3 ms·
I was under the impression that there was a fair bit of statistical evidence for this being not-a-hoax, but this article showed that there was less than I thoug
by infinity0 11y ago
I was under the impression that there was a fair bit of statistical evidence for this being not-a-hoax, but this article showed that there was less than I thought. Also, the explanation of why people thing this is not-a-hoax was quite unsatisfactory, basically saying "one particular way of explaining this as a hoax is not very convincing".
Why do people think this is not a hoax? "4OFCC89 4OFCC89 4OFC89 4OFC89 4OFCC89 E89." seems like something a 5 year old would make up. Also, the unrealistic drawings.
- Asbostos 11y agoDrawing styles change with culture. Look at the comical childish pictures on Roman coins. In the days before printed material, people would have been exposed to far fewer pictures and had to invent their own ways of converting a 3D object into a picture.
- mhuffman 11y agoMany early illuminated manuscripts have very unrealistic drawings, similar in the style to voynich manuscript.
- acqq 11y agoI believe Gordon Rugg is on the right track: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-the-voynic-2004-07/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mystery-of-the... "SciAm, 2004: The Mystery of the Voynich Manuscript New analysis of a famously cryptic medieval document suggests that it contains nothing but gibberish" He showed how easy were to produce new gibberish texts with the same properties using the device of these times.