The Birth of (yet another) New Mythology

Back in 2019 I outlined the process by which evidence supporting a genuine, and old, Voynich was created from whole cloth. This was the unfounded “evidence” that the Voynich was referenced in 1903.

But there have been many smaller cases of this being done to one degree or another, in the hundred plus years since the claimed discovery of the Voynich. As a result, the overwhelming portion of what people think they know about the manuscript is actually either provably false, to at best, merely opinions backed up by slim to no evidence. As a result, the present image of the Voynich is an almost wholly imaginative creation, with little to no bearing on any reality.

The first step in myth creation is to tentatively suggest that some small reference to some item of the past might be related to the Voynich Manuscript. This is done with disclaimers, which act as insulation for the discoverer. Terms such as that this item is “perhaps”, or “possibly” the Voynich, maybe even with “we can’t know for certain” it is the Voynich, or “we can’t say” it is, but that it “might be”. These disclaimers are then referred to if anyone challenges the claim in the future, in order to show that they were being cautious, scholarly and scientific.

The first instance of this process is probably found in the 1921 lecture by Wilfrid Voynich before the College of Philadelphia Physicians, when he suggested “his” Bacon Cipher might be the “Book of Hieroglyphiks” that John Dee sold to Rudolf II, according to his son, Arthur. Never mind that it is provable that Wilfrid himself knew this to be… ahem… “incorrect”, and that he would have known the book referred to was the Book of Dunston. The seed was planted, and for decades we have been saddled with the Dee myth. The bare and even contraindicating references in the Letters to and from Kircher would probably be another prime example, but there are many cases of this effect.

Step two is to reference the original vague claim, but refer to it in stronger terms… such as casually referencing it as a bit of factual evidence, one that “we all know” to be true. This transition is seen in the case of the 1903 myth. It is honestly claimed, at first, that, “… but unfortunately this is so unspecific that it would not have been possible to identify the MS by this description alone.”, but then in step two, the other external references later, that,

“In 1903 the Jesuits decided to sell a collection of around 380 manuscripts to the Vatican library. Mainly fifteenth-century classical and humanist works, the group also included two items from Kircher’s library, one of which was the Voynich manuscript. The entries in the catalogue prepared for this sale are very brief, and Beinecke MS 408 is describe as a miscellaneous fifteenth-century vellum manuscript: ‘Miscellanea / c[odex] m[embranacaeus] s[aeculae] XV”

You see what happened there? Now it is stated as fact that this entry is the Voynich. And this is by the same author as the original!

Step three is when “The Genie is out of the Bottle”, as the now claimed reality is picked up by the media and the general public. There are at least a couple of further references to the “1903 Myth” as factual proof of the pre-1912 existence of the Voynich. And there is no putting the Genie back in once it gets to this stage. Anything or anyone who rebuts this supposed “evidence” is considered as distasteful; while anything which supports it, no matter how improbable or demonstrably incorrect, it is latched onto, and promoted.

Well not to be disappointed, here is yet another, and recent, prime example of this effect, one which I watched unfold in real time in the recent November/December 2021 online Malta Voynich Conference. The presentation was titled Book Transactions of Emperor Rudolf II, 1576–1612: New Findings on the Earliest Ownership of the Voynich Manuscript, by Stefan Guzy (University of the Arts Bremen, Am Speicher XI 8, 28217 Bremen, Germany).

In his presentation, Mr. Guzy describes how he used references of the cost of various books and collections on record, in an attempt to match up the supposed 600 ducats “paid to the bearer” of the Voynich by Rudolf II to some historic citation of some real book. The “600 ducat” reference is from the 1665/66 Marci to Kircher letter.

Assuming this Marci letter is genuine (which I doubt), this is of course a clever idea. But it has its pitfalls, which heartily manifested themselves, especially when the investigator is intent on finding what they are looking for, whether or not they actually do find it. The obvious one is that price alone cannot identify any book, even if the time it existed is the same as another book, and the cost exact. Not at all. Many books cost the same, it is only in the description of them, if adequate, that we can claim it probably they are the same. If a matching cost was found, then the description of the book must be compared.

