WEBVTT - Thinking Sideways: The Voynich Manuscript

0:00:04.320 --> 0:00:10.760
<v Speaker 1>Thinking Sideways. I don't know. I'm not you never know

0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:21.480
<v Speaker 1>what stories of things we simply don't know the answer to. Hi, everybody,

0:00:21.800 --> 0:00:26.119
<v Speaker 1>welcome to Thinking Sideways. I'm Steve as always, I'm joined

0:00:26.160 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>by my co host Devon and Joe, and once again

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:32.839
<v Speaker 1>we're gonna look into a kind of a big mystery

0:00:33.200 --> 0:00:35.400
<v Speaker 1>and we're going to solve it. Yeah. I don't know

0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:39.240
<v Speaker 1>about that, but we've gotten a lot of listener requests

0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.879
<v Speaker 1>for this particular story and we finally gave in, we're

0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:45.360
<v Speaker 1>gonna do it. We've also gotten a lot of listener

0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 1>requests for longer shows, so just keep in mind, this

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:52.800
<v Speaker 1>is what you asked for. It is going to be

0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:54.960
<v Speaker 1>a long one because ladies and gentlemen, what we're gonna

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:57.800
<v Speaker 1>talk about today is we're gonna talk about the Voyage Manuscript.

0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:02.600
<v Speaker 1>And a lot of people have probably heard of the manuscript,

0:01:02.680 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>but we're gonna we're gonna go through all of the

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:08.199
<v Speaker 1>details and you're gonna be really surprised at how much

0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:12.040
<v Speaker 1>there is. Uh To give it a basic overviews, the

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:16.119
<v Speaker 1>Voyage Manuscript is a book which is written in an

0:01:16.200 --> 0:01:20.480
<v Speaker 1>unknown language and it's full of illustrations or maybe a

0:01:20.560 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 1>known language, but we don't know what it is, but

0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:28.480
<v Speaker 1>an unknown alphabet, that's possible. That's possible. Sorry, that's okay,

0:01:28.880 --> 0:01:33.840
<v Speaker 1>let's strange code. Let's start with the history and talk

0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:36.400
<v Speaker 1>about the book first. Probably the simplest place is probably

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.360
<v Speaker 1>the beginning, the best place, Okay, the book itself. It's

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:45.560
<v Speaker 1>called the Voytage Manuscript because it was purchased by a

0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Speaker 1>man named Wilfred Voynage in nineve But it's been around

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:55.400
<v Speaker 1>for several hundred years, and we know some of the history,

0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:59.320
<v Speaker 1>or people guests at some of the history, and well,

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:04.320
<v Speaker 1>I'll just dive right into the history. Somewhere between sixteen

0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 1>hundred to sixteen ten, it's believed that the book was

0:02:08.160 --> 0:02:12.560
<v Speaker 1>owned by the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph the Second. And

0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:14.920
<v Speaker 1>this this would by the way, be well over a

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:18.200
<v Speaker 1>hundred years after it was created. Well, according to the

0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:21.120
<v Speaker 1>theories that of the age of creation. Yes, so this

0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:23.800
<v Speaker 1>is this is a partial history passed through a lot

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>of famous hands. It has. From there it left the

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:33.840
<v Speaker 1>Emperor Rudolph the Second's hand and was owned but theoretically

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 1>by his imperial distiller Um banned by the name of

0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Jacobus two Pensk's, which is an easy namesake. It ends

0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:49.080
<v Speaker 1>in a seas, so I think I I nailed that

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:55.960
<v Speaker 1>between sixteen thirty to sixteen forty five. They think that

0:02:56.160 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>a German Bohemian alchemist named Joey George Barresh owned it.

0:03:02.560 --> 0:03:09.560
<v Speaker 1>Sixteen sixty five, it's believed that it was owned by

0:03:09.760 --> 0:03:15.240
<v Speaker 1>Johannus Marcus Marci of kron Land. Yeah, wherever that is. Yeah,

0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 1>I tried to that that might actually be a store

0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 1>or not a country. Yeah, I went to the local

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 1>chron Land. Yeah, yeah, he actually it was I read

0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:29.200
<v Speaker 1>about this. He was friends with George Barresh, and when

0:03:29.200 --> 0:03:33.959
<v Speaker 1>Bresh died he willed the book to Marcy of kron Land. Yeah,

0:03:33.960 --> 0:03:38.320
<v Speaker 1>and apparently he was friends with with Mr Kirscher, and

0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>Borresch had actually been in correspondence with Kersher because he thought,

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:44.600
<v Speaker 1>you felt that Kersher had had he had the smarts

0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:47.520
<v Speaker 1>to actually decipher break this code. You're right, I remember

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:55.120
<v Speaker 1>reading that Kersher he was a very bright guy anyway.

0:03:55.160 --> 0:03:58.200
<v Speaker 1>But but so he actually he actually hand copied sections

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:01.960
<v Speaker 1>of the books of the book and wrote to alan

0:04:02.000 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 1>As Kersher twice with these and asking him for his input.

0:04:06.480 --> 0:04:08.680
<v Speaker 1>And Kersher wanted the book itself so you can look

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 1>at it and and but Rash was never willing to

0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 1>do that. But then when he died, he willed it

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:17.440
<v Speaker 1>to his friend Johanness marci And of kron Land the store,

0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:21.880
<v Speaker 1>and he willed to him, who almost immediately gave it

0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:25.720
<v Speaker 1>to Kirsher because he felt like Kirscher was the only

0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:27.560
<v Speaker 1>guy who would be able to make hatcher tails out

0:04:27.560 --> 0:04:29.800
<v Speaker 1>of it. That's okay. That that explains the gaps that

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:33.080
<v Speaker 1>I couldn't couldn't quite pin down Kirsher, Yeah, and wound

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:35.720
<v Speaker 1>up and wind with it. I guess it was destiny. Yeah,

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:40.040
<v Speaker 1>destiny For the next couple of centuries. We're talking two

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:43.640
<v Speaker 1>d fifty plus years. We don't know where it was.

0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:48.080
<v Speaker 1>It's believed that the Jesuits had it and that they

0:04:48.160 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 1>moved it around Europe from place to place. Why or

0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>how is unknown. Well, they're pretty good at keeping records

0:04:56.920 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>at saying we don't know if this is important or not,

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>but it looks like might be, so we're going to

0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:03.120
<v Speaker 1>just hang on to it. I just put in the

0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:04.840
<v Speaker 1>back corner. Yeah, that's one of those thing. I can

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 1>imagine myself just rooting around my basement two boxes and like, oh,

0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:12.159
<v Speaker 1>there is it. Wouldn't believe I was. I was down

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:14.360
<v Speaker 1>in my basement the other day this last weekend doing

0:05:14.360 --> 0:05:16.520
<v Speaker 1>a little house cleaning and getting and going to stuff,

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:19.880
<v Speaker 1>and I found stuff I'd totally forgotten I ever owned. Yeah,

0:05:19.880 --> 0:05:23.159
<v Speaker 1>it's like, oh wow, that's the joy of having a basement. Yeah,

0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:28.040
<v Speaker 1>let's see from there. As we said, nineteen twelve, Wilfred

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>Voyage purchases the book. We don't know where he gets

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:34.880
<v Speaker 1>it from, or I don't know. I know he purchased it,

0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:38.280
<v Speaker 1>but I don't remember exactly where. I believe he bought

0:05:38.279 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>it in Italy, did he? Yeah, I'll run with that

0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:45.080
<v Speaker 1>because I can't remember exactly where. When he died he

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 1>gave it to He I believe, willed it to his

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.640
<v Speaker 1>wife Ethel, who then gave it to a woman named

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:56.120
<v Speaker 1>an Nil, who then sold it in nineteen sixty one

0:05:56.360 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>to a man by the name of HP Krause. In

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:04.440
<v Speaker 1>nineteen s the Nine Crowds donated to Yale University's Binicky

0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:07.680
<v Speaker 1>Rare Book and Manuscript Library. So Yale has it. So

0:06:07.760 --> 0:06:11.800
<v Speaker 1>Yale has it today. They still have it today for now. Yeah.

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 1>So that's and that's where it is. That's where they're

0:06:14.240 --> 0:06:17.360
<v Speaker 1>they've done a great job of getting good photos of

0:06:17.400 --> 0:06:19.560
<v Speaker 1>it and making it available to everybody. But it's a

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:21.800
<v Speaker 1>several year old, hundred year old text, so we don't

0:06:21.800 --> 0:06:25.040
<v Speaker 1>want everybody leafing through it kind of but it is.

0:06:25.279 --> 0:06:27.240
<v Speaker 1>But I think it is available if you go in

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:30.320
<v Speaker 1>and your researcher of any kind. I know they've made

0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 1>it available to certain forensic scientists. They have you've got

0:06:33.960 --> 0:06:37.160
<v Speaker 1>to have the credentials to prove that you can get

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 1>to it. You and I couldn't just walk in there

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>and we have the credentials. The thing about it, I've

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 1>looked at their photographs of the book online and it's

0:06:48.600 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 1>very clear and you know, you can really great. Yeah,

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:54.960
<v Speaker 1>they've done a really good job, high detail and everything. Yeah,

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:56.919
<v Speaker 1>it's good. Yeah. All right. So we've talked about the

0:06:56.960 --> 0:07:00.240
<v Speaker 1>history that we think we know that we're fairly that

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:03.040
<v Speaker 1>we yeah, we're fairly sure. People believe they figured it out.

0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:07.320
<v Speaker 1>Folks have tried to pinpoint where it might have and

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:10.680
<v Speaker 1>when it might have been made, and some of that

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>they've done based on characteristics that are in the text itself.

0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:17.960
<v Speaker 1>Let me just run through some of that. Uh. So,

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:22.640
<v Speaker 1>it has what they referred to as a upright handwriting

0:07:22.720 --> 0:07:28.240
<v Speaker 1>style that's reminiscent of Carolinian minuscule, which evidently was in

0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:32.480
<v Speaker 1>use from eight hundred to twel hundred. Or it's uh, there,

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:37.400
<v Speaker 1>there's another it's it's Italian. How do you say that? Show? Okay,

0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:41.080
<v Speaker 1>which I guess is called the Humanist hand, which was

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:46.680
<v Speaker 1>from fourteen to fifteen hundred, and the radio the carbon

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 1>dating kind of puts it in that range as well.

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>People have also said that the drawings have parallel hatching,

0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.840
<v Speaker 1>and hatching is when you you draw a series of

0:07:57.880 --> 0:08:02.440
<v Speaker 1>lines to infer shading, which is similar to you know,

0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:03.880
<v Speaker 1>one of the first guys that really did a lot

0:08:03.880 --> 0:08:05.520
<v Speaker 1>of that is Da Vinci. If you look at a

0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:08.640
<v Speaker 1>lot of old drawings, that's how he gave depth and shadows.

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:11.880
<v Speaker 1>You cross hatch in there. So people think that it

0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:15.960
<v Speaker 1>could have been from his arrow, which would have been

0:08:16.440 --> 0:08:19.280
<v Speaker 1>if it was made in Germany or that style came out,

0:08:19.440 --> 0:08:21.840
<v Speaker 1>it would have been in Germany and around fourteen ten.

0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:25.960
<v Speaker 1>If it was made in Florence it would have been

0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:31.080
<v Speaker 1>fourteen forty, or if it was after fourteen fifty, then

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:33.600
<v Speaker 1>it could have been anywhere, because that style had gone

0:08:33.640 --> 0:08:37.520
<v Speaker 1>across Europe. It had gone viral. Yes, but so that's

0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:40.360
<v Speaker 1>a pretty good solid like you know, sixty year seven

0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:44.160
<v Speaker 1>year old window, right. Yeah. For for the cross hatching, yes,

0:08:44.840 --> 0:08:48.720
<v Speaker 1>and for that that uh kind of matches with the

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:52.839
<v Speaker 1>hands for the Italian Yeah, for the Italian hands handwriting style, yes,

0:08:52.920 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 1>it does. But we've also got some things some people

0:08:56.760 --> 0:08:59.920
<v Speaker 1>who have owned the book have made notes on it

0:09:00.120 --> 0:09:04.240
<v Speaker 1>and in the margin, and that handwriting seems to be

0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:08.559
<v Speaker 1>done in the style of the fifteenth century. So we're

0:09:08.600 --> 0:09:12.680
<v Speaker 1>looking at the four hundreds and there's some of the

0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:14.200
<v Speaker 1>other notes that are written on it, and this is

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:18.640
<v Speaker 1>primarily notes that are in the zodiac section. That style

0:09:18.720 --> 0:09:21.360
<v Speaker 1>of handwriting. People have pointed to say is from the

0:09:21.400 --> 0:09:24.800
<v Speaker 1>southwest of France, so there's a lot of different places

0:09:24.800 --> 0:09:27.600
<v Speaker 1>that it could have been just based on basic facts.

0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:30.960
<v Speaker 1>So it's it's kind of hard to figure out. So

0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:34.559
<v Speaker 1>it's a it's a it's a manuscript, and so it's

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:38.600
<v Speaker 1>like a book, yes, right, And it's um nine point

0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 1>three inches by six point four inches by two inches, right,

0:09:44.000 --> 0:09:47.360
<v Speaker 1>so it's two inches thick thick, so not a big

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 1>book though that's like a huge but it's not like

0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:52.280
<v Speaker 1>one of those massive things you think about from life,

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:54.800
<v Speaker 1>which is because you look at the pictures and they

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:57.319
<v Speaker 1>look really big. They do, Yeah, exactly, it's kind of

0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.440
<v Speaker 1>blown up, but it's a little book, but it's it's

0:09:59.520 --> 0:10:04.120
<v Speaker 1>hundreds of vellum pages, and vellum's pretty thin paper material.

0:10:04.320 --> 0:10:06.840
<v Speaker 1>It's kind of see through almost a little bit too.

