Open letter to the interview “Decoding the Voynich manuscript”
published on Yale press podcast 23 March 2017
Dear Mr Joseph Calamia,
I write you after hearing your interview at Yale press podcast together with Mr Raymond Clemens.
In this interview it is told again that the Voynich manuscript isn´t deciphered and also it is told that it isn´t written in Latin or there is no translation of one word!
Your estimation is wrong and it looks like that it is a result of thinking in a classical understanding of decoding and your misunderstanding of genius people in the past. Could it be that you cannot imagine that a solution really exists and therefore you ignore it? Your statements are also showing again the superficial understanding of the manuscript.
Why is Mr Clemens saying that the manuscript is not written in Latin because he has no idea of a solution? Why do you believe statements of persons which have not the brainpower to crack the code and why is this more important than the truth?
If simple methods of decoding would work why is no solution found till today? How will somebody explain more than 100 special characters of the Voynich letters in the text by using a simple code? There will never be found a result this way!
I am genius in the same way as the inventors and I found the code which is a code in the code. I have translated thousands of words in the last years. I can prove each statement I make and I find again and again new riddles and their solution which are hidden in the manuscript. If you would read my homepage www.voynich.solutions you would get an impression of the content.
Why do you not say the truth, that two minerals Boleite and (para?)-Atacamite is a result of the analysis in 2009. And why was the pdf document of these results wiped out from your homepage some years ago?
The mineral Boleite and Atacamite corresponds with the results of the botanical work from Tucker and Talbert which were made and include an identification of 37 plants of the Voynich manuscript. (http://bit.ly/2prWNvt)
The quality of the used pigments is very high and if they used only Azurite (blue) this color would have changed to Malachite (green) in the last centuries. The inventors knowing this circumstance and therefore they have used Boleite for blue. It was their intention to preserve stabile colors.
How serious are statements if significant details are concealed?