
So much for that Voynich manuscript “solution” - blinskey
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/experts-are-extremely-dubious-about-the-voynich-solution/
======
reza_n
Given some of the progress here [1], there is a chance it can be translated in
the near future if given the proper resources.

[1] [https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0](https://youtu.be/lhtZc-nFNt0)

~~~
rnhmjoj
Who is the author of that incredible analysis? I can't find anything about
Volder Z/Derek Vogt. Is it perhaps a pseudonym? Derek Bickerton[1] + Hans
Vogt[2]?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton)
[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_(linguist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vogt_\(linguist\))

~~~
xopher
His work is building on the observations of commentators Stephen Bax's blog.

[https://stephenbax.net/](https://stephenbax.net/)

------
ethnic_throw
> Gibbs said in the TLS article that he did his research for an unnamed
> "television network." Given that Gibbs' main claim to fame before this
> article was a series of books about how to write and sell television
> screenplays, it seems that his goal in this research was probably to sell a
> television screenplay of his own. In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he
> said that in five years, "I would like to think I could have a returnable
> series up and running." Considering the dubious accuracy of many History
> Channel "documentaries," he might just get his wish.

Welp, this just killed any interest I had even if his idea was intriguing.

------
mcguire
" _In 2015, Gibbs did an interview where he said that in five years, "I would
like to think I could have a returnable series up and running." Considering
the dubious accuracy of many History Channel "documentaries," he might just
get his wish._"

Ouch.

------
altotrees
Ugh, this, the Somerton Man cipher as the Zodiac cipher are my top three to
see cracked. Maybe someday...

------
Nursie
Yeah, the last article was over-ambitious.

"We've got the solution! I've come up with a few theories (which aren't
necessarily new) and can definitively say it was translatable, only we would
need the index, so it's now not translatable at all. No I can't prove it.
Bye!"

It wasn't very compelling.

------
senko
I'm going to go off on a tangent and complain about Ars Technica here.

As a long-time reader of the site, it feels to me like lately (ie. around the
time Conde Nast bought them) the quality started slowly but surely sliding
down. This here is yet another minor data-point that reinforces that feeling.

The original article covering the supposed discovery was written like it's
pretty much a solved thing (yes, all the usual CYA phrases are there so the
author can weasel out if it turns out not to be true). Yet for anyone who's
ever heard about the Voynich manuscript, the extraordinary claim that it's
deciphered should be substantiated with an extraordinary amount of evidence,
the lack of which wasn't questioned at all.

Then, without as much as "oops, we've been duped too", the author goes on to
describe why claims covered by the first article by so much enthusiasm are not
true or proven, ending with an ad-hominem about the "discoverer". This (minus
the ad hominems) really should've been part of the original article. Hell,
split it into two pages if you're after the clicks!

To me, this says more about Ars than about the (non)issue at hand - it's
finally slid down to the level of a typical net publication.

Sad!

~~~
jgon
There's a big pattern at work if you look at the author involved in both
articles. I've basically stopped reading anything by Annalee Newitz as she has
basically had a run of 5 or 6 articles at this point that use hyperbolic
language and are usually complete incorrect. The author occasionally posts a
weasel-word apology or an "update" to the article that is a 180 from the
strong claims she made, without explicitly stating she was dead wrong or,
apparently, learning anything from it.

You can basically ignore anything she writes at this point as being in the
"Buzzfeed" section of Ars, and hope that the rest of the site continues to do
a decent job. Peter Bright seems alright.

~~~
captainmuon
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing, especially since I liked her writing at io9. I
wonder how much pressure writers get to write more sensationalist pieces.

------
lisper
Can I gloat now?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187695)

~~~
tpeo
I'd suggest you don't. Gibbs' attempt at deciphering the Voynich manuscript
wasn't bad simply on the account of it's premises, but because it was
something lazily slapped together without much further thought.

But a "logographic" approach to deciphering the manuscript might not be off
the table.

~~~
lisper
Fair enough, then I won't. :-)

------
jack9
This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their
niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want
some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of
that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some
existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached
that conclusion".

There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was
settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and
glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is
basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to
the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of
abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich
solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant
layman with no stake in it.

~~~
coldtea
> _This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their
> niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want
> some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of
> that._

This looks like cheering for the "little man" who went against the
establishment, similarly to people championing alternative diets, crystals,
perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion inventors...

~~~
jack9
"Little man" meaning what? A generalist in comparison to specialists too timid
to put together a sensible conclusion for a publication?

~~~
coldtea
For one, many of those specialists have indeed "put together a sensible
conclusion for a publication".

They even have written articles and even books about their opinions on this
manuscript (and others).

What they didn't do (well, what most didn't do, some did that too) was go
ahead and shout to the media "we broke the code" when they had just as much
and just as inconclusive information as any other.

The "generalist" just didn't have such qualms. It's not about him being brave
enough to put 2+2 together when those pesky specialists (where he got all his
knowledge from) failed to dare.

~~~
jack9
I gave an alternate characterization and you ran with it, ignoring the core
question of what you meant by "little man" to move the goalpost. Good luck
with whatever.