But the Guzy search was fruitless: not only did he not find a work of the same cost as the Voynich, he squeezes his square peg in the desired round hole by second guessing… and correcting!… he chosen sources to make it seem that he did (italics mine):

“The Widemann acquisition is worth taking a closer look at, since 500 thaler is the equivalent of 600 fl.: the sum mentioned in the Marci letter. It is unlikely that the manuscript was bought with gold ducats as the letter literally says, however, since
the imperial account books show that nearly everything was paid for in gold florin, using mostly Rhenisch guilders (Rheinischer Goldgulden, fl.) or Thaler (thl).”

Yes, forget what the letter “literally says”, and substitute one’s own version, to fit ones own desired narrative.

So through a very speculative path through various collections (far too convoluted to relate here, one must read the above linked paper and read it), and making many adjustments for what Guzy claims the sources “really” meant, what the amounts “really” were, he still can only “suggest” that there is any possibility that he has “found the Voynich”, and concludes that much more digging must be done, and suggests where.

In short, he did NOT find the Voynich. He did not even find “a book” which cost the same as the Voynich. And he certainly didn’t find any book with the same description that fits the Voynich. In clear terms, this search, this premise… hopeful and clever and well-meant as it was, failed. Well I wouldn’t say it failed, it just did not succeed in the way Guzy intended, or implied he did.

In any case, after hearing this interesting lecture, the conclusion of which is that nothing was found, I still realized… predicted, through experience… that reality was not going to stand in the way of a good story. But at least, by questioning the presenter, I could get that reality on record. Or so I thought. Below is a screenshot of my questions and answers, which were not shared with any of the Conference attendees. And the answers were not even by Guzy, but rather by Lisa Fagin Davis. She was not a co-presenter of the paper, to my knowledge, nor the moderator for this segment of the Conference.

So you can see from my “teeth pulling session” that it was finally admitted (“Sure…”) that no provenance was found by Guzy, only being told it does not matter that it was not found. Which is of course not correct, because provenance always matters, and not finding it matters, too. And, in fact, I would say the “not finding” part increases in importance as the search intensifies. This search has not only been intense, and decades-long, involving hundreds of participants from around the world, in an ever increasingly complete record on the internet, but more importantly it focuses in one, distinct, vein of interest: The world of the Jesuits, the writers of the Letters, and of Rudolf II, Prague, and Kircher. That is, I think there is a huge difference between looking all over the world, which Davis’s answers would be understandable in; and on the contrary, the actual case here, of looking in a specific area which they claim the Voynich must exist. A negative result in the first could be barely forgiven and explained; in the latter, it is damning.

But they don’t let that reality stand in the way of a good myth, and stage one was set in Guzy’s lecture and paper: The bare but apologetic suggestion that the Voynich HAS been found, albeit with disclaimers. Then, Step two is treating this as factual, that the Voynich had actually been found by Guzy. Not remotely possible from reading this paper, but it was done. This firming of the myth appeared in the comments of an article on Nick Pelling’s blog:

The comment is still slightly ambiguous, with a bit of “wiggle room”. But still, it logically implies that the Guzy reference was, indeed, the Voynich. And it serves that purpose, however worded, because it is done in a way that most who read this will believe that the Voynich was found by Guzy.

The logic of the comment connects from “the seller” (of the Voynich?), through a “probable” (is it?) equivalent of 600 florins to 500 taler, which is then claimed to be the “600 ducats” from the Marci letter (probably the amount). Clearly the implication is that Guzy did find the Voynich, that this is the same book. And then, the comment is capped with the non sequitur “… a portrait of Geizkofler survives, but none of Widemann”. This of course has no bearing on the preceding rationalization, which was meant to firm up a non-existent “finding”. Well tailored, but while all carefully worded to insulate from any claim this is what was being done here, it is obviously the point of the comment. It is also, in my opinion, quite a self-conscious attempt.

Of course I made another attempt to counter this this new myth, although by now I suspected it was not a single genie writhing from a bottle, but that they were now swarming like locusts from horizon to horizon, and over all Voynich scholarship. I respectfully and politely asked Rene, in a new comment, if he was suggesting that Guzy actually found the actual Voynich. But my question was censored by Nick, and never appeared in the thread. A good deal of other comments on this post followed, with a wide range of questions about the Conference, the Guzy paper, and so on. None, however, like mine, questioning the validity of this new claim.

