "craf" / "garlic" ? 6. Why are you using an English word (scorpion) in one case and a Welsh word (craf) in another case? And another one (I have lost count now): What controls have you used? For example, have you used random Voynich characters and checked what they "decode" to? Have you given other people the Voynich words plus your method and checked they decode them to the same words? (It is hard for me to think of good controls as your method appears to be based purely on numerology and is therefore meaningless nonsense by definition. But it would be good if you made a pretence of a scientific approach.)
John Cuthber Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 If that pile of horse feathers is an indication of what your book is like then you won't get many buyers. More importantly, you are not allowed to set up a thread just to advertise your book. Here's a more reliable prediction than anything from the manuscript: This thread will die soon.
Strange Posted October 31, 2016 Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) Another attempt: You seem to have forgotten to include the explanation. Why is that? OK. I see you included the text in a PDF (for some stupid reason). 1. Where does this table of symbols come from? You ramble on about Pythagoras. This is completely irrelevant as he is dead. (And numerology is still meaningless nonsense even if he was stupid enough to believe it.) Again: Q1. where did the table of symbols come from? I simply assigned the Voynich glyph’s to equal numbers first based on the garlic picture in folio 99r of the Voynich Manuscript. Q2a. HOW did you "assign the Voynich glyph’s to equal numbers first based on the garlic picture in folio 99r of the Voynich Manuscript" ? I based this on how the glyph’s for the, “craf” label looked. So you made them up. Q7. Why do you say that the second symbol is an H with value 8 but the (nearly identical) symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? Q8. Why does the symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? Q9. Why do you equate the fourth symbol in this group with 'e' when it looks nothing like it? (For example, do you have examples of writing from the period where an 'e' is written like that?) Q10. Why do you have a 'J' in the table of English letters when that letter did not exist at the time. (Someone else has already mentioned the fact you are not using the Welsh alphabet; you are not even using the correct English one.) I built this system out of the Zodiac. Q11. You keep making vague references to the zodiac. What part does that play in your method? In other word HOW EXACTLY did you build this system? The math equals 1 for scorpion and uses the same glyph’s as the word, “craf”, and a traditional Zodiac states Scorpio as that position in the chart which I instead used scorpion. Q.16 How many other words equal 1? (And please don't use the word "math" for this insane mumbo-jumbo) Q.17 Why do you use the wrong word (scorpion) instead of the correct world (scorpio)? A.17 Because "scorpio" does not equal 1 and would prove your method doesn't work. Craf equals 1 in the number system So craf = scorpion? Would you be happy to put chopped scorpion in your tomato sauce? Doesn't seem like much of a code. 6. Why are you using an English word (scorpion) in one case and a Welsh word (craf) in another case? Eleven of the Zodiac words are in Welsh yes and so yes this would be Scorpio’s position in the Zodiac. I didn't ask you to confirm that you have cheated to make it look like your system works. We can all see that. I asked WHY you cheat so blatantly? No controls just a fit. No science just numerological BS. So apart from confirming that you cheat to make it work, you still haven't answered any questions. Edited October 31, 2016 by Strange
Acme Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 ... You ramble on about Pythagoras. This is completely irrelevant as he is dead. (And numerology is still meaningless nonsense even if he was stupid enough to believe it.) ... Speaking of another dead guy who, while heralded, believed stupid things, I am put in mind of Buckminster Fuller. On the one hand, writing in Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Fuller expounds on the nonsense of numerology in regard to assigning qualities to the residues derived numerologically. He says: 1220.20 Numerological Correspondence: Numerologists do not pretend to be scientific. They are just fascinated with a game of correspondence of their "key" digits__ finger counts, ergo, 10 digits__with various happenstances of existence. They have great fun identifying the number "seven" or the number "two" types of people with their own ingeniously classified types of humans and types of events, and thereafter imaginatively developing significant insights which from time to time seem justified by subsequent coincidences with reality. What intrigues them is that the numbers themselves are integratable in a methodically reliable way which, though quite mysterious, gives them faithfully predictable results. They feel intuitively confident and powerful because they know vaguely that scientists also have found number integrity exactly manifest in physical laws. 1220.21 The numerologists have also assigned serial numbers to the letters of the alphabet: A is one, B is two, C is three, etc. Because there are many different alphabets of different languages consisting of various quantities of letters, the number assignments would not correspond to the same interpretations in different languages. Numerologists, however, preoccupied only in their single language, wishfully assumed that they could identify characteristics of people by the residual digits corresponding to all the letters in the individual's complete set of names, somewhat as astrologists identify people by the correspondences of their birth dates with the creative picturing constellations of the Milky Way zoo = Zodiac = Celestial Circus of Animals. ... Nonetheless, just previous to this statement he says A finger is a digit. There are five fingers on each hand. Two sets of five digits give humans a propensity for counting in increments of 10.He then proceeds to exposit some interesting patterns using his "indigs", but does so only in base ten and missing an infinite number of interesting patterns when using other bases. D'oh! While I have been reading this off and on I can't say that I might not have missed something, but if the labels have been deciphered by Tom, shouldn't this allow the text not associated with labels to also be deciphered?