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:08.560
<v Speaker 1>So it's possible for there to be a lot of

0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 1>pages in a small amount of space, i e. Like

0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:14.160
<v Speaker 1>old books, old bibles, things like that. You see it

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 1>on a paper like that. Paper is valuable, so you

0:10:16.920 --> 0:10:19.400
<v Speaker 1>gotta you gotta use as much of it as possible. Yeah,

0:10:19.480 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 1>and you know, make it as condensed as possible. So

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>they're collected into eighteen what are called choirs, which are

0:10:26.559 --> 0:10:31.120
<v Speaker 1>those little like fold like folded areas. Right. You know,

0:10:31.160 --> 0:10:33.559
<v Speaker 1>when you look at a traditionally bound book, you know,

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:35.120
<v Speaker 1>if you look at it from the top, you notice

0:10:35.160 --> 0:10:38.120
<v Speaker 1>that you have sections. Yeah, and those are folded over

0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:40.720
<v Speaker 1>and stitched together and stitched together in one big book. Yeah.

0:10:40.720 --> 0:10:42.920
<v Speaker 1>Those are the choirs, right, each one of them, each

0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:46.880
<v Speaker 1>one of those sections. Yeah. So depending on how some

0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:51.000
<v Speaker 1>of the pages are folded or things like that, or

0:10:51.040 --> 0:10:53.520
<v Speaker 1>how you count them, I guess it's about two and

0:10:53.600 --> 0:10:57.280
<v Speaker 1>forty pages in total. Um. There's some numbering in the

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.920
<v Speaker 1>right hand corners of the right hand pages is which

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:04.800
<v Speaker 1>pretty much everybody agrees was done by somebody who owned it.

0:11:05.120 --> 0:11:06.640
<v Speaker 1>So this is one of those people who after the

0:11:06.640 --> 0:11:09.600
<v Speaker 1>fact owned Yeah, it wasn't done by the person who

0:11:09.600 --> 0:11:11.640
<v Speaker 1>did it, but who was kind of maybe archiving it.

0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:12.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, they owned it. They were like, hey, we

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:15.199
<v Speaker 1>should probably number these pages. It might be they kept

0:11:15.280 --> 0:11:17.079
<v Speaker 1>dropping the book and all the choirs would fall a

0:11:17.120 --> 0:11:22.959
<v Speaker 1>party didn't. Yeah, he started. Yeah, so they are numbered

0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:27.000
<v Speaker 1>one through a hundred and sixteen, but there's some number gaps,

0:11:27.040 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 1>so people think that it's it's probably more like two

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:33.960
<v Speaker 1>hundred and seventy two pages originally altogether. Yeah, because there

0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:36.319
<v Speaker 1>are there are missing pages and we don't know what's

0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:40.000
<v Speaker 1>supposed to be on them, right. And then Wilford Vointage,

0:11:40.000 --> 0:11:44.400
<v Speaker 1>as we mentioned before, acquired the manuscript in nineteen twelve,

0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 1>and there's there's a lot of strong evidence that all

0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:53.120
<v Speaker 1>all the different choirs have been kind of reordered, rearranging

0:11:53.120 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 1>it the way they thought it should go. Understanding how

0:11:57.040 --> 0:11:59.079
<v Speaker 1>that that's correct? Yeah, yeah, I mean you know that

0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:00.960
<v Speaker 1>or that again. You know, you drop a book and

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:03.040
<v Speaker 1>you're like, I don't remember where everything goes I'm just

0:12:03.040 --> 0:12:04.560
<v Speaker 1>going to shove it back in. You know, it's been

0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:06.840
<v Speaker 1>around for so long, it's it's quite possible it's been

0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:11.599
<v Speaker 1>rebound several times since kind of fall apart. So interestingly,

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:13.640
<v Speaker 1>know if there's missing stuff, you know, and since it

0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 1>used to be in the hands of the Pope, it

0:12:14.920 --> 0:12:18.120
<v Speaker 1>would be kind of cool to go through the Vaticans

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:20.360
<v Speaker 1>all their archives and see if the missing pages are

0:12:20.360 --> 0:12:27.559
<v Speaker 1>there of similarities the Vatican. Dear Vatican, this is you've

0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:31.440
<v Speaker 1>heard of us? Surely Pope frances his favorite podcast. Yeah.

0:12:32.000 --> 0:12:36.560
<v Speaker 1>Um So, anyways, back to the the story, um So, based

0:12:36.559 --> 0:12:40.120
<v Speaker 1>on modern analysis, we pretty much know that it was

0:12:40.160 --> 0:12:43.160
<v Speaker 1>written by a quill pen with iron gall ink for

0:12:43.240 --> 0:12:45.840
<v Speaker 1>the text and the figure outlines, and then colored paint

0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:49.880
<v Speaker 1>kind of like watercolor color paint. It's color was applied

0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:53.160
<v Speaker 1>to the figures. Um And the book has been carbon

0:12:53.240 --> 0:12:56.200
<v Speaker 1>dated to the early fifteenth century, so the early four hundreds.

0:12:57.040 --> 0:12:59.200
<v Speaker 1>So that kind of corresponds with what we were talking

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:02.080
<v Speaker 1>about with the history I bit as well. Okay, so

0:13:02.320 --> 0:13:04.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure you guys want to know about the text itself.

0:13:04.559 --> 0:13:07.800
<v Speaker 1>So it's it's clearly written from left to right. Uh,

0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:10.560
<v Speaker 1>and so it's got a pretty pretty straight left margin

0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:13.000
<v Speaker 1>and kind of a ragged right margin, which is what

0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:17.040
<v Speaker 1>is to be expected, So that gives it's just probably

0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:19.920
<v Speaker 1>more likely European than Semitic and origin. Some of the

0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 1>longer sections are broken into paragraphs, and some of them

0:13:22.480 --> 0:13:25.760
<v Speaker 1>actually have bullet points that they're shaped like stars or flowers,

0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 1>and there's no punctuation. And I've noticed as myself going

0:13:28.840 --> 0:13:32.360
<v Speaker 1>through the text, it's like there's no obvious punctuation in

0:13:32.400 --> 0:13:36.080
<v Speaker 1>there unless certain characters represent a period, but then we'd

0:13:36.080 --> 0:13:38.480
<v Speaker 1>be seeing them consistently, and I'm not seeing that pattern.

0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:41.600
<v Speaker 1>There's no indications of errors or corrections, so there's no

0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:44.120
<v Speaker 1>no words that have been crossed out, there's no you

0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:45.560
<v Speaker 1>know how you you do that little thing where you

0:13:45.559 --> 0:13:47.760
<v Speaker 1>write the word above and there's a little va pointing

0:13:47.840 --> 0:13:51.760
<v Speaker 1>up to go. None of that going on. And and

0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 1>for as long as this text is, that's amazing. But

0:13:56.480 --> 0:13:58.800
<v Speaker 1>I feel like that a lot. It happened a lot

0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:01.120
<v Speaker 1>in those days, but you just like wrote it, and

0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:05.199
<v Speaker 1>rewrote it, used the papers like write. I mean, yeah,

0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:09.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how quickly Vellum absorbs in either, but

0:14:09.760 --> 0:14:13.959
<v Speaker 1>from modern Vellum sucks inc in pretty quickly. Now, I

0:14:13.960 --> 0:14:17.240
<v Speaker 1>don't know about you know, four years ago, how it was.

0:14:17.600 --> 0:14:20.880
<v Speaker 1>I know that it pulls it in pretty quick. Yeah, well,

0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the old timing stuff. I was just wondering if the

0:14:23.160 --> 0:14:24.800
<v Speaker 1>ink takes a while to soak in, and if you

0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:26.640
<v Speaker 1>have to have a moment to wipe it off, if

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:28.560
<v Speaker 1>you make a mistake and then rewrite it, you might

0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:30.480
<v Speaker 1>be able to blot it up. But I think you

0:14:30.840 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 1>see that you'd see the Yeah, books back then were

0:14:35.120 --> 0:14:38.800
<v Speaker 1>all handwritten. They didn't have the printing press writing. And

0:14:39.560 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 1>I think often you see books that didn't have I mean,

0:14:43.000 --> 0:14:45.000
<v Speaker 1>some of them did have mistakes in them, but some

0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:47.160
<v Speaker 1>of them didn't. And I think that's one of the

0:14:47.160 --> 0:14:52.520
<v Speaker 1>intriguing things about this manuscript is that, you know, assuming

0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:55.200
<v Speaker 1>that it is a real text, it may be suggests

0:14:55.240 --> 0:14:56.800
<v Speaker 1>that there are other versions of it, or there were

0:14:56.800 --> 0:14:58.880
<v Speaker 1>other versions. Yeah. I was gonna say, to have written

0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:02.240
<v Speaker 1>it enough time just that you didn't make any errors anymore.

0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Back in the day when monks would write the Bibles

0:15:05.680 --> 0:15:07.680
<v Speaker 1>and they would eat, just sit down and make the

0:15:07.720 --> 0:15:11.080
<v Speaker 1>same page over and over and over, you had to

0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:14.360
<v Speaker 1>write that thing a lot of times. But here's what

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:17.840
<v Speaker 1>I'll tell you is that having a job in which

0:15:17.880 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 1>I often write the same thing over and over and

0:15:20.640 --> 0:15:24.080
<v Speaker 1>over again. It's always like the fiftieth time that you

0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:27.240
<v Speaker 1>make a mistake, right, It's never like the first time,

0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:30.320
<v Speaker 1>because you're like on it, you're like the right way,

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:32.800
<v Speaker 1>you're really paying attention. And then it's like after you

0:15:32.800 --> 0:15:36.280
<v Speaker 1>feel like you've written enough times that you like you

0:15:36.400 --> 0:15:39.400
<v Speaker 1>have it is when you make the mistakes you get comfortable. Yeah,

0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 1>you can do the cut and paste. Yeah, that's what

0:15:43.800 --> 0:15:45.720
<v Speaker 1>I did in my job, a lot of boiler plate

0:15:45.720 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 1>in my reports. Yeah. Yeah, So anyway, okay, back to

0:15:49.040 --> 0:15:53.040
<v Speaker 1>the text I do to you all the time, so

0:15:53.120 --> 0:15:56.480
<v Speaker 1>no worries. So anyway, no indications of errors or corrections,

0:15:56.480 --> 0:15:59.600
<v Speaker 1>and that might be significant. I'll talk about that later,

0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:02.160
<v Speaker 1>but I'll hold you all a suspense for now. We're

0:16:02.160 --> 0:16:07.120
<v Speaker 1>gonna talk about that after the commercial. Uh So, they're

0:16:07.120 --> 0:16:09.760
<v Speaker 1>over a hundred and seventy thousand letters in this text.

0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:13.600
<v Speaker 1>They call them lifts that and there are thirty five

0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:16.440
<v Speaker 1>thousand words of varying length in there, from a couple

0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:20.240
<v Speaker 1>of letters to about ten. They're very simple pen strokes

0:16:20.240 --> 0:16:22.640
<v Speaker 1>for the most part, so the words seem to follow

0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:26.320
<v Speaker 1>like a phonological or orthographic law. This is linguistic stuff

0:16:26.320 --> 0:16:28.840
<v Speaker 1>that I have a hazy understanding of it, meaning that

0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:32.120
<v Speaker 1>certain characters appear in each word, like vowels. For example.

0:16:32.200 --> 0:16:34.480
<v Speaker 1>You can't write an English letter without a word without

0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:37.920
<v Speaker 1>a vowel, so so some vowels are going to just

0:16:37.960 --> 0:16:40.920
<v Speaker 1>have to be there. Uh. Some characters never follow others,

0:16:40.960 --> 0:16:43.240
<v Speaker 1>Some always follow others. There's been a couple of in

0:16:43.280 --> 0:16:45.600
<v Speaker 1>that I've noticed just from perusing the text, and always

0:16:45.600 --> 0:16:49.000
<v Speaker 1>seem to go together. There's like Q in a year.

0:16:49.040 --> 0:16:52.320
<v Speaker 1>There's yeah, exactly in this text there there are two letters.

0:16:52.360 --> 0:16:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Then they might just be a single character too, but

0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:57.800
<v Speaker 1>it looks like an L and an F, and they

0:16:57.840 --> 0:17:01.280
<v Speaker 1>always follow each other, and so probably as it could

0:17:01.280 --> 0:17:03.880
<v Speaker 1>just be a single character. I don't know. But so

0:17:04.119 --> 0:17:07.040
<v Speaker 1>the characters seem fairly simple, though I think you know

0:17:07.320 --> 0:17:12.600
<v Speaker 1>right there they they are in one way, but in

0:17:12.680 --> 0:17:16.119
<v Speaker 1>not another way. Yes, yeah, so anyway characters. Some characters

0:17:16.160 --> 0:17:18.800
<v Speaker 1>always follow some characters and never follow other characters. Some

0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:22.080
<v Speaker 1>can be doubled or tripled even, but others not. Some

0:17:22.119 --> 0:17:25.000
<v Speaker 1>words only occur in certain sections, and some occur throughout

0:17:25.040 --> 0:17:26.960
<v Speaker 1>the manuscript. And I've noticed as too, even though I

0:17:26.960 --> 0:17:28.800
<v Speaker 1>haven't read the whole thing. I spotted. I've sort of

0:17:28.920 --> 0:17:31.040
<v Speaker 1>hopped around a little bit and looked at various pages,

0:17:31.080 --> 0:17:33.480
<v Speaker 1>and I've noticed some words that appear a lot in

0:17:33.560 --> 0:17:37.359
<v Speaker 1>some sections and not in others. So and it maybe

0:17:37.400 --> 0:17:39.439
<v Speaker 1>possibly has something to do with the subject matter of

0:17:39.480 --> 0:17:42.800
<v Speaker 1>the section. I'm not really sure. There aren't a lot

0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:45.800
<v Speaker 1>of repetitions among the labels that are attached to the illustrations.