But lest the reader think I am stretching the meaning of the comment by Zandbergen, we can see I am not, as he states on his own update to his history page (italics mine),

“[Guzy’s] first step was to visit the family archives of the Geizkoflers in Ludwigsburg, where he was able to find the transaction related to Widemann’s books from Augsburg. Here, the price was listed as 600 Rheinische Gulden, that is: 600 gold pieces!! Apart from the florin / ducat confusion, this matches the price quoted in the Marci letter, so we can now be reasonably confident that this is indeed the sale of the Voynich MS, with probably some additional books, to Rudolf.”

Zandbergen later somewhat couches the “reasonably confident” of the first part with,

“If this is indeed the event of the sale of the MS to Rudolf…”.

But “is indeed”, or “IF this is indeed”, we are told he is “reasonably confident” it is the Voynich, which alone is, in my opinion, totally unsupported by the Guzy paper. Also note the “gold pieces are gold pieces” contention, with no mention of the Ducats in the Marci letter.

This endorsement of the Guzy paper matters, and it matters a lot. For those not familiar, the pages of are the “go to” cited reliable source of all things Voynich. It is no doubt a magnificent website, but rife with unfounded claims, many of which are demonstrably incorrect. And the mass of the information is about those people, organizations and practices, which while complete, detailed and unassailable, can not be reliably shown to have a thing to do with the actual Voynich. Nonetheless, much of modern Voynich research is based on the “opinion stated as fact” from this website.

Well it was not long before “part three” of myth concoction reared its ugly head: The entering of this new myth into the mainstream of Popular Voynich Beliefs and Understandings, in the form of an online article in THE ART NEWSPAPER, titled, “Unknown history of 600-year-old, coded Voynich Manuscript revealed by researcher”.

Stephan Guzy is quoted in the article, “Almost all of the emperor’s money transactions were made in guilders (florin), usually Rhenisch guilders, with only very few in thaler or ducats; so I believe that the information in the [Marci] letter was just meant to be ‘gold coins,’ which both florin and ducats are,” Guzy says. “Even if a deal was made with ducats or thaler, florins were usually used for the final transaction.”

… thus once again, but even further, and with more resolve, Guzy has decided what was “meant” in Marci’s letter, therefore firming up this new mythology. Hey, “gold is gold”, never mind the value, the weight, the source, or how anyone described it in the past. They were, apparently, wrong. Never mind, even, what was bought with that adjustable gold-of-any-kind. If it is gold, in any type or amount, it must have been the Voynich which was purchased, right?

So there you go. It would already be impossible to correct this.  It is the fault of those, who, either innocently and inadvertently, or possibly knowingly and creatively, actually create these wholly undeserving images of the Voynich as an undeniably genuine, early 15th century, northern European cipher herbal. And the many thousands of good people, who are understandably excited about the Voynich, and would love to learn its true secrets, are all let down in the process. I think of them, and the time and effort they put into this, sometimes a lifetime’s worth. Many have died while trying, some of them friends of mine.

And worst of all, the path to the Voynich’s truths is increasingly clouded, ever lessening the possibility that whatever it really is, will ever be known.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Birth of (yet another) New Mythology

  1. I agree with you Rich about the process by which a theory-driven ‘idea’ is pushed forward in preference of any number of other ideas that have no better, and no worse support, and transformed from ‘what my theory would be helped by” to “what might have happened” to “what probably happened” to “what no sensible person could doubt happened”.. and all without a feather-weight more information.

    We know that Rudolf bought books. So we see that yes, Rudolf did buy books and among the (hundreds? dozens? thousands? of entries recording books he bought, there’s a record for books, the total price for which comes to 600 ducats. So what? No matter what price had come with the ‘Rudolf’ rumour, the chances are high that it would find a match in the list of Rudolf’s purchases.

    As historical evidence for arguing the Vms an alchemical text, or ever seen or owned by Rudolf, this is so very poor as to be negligible. I could make as good a case for it having been in the British library, or the library of the Duke of Burgundy, or the library of a Dalmatian Jewish physician who died in Malta. Just find an entry were any number of volumes, in print and/or in manuscript, were sold at whatever price you like. Mnishovsky’s rumour has no weight as historical evidence – how many times must one say it?

    Now if you found letters by members of Kircher’s circle referring to the book held by Marci’s friend Baresch for which a price of 600 had been paid, or perhaps a letter between Kinner and Marci speaking of an ‘Emperor’s book’ in Baresch’s possession, or in Hořčický’s … or anything reliable from a reliable source, the argument might have some worth.

