Difference between revisions of "1912 - Voynich manuscript"

From Fakeopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Add puzzles category.)
Line 61: Line 61:
[[Category:Psyops in Austria]]
[[Category:Psyops in Austria]]
[[Category:Psyops in Italy]]
[[Category:Psyops in Italy]]

Revision as of 01:21, 16 March 2018

Voynich manuscript
Voynich-partof f78r.jpg
Type 1 mystery
Type 2 forgery
money scam
Year 1912
Places Jesuit Library, Italy
Castle in Austria
New York City
Perp Wilfrid Voynich
Linked to
Stonehenge (??) Vinland map (1965)
Mainstream [MSM 1]

The Voynich manuscript is one of the most mysterious books of all time. According to the official story, it was discovered in 1912 by Wilfrid Voynich,[MSM 2] married to Ethel Boole,[MSM 3] the daughter of George Boole of the Boolean algebra,[MSM 4] in a Jesuit library near Rome in Italy, but also a castle in Austria has been said. The vellum (calf skin "paper") of the manuscript has been carbon dated to the period of 1404 to 1438. Until today, despite numerous attempts, the manuscript, housed by the Yale University library has not been deciphered.


There are many mysteries surrounding this manuscript.[1]

  1. the manuscript has never been documented or referenced directly before 1912, the year of discovery
  2. even in the official history of the manuscript, there is a large gap in the history of it[MSM 5]
  3. the text has not been deciphered[MSM 1]
  4. there are many spooky names suggested around of this manuscript; alchemist John Dee,[MSM 6] German Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher,[MSM 7], his student Jan Marek Marci,[MSM 8] Jesuit Jacobus Sinapius,[MSM 9] alchemist Georg Baresch,[MSM 10] and the Holy Roman Emperor of Bohemia, Rudolf II[MSM 11]
  5. there is the Jesuit link[2]
  6. Voynich probably was a Polish jew, and then ending up at Yale, so spook markers all around
  7. Even the results of the C14 dating are not facts. It is a measurement (or a set of them) which we have to believe (or not). We have to take the authority of the laboratory seriously to believe those ages are correct. From the start on I had my doubts about that and reading through SantaColoma's views that skepsis only increased. We were not there when that dating was done. We don't know the reliability of the methods used. We don't know the credibility of the people involved, etc. etc. etc.[1]
  8. the involvement of many spooks and interested characters in it (like Terence McKenna, see in the external links)
  9. other researchers, such as Richard SantaColoma have suggested it is a modern forgery[3][4][5][6]




External links