0:17:45.840 --> 0:17:48.760
<v Speaker 1>The illustrations themselves, even though there's much repetition in the

0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:52.159
<v Speaker 1>text itself, there's not in the labels, which suggests that

0:17:52.200 --> 0:17:56.360
<v Speaker 1>they're actually labels. Probably. Yeah, so, and and as Joe

0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:59.439
<v Speaker 1>was kind of saying, there are different sections, they're actually

0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:02.560
<v Speaker 1>six to print sections, and this is what we we've

0:18:02.840 --> 0:18:06.119
<v Speaker 1>defined it as six sections. Yeah, they're fair I think,

0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:09.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, as Joe is saying, there, they are fairly distinct,

0:18:10.280 --> 0:18:13.720
<v Speaker 1>at least with the illustrations. Um. And I think that's

0:18:13.760 --> 0:18:15.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, the one thing that we can kind of

0:18:16.040 --> 0:18:19.359
<v Speaker 1>know about this manuscript is we don't know what the

0:18:19.400 --> 0:18:22.160
<v Speaker 1>words say anything like that, but we can look and say, oh,

0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:25.800
<v Speaker 1>the drawings in this kind of group are all the same.

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:28.720
<v Speaker 1>So we're going to say this is a section. So

0:18:28.800 --> 0:18:33.040
<v Speaker 1>the six sections, there's an herbal section that has drawings

0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:37.280
<v Speaker 1>of plants, uh, most of which are like really unidentifiable

0:18:37.400 --> 0:18:42.040
<v Speaker 1>or kind of almost like impressionistic paint drawings of that

0:18:42.080 --> 0:18:45.159
<v Speaker 1>because of the coloring, the way that it's coloring, but

0:18:45.240 --> 0:18:49.880
<v Speaker 1>that they're also kind of straft yeah, stylized. I think

0:18:49.880 --> 0:18:52.040
<v Speaker 1>it's probably the best. Okay, it could be that it

0:18:52.119 --> 0:18:55.680
<v Speaker 1>was they were drawn by somebody who couldn't draw, which

0:18:55.680 --> 0:18:57.879
<v Speaker 1>would be interesting because it would mean there are multiple

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:02.240
<v Speaker 1>artists because some of the other drawings are like really good,

0:19:02.720 --> 0:19:06.880
<v Speaker 1>really great. Then there's the astronomical section, which has illustrations

0:19:06.960 --> 0:19:10.720
<v Speaker 1>of the sun, moon, stars, and zodiac symbols. The so

0:19:10.760 --> 0:19:14.280
<v Speaker 1>called biological section, which is kind of the most interesting

0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:19.480
<v Speaker 1>and fascinating one because it's um got some weird kind

0:19:19.520 --> 0:19:25.480
<v Speaker 1>of anatomical drawings with small female human figures populating systems

0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:28.679
<v Speaker 1>of tubes and transporting green liquid from place to place.

0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:34.239
<v Speaker 1>They also have a lot of Christian symbology mixed in

0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:37.399
<v Speaker 1>with them, and they look really European. And then we

0:19:37.480 --> 0:19:42.920
<v Speaker 1>have the cosmological section, with mostly circular drawings that are

0:19:43.080 --> 0:19:46.560
<v Speaker 1>kind of they've they're they're so far they're unexplained to me.

0:19:47.200 --> 0:19:51.639
<v Speaker 1>It looks a lot like video game maps, right, like

0:19:51.720 --> 0:19:53.720
<v Speaker 1>different worlds in a video game map, and they're like

0:19:53.760 --> 0:19:55.879
<v Speaker 1>there's bridges in between some of them but not others,

0:19:55.920 --> 0:19:58.880
<v Speaker 1>and they're all kind of circular and weird. I don't

0:19:58.880 --> 0:20:00.960
<v Speaker 1>know if that's just what it looks like to me. Uh.

0:20:01.000 --> 0:20:04.760
<v Speaker 1>There's the pharmaceutical section, which is it's called that because

0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:08.679
<v Speaker 1>it has drawings of containers which often have small plant

0:20:08.800 --> 0:20:13.880
<v Speaker 1>parts like leaves or roots next to the containers. And

0:20:14.320 --> 0:20:17.880
<v Speaker 1>recipe section, which consists mostly of like lots of short

0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:22.600
<v Speaker 1>paragraphs um that have like weird star drawings in the margin.

0:20:22.920 --> 0:20:28.040
<v Speaker 1>So it's definitely worth the time to go out and

0:20:28.119 --> 0:20:31.879
<v Speaker 1>take a look at the pictures, indeed, and and they're

0:20:31.920 --> 0:20:36.119
<v Speaker 1>they're they're fascinating. I think we might have mentioned this already.

0:20:36.240 --> 0:20:41.560
<v Speaker 1>But they believe that the color was added to the

0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:47.800
<v Speaker 1>illustrations later on, and the research points out that they

0:20:47.880 --> 0:20:52.359
<v Speaker 1>believe that they only had four I think it's four

0:20:52.440 --> 0:20:56.480
<v Speaker 1>colors available, So every time there's a blue, it's the

0:20:56.600 --> 0:21:00.280
<v Speaker 1>same blue, whether it's it's thinner or stronger, make it

0:21:00.359 --> 0:21:02.960
<v Speaker 1>lighter or darker, but it's always the same blue or

0:21:03.000 --> 0:21:06.080
<v Speaker 1>the same green. So they didn't have a whole lot

0:21:06.080 --> 0:21:10.080
<v Speaker 1>of colors available, which makes sense because you have to mix.

0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:12.520
<v Speaker 1>You had to mix color by hand at that point,

0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:16.440
<v Speaker 1>the same berries exactly, and it's not easy to make,

0:21:16.520 --> 0:21:19.080
<v Speaker 1>so you use all of it and you just make

0:21:19.080 --> 0:21:21.199
<v Speaker 1>as much as you need. You know. One of the

0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:24.560
<v Speaker 1>things about the drawings and everything, it kind of makes

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:27.960
<v Speaker 1>me wonder is that, as you know, paper was probably

0:21:28.000 --> 0:21:30.399
<v Speaker 1>pretty scarce back in those days. I sort of wonder

0:21:30.480 --> 0:21:35.200
<v Speaker 1>if somebody somebody was like making these sketches, somebody else

0:21:35.240 --> 0:21:37.840
<v Speaker 1>came along and needed some paper to write on and

0:21:37.880 --> 0:21:40.600
<v Speaker 1>just and just basically rode around these around these drawings.

0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:45.960
<v Speaker 1>It was completely unrelated. And and then you know, somebody

0:21:45.960 --> 0:21:47.679
<v Speaker 1>else came along later and did a little color and

0:21:47.680 --> 0:21:52.760
<v Speaker 1>treated them like coloring books. I mean, it's always possible.

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Anything is possible when it comes to the voltage manuscribed,

0:21:55.480 --> 0:21:58.000
<v Speaker 1>it really is. And that's one of that, just as

0:21:58.000 --> 0:22:00.399
<v Speaker 1>in the side. You know, we talked about the history before,

0:22:00.520 --> 0:22:04.280
<v Speaker 1>but it's amazing how long people have been puzzling over

0:22:04.280 --> 0:22:07.720
<v Speaker 1>this thing. Some of the people that like like Mr

0:22:07.800 --> 0:22:09.719
<v Speaker 1>Marcy that we talked about earlier, that wouldn't turn it

0:22:09.720 --> 0:22:12.919
<v Speaker 1>over to what's his name, Mr Kirch, Mr Kirshner or

0:22:13.000 --> 0:22:16.840
<v Speaker 1>Mr Kerscher Uh, he spent twenty years trying to figure

0:22:16.840 --> 0:22:20.919
<v Speaker 1>this thing out. People currently have spent longer. Yeah, and

0:22:20.960 --> 0:22:25.240
<v Speaker 1>it is perplexing. And the illustrations are interesting because typically

0:22:25.840 --> 0:22:31.679
<v Speaker 1>there's one illustration per page, and as Joe was alluding to,

0:22:32.119 --> 0:22:36.080
<v Speaker 1>it takes up the majority of the page. And if

0:22:36.200 --> 0:22:39.879
<v Speaker 1>if we look at the plant one specifically, it's typically

0:22:39.960 --> 0:22:45.080
<v Speaker 1>the entire plant from route to tips. So it's maybe

0:22:45.160 --> 0:22:49.399
<v Speaker 1>they have a flower drawn here there that's kind of

0:22:49.440 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 1>a highlight section, but most of it is just that

0:22:53.600 --> 0:22:56.280
<v Speaker 1>one plant and then and that's why people believe that

0:22:56.320 --> 0:22:59.960
<v Speaker 1>they're the text is about those plants. Some of the

0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:02.439
<v Speaker 1>other the other illustrations of the women that you were

0:23:02.480 --> 0:23:06.560
<v Speaker 1>talking about before, a little more perplexing. I think the

0:23:06.600 --> 0:23:12.000
<v Speaker 1>worse the really good explanation for that. I know we're

0:23:12.040 --> 0:23:14.040
<v Speaker 1>going to get to Yes, we got to get to

0:23:14.040 --> 0:23:16.720
<v Speaker 1>the series later. Let's let's let's talk really fast going

0:23:16.760 --> 0:23:19.280
<v Speaker 1>through this description period. Yeah, because I know what people

0:23:19.320 --> 0:23:20.960
<v Speaker 1>want to hear is all these jazzy, cool theories and

0:23:20.960 --> 0:23:25.080
<v Speaker 1>then they want us to solve this mystery. Well, that,

0:23:25.440 --> 0:23:29.679
<v Speaker 1>my friends, is kind of the basic description of the

0:23:29.800 --> 0:23:33.800
<v Speaker 1>Voytage manuscript. Again, I strongly encourage you to go look

0:23:33.840 --> 0:23:36.480
<v Speaker 1>at pictures if you haven't already or look at more pictures.

0:23:36.520 --> 0:23:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Sure they're doing it right now because it's it's you

0:23:39.800 --> 0:23:42.919
<v Speaker 1>can't describe it, and it's it is worth it to

0:23:43.040 --> 0:23:47.320
<v Speaker 1>find the sites that have a lots of the images

0:23:47.640 --> 0:23:50.399
<v Speaker 1>and be high quality versions, because if you look at

0:23:50.440 --> 0:23:52.720
<v Speaker 1>them in say a news article, because there's been a

0:23:52.720 --> 0:23:55.000
<v Speaker 1>lot of news articles about it lately, it doesn't do

0:23:55.040 --> 0:23:57.880
<v Speaker 1>a justice. It's when you get one of those ones

0:23:57.920 --> 0:24:01.560
<v Speaker 1>that you can zoom in multiple times and really see

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:04.879
<v Speaker 1>the detail. But that's why it really kind of gets in.

0:24:05.040 --> 0:24:07.600
<v Speaker 1>It's really intriguing at that point. Wait, this isn't just

0:24:08.080 --> 0:24:11.399
<v Speaker 1>some crudely drawn thing. There's actually some decent detail in.

0:24:11.440 --> 0:24:16.240
<v Speaker 1>There's really interesting stuff that obviously we all puzzled over it.

0:24:16.280 --> 0:24:20.200
<v Speaker 1>But it's really interesting nonetheless. But it is that time,

0:24:20.560 --> 0:24:23.679
<v Speaker 1>as always, where were going to everybody's favorite part, which theories,

0:24:25.800 --> 0:24:28.359
<v Speaker 1>And I've got the first theory, let's hear it. So

0:24:28.400 --> 0:24:34.119
<v Speaker 1>our very first theory is that the Voytage Manuscript was

0:24:34.200 --> 0:24:39.200
<v Speaker 1>written by Leonardo da Vinci in a private language, none

0:24:39.200 --> 0:24:42.199
<v Speaker 1>other than Leonardo da Vinci as well, start off with

0:24:42.280 --> 0:24:46.440
<v Speaker 1>the top work our way down from there, I gotta

0:24:46.440 --> 0:24:50.600
<v Speaker 1>say from the start, though, that Leo was a better artist. Yes, okay.

0:24:50.640 --> 0:24:54.399
<v Speaker 1>So here's here's the thing. People think, the folks that

0:24:54.640 --> 0:24:58.160
<v Speaker 1>subscribe to this theory, they believe that da Vinci wrote

0:24:58.160 --> 0:25:01.040
<v Speaker 1>this when he was a very young man, maybe a

0:25:01.080 --> 0:25:05.240
<v Speaker 1>teenager or just starting his career. But he hadn't really

0:25:05.320 --> 0:25:09.280
<v Speaker 1>developed his system of of drawing. So this is very

0:25:09.280 --> 0:25:11.960
<v Speaker 1>early on. So it's it's kind of it would be

0:25:12.000 --> 0:25:14.800
<v Speaker 1>like looking somebody who was in a cubist movement, but

0:25:14.880 --> 0:25:17.159
<v Speaker 1>looking at their early works when they were trying to

0:25:17.240 --> 0:25:20.600
<v Speaker 1>figure out how to draw in a Cubist way. It's

0:25:20.720 --> 0:25:23.639
<v Speaker 1>not as developed as the rest of his work. You

0:25:23.760 --> 0:25:26.440
<v Speaker 1>just arend it out. I did. I totally aren't heerd

0:25:26.440 --> 0:25:28.800
<v Speaker 1>it out. I can't help it. Da Vinci was known

0:25:29.400 --> 0:25:36.240
<v Speaker 1>for writing in semi coded ways. He made what is

0:25:36.359 --> 0:25:39.880
<v Speaker 1>you may have heard of mirror script, and what it

0:25:40.000 --> 0:25:43.440
<v Speaker 1>is is that if you took a piece of writing

0:25:43.640 --> 0:25:46.920
<v Speaker 1>and you held it into against the mirror right now,

0:25:47.000 --> 0:25:50.000
<v Speaker 1>you can't read it, But if you wrote it as

0:25:50.040 --> 0:25:54.040
<v Speaker 1>if it was that mirror image, it looks like utter gibberish.