    NOT EVEN MARCI endorsed it. So – to everyone in Voynichland – when people fudge the facts by saying such things as ” a letter by Marcus Marci of Kronland, a noble associated with the Royal court, said that Rudolf owned the manuscript” – you should know that whoever writes such deceptive stuff is (a) is pushing a theory (b) no trained historian (c) determined more on having you believe the pet theory than on seeing you are given enough, and enough balanced information to think through the question.

  2. Hi Rich.
    None of the scientists you write here can decipher the manuscript. Neither did Lisa F. Davis. Nor the strange scientist Guzy. And neither does René Zanbergen. Manuscript is beyond their abilities. And of course options. I know what these scientists write and publish about the manuscript.
    As I already wrote to everyone, the text is written in old Czech. This is written on many of its pages.
    Further. On the last page of the manuscript there are instructions for the translation and its meaning. Anyone who can read the last page has the opportunity to translate the manuscript.

    The manuscript has nothing to do with Rudolf.

    • proto57 says:

      Hi Josef: I always love to hear from you.

      You are correct in that none of these people, nor I, can translate the Voynich. And as always, I don’t suggest that you have not, either. If you can ever show others how to come to any sense of the manuscript, in old Czech, so that they can duplicate your results, it would be welcome, and amazing.

      I don’t think you have yet shared such a technique though, have you? I do hope you are on to something, but of course without a repeatable process, it would be hard to get others to accept you have succeeded.

      That is the reality of it… the hard reality. I would love for you to be correct, but I and everyone else needs to be convinced with a system they can repeat.

      All the best, Rich.

  3. Hi Rich. Reality? The reality is this. When I post the key and instructions for translating manuscript 408 on the web, some scholar steals it. And then he’ll claim to have solved it. I spent a lot of time on the manuscript. And so you can certainly understand that I cannot write instructions for the translation on the website. It is so. Any smart scientist has the ability to find out from the last page of the manuscript. There are three pictures. Above is the first picture, the meaning of which no scientist knew for a hundred years. A key is drawn. Furthermore, the meaning of the manuscript is also written in the text. And I already wrote that one to everyone.

    And why don’t you let go of my comment that I wrote a few days ago?

    All the best Josef Z.

    • proto57 says:

      Josef: You write,

      “When I post the key and instructions for translating manuscript 408 on the web, some scholar steals it. And then he’ll claim to have solved it. I spent a lot of time on the manuscript. And so you can certainly understand that I cannot write instructions for the translation on the website. It is so.”

      I do agree with that, one does have to be careful what to reveal, and what to keep secret.

      But there is a simple solution to ALL of your worries: You could post your translations to a few lines of Voynich text. You would not be giving away the method of doing so, but it would protect you if you posted the plain text you translated. That way, in the future, if anyone else also translates it, either using your method, or figuring it out for themselves, everyone would know that you did it, first. This would be indisputable. It would absolutely protect your work.

      It would also be very interesting to thousands of people, who are curious about the content of the Voynich. And then, once your translated plain text is “out there”, it would be safe for you to reveal your methods, because you would already be known as the person who solved it, through the plain text.

      I would suggest the first few lines of f1r, the very first lines of the first paragraph.

      Now that being said, I note that in your comment, you also give hints and suggestions for OTHERS to find what you have… the “key”, pictures, and so on. If you are worried others will duplicate or steal your work, that is probably not a good idea. How would you feel if your suggestions led to someone discover the method you believe you have? Probably the same or worse as if you gave it away, directly.

      No, I think your best course of action would be to post your translations. It would protect you forever, as it would demonstrate the precedence of your method of translation, while at the same time not giving that method away.

    • proto57 says:

      You also write, “And why don’t you let go of my comment that I wrote a few days ago?”

      I think you mean that I have not approved some comment of yours? I think your comments post without my approval, but I will go and check all previous comments of yours to see if, for some reason, I need to approve one, and missed it.

      EDIT TO ADD: Josef, I just looked through all the pending comments, and do not see any comment from you that has not already been posted. Maybe you could try posting the comment again, if you still have it.

      I did find several comments by others that I missed, though! So thanks for the “heads up”!

