Home » mystères qui nous entourent » Voynich deciphered ?

Voynich deciphered ?

Perhaps yes, perhaps not… i discovered the book 10th November. Immediatly, i thought it was code to make work  a Jaquard’s machine or make “Broderie” but i was asking me what were the draws. It took me twelves days to realize that , on herbals’ section, code was high-correlated with the draw on the other side of this page. Very proud of this “discovery”, i’ve gone explain it on wikipédia-france voynich-talk. All what i could say was cleaned by administrators and it took five days before ban me definitivly…

The fact that code follows the other side draw prooves, to my mind, that the weight of graphic-code is very high in the text, certainly, it may be only that. That’s true for the herbals’section where the draw can be see through the page … then the deciphering is a low-resolution picture of the herbal on the other side, in a first time. I was so excited that i verify it on an hundred of page, looking each page, one by one.

i noticed lot, lot of facts that prooved that was only graphics’codes and the other theories was certainly wrong because of it. The lenght from the words, by example, forces natural languages, letters-remplacements, cardan’s grids to be wrong because mostly of the information comes from the draw.

Why did the coder make that ? i think an object of decoration or clothing. The method is nearly the same as used at the starting of computer-science for Ascii-Art. The coder tries to make the same shape he sees with the symbol he has. This making, it become  easier for an other person which assemble the object with little pieces named by the symbols, only consider the signs.

So, i hardly think the full VM is filled with this semi-graphic code giving only the way-to-make those decorative objects. So, non-decorative part of draw are not coded. So , no text in natural tongue can be find in directly. So the draws have exactly the same size of paper as the code but code allows to make bigger or smaller objects than it. So, many theories made on it are wrong (anagram, reverse, numbers…)

Expecting you will agree…

With all my respects.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s