0:25:54.720 --> 0:25:57.960
<v Speaker 1>Think about it. You write most people right, and they're

0:25:58.000 --> 0:26:03.400
<v Speaker 1>writing tips to one side. The letters flow to the right.

0:26:03.480 --> 0:26:06.360
<v Speaker 1>In English, typically so if you were to start writing

0:26:06.359 --> 0:26:09.399
<v Speaker 1>it from right to left and everything go to the

0:26:09.400 --> 0:26:12.800
<v Speaker 1>other direction, we should qualify. It's not just English, it's

0:26:12.840 --> 0:26:18.480
<v Speaker 1>anything that uses the European. Yes, European uses the Orian alphabet. Yes,

0:26:18.680 --> 0:26:23.359
<v Speaker 1>I believe that's the proper phrase. But but at speaking

0:26:23.359 --> 0:26:25.560
<v Speaker 1>of his mirror script, so did da Vinci use a

0:26:25.600 --> 0:26:28.840
<v Speaker 1>mirror or did he simply learn how to write backwards?

0:26:28.880 --> 0:26:32.159
<v Speaker 1>He learned how to write backwards, so he perfected it

0:26:32.280 --> 0:26:34.640
<v Speaker 1>so that he was writing it the wrong way. He

0:26:34.720 --> 0:26:38.520
<v Speaker 1>was also known for writing with his right hand, but

0:26:38.640 --> 0:26:43.320
<v Speaker 1>he was initially a Southpa. He was a lefty, and

0:26:43.640 --> 0:26:47.080
<v Speaker 1>in that time if you wrote with your left hand,

0:26:48.280 --> 0:26:50.119
<v Speaker 1>you were it was a sign of the devil, and

0:26:50.200 --> 0:26:52.840
<v Speaker 1>anybody who wanted to write left handed learned to write

0:26:52.840 --> 0:26:56.119
<v Speaker 1>with their right hand. He rebelled against that later in

0:26:56.160 --> 0:26:57.960
<v Speaker 1>his life and started and went back to using his

0:26:58.080 --> 0:27:03.159
<v Speaker 1>left This theory which is primarily advocated by Edith Sherwood,

0:27:03.920 --> 0:27:08.200
<v Speaker 1>she believes that this was something that he did when

0:27:08.200 --> 0:27:11.080
<v Speaker 1>he was first learning to use to write with his

0:27:11.200 --> 0:27:13.760
<v Speaker 1>right hand. How young is she saying that he would

0:27:13.800 --> 0:27:18.680
<v Speaker 1>have been, I mean late teens, early twenties. The impression

0:27:18.680 --> 0:27:21.639
<v Speaker 1>I got the thing that I The problem I have

0:27:21.720 --> 0:27:25.399
<v Speaker 1>with this theory is that, first of all, the drawings

0:27:25.480 --> 0:27:29.359
<v Speaker 1>don't look like Leonardo Divinsion, you know. I mean, you

0:27:29.400 --> 0:27:31.720
<v Speaker 1>can say, well, it was an early version of him,

0:27:31.760 --> 0:27:34.440
<v Speaker 1>but they The thing about artists is it always kind

0:27:34.440 --> 0:27:37.560
<v Speaker 1>of looks like that person. You tend to have a style.

0:27:37.760 --> 0:27:41.439
<v Speaker 1>There's inherent things. Particularly in that time in his life,

0:27:41.560 --> 0:27:44.400
<v Speaker 1>he would have been much more advanced than this. It's

0:27:44.400 --> 0:27:47.480
<v Speaker 1>also been pointed out that because of the cross hatching

0:27:47.560 --> 0:27:51.040
<v Speaker 1>that is used, some of the hatching believe that it

0:27:51.160 --> 0:27:53.879
<v Speaker 1>was he wrote it with his right hand, and he

0:27:53.960 --> 0:27:58.679
<v Speaker 1>drew it with his left, and the hatching flows in

0:27:58.720 --> 0:28:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the direction that he would have done it with his

0:28:00.880 --> 0:28:05.040
<v Speaker 1>left hand, which is from right to left. He would

0:28:05.040 --> 0:28:07.399
<v Speaker 1>have gone up or down, but it would have been done.

0:28:07.840 --> 0:28:11.080
<v Speaker 1>It's done at that angle, whereas if I if I

0:28:11.119 --> 0:28:14.400
<v Speaker 1>sit down and do hatching with mine, it's gonna float

0:28:14.600 --> 0:28:17.119
<v Speaker 1>towards the upper right hand corner. And this seems to

0:28:17.160 --> 0:28:20.800
<v Speaker 1>flow towards the upper left hand corner, which so she says,

0:28:21.280 --> 0:28:23.080
<v Speaker 1>he wrote it with his right hand, So that's why

0:28:23.119 --> 0:28:26.520
<v Speaker 1>the script doesn't match most of his notes. It also

0:28:26.560 --> 0:28:30.960
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have as many It does have similar flourishes that

0:28:31.000 --> 0:28:34.000
<v Speaker 1>he wrote, which a flourish is you can cross your

0:28:34.040 --> 0:28:38.120
<v Speaker 1>tea or twelve year old girls love crossing their teeth

0:28:38.320 --> 0:28:40.240
<v Speaker 1>and drawing a line up and putting a little heart

0:28:40.320 --> 0:28:45.440
<v Speaker 1>at the end. That would be a flourish. Yes, those

0:28:45.480 --> 0:28:47.800
<v Speaker 1>those kind of things are anything that is beyond what

0:28:48.000 --> 0:28:50.840
<v Speaker 1>is needed to make it a little prettier. Is an

0:28:50.840 --> 0:28:53.600
<v Speaker 1>easy way to think of what a flourishes for. Uh,

0:28:54.280 --> 0:28:59.600
<v Speaker 1>this whole theory, I agree, there are holes in the theory. Um.

0:29:00.120 --> 0:29:03.760
<v Speaker 1>Here's here's what I really really found to be. The

0:29:03.840 --> 0:29:07.400
<v Speaker 1>issue is, Okay, I could see that maybe he invented

0:29:07.400 --> 0:29:11.360
<v Speaker 1>a language. The drawings don't match. But let's just say

0:29:11.400 --> 0:29:14.520
<v Speaker 1>he was goofing around. Okay, so he was just doing

0:29:14.520 --> 0:29:16.720
<v Speaker 1>it a different style. He was with the pen in

0:29:16.800 --> 0:29:21.200
<v Speaker 1>his mouth. Maybe. But the problem is DaVinci was known

0:29:21.320 --> 0:29:24.600
<v Speaker 1>for drawing little things into his drawings, and there was

0:29:24.640 --> 0:29:28.320
<v Speaker 1>little codes, evidently that he would put in. And once

0:29:28.480 --> 0:29:31.640
<v Speaker 1>people start grabbing this, they start seeing what they want

0:29:32.200 --> 0:29:38.000
<v Speaker 1>in the images in the illustrations, and suddenly it's there's

0:29:38.080 --> 0:29:41.920
<v Speaker 1>little spikes off the edge of a leaf and suddenly people, oh,

0:29:41.960 --> 0:29:46.520
<v Speaker 1>you see that that spells LEO if you connect the edges,

0:29:47.240 --> 0:29:50.320
<v Speaker 1>and it's it's it's seeing what you want to say.

0:29:50.680 --> 0:29:53.480
<v Speaker 1>And that's that's where at first I thought this was like, Wow,

0:29:53.520 --> 0:29:55.360
<v Speaker 1>this is really cool, this kind of makes sense, and

0:29:55.400 --> 0:29:57.680
<v Speaker 1>then it just all and when he shambles off and

0:29:57.720 --> 0:29:59.840
<v Speaker 1>you know it, it makes sense for me. When we

0:30:00.080 --> 0:30:02.960
<v Speaker 1>look at the like the Maidens in the Bath, for instance,

0:30:03.560 --> 0:30:06.640
<v Speaker 1>I can see how somebody could say this artist evolved

0:30:06.680 --> 0:30:10.800
<v Speaker 1>into Leonardo da Vinci. The plant stuff, though, is really

0:30:10.840 --> 0:30:16.440
<v Speaker 1>what trips me up, because it's really awful. I mean,

0:30:16.480 --> 0:30:20.320
<v Speaker 1>just to put it bluntly, it's it's very crude, right,

0:30:20.360 --> 0:30:24.080
<v Speaker 1>there's no perspective or anything like that. So unless we're saying, yeah,

0:30:24.280 --> 0:30:26.880
<v Speaker 1>da Vinci did this when he was like seven years

0:30:26.880 --> 0:30:28.960
<v Speaker 1>old and then came back and wrote it when he

0:30:29.000 --> 0:30:32.320
<v Speaker 1>was twenty, I'm not buying it. I'm just not. There's

0:30:32.360 --> 0:30:35.800
<v Speaker 1>so many plant drawings in here that it's about that, right,

0:30:36.000 --> 0:30:38.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. Well, here's here's the other thing is

0:30:38.360 --> 0:30:41.360
<v Speaker 1>that da Vinci left behind a lot of paperwork, lots

0:30:41.360 --> 0:30:45.000
<v Speaker 1>of drawings, lots of writings. Yeah, he's prolific, not one,

0:30:45.320 --> 0:30:47.880
<v Speaker 1>you know. So if he had invented a private language,

0:30:47.880 --> 0:30:50.080
<v Speaker 1>he wouldn't have let it go to waste. A lot

0:30:50.160 --> 0:30:52.320
<v Speaker 1>of his papers, would there would be stuff around there?

0:30:52.720 --> 0:30:55.760
<v Speaker 1>So yeah, well that's why there's examples of his mirror script,

0:30:55.760 --> 0:30:58.840
<v Speaker 1>because he did a bunch of his notes and he

0:30:58.880 --> 0:31:00.880
<v Speaker 1>had if he had mirror a script, why would he,

0:31:00.920 --> 0:31:02.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if he had this, why would he do

0:31:02.760 --> 0:31:06.480
<v Speaker 1>mirror scripts? Exactly? Your script might have been easier. And

0:31:06.600 --> 0:31:09.160
<v Speaker 1>let me also, I'll defend it for a second. Let's

0:31:09.160 --> 0:31:11.880
<v Speaker 1>say that he made this up. He made this this

0:31:12.120 --> 0:31:15.160
<v Speaker 1>secret language of his own, this written language, and then

0:31:15.200 --> 0:31:20.160
<v Speaker 1>he realized, I want to send a letter to Antonio,

0:31:20.920 --> 0:31:24.080
<v Speaker 1>but Antonio doesn't know this language, so he can't read it.

0:31:24.600 --> 0:31:27.080
<v Speaker 1>Whereas if he sends it to Antonio and it's written

0:31:27.080 --> 0:31:29.600
<v Speaker 1>a mirror script, Antonio knows to just hold it against

0:31:29.600 --> 0:31:32.000
<v Speaker 1>a mirror and read what's in the mirror. And that's

0:31:32.080 --> 0:31:36.160
<v Speaker 1>much simpler for other people that you're corresponding to people

0:31:37.000 --> 0:31:38.760
<v Speaker 1>to that. But you know, if you really want to

0:31:38.800 --> 0:31:42.600
<v Speaker 1>encrypt something, and Leonardo was not that dumb, he knew that.

0:31:42.640 --> 0:31:44.960
<v Speaker 1>He knew that, you know, he, I mean, he knew

0:31:45.000 --> 0:31:48.920
<v Speaker 1>that that's the most easily crackable cipher and you know,

0:31:49.000 --> 0:31:52.480
<v Speaker 1>of all time. So if he was truly interested in

0:31:52.560 --> 0:31:54.720
<v Speaker 1>keeping secrets from people other than just maybe he just

0:31:54.960 --> 0:31:57.000
<v Speaker 1>learned how to write backwards just for a novelty kind

0:31:57.000 --> 0:31:58.800
<v Speaker 1>of thing. I kind of think it might have been.

0:31:59.280 --> 0:32:01.040
<v Speaker 1>It's something to it. He probably did it on a

0:32:01.080 --> 0:32:03.640
<v Speaker 1>whim to entertain himself and then just kept running with

0:32:03.680 --> 0:32:07.040
<v Speaker 1>it because he was a bit obsessive. He really would.

0:32:07.120 --> 0:32:09.600
<v Speaker 1>It seems like basically things he came up with in

0:32:09.640 --> 0:32:12.720
<v Speaker 1>some of his writings, he would just keep working at it,

0:32:12.720 --> 0:32:16.320
<v Speaker 1>which is why he came up with some very phenomenal things.

0:32:15.160 --> 0:32:18.440
<v Speaker 1>But I think a lot of geniuses had that obsessive

0:32:18.480 --> 0:32:22.760
<v Speaker 1>part of their personality. Yeah, and so, yeah, but he

0:32:22.800 --> 0:32:25.239
<v Speaker 1>did some good stuff. Well anyway, let me let me

0:32:25.560 --> 0:32:31.240
<v Speaker 1>talk about another theory, which is that it's a cipher. Yeah.