  4. Hi Rich. You are writing to publish plain text. So when I publish plain text, it will be in the Czech language. And those who do not know the Czech language will not understand it. So it is certainly a big problem for foreigners. (as I already wrote, the manuscript is written in Czech. Also, what is important, a possible scientist would have to know – the Kabbalistic numerological system, where each sign has its numerical value. And as I found out, no scientist or historian knows this. Without these knowledge, no one will and will never translate the manuscript). This is a very complex substitution cipher. Which maybe only some rabbi who lives here in the Czech Republic knows. I’m writing, maybe he still knows it.

    So when I write a simple text in the Czech language, the translator misses you because English has a different word order, etc.

    I can write you the meaning of the handwriting. This is also written on the last page of the manuscript. Next to the author’s picture. Who has the sign of the letter E. on his breast ( numerology system , number 5 = E,H,N. .. E = Elizabeth ).

    All the best . Josef Z.

  5. Excuse . The comment that can’t be seen. I guess I didn’t log in. So he disappeared.

  6. proto57 says:

    Hi Josef: You write,

    “You are writing to publish plain text. So when I publish plain text, it will be in the Czech language. And those who do not know the Czech language will not understand it. So it is certainly a big problem for foreigners.”

    I don’t think that should be a problem at all. If the plain text of your solution is in Czech, post it anyway. Whether or not it is understood by others is not the point: It will assure that you have a claim to precedence for solving the Voynich, and will not give away the system you used to get to that result.

    It is as we say here in the USA… there, too?… a “Win-win”, meaning you cannot lose by doing this.

    I, and others, have seen proposed solutions in Latin, Korean, Walloon, Basque, Nahuatl, Hebrew, Arabic, Old English, Welsh, and several other languages. For each of those proposed translations, the proposers didn’t hesitate to post their translations. In some cases they didn’t share their methods, or only hinted at them, as you do.

    There is no reason I can think of as to why you would not post a few lines of your translations, if you truly believe in them, as it seems you do. Posting some lines, or a paragraph of it would both protect you and your methods for all time, and be of great interest to the Voynich community if you are correct. Even if many cannot read the Czech language.

    And then after you posted them, proving your precedence for your system, you could chose to post your methods with total assurance that no one could ever steal them from you… or discover and post them, themselves. Because you would be seen to have come first, with your now public plain text Czech translations.

  7. OK. Rich. I will write something. And only Hurych or Kondrak can understand that.

    I will write it first in the Czech language. Then I will translate it into English language. And then I’ll write it in numbers.

  8. Page 116 v. Meaning. (Czech language + Jewish substitution).

    +an žili coez Pisára 8 + děl co 8+ i couzlu 3+
    poudá 8+ hlav + Dív i 6 + To ví 6 + ví 6 + Alísa +
    Díf jí + oko Ros sláf ac fon pzá jej co nám casty žílo.

    • proto57 says:

      Very interesting, Josef. And from now on, no one can claim this result, other than you. But also, no one would be able to repeat it, because you have not posted a method…

    • proto57 says:

      I assume that is the marginalia found on that page… do you also have any translations of the Voynichese from the main texts?

  9. English. I have to write one word at a time. Otherwise, the compiler will misorder it.

    He. he lived who is. Scribe. 8.+ A work of 8.+ and a spell. 3.+
    Says 8.+ Head. + The girls are 6. + That knows .6.+ She knows 6. + Alisa +
    I’m a girl. + Eye. Roses. Fame. how. I. I’m writing. What about us. Caste lived.

    So that’s translated into English.
    I’ll show you what magic means. 3. The spell is written and displayed at the beginning of the manuscript. Specifically on page 2r. A symbolic plant is drawn there. The root is made up of letters. C,G,S.L. This means that the author shows a substitution. (Jewish).
    Qabalistic Numerology Gematria System. Number 3 = C,G,S,L.

    The base of the plant is the root. No plant can grow without a root.

    The base of each word is = letter. No word can be formed without a letter.

    The magic of handwriting. Is a Jewish substitution. That the text is written in the Czech language is written in many places in the manuscript. About 50.

  10. I’ll explain why OKO. + Rose. The founder of the family was named WOKO. Rosenberg. That’s OKO. From the rose of the mountain. A very old and very rich family. And the author Alisa ( Eliška ) was born 8th in the order. That’s why he writes about himself in the manuscript as the eighth. It is also written about 6 girls. Ališka had 5 sisters. In total, 6 girls lived in the castle. + 4 brothers. etc.