Tom O'Neil Posted November 1, 2016 Author Posted November 1, 2016 Speaking of another dead guy who, while heralded, believed stupid things, I am put in mind of Buckminster Fuller. On the one hand, writing in Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Fuller expounds on the nonsense of numerology in regard to assigning qualities to the residues derived numerologically. He says: Nonetheless, just previous to this statement he says He then proceeds to exposit some interesting patterns using his "indigs", but does so only in base ten and missing an infinite number of interesting patterns when using other bases. D'oh! While I have been reading this off and on I can't say that I might not have missed something, but if the labels have been deciphered by Tom, shouldn't this allow the text not associated with labels to also be deciphered? If we find a manuscript or book with equal equivalence to my cipher and the Voynich Manuscript than that would be something.
Acme Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 If we find a manuscript or book with equal equivalence to my cipher and the Voynich Manuscript than that would be something.The only equivalence I intended was that of uselessness. Here's a page of the manuscript from wiki. Prey tell, what does it say when you decipher it? 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 ! Moderator Note Tom O'Neil, You have been told previously not to use this forum to advertise or drive traffic elsewhere. I have hidden the offending post and your most recent thread.
Strange Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) While I have been reading this off and on I can't say that I might not have missed something, but if the labels have been deciphered by Tom, shouldn't this allow the text not associated with labels to also be deciphered? Indeed. And another good test would be for Tom to give someone else a selection of "words" from Voynich plus his method, and have them translate the words into Welsh. Needless to say, I am pretty confident that would not work. Edited November 1, 2016 by Strange
koti Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Well, I was able to benefit (kind of) from this thread after all. Seeing that Tom has been able to actually drag his utter BS to a point of offering a book on amazon made me think about considering to consider writing my biography. 1
DrKrettin Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 Well, I was able to benefit (kind of) from this thread after all. Seeing that Tom has been able to actually drag his utter BS to a point of offering a book on amazon made me think about considering to consider writing my biography. Would that be an autobiography?
koti Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) Would that be an autobiography? You had to destroy my aspirations in the root didn't you DrKrettin We all know now that I will need an editor for every page because they won't last longer than a page. Geee I feel stupid. How could I write: my biography instead of autobiography. Edited November 1, 2016 by koti
DrKrettin Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 You had to destroy my aspirations in the root didn't you DrKrettin We all know now that I will need an editor for every page because they won't last longer than a page. Geee I feel stupid. How could I write: my biography instead of autobiography. The question mark is missing at the end of that!
imatfaal Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 ... How could I write: my biography instead of autobiography. Write in the third person with a suitably critical view and maintain a distance from the protagonist. Very few autobiographies follow the form of a good biography - perhaps try to be different and indeed write a biography of oneself
koti Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 As much as I'd love to answer yours Imatfaal and DrKrettin's comments, I just read Swansont's post in the "moderation comments" section so regretfully I need to steer this thread towards it's bs topic.
DrKrettin Posted November 1, 2016 Posted November 1, 2016 A naïve question: if you quote from Dee's son: In addition, Dee stated that he had 630 ducats in October 1586, and his son noted that Dee, while in Bohemia, owned “a booke…containing nothing butt Hieroglyphicks, which booke his father bestowed much time upon: but I could not heare that hee could make it out.” Why do you contend that Dee had written it (on 100-year-old parchment) ? Agreed - I wish the OP would respond to my question, repeated here.
Tom O'Neil Posted November 1, 2016 Author Posted November 1, 2016 Agreed - I wish the OP would respond to my question, repeated here. DrKrettin I suggest you open your mind to that possibility in which old parchment was used. And if Dee had 630 ducats at the time he is a likely suspect Author of the VMS. https://proto57.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/old-blank-vellum-sitting-around/
Acme Posted November 2, 2016 Posted November 2, 2016 DrKrettin I suggest you open your mind to that possibility in which old parchment was used. And if Dee had 630 ducats at the time he is a likely suspect Author of the VMS. link & drawing redacted On the question of what kind of skin: Voynich manuscript @ Wiki Protein testing revealed the parchment was made from calf skin, and multispectral analysis in 2014 showed the parchment was unwritten before the manuscript was created. While the parchment was created with care, deficiencies exist, and the quality is assessed as average at best.[23]... Please address my question on deciphering the manuscript text that I posted. Can you or can you not decipher it? If yes, then tell us what it says, and if no then tell us why you can't decipher it. (Whether deciphered in whole or in part.)
Recommended Posts