0:32:31.320 --> 0:32:33.239
<v Speaker 1>Ciphers are fun. Yeah yeah, But I'm not the one

0:32:33.240 --> 0:32:36.440
<v Speaker 1>that came up with this theory. This guy came up

0:32:36.480 --> 0:32:38.800
<v Speaker 1>with what I think is probably one of the most

0:32:38.840 --> 0:32:43.480
<v Speaker 1>bizarre encryption algorithms of all times. So this guy, his

0:32:43.640 --> 0:32:48.040
<v Speaker 1>name was William Newbold. He's a professor of philosophy at

0:32:48.040 --> 0:32:52.600
<v Speaker 1>the University of Pennsylvania. He cracked this code uh, which

0:32:52.640 --> 0:32:59.280
<v Speaker 1>involves anagrams of characters uh, and he found the character

0:32:59.440 --> 0:33:02.480
<v Speaker 1>is not actually not actually in the words of the

0:33:02.560 --> 0:33:06.320
<v Speaker 1>letters themselves, but in fluctuations or variations in the in

0:33:06.400 --> 0:33:09.480
<v Speaker 1>the edges of the ink and the letters. So by

0:33:09.600 --> 0:33:12.240
<v Speaker 1>finding a little so byre finding little wavy, little wavy

0:33:12.280 --> 0:33:16.920
<v Speaker 1>things in the letters, by looking at them through magnifying glasses. Wait,

0:33:16.960 --> 0:33:19.360
<v Speaker 1>so let me let me make sure I I because

0:33:19.360 --> 0:33:22.280
<v Speaker 1>this one was weird. I read it and I thought

0:33:22.280 --> 0:33:24.280
<v Speaker 1>I got it. But you have a better handle on

0:33:24.320 --> 0:33:26.680
<v Speaker 1>it than I do. So if I were to take

0:33:26.840 --> 0:33:30.000
<v Speaker 1>a felt tip pen and just draw a line on

0:33:30.040 --> 0:33:32.720
<v Speaker 1>a sheet of paper, and the ink is gonna bleed out,

0:33:32.880 --> 0:33:35.800
<v Speaker 1>and it's gonna go gonna do it irregularly, right, And

0:33:35.840 --> 0:33:39.160
<v Speaker 1>so you're saying, he then looked at that irregular edge,

0:33:39.600 --> 0:33:43.400
<v Speaker 1>and that's how he deciphered it. Apparently, that's my understanding

0:33:43.440 --> 0:33:46.880
<v Speaker 1>of how it works. And uh, and then and then

0:33:47.120 --> 0:33:51.400
<v Speaker 1>so there's information contained, apparently in those little irregularities. And

0:33:51.400 --> 0:33:55.200
<v Speaker 1>then he converted that information into into letters, which were

0:33:55.240 --> 0:33:59.880
<v Speaker 1>themselves anagrams, which had to be rearranged at the form

0:34:00.040 --> 0:34:04.120
<v Speaker 1>coherent message for for what two and seventy two pages. Yeah,

0:34:05.400 --> 0:34:08.719
<v Speaker 1>well it wasn't that. It wasn't a hundred seventy thousand

0:34:08.840 --> 0:34:13.440
<v Speaker 1>characters anagram now, but there was an anagrams between ten letters,

0:34:13.480 --> 0:34:17.840
<v Speaker 1>and so it's like as an encryption uh techniques, I

0:34:17.880 --> 0:34:22.160
<v Speaker 1>can't think of anything more unreliable, yeah, or difficult. So

0:34:22.200 --> 0:34:24.600
<v Speaker 1>it's bizarre. But there are other people who have thought

0:34:24.600 --> 0:34:26.000
<v Speaker 1>about I mean, there are people all over the web

0:34:26.040 --> 0:34:30.000
<v Speaker 1>who believe that this is actually a cipher um. There

0:34:30.040 --> 0:34:32.919
<v Speaker 1>was a guy named John Manley wrote a critical paper

0:34:32.920 --> 0:34:37.439
<v Speaker 1>about new Bold's theory, and he did go he did

0:34:37.440 --> 0:34:39.960
<v Speaker 1>point out, as I just did, at the unreliability of

0:34:40.040 --> 0:34:44.680
<v Speaker 1>anagramming for cryptography is just you know, it just totally

0:34:44.719 --> 0:34:47.719
<v Speaker 1>shoots a hole in the whole thing. Nobody, nobody does

0:34:47.719 --> 0:34:50.879
<v Speaker 1>ciphers with anagrams, right, I mean, like that's not that's

0:34:50.880 --> 0:34:52.319
<v Speaker 1>not a real thing. That's the thing you do when

0:34:52.360 --> 0:34:55.319
<v Speaker 1>you're like in second grade anything. You're cool. If you're

0:34:55.320 --> 0:34:59.440
<v Speaker 1>actually trying to communicate information to somebody, you don't just

0:34:59.520 --> 0:35:02.800
<v Speaker 1>rely on Oh you're gonna be able to totally rearrange

0:35:02.800 --> 0:35:05.680
<v Speaker 1>these words into the al right word, particularly in a

0:35:05.760 --> 0:35:08.600
<v Speaker 1>language like English, but in other languages too. If you

0:35:08.680 --> 0:35:11.400
<v Speaker 1>have I think, if you have like a friend who's like,

0:35:11.760 --> 0:35:15.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, and you're both totally really genius is at anagrams,

0:35:15.520 --> 0:35:18.239
<v Speaker 1>and some people are not me, but some people are

0:35:19.040 --> 0:35:21.279
<v Speaker 1>then I suppose you could actually communicate doing that, but

0:35:21.320 --> 0:35:24.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, for most of us, it's not gonna work. Yeah, okay,

0:35:24.400 --> 0:35:27.320
<v Speaker 1>that's enough. So as far as it being a cipher,

0:35:27.360 --> 0:35:29.120
<v Speaker 1>if it is a cipher, it can only be one

0:35:29.160 --> 0:35:32.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of cipher, and that is a substitution cipher. Because

0:35:32.280 --> 0:35:34.280
<v Speaker 1>if you look at this page, this is from page

0:35:34.320 --> 0:35:37.520
<v Speaker 1>seventy five of the manuscript, if you look at the

0:35:37.560 --> 0:35:41.799
<v Speaker 1>two words that I've underlined, they're identical. Correct, there's three

0:35:41.800 --> 0:35:45.239
<v Speaker 1>of them on this one page. Yeah, alright, So if

0:35:45.239 --> 0:35:48.839
<v Speaker 1>it's anything other than a substitution cipher, then it's say,

0:35:48.840 --> 0:35:51.840
<v Speaker 1>if it's some really sophisticated kind of cipher, then the

0:35:51.880 --> 0:35:54.160
<v Speaker 1>odds are that, say an eight letter word are going

0:35:54.200 --> 0:35:56.960
<v Speaker 1>to be translated by the sophisticated. Say it's say it's

0:35:56.960 --> 0:36:00.640
<v Speaker 1>a one time pad, that the encoded tex is going

0:36:00.680 --> 0:36:04.400
<v Speaker 1>to be the exact same word, especially three times on

0:36:04.440 --> 0:36:09.840
<v Speaker 1>a page. Uh, Statistically, that's just not possible. Or it's possible,

0:36:09.880 --> 0:36:13.880
<v Speaker 1>but it's like infinitesimally small odds of that happening. Unless

0:36:13.880 --> 0:36:16.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a name. Unless it's a name, like it's the

0:36:16.680 --> 0:36:19.200
<v Speaker 1>name of a city or something like that. Yeah, well,

0:36:19.200 --> 0:36:21.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't think in this particular case it is on

0:36:21.960 --> 0:36:27.759
<v Speaker 1>that particular But so anyway, Uh, the as you guys know,

0:36:28.400 --> 0:36:29.759
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if we've mentioned it before or not.

0:36:29.800 --> 0:36:31.320
<v Speaker 1>The n s A actually had their hands on this

0:36:31.400 --> 0:36:32.880
<v Speaker 1>think for a while, and they were they were they

0:36:33.280 --> 0:36:35.960
<v Speaker 1>actually noodle it around, tried to make some sense of this,

0:36:36.520 --> 0:36:39.160
<v Speaker 1>and they were not able to. But if you look

0:36:39.200 --> 0:36:42.839
<v Speaker 1>at this, that word has to be since the word

0:36:42.840 --> 0:36:46.160
<v Speaker 1>appears more than once, this can only be a simple

0:36:46.400 --> 0:36:49.840
<v Speaker 1>substitution cipher. And so for our listeners who don't know,

0:36:49.920 --> 0:36:51.279
<v Speaker 1>and you should know if you've been listening to us,

0:36:51.280 --> 0:36:53.279
<v Speaker 1>but I'll tell you whatever, it's a word where a

0:36:53.400 --> 0:36:56.759
<v Speaker 1>letter or a symbol represented is represented by another letter

0:36:56.840 --> 0:36:59.680
<v Speaker 1>or symbol. So so in other words, A would be D,

0:37:00.880 --> 0:37:04.839
<v Speaker 1>B would be F, C would be x, D would

0:37:04.880 --> 0:37:07.879
<v Speaker 1>be M like that. So it's not not in any

0:37:07.920 --> 0:37:10.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of pattern. And then you substitute those letters whenever

0:37:10.800 --> 0:37:14.279
<v Speaker 1>you substitute one for the other. Uh. And so if

0:37:14.280 --> 0:37:16.759
<v Speaker 1>the s A add their hands on this, and it

0:37:16.880 --> 0:37:19.520
<v Speaker 1>quite obviously as a substitution cipher, if it is a

0:37:19.560 --> 0:37:22.080
<v Speaker 1>cipher at all, then they would have cracked it in

0:37:22.120 --> 0:37:26.040
<v Speaker 1>about three minutes. Not no, not three minutes thirty seconds. Yeah, yeah,

0:37:26.400 --> 0:37:28.919
<v Speaker 1>so did you have some big brains are really into

0:37:28.960 --> 0:37:31.359
<v Speaker 1>that stuff. Yeah, so it cannot be a cipher as

0:37:31.360 --> 0:37:34.000
<v Speaker 1>far as I can tell. Okay, well, we'll move on

0:37:34.040 --> 0:37:38.040
<v Speaker 1>to our next theory. Yeah, this is pretty exciting. Actually, yeah,

0:37:38.360 --> 0:37:40.360
<v Speaker 1>well what would you what would you title this theory?

0:37:40.560 --> 0:37:46.560
<v Speaker 1>I would title this theory Stephen Backs has solved the mystery. Okay,

0:37:47.040 --> 0:37:50.040
<v Speaker 1>well we we were lucky enough to do an interview

0:37:50.400 --> 0:37:52.799
<v Speaker 1>about this with a gentleman who has been in the

0:37:52.800 --> 0:37:56.680
<v Speaker 1>news lately by the name of Stephen Backs. But let's

0:37:56.800 --> 0:38:01.400
<v Speaker 1>let's dr Backs introduce himself. Yeah, okay, my names Stephen Backs,

0:38:01.400 --> 0:38:04.280
<v Speaker 1>and I'm a professor of applied linguistics in the University

0:38:04.280 --> 0:38:08.160
<v Speaker 1>of Bedfordshire in England, and my particular interest in the

0:38:08.280 --> 0:38:11.279
<v Speaker 1>Voyage Manuscript is to try and decode it from a

0:38:11.360 --> 0:38:14.120
<v Speaker 1>linguistic point of view. And others have looked at it

0:38:14.160 --> 0:38:16.360
<v Speaker 1>from a historical point of view or looking at the

0:38:16.360 --> 0:38:19.160
<v Speaker 1>pictures and so on, but I'm particularly interested in looking

0:38:19.200 --> 0:38:21.879
<v Speaker 1>at the language and the script and trying as best

0:38:21.920 --> 0:38:24.239
<v Speaker 1>as I can to make a start on decoding it

0:38:24.320 --> 0:38:27.359
<v Speaker 1>because the problem with the manuscript so far has been

0:38:27.400 --> 0:38:31.920
<v Speaker 1>that since it was written around about perhaps fourteen thirty.

0:38:32.320 --> 0:38:34.720
<v Speaker 1>No one's been able to decode anything of the script

0:38:34.800 --> 0:38:37.319
<v Speaker 1>or understand anything of the language. So that's the angle

0:38:37.400 --> 0:38:41.200
<v Speaker 1>that I'm taking. Really, So doctor Backs has obviously done

0:38:41.200 --> 0:38:45.000
<v Speaker 1>a lot of research on the manuscript. Highly qualified guys,

0:38:45.360 --> 0:38:48.840
<v Speaker 1>very qualified, I would say, almost as qualified as us,

0:38:50.080 --> 0:38:52.960
<v Speaker 1>maybe a little bit more. We can be gracious on

0:38:52.960 --> 0:38:56.799
<v Speaker 1>this one, very very gracious, but I did. It was

0:38:56.880 --> 0:39:01.040
<v Speaker 1>really interesting to find out what got doctor Backs to

0:39:01.280 --> 0:39:03.600
<v Speaker 1>first start looking at the manuscript. It was kind of

0:39:03.640 --> 0:39:06.799
<v Speaker 1>like a random happens. Yeah. Well, well, Leah, Well, I

0:39:06.840 --> 0:39:09.920
<v Speaker 1>was listening to the radio about two years ago, almost

0:39:09.960 --> 0:39:11.840
<v Speaker 1>exactly two years ago, and there was a really interesting

0:39:11.840 --> 0:39:14.880
<v Speaker 1>program about John d and they think he might have

0:39:14.960 --> 0:39:19.120
<v Speaker 1>been the model for the character Prospero in Shakespeare's Played

0:39:19.120 --> 0:39:22.000
<v Speaker 1>the ten fest a kind of mystical, strange wizard like figure,

0:39:22.600 --> 0:39:25.480
<v Speaker 1>and he was really interesting. He tried hard to speak

0:39:25.520 --> 0:39:28.800
<v Speaker 1>with angels and communicate with angels, had a large library

0:39:28.840 --> 0:39:31.479
<v Speaker 1>of different books, and it was thought at one time

0:39:31.480 --> 0:39:33.760
<v Speaker 1>that he might have owned this manuscript and then sold

0:39:33.800 --> 0:39:37.120
<v Speaker 1>it on to the Emperor Rudolph the Second, who was

0:39:37.160 --> 0:39:39.719
<v Speaker 1>the Holy Roman Emperor. Because we know pretty sure it

0:39:39.760 --> 0:39:42.759
<v Speaker 1>did belong to the Emperor at one time, but it's

0:39:42.760 --> 0:39:44.799
<v Speaker 1>now thought that actually John D didn't have much to

0:39:44.800 --> 0:39:46.479
<v Speaker 1>do with it. But I got into it by looking

0:39:46.520 --> 0:39:49.680
<v Speaker 1>at John D, listening to program on the radio, looking

0:39:49.680 --> 0:39:52.080
<v Speaker 1>at Wikipedia, as of course we all do, and then

0:39:52.160 --> 0:39:55.399
<v Speaker 1>finding the voyage the Voyage manuscript from that and thought, wow,

0:39:55.440 --> 0:39:58.160
<v Speaker 1>this has got some really interesting signs and symbols, some

0:39:58.239 --> 0:40:00.319
<v Speaker 1>of them looking a little bit like Arabic at us

0:40:00.680 --> 0:40:02.839
<v Speaker 1>because I studied Arabic for so many years, that really

0:40:02.880 --> 0:40:04.880
<v Speaker 1>intrigued me, and that kind of got me going on it. Really.