  11. @ Richie. Is what I wrote to you complicated? Or did you get it?
    I’ll show you where the 6 daughters are. Think logically. It’s not hard to understand.
    Example. Page 78.R. Top image. 6 + 1 women. I will explain what is written about. 6 daughters and one mother. ( 6+ 1 ) in the green pool. Mother Anna Hlohovská, wife of John II. from Rožmberk gave birth to 6 daughters.

    6 + 1 is drawn above. How scientists write tubes. But these are not just any pipes. When the scientist will be able to read the text. So the text will read the word – ŽILA. (that’s a Czech word). Just change the diacritical mark and it will read the word – Ž.í.l.a. (that is also a Czech word).

    Ž.í.l.a is in the English language – vein. The 6 + 1 means a total of six daughters and a mother lived.

    If you look at the picture, there is red color inside. That means blood.

    So Eliška draws a vein. But the meaning is alive. 6 + 1. Daughters and mother.

    Is it difficult to understand? What I write is not a theory. This is the final solution to manuscript 408.

    All the best Josef Z.

    • proto57 says:

      Hi Josef:

      “Is what I wrote to you complicated? Or did you get it?”

      Well at least I can read the various texts and names that you have copied here, and the relationship between them, if that is what you mean. Other than that, there would be too little for me or anyone to place it in any context outside of these few words.

      But that is not the point, to me. You have given plain text values… words and names… to some lines of the Voynich text. This means that if you are correct, you have precedence to your translation. No one can steal it from you.

      But if you mean by “did I get it?”, you are asking “do I agree” it is the correct translation, I would have no way of knowing, of course. Testing a translation is a whole other exercise, one which would involve revealing your methods, which I understand you do not want to do. And I am not asking you too, just to make that clear.

      Thank you for sharing,


  12. Hi Rich. I was just wondering if you understood the difference between the word – vein. and with the word -she lived.

    I don’t think you’re stupid. I know you’re smart by the way you write.

    all the best, Josef Zlatoděj.

    • proto57 says:

      Well it isn’t important for me to know the ins and outs of Czech, such as the words “vein” and “-she lived”, or any other part of your translation.

      I think I have the gist of it… the core of it… generally anatomical content, with the names and relationships of several of the people. That gives an idea of what you believe you have found in there, I think, and about as much as my interest allows.

      After that… possibly sharing more content maybe, first… would be an explanation of how you came to this plain text content. But that is something you would have to do, and I understand your reasons for not wanting to do it.

      “I don’t think you’re stupid. I know you’re smart by the way you write.”

      Well… thanks? I think?

  13. Do you think scientists don’t steal? Scientists also steal like magpies. They steal because they know little. And so they have nothing else to do.

    An example. Kondrak (Polish) Alberta Canada. I wrote years ago that the manuscript is based on Jewish substitution. (of course I see who reads what I write). All week is canada alberta address. Who could it be? A few days later, an article appeared in the newspaper that Greg Kondrak, a professor (colleague) from the University of Alberta, deciphered manuscript 408. etc.

    What should I think about all this then? Do scientists steal or not? But Kondrak is very unlucky. He will never be able to decipher the manuscript because he does not know the Jewish substitution. And that is the basis. He also does not know the words that are written in the manuscript. Handwriting is not an easy thing. The manuscript is very difficult to translate.

    I translated it in its entirety. And so I know. The author and his text.

    All the best Zlatoděj Josef.

    • proto57 says:

      Well I never meant to imply scientists, or anyone else, does not steal. Scientists are people like any other, and driven by many of the same desires and prejudices and ethics or lack thereof, of anyone.

      I’ve met many professionals in my life who do not hold themselves to professional standards, so to speak. But there are many reasons one might suspect one’s own work has been stolen… it might have been stolen, of course. But there can also be coincidence. Anything we ever think of about almost anything, there is someone else who is thinking the same thing somewhere else in the world. And also, sometimes people see ideas and use them, not realizing it is wrong to do so… they do it innocently. A recent documentary used several of my original points in my own research, without crediting me. They did not do it maliciously, it is just, I think, that there is not always a clear dividing line between sharing and outright plagiarism.