0:40:05.080 --> 0:40:08.400
<v Speaker 1>As we were talking to Dr Backs, what I really

0:40:08.440 --> 0:40:12.399
<v Speaker 1>wanted to kind of key in on was what exactly

0:40:12.719 --> 0:40:16.480
<v Speaker 1>was it in the text that jumped out at him

0:40:16.520 --> 0:40:20.160
<v Speaker 1>that he first started looking at working one kind of

0:40:20.200 --> 0:40:23.920
<v Speaker 1>his aha moment, Right, Yeah, it's exactly right, his aha moment.

0:40:24.480 --> 0:40:27.799
<v Speaker 1>That's that's the important piece. That's the first piece of

0:40:27.800 --> 0:40:30.120
<v Speaker 1>the puzzle. Yeah, I mean, the very first one was

0:40:30.200 --> 0:40:32.759
<v Speaker 1>I found a pattern which seems to be the repetition

0:40:32.840 --> 0:40:36.480
<v Speaker 1>of of what looked like a R a R. And

0:40:36.480 --> 0:40:38.719
<v Speaker 1>that kind of pattern in the manuscript is quite race.

0:40:38.800 --> 0:40:41.200
<v Speaker 1>I thought, well, that might be a borrowing and it

0:40:41.239 --> 0:40:43.560
<v Speaker 1>seemed to me to be alongside the plant, which I

0:40:43.640 --> 0:40:47.400
<v Speaker 1>knew to be was called the our plant in Arabic,

0:40:47.440 --> 0:40:49.920
<v Speaker 1>which is the junifer plant. So it struck me that

0:40:50.000 --> 0:40:53.200
<v Speaker 1>it might actually be the name of that plant. Now

0:40:53.400 --> 0:40:56.279
<v Speaker 1>I'm not entirely sure that that's that's correct anymore, but

0:40:56.840 --> 0:40:59.880
<v Speaker 1>that kind of got me started on looking for the plant,

0:41:00.400 --> 0:41:04.040
<v Speaker 1>and particularly the first word on each plant page, because

0:41:04.040 --> 0:41:06.440
<v Speaker 1>in many evil manuscripts that's usually where the name of

0:41:06.440 --> 0:41:08.960
<v Speaker 1>the plant was. The first word was the name of it.

0:41:09.440 --> 0:41:12.640
<v Speaker 1>So then I started to look at other ones. And

0:41:12.760 --> 0:41:15.600
<v Speaker 1>besides that, there's a really interesting picture on page sixty

0:41:15.600 --> 0:41:18.640
<v Speaker 1>eight of the manuscript which has a big circle in

0:41:18.680 --> 0:41:20.520
<v Speaker 1>the middle, and it has a face of the moon,

0:41:20.719 --> 0:41:22.920
<v Speaker 1>but the rather sad, gloomy face actually drawn on a

0:41:22.960 --> 0:41:25.960
<v Speaker 1>beautiful little picture. The top left hand corner there are

0:41:26.000 --> 0:41:29.560
<v Speaker 1>seven stars which people reckon are probably the plier. These

0:41:29.640 --> 0:41:33.680
<v Speaker 1>the seven sisters in the constellation of Taurus. So I

0:41:33.760 --> 0:41:36.640
<v Speaker 1>took somebody else's idea which said that the word alongside

0:41:36.680 --> 0:41:39.880
<v Speaker 1>these seven stars might be the word taurus, and basically

0:41:39.880 --> 0:41:42.520
<v Speaker 1>I split it up into the letters, like thinking, the

0:41:42.560 --> 0:41:45.160
<v Speaker 1>first one is probably a tough, the second one probably

0:41:45.160 --> 0:41:48.080
<v Speaker 1>an add the third one could be a work sound

0:41:48.160 --> 0:41:51.880
<v Speaker 1>because of the old form of Taurus's tower, would the

0:41:51.960 --> 0:41:54.560
<v Speaker 1>third the fourth phone will be a ruh and that

0:41:54.680 --> 0:41:56.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of way. Then comparing that with other words and

0:41:57.000 --> 0:42:00.440
<v Speaker 1>other names of the plants, it seems to me that

0:42:00.480 --> 0:42:03.440
<v Speaker 1>there were some patterns going on which would help to

0:42:03.520 --> 0:42:06.000
<v Speaker 1>lead us to a fuller decoding later. But I should

0:42:06.080 --> 0:42:08.560
<v Speaker 1>just empathize that at the moment, it's still provisional and

0:42:08.560 --> 0:42:11.120
<v Speaker 1>it's still very very small. Me when I tell people

0:42:11.120 --> 0:42:13.839
<v Speaker 1>I've deciphered ten words of a thirty five thousand word

0:42:13.920 --> 0:42:17.960
<v Speaker 1>manuscripts all off their chair. But the point is, nobody's

0:42:17.960 --> 0:42:21.160
<v Speaker 1>ever done any before at all. So both even one word,

0:42:21.160 --> 0:42:23.960
<v Speaker 1>if you can say with confidence, and that's kind of something.

0:42:24.200 --> 0:42:26.279
<v Speaker 1>The key thing from from my point of view is

0:42:26.320 --> 0:42:29.960
<v Speaker 1>to look for proper names, and that's partly because previous

0:42:30.320 --> 0:42:34.360
<v Speaker 1>analyzes of language, for example, the discipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics

0:42:34.360 --> 0:42:37.120
<v Speaker 1>in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that was the way

0:42:37.160 --> 0:42:39.680
<v Speaker 1>that they did it. They looked for proper names, like

0:42:39.719 --> 0:42:43.799
<v Speaker 1>the pharaohs Rameses or Cleopatra, and once I thought they'd

0:42:43.800 --> 0:42:46.880
<v Speaker 1>found them, they worked out each letter for example, Kirk

0:42:46.960 --> 0:42:49.360
<v Speaker 1>Clay or partly they worked out each letter and the

0:42:49.440 --> 0:42:51.920
<v Speaker 1>sound related to it, and so they built up a

0:42:52.000 --> 0:42:54.920
<v Speaker 1>system of sounds and signs, and then from that they

0:42:54.920 --> 0:42:57.360
<v Speaker 1>went on to find out that in fact that particular

0:42:57.719 --> 0:43:01.719
<v Speaker 1>language was related to Coptic, so that they started with

0:43:01.760 --> 0:43:03.560
<v Speaker 1>proper names. And I thought it would be useful to

0:43:03.600 --> 0:43:06.959
<v Speaker 1>try the same approach with the Voyage manuscript, and people

0:43:07.000 --> 0:43:10.200
<v Speaker 1>have tried similar things before. But I think partly my

0:43:10.280 --> 0:43:14.239
<v Speaker 1>background in other Oriental languages such as Arabic and other

0:43:14.520 --> 0:43:17.800
<v Speaker 1>languages with different scripts gave me a kind of handle

0:43:17.840 --> 0:43:20.480
<v Speaker 1>on which I think helped me to get make some

0:43:20.600 --> 0:43:24.719
<v Speaker 1>progress on it. No, you don't have a Roserto stone here? Well, no,

0:43:24.920 --> 0:43:26.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean that would be the beauty of it. But

0:43:26.680 --> 0:43:30.600
<v Speaker 1>unfortunately we don't have any other manuscript or any other

0:43:31.080 --> 0:43:33.760
<v Speaker 1>text of any sort with the same letters and symbols

0:43:33.760 --> 0:43:36.080
<v Speaker 1>as the Voyage Manuscript, which is one reason why it's

0:43:36.120 --> 0:43:39.319
<v Speaker 1>so fascinating. It's the only texts in the world which

0:43:39.320 --> 0:43:42.040
<v Speaker 1>has these letters and symbols. But it has a lot

0:43:42.080 --> 0:43:43.680
<v Speaker 1>of them. I mean, there are thirty or five thousand

0:43:43.760 --> 0:43:46.560
<v Speaker 1>words in the text, but we can't read any of them,

0:43:46.560 --> 0:43:49.360
<v Speaker 1>so it's very frustrating as well. And so we asked

0:43:49.440 --> 0:43:53.920
<v Speaker 1>dr Backs about some theories that perhaps the language that

0:43:54.080 --> 0:43:56.920
<v Speaker 1>is in the document, in the manuscript is the written

0:43:57.160 --> 0:44:00.480
<v Speaker 1>alphabet of the written language of a in extinct language.

0:44:00.800 --> 0:44:03.279
<v Speaker 1>And here's what you have to say, Well, the extinct thing.

0:44:03.440 --> 0:44:06.480
<v Speaker 1>I didn't actually say that. I mean, what I suggest

0:44:06.560 --> 0:44:09.160
<v Speaker 1>is that the script might has definitely become extinct because

0:44:09.160 --> 0:44:11.440
<v Speaker 1>no one else has used the script, but that the

0:44:11.520 --> 0:44:14.800
<v Speaker 1>language underneath, the language underneath could well be a language

0:44:14.840 --> 0:44:18.040
<v Speaker 1>that has has modern descendants, or could be a fully

0:44:18.160 --> 0:44:22.879
<v Speaker 1>fully existent modern language. Um. I mean, if you take,

0:44:22.960 --> 0:44:24.960
<v Speaker 1>let's take an example of Armenian, let's imagine that it

0:44:25.040 --> 0:44:28.839
<v Speaker 1>might be Armenian. Well, you then say to yourself, why

0:44:29.000 --> 0:44:31.480
<v Speaker 1>if it was the language was Armenian, why would they

0:44:31.760 --> 0:44:34.520
<v Speaker 1>write it in a different script when they're a fully

0:44:34.560 --> 0:44:37.680
<v Speaker 1>formed Armenian script they could have used. So, in other words,

0:44:37.719 --> 0:44:39.480
<v Speaker 1>it must be some group of people who had to

0:44:39.560 --> 0:44:43.120
<v Speaker 1>divide the script for themselves because there wasn't a script

0:44:43.200 --> 0:44:46.920
<v Speaker 1>already there for them. And some people have suggested interestingly

0:44:46.960 --> 0:44:49.600
<v Speaker 1>that it might be a Romani, the kind of gypsy

0:44:49.719 --> 0:44:54.120
<v Speaker 1>language which also has interesting Indian roots, because obviously the

0:44:54.239 --> 0:44:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Romany tribes are supposed to have come from Indian migrated

0:44:56.719 --> 0:45:00.239
<v Speaker 1>across Asia into Europe. And that's quite an intriguing idea.

0:45:00.239 --> 0:45:02.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm not saying I believe that either, but it's intriguing

0:45:02.400 --> 0:45:04.799
<v Speaker 1>because of course they are a group who didn't have

0:45:04.920 --> 0:45:07.560
<v Speaker 1>their own script, who would have had to develop their

0:45:07.560 --> 0:45:11.239
<v Speaker 1>own script if they wanted to encode all of this

0:45:11.360 --> 0:45:14.200
<v Speaker 1>knowledge that they had. And then arguably you could argue

0:45:14.200 --> 0:45:17.200
<v Speaker 1>they might have been that group might have been suppressed

0:45:17.280 --> 0:45:19.960
<v Speaker 1>or died out, and their knowledge and their script died

0:45:19.960 --> 0:45:22.720
<v Speaker 1>out with them. But yet still we have the Romani

0:45:22.840 --> 0:45:26.239
<v Speaker 1>language around which which we could use to interpret it,

0:45:26.560 --> 0:45:30.520
<v Speaker 1>and that does actually have a bearing with the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Eventually,

0:45:30.640 --> 0:45:34.879
<v Speaker 1>Egyptian hieroglyphs were shown to encode the Coptic language, which

0:45:34.880 --> 0:45:38.399
<v Speaker 1>existed but had been suppressed for many decades and didn't

0:45:38.440 --> 0:45:41.480
<v Speaker 1>have its own writing system. So there are kind of

0:45:41.520 --> 0:45:43.840
<v Speaker 1>parallels which make you think it could be something like that.

0:45:44.560 --> 0:45:47.719
<v Speaker 1>So one of the places that we ran across Dr Backs,

0:45:47.719 --> 0:45:50.400
<v Speaker 1>he's kind of all over the internet right now, was

0:45:51.440 --> 0:45:53.800
<v Speaker 1>his Reddit am a that he did ask me anything.

0:45:54.400 --> 0:45:56.560
<v Speaker 1>And one of the theories that was floated in this

0:45:57.040 --> 0:46:00.960
<v Speaker 1>was that it may have been written by this Italian

0:46:01.000 --> 0:46:06.239
<v Speaker 1>explorer Nickelodeon Conti and his Indian wife and children. He

0:46:06.440 --> 0:46:10.719
<v Speaker 1>was Italian, his wife was Indian, and the flourishes look

0:46:10.719 --> 0:46:13.200
<v Speaker 1>a little Hindy to me. You know, I really liked

0:46:13.239 --> 0:46:15.960
<v Speaker 1>this theory, so I asked Dr Backs about it, and

0:46:16.120 --> 0:46:18.360
<v Speaker 1>he had something kind of interesting to say. Yeah, I

0:46:18.400 --> 0:46:20.240
<v Speaker 1>like that theory too. I mean, I like the idea

0:46:20.280 --> 0:46:23.239
<v Speaker 1>that it's kind of made by like a family or

0:46:23.280 --> 0:46:25.759
<v Speaker 1>I really like that idea. But the problem is that

0:46:25.800 --> 0:46:29.400
<v Speaker 1>if we jumped too quickly to identify an author, we

0:46:29.520 --> 0:46:32.640
<v Speaker 1>tend to block out other possibilities. And I think, you know,

0:46:32.719 --> 0:46:35.560
<v Speaker 1>the the idea of your your your kind of podcast

0:46:35.600 --> 0:46:39.080
<v Speaker 1>being thinking sideways, you know, I think we've got to

0:46:39.160 --> 0:46:41.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of keep our minds open and be aware of

0:46:41.400 --> 0:46:43.400
<v Speaker 1>all kinds of possible things. But I do like that

0:46:43.520 --> 0:46:47.080
<v Speaker 1>ticular idea about the county idea. I mean, a lot

0:46:47.120 --> 0:46:49.440
<v Speaker 1>of people assume it was written in Italy because it

0:46:49.480 --> 0:46:51.880
<v Speaker 1>was found in Italy and because some of the script

0:46:51.960 --> 0:46:55.280
<v Speaker 1>looked a little bit kind of Latin. But my personal

0:46:55.320 --> 0:46:57.560
<v Speaker 1>idea that it was probably a little bit further east

0:46:57.600 --> 0:47:00.759
<v Speaker 1>than that, and I would, you know, be looking in

0:47:00.800 --> 0:47:06.840
<v Speaker 1>the area of kind of Turkey, the Caucussus, Western Asia,

0:47:06.920 --> 0:47:08.920
<v Speaker 1>that kind of thing, but it does have. The thing

0:47:09.000 --> 0:47:10.239
<v Speaker 1>is if you look at the pictures that are a

0:47:10.280 --> 0:47:13.239
<v Speaker 1>lot of the pictures very European in their style. There

0:47:13.239 --> 0:47:17.600
<v Speaker 1>lots of European female figures, there's some European clothing in there,

0:47:17.920 --> 0:47:20.680
<v Speaker 1>there's some interesting European looking buildings and stuff. But when

0:47:20.680 --> 0:47:23.319
<v Speaker 1>we say European, it could equally be kind of Near

0:47:23.360 --> 0:47:28.040
<v Speaker 1>Eastern Turkish, Armenian, George and that kind of area. So

0:47:28.120 --> 0:47:30.320
<v Speaker 1>I think that's kind of more likely than a purely

0:47:30.360 --> 0:47:34.040
<v Speaker 1>European origin, mainly because the words that I've brought I've

0:47:34.440 --> 0:47:37.359
<v Speaker 1>managed to identify seem to have more of a kind

0:47:37.360 --> 0:47:41.040
<v Speaker 1>of Near Eastern, as you said, Arabic Persian basis, rather than,

0:47:41.080 --> 0:47:43.719
<v Speaker 1>for example, a Latin basis, So that's kind of where

0:47:43.719 --> 0:47:47.000
<v Speaker 1>I would kind of go for it at the moment. Obviously,

0:47:47.280 --> 0:47:51.080
<v Speaker 1>Daubeck has invested two years of research into this. He's

0:47:51.120 --> 0:47:53.880
<v Speaker 1>not just going to let it drop. So he is

0:47:53.920 --> 0:47:57.000
<v Speaker 1>going to continue to look into the manuscript. But he's

0:47:57.040 --> 0:48:01.680
<v Speaker 1>got some really creative ideas and how to keep doing

0:48:01.719 --> 0:48:04.120
<v Speaker 1>that research, and how to get some help with that research.

0:48:04.840 --> 0:48:06.920
<v Speaker 1>As I said, I've got my my website with Stephen

0:48:06.960 --> 0:48:09.399
<v Speaker 1>backs dot net, which is I'm making it more into

0:48:09.440 --> 0:48:12.200
<v Speaker 1>a forum for people to come and give their ideas

0:48:12.239 --> 0:48:15.200
<v Speaker 1>of and so we've got the kind of areas for

0:48:15.320 --> 0:48:17.080
<v Speaker 1>people to look at the plants and give their ideas,

0:48:17.120 --> 0:48:19.640
<v Speaker 1>areas to look at the stars, and some really interesting

0:48:19.680 --> 0:48:23.839
<v Speaker 1>contributions now about the star names in the manuscript, and

0:48:23.880 --> 0:48:26.759
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a good next source for information where

0:48:26.760 --> 0:48:29.440
<v Speaker 1>we could actually go and try and I mean again,

0:48:29.520 --> 0:48:33.200
<v Speaker 1>typically in those days and also now a huge number

0:48:33.200 --> 0:48:36.000
<v Speaker 1>of the star names that we we have come from

0:48:36.040 --> 0:48:39.959
<v Speaker 1>Arabic originally, and that I think could be a good source.

0:48:40.000 --> 0:48:41.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that the names and the one Witch

0:48:41.760 --> 0:48:44.759
<v Speaker 1>manuscript are directly from Arabic, but I think many of

0:48:44.760 --> 0:48:47.080
<v Speaker 1>them may well be derived from Arabic. So again that

0:48:47.120 --> 0:48:50.239
<v Speaker 1>could be another source of helping to identify maybe some

0:48:50.360 --> 0:48:52.839
<v Speaker 1>new letters and new sounds and so on. So that's

0:48:52.920 --> 0:48:54.799
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a really exciting area to But my

0:48:54.840 --> 0:48:57.640
<v Speaker 1>problem is I'm very ignorant about plants. I'm very ignorant.

0:48:58.920 --> 0:49:00.879
<v Speaker 1>I need I need a lot more people to kind

0:49:00.880 --> 0:49:03.440
<v Speaker 1>of chip in and help with their knowledge and say no,

0:49:03.600 --> 0:49:05.600
<v Speaker 1>that's that's a good idea, that's rubbish, and so on.

0:49:06.040 --> 0:49:08.080
<v Speaker 1>It's crowdsourcing is a great way to go about solving

0:49:08.120 --> 0:49:10.880
<v Speaker 1>problems like I mean, you know, you get a lot

0:49:10.920 --> 0:49:13.720
<v Speaker 1>of people who basically so you know, maybe this is crazy,

0:49:13.800 --> 0:49:16.880
<v Speaker 1>but maybe x Y and said, he said, well, you know,

0:49:17.200 --> 0:49:18.960
<v Speaker 1>all ideas are on the table, we might as well

0:49:18.960 --> 0:49:20.440
<v Speaker 1>look at them, and even if you know you think

0:49:20.480 --> 0:49:22.239
<v Speaker 1>it's crazy, let's put it in the pot and see

0:49:22.280 --> 0:49:24.759
<v Speaker 1>where we can go from there. Okay, at this point,

0:49:24.760 --> 0:49:26.760
<v Speaker 1>we've gone on quite a bit, quite a bit of time,

0:49:26.840 --> 0:49:28.560
<v Speaker 1>and I'm sure most of you, if not all of you,

0:49:28.600 --> 0:49:31.960
<v Speaker 1>have too peace, and we're only halfway done exactly, and

0:49:32.040 --> 0:49:34.640
<v Speaker 1>so we're going to have a short intermission for your convenience,

0:49:52.200 --> 0:49:56.680
<v Speaker 1>and we're back. So this next theory, Doctor Backs actually

0:49:56.960 --> 0:50:00.480
<v Speaker 1>directed us towards. Thanks Dr Backs. Thanks Dr Back, very

0:50:00.560 --> 0:50:04.759
<v Speaker 1>nice of him. He directed us to a article in

0:50:05.520 --> 0:50:12.440
<v Speaker 1>a magazine now periodical. I think it is called the

0:50:12.520 --> 0:50:19.680
<v Speaker 1>Chronica Horticulture. It's Latin, and the article is called Biological

0:50:19.800 --> 0:50:25.319
<v Speaker 1>Section of the Voyage Manuscript, a textbook of medieval plant physiology.

0:50:25.480 --> 0:50:30.960
<v Speaker 1>Question marks, question mark physiology. So this theory goes well, Okay,

0:50:31.040 --> 0:50:35.040
<v Speaker 1>this theory is put forth by two doctors, doctor Tias

0:50:35.080 --> 0:50:39.279
<v Speaker 1>and Tias. I think they're married, but they might be siblings.

0:50:39.480 --> 0:50:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I gotta be honest, I don't know. I couldn't tell

0:50:42.600 --> 0:50:44.600
<v Speaker 1>there they have the same last name. It may actually

0:50:44.640 --> 0:50:46.560
<v Speaker 1>just be a coincidence. They just might have the last

0:50:46.640 --> 0:50:51.680
<v Speaker 1>name last name doctor's tias. Can I say that doctor's tias.

0:50:52.239 --> 0:50:56.720
<v Speaker 1>The doctor's tias have doctor and his companion. It's a theory.

0:50:57.080 --> 0:50:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for the nerd reference. It's a theory based

0:50:59.360 --> 0:51:04.000
<v Speaker 1>on the plants too, just like doctor Backs's theory. But

0:51:04.239 --> 0:51:07.200
<v Speaker 1>they their goal is not to decipher the words, but

0:51:07.280 --> 0:51:10.000
<v Speaker 1>to tell us what the manuscript, or at least the

0:51:10.080 --> 0:51:16.440
<v Speaker 1>section of manuscript is about a textbook of medieval plant physiology.

0:51:16.520 --> 0:51:19.400
<v Speaker 1>They claim that you can't actually identify any of the

0:51:19.440 --> 0:51:23.480
<v Speaker 1>images by the plants, which, sorry, doctor Backs, is kind

0:51:23.520 --> 0:51:27.880
<v Speaker 1>of true. They are hard to identify it. Again, this

0:51:27.920 --> 0:51:33.319
<v Speaker 1>is something we talked about, is the illustrative quality or accuracy.

0:51:34.280 --> 0:51:37.160
<v Speaker 1>It's yeah, they're they're very it's simplistic and it's hard.

0:51:37.239 --> 0:51:40.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, the fifteenth century plants were a little different

0:51:40.120 --> 0:51:43.160
<v Speaker 1>back then. We don't really they were kind of misshapen

0:51:43.200 --> 0:51:46.759
<v Speaker 1>and had no perspective. No, but we don't know where

0:51:46.760 --> 0:51:49.080
<v Speaker 1>they're from, right, so we can't even say, like, well,

0:51:49.120 --> 0:51:53.839
<v Speaker 1>plants in this area at this time were these were

0:51:53.880 --> 0:51:58.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of like, well, in Europe in the maybe fifteen century,

0:51:58.880 --> 0:52:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the plants were kind end of maybe this and these

0:52:01.520 --> 0:52:05.399
<v Speaker 1>are the ones that we know we're in vaguely kind

0:52:05.440 --> 0:52:08.279
<v Speaker 1>of looks like this one. So it might be that one. Right,

0:52:08.360 --> 0:52:12.480
<v Speaker 1>So they say that's that's what's not important. They want

0:52:12.480 --> 0:52:15.840
<v Speaker 1>to talk about the theory to explain the nude women

0:52:15.880 --> 0:52:19.560
<v Speaker 1>in the green tubs um and the tia theory is

0:52:20.280 --> 0:52:25.520
<v Speaker 1>totally radically different. It claims that this explains how plants

0:52:25.560 --> 0:52:30.000
<v Speaker 1>get their nutrition. So this is this is truly and

0:52:30.040 --> 0:52:32.680
<v Speaker 1>I know the name said this, but this is truly

0:52:32.800 --> 0:52:37.359
<v Speaker 1>a biological plant physiology brook So this is saying how

0:52:37.440 --> 0:52:41.160
<v Speaker 1>nutrients go from the roots to the tips. Yeah, so

0:52:41.160 --> 0:52:43.919
<v Speaker 1>so bear with me, right as as I'm sure most

0:52:43.960 --> 0:52:48.080
<v Speaker 1>of you know, right because you passed second grade. Plants.

0:52:50.600 --> 0:52:53.640
<v Speaker 1>Plants get their nutrition from the sun and the ground,

0:52:53.840 --> 0:52:56.880
<v Speaker 1>right from the air, and from the air, most of

0:52:56.880 --> 0:53:00.560
<v Speaker 1>it is through water, nutrient rich water that they suck

0:53:00.640 --> 0:53:03.640
<v Speaker 1>up through their roots and then kind of digest using

0:53:03.680 --> 0:53:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the song. That's like the most simplistic way that I

0:53:06.560 --> 0:53:10.200
<v Speaker 1>can describe what happens the whole thing. Yeah, he hasn't

0:53:10.239 --> 0:53:13.520
<v Speaker 1>he has suggests that since this idea would have been

0:53:13.520 --> 0:53:18.440
<v Speaker 1>really new in the fifteenth century, this manuscript was developed

0:53:18.480 --> 0:53:22.000
<v Speaker 1>to kind of explain it to people. That makes sense, Yeah,

0:53:22.440 --> 0:53:24.800
<v Speaker 1>except they sort of slipped and wrote in the language

0:53:24.800 --> 0:53:31.880
<v Speaker 1>nobody just so that maybe the manuscript was meant to

0:53:32.480 --> 0:53:35.800
<v Speaker 1>and I'm quoting here delight entertained and instruct the reader,

0:53:36.320 --> 0:53:39.360
<v Speaker 1>and the women would have represented the souls of the plant.