      Another thing that happens, I think, is that people don’t always realize that you are the originator of an idea. They may see something you or I wrote, and assume that we copied it from someone else! This has happened with many points I have discovered, or opinions I’ve held. For instance, I discovered that the “Bird Glyph” (which I named) is actually a New World paragraph marker called a “calderon”, and found several examples. Later, a book came out calling them “bird glyphs”, and “calderons”, using my examples.

      No credit, but in that and many of these cases I know it is an innocent use of my materials, with no real intent to “steal” from me. My ideas were just sucked up with a great deal of other research needed for this book. And so on…

      And I don’t agree that scientists “know little”. While I don’t always agree with the opinions and conclusions of the experts, I also rely on and admire the expertise and knowledge many of them offer. Without them, we would have no starting point. Yes, they are just a starting point, a guide, and anchor, but they are the foundation of most we begin with, and rely on.

      But as you say, if you are correct with your translations, no one else will be able to duplicate your results, because they do not know your methods. You are safe.

  14. Without knowledge of the Czech language, no one will ever decipher the manuscript.

    It can be seen that you did not understand what I wrote to you. You don’t understand the meaning of those two words. (how you write – the intricacies of the Czech language). Just change the punctuation in a word and then the word has a different meaning. (this is what the author of the manuscript also used when writing. By drawing the word).

    • proto57 says:

      Hi Josef:

      “Without knowledge of the Czech language, no one will ever decipher the manuscript.”

      I admit you are confusing me: On the one hand, you understandably do not want anyone else to decipher the manuscript; but then on the other hand, keep insisting that no one but a person with Czech knowledge will be able to ever do it.

      So what? Why does that matter to you? Plenty of people know Czech… millions of course, maybe tens of millions do. So they can, when you reveal your methods.

      “It can be seen that you did not understand what I wrote to you. You don’t understand the meaning of those two words. (how you write – the intricacies of the Czech language). Just change the punctuation in a word and then the word has a different meaning. (this is what the author of the manuscript also used when writing. By drawing the word).”

      I have no idea why you think I do not know this principle, or the example you have shown.

      Listen, Josef, I’m finding all the very frustrating and time consuming. I feel like you are trying to get something else out of me… maybe better understanding of your results? Maybe approval, validation for your results? I don’ t know what you really want from me.

      You’ve posted some of your translations, and don’t want to post your methods, and that is all wonderful. I get it. But beyond that, there is nothing I can help you with, except to suggest you write up your results, maybe present them to some Czech speaking outlet… magazine, blog, whatever… who may want to interview you about it. Or something like that?

      What do you want or expect from me? Maybe it is just “lost in translation”, but it seems you are very frustrated with me. I am trying to be nice, and help you, so I don’t understand your frustration with me.

      You have in me a person who takes interest in your ideas, and the ideas of everyone, and so I engage with them to see what they think, and what they have to offer. That is a good thing. But I think I’m pretty much done here for awhile… I have a lot going on, and we are getting nowhere.

      But as always, I wish you the very best…


  15. Hi Rich. I don’t need any help from you. I’m trying to help you. And so I showed you how important knowledge of the Czech language is when translating a manuscript. i love you trust me My goal and destiny is to help other scientists. And that’s why I try to help everyone who tries to understand the text of the manuscript. I don’t need help. Others definitely need help. And those who work on a manuscript every ten years or more. And they have no result. They keep writing nonsense. That I slowly stop believing that they are learned scientists.

    As a scientist, of course I understand. They do not know the necessary things and so they are still at the beginning of the research. It’s so embarrassing.

    It looks like you don’t want my help. Of course I don’t mind. And of course I understand that.

    Be well. Josef Zlatodej.

  16. You write that you understood what I wrote about “pipes”. And that’s great. Now you finally know that they are not “pipes” in Rome. But that it is “Vein”. For a hundred years, scientists have been writing about “unknown pipes”. And look, everything is different from what scientists have been telling us for a hundred years. And surely you know how many famous scientists there were around the world. There were a lot of them. Lots of scientists. A hundred and more. So I didn’t count them all, but there were a lot of them.

    So you already know “pipes”. It is well. Now I could show you the 4 brothers. If you wanted to. It all depends on you. Are you interested ?

    Have a good time Josef Z.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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