0:53:40.120 --> 0:53:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Now you might be wondering why so many souls per plant,

0:53:44.400 --> 0:53:49.000
<v Speaker 1>because it would ostensibly be one plant per page. Right,

0:53:50.360 --> 0:53:52.759
<v Speaker 1>So Aristotle actually has a really good answer for this.

0:53:53.760 --> 0:53:58.600
<v Speaker 1>He said, you know, way before this manuscript was ever made,

0:53:58.920 --> 0:54:04.240
<v Speaker 1>plants or chicks, that plants have a lot of different souls.

0:54:04.320 --> 0:54:06.160
<v Speaker 1>What he said was that when you cut a human

0:54:06.239 --> 0:54:08.920
<v Speaker 1>or animal in half, they die because they only have

0:54:09.000 --> 0:54:11.319
<v Speaker 1>one soul. So you cut their soul in half. Their

0:54:11.360 --> 0:54:13.600
<v Speaker 1>souled eyes. But wait a second, has anybody ever tried

0:54:13.719 --> 0:54:15.560
<v Speaker 1>rooting a human being to see if you can actually?

0:54:15.640 --> 0:54:19.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, good question. We should probably try that next week. Yeah,

0:54:19.680 --> 0:54:22.120
<v Speaker 1>anybody want a volunteer, No, I think we'll get to

0:54:22.120 --> 0:54:25.600
<v Speaker 1>find an outside volunteer for this one. Okay, So we'll

0:54:25.640 --> 0:54:28.000
<v Speaker 1>just go with the theory that when you cut a

0:54:28.080 --> 0:54:31.719
<v Speaker 1>human in half, they probably die right normally, But when

0:54:31.760 --> 0:54:36.040
<v Speaker 1>you cut a plant into half or many different segments,

0:54:36.120 --> 0:54:40.840
<v Speaker 1>it'll live for a while or forever, sometimes forever. Sometimes

0:54:40.880 --> 0:54:42.960
<v Speaker 1>they can kind of regenerate, you know, your replant it

0:54:43.840 --> 0:54:47.239
<v Speaker 1>cutting cutting and replant it and it becomes a new thing.

0:54:47.440 --> 0:54:51.920
<v Speaker 1>So it follows by ancient kind of theory that that

0:54:51.960 --> 0:54:56.440
<v Speaker 1>plant must have many souls. You look super angry and confused.

0:54:57.000 --> 0:55:01.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm confused. I'm I'm following this. This is not in

0:55:02.000 --> 0:55:08.000
<v Speaker 1>my wheelhouse follow kind of think ancient times. And that's

0:55:08.080 --> 0:55:13.319
<v Speaker 1>that's where I'm having the difficulty. Ha. Yes, I'm following

0:55:13.360 --> 0:55:19.040
<v Speaker 1>the logic you're such a higher being's it's it's such

0:55:19.080 --> 0:55:22.440
<v Speaker 1>a different mode of thinking. As an allegorical depiction of

0:55:22.719 --> 0:55:26.120
<v Speaker 1>how the plant works. The problem I would have with

0:55:26.200 --> 0:55:28.680
<v Speaker 1>this is like, for example, the one one that I

0:55:28.680 --> 0:55:32.080
<v Speaker 1>can think of, where there's this plant like structure and

0:55:32.160 --> 0:55:35.080
<v Speaker 1>his green and there's all these naked women. But if

0:55:35.160 --> 0:55:38.399
<v Speaker 1>you you know, going and they're not, it appears from

0:55:38.680 --> 0:55:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the picture that they're not going up the plant from

0:55:42.120 --> 0:55:44.120
<v Speaker 1>the soil to the top of the plant. It appears

0:55:44.160 --> 0:55:46.880
<v Speaker 1>that they're sliding down a water slide into a pool.

0:55:46.920 --> 0:55:49.239
<v Speaker 1>At the bottom. They're going in the wrong direction. The

0:55:49.280 --> 0:55:52.120
<v Speaker 1>souls might be going a wrong direction, but the water

0:55:52.280 --> 0:55:56.200
<v Speaker 1>might not be. But but again I think, Joe, I

0:55:56.200 --> 0:55:58.200
<v Speaker 1>think you're having a bit the same issue I am

0:55:58.280 --> 0:56:01.560
<v Speaker 1>is that we understand that and a plant and a

0:56:01.600 --> 0:56:06.320
<v Speaker 1>biological perspective that everything rises from the roots up, whereas

0:56:06.360 --> 0:56:09.600
<v Speaker 1>they may not have had that perspective, and so they

0:56:09.760 --> 0:56:13.560
<v Speaker 1>viewed it as going down or circulations. Yeah, it could

0:56:13.560 --> 0:56:18.480
<v Speaker 1>have been a circulatory system. So the other thing about

0:56:18.480 --> 0:56:21.640
<v Speaker 1>this t S series, they talk a lot about the

0:56:22.239 --> 0:56:29.000
<v Speaker 1>large amount of Christian religious imagery through the manuscript Um.

0:56:29.040 --> 0:56:34.080
<v Speaker 1>They point specifically to again the biological section with these women.

0:56:34.360 --> 0:56:36.360
<v Speaker 1>A lot of them are holding what can kind of

0:56:36.400 --> 0:56:39.600
<v Speaker 1>be identified as rosaries. There's one woman holding what is

0:56:39.719 --> 0:56:44.600
<v Speaker 1>clearly across um and they've looked at illuminations, are really

0:56:44.640 --> 0:56:48.000
<v Speaker 1>closely at. One of the sources they cite is if

0:56:48.080 --> 0:56:50.040
<v Speaker 1>you look really closely at the head of us of

0:56:50.120 --> 0:56:54.560
<v Speaker 1>one of the sunflowers, there's a cross in it. You know, Okay,

0:56:54.880 --> 0:56:57.719
<v Speaker 1>I gotta I I need to stop you there, because

0:56:58.080 --> 0:57:00.960
<v Speaker 1>this is the same thing that I had an issue

0:57:01.000 --> 0:57:04.880
<v Speaker 1>with with this being something by da Vinci. And remember

0:57:04.920 --> 0:57:08.040
<v Speaker 1>I said, people thought they saw his name written in

0:57:08.160 --> 0:57:12.279
<v Speaker 1>things in kind of a hidden way. I looked at

0:57:12.320 --> 0:57:18.600
<v Speaker 1>that image and it's happenstance to me that it looks

0:57:18.680 --> 0:57:22.800
<v Speaker 1>like a cross. You have to infer the cross into

0:57:23.000 --> 0:57:27.320
<v Speaker 1>that plan. Whereas if I was drawing that and I

0:57:27.480 --> 0:57:30.200
<v Speaker 1>knew how the seeds were going to radiate out, to me,

0:57:30.320 --> 0:57:33.080
<v Speaker 1>the easiest ways to draw the X and the y

0:57:33.200 --> 0:57:36.720
<v Speaker 1>axis of circles to make the seed pattern and then

0:57:36.840 --> 0:57:40.000
<v Speaker 1>just fill in the holes as you go around working

0:57:40.000 --> 0:57:43.960
<v Speaker 1>your way out, So that I have an issue with that. Also,

0:57:44.200 --> 0:57:46.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, it also could have been a plus sign

0:57:48.960 --> 0:57:53.520
<v Speaker 1>the plant map. Yeah, I mean, so it is fairly indisputable, however,

0:57:53.640 --> 0:57:56.760
<v Speaker 1>that these the women often are have these kind of

0:57:56.800 --> 0:58:00.439
<v Speaker 1>religious symbols, and I think their theory is is that

0:58:01.080 --> 0:58:04.480
<v Speaker 1>this is the time in history where Christianity is kind

0:58:04.480 --> 0:58:08.480
<v Speaker 1>of on the rise, and it's kind of a turbulent

0:58:08.520 --> 0:58:12.840
<v Speaker 1>time for Christianity. True, and that this could really easily

0:58:12.880 --> 0:58:17.720
<v Speaker 1>be interpreted as like a pagan something. I think, you know,

0:58:18.200 --> 0:58:21.440
<v Speaker 1>they're kind of where they end their theory is that

0:58:21.760 --> 0:58:24.960
<v Speaker 1>so these people put these Christian religious things in there

0:58:25.000 --> 0:58:28.320
<v Speaker 1>so that people wouldn't it wasn't yeah, so people would

0:58:28.360 --> 0:58:33.520
<v Speaker 1>know it wasn't pagan, but well no, it was just

0:58:33.640 --> 0:58:37.760
<v Speaker 1>it was just educational manual. So so, but but you

0:58:37.800 --> 0:58:39.640
<v Speaker 1>said that they said that it may have been a

0:58:39.680 --> 0:58:42.640
<v Speaker 1>pagan manual or were they saying that it might have

0:58:42.680 --> 0:58:45.960
<v Speaker 1>been a mistaken for a pagan manual that the author

0:58:46.040 --> 0:58:49.360
<v Speaker 1>and illustrator wanted to ensure that nobody would ever look

0:58:49.400 --> 0:58:51.880
<v Speaker 1>at this and be like, this is obviously pagan witchcraft,

0:58:53.320 --> 0:58:55.600
<v Speaker 1>so that they were not pagan, that they were a

0:58:55.680 --> 0:58:59.640
<v Speaker 1>Christian and they were like, hey, don't worry, guys, this

0:58:59.800 --> 0:59:03.920
<v Speaker 1>is totally Christians. Is totally legit, totally legit, above board. Well, actually,

0:59:03.960 --> 0:59:05.800
<v Speaker 1>if you're putting naked women and then you probably want to,

0:59:05.800 --> 0:59:08.560
<v Speaker 1>I can have some crosses and rosaries to yeah, totally,

0:59:08.600 --> 0:59:11.120
<v Speaker 1>just to just to cover yourself. Yeah, well there was,

0:59:11.320 --> 0:59:14.480
<v Speaker 1>but there was that nudity in in art and illustration

0:59:14.720 --> 0:59:18.200
<v Speaker 1>was not a frowned upon thing at that time. The

0:59:18.280 --> 0:59:21.360
<v Speaker 1>human form and that that you know, females were always

0:59:21.480 --> 0:59:24.000
<v Speaker 1>represented in that man There were there were no naked

0:59:24.040 --> 0:59:26.160
<v Speaker 1>bike rides. That was kind of like beyond the pale

0:59:26.480 --> 0:59:29.280
<v Speaker 1>yes that was that was pushing on the paintings. Yeah,

0:59:29.520 --> 0:59:32.240
<v Speaker 1>so that's kind of the TS theory. It's interesting it

0:59:32.280 --> 0:59:34.840
<v Speaker 1>only addresses that one little section. That's the problem is

0:59:34.880 --> 0:59:37.320
<v Speaker 1>it only addresses one section of the whole thing. Yeah,

0:59:37.440 --> 0:59:39.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean as opposed to course they don't they're not

0:59:39.800 --> 0:59:44.960
<v Speaker 1>required to you by law. The astrological section, you know,

0:59:45.000 --> 0:59:47.520
<v Speaker 1>the astrological sections are I guess at that point the

0:59:47.600 --> 0:59:51.040
<v Speaker 1>only sections that they don't really address, right, because it

0:59:51.080 --> 0:59:57.280
<v Speaker 1>does address the biologic illuminations, right, pharmaceutical and the pharmaceutical

0:59:57.360 --> 1:00:00.880
<v Speaker 1>stuff as well, so it just doesn't address the star

1:00:01.080 --> 1:00:04.520
<v Speaker 1>stuff and and and that gives it some credence. I

1:00:04.520 --> 1:00:07.600
<v Speaker 1>I can understand the theory. I understand it better now

1:00:07.640 --> 1:00:09.720
<v Speaker 1>that you've explained it to me, because when I read it,

1:00:10.240 --> 1:00:13.040
<v Speaker 1>I didn't get it. You're welcome, but thank you, But

1:00:13.600 --> 1:00:16.680
<v Speaker 1>I still I have qualms with it. And it's the

1:00:16.680 --> 1:00:19.920
<v Speaker 1>same thing Joe said, because it's really focused in one

1:00:20.280 --> 1:00:22.840
<v Speaker 1>and I again, as I said before, I think that

1:00:23.560 --> 1:00:26.040
<v Speaker 1>people see what they want to say. Yeah, And I

1:00:26.080 --> 1:00:30.320
<v Speaker 1>can tell you that one of the doctor's tias is

1:00:30.520 --> 1:00:37.800
<v Speaker 1>apparently an accomplished watercolorist in plant life. And they are

1:00:37.960 --> 1:00:44.480
<v Speaker 1>both plant professors basically the people. Neither of them is,

1:00:45.800 --> 1:00:51.120
<v Speaker 1>but they're both. They're both biologic doctors. Biologic doctors yep, biologists.

1:00:51.120 --> 1:00:54.280
<v Speaker 1>Biologists the word I was looking for, thank you. So there.

1:00:54.360 --> 1:00:57.640
<v Speaker 1>Neither of them are linguistic professors, which is why they

1:00:57.720 --> 1:01:01.640
<v Speaker 1>avoid Well it makes sense. I don't know if you

1:01:01.640 --> 1:01:04.680
<v Speaker 1>know this, but have they basically focused on the drawings

1:01:04.680 --> 1:01:06.240
<v Speaker 1>and not really paid a lot of attention to the

1:01:06.280 --> 1:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>text itself. Yeah, they focused entirely on the drawings, and

1:01:10.760 --> 1:01:13.480
<v Speaker 1>I as far as I can tell, they are no

1:01:13.560 --> 1:01:17.000
<v Speaker 1>longer researching and are no longer interested in researching. Yeah,

1:01:17.120 --> 1:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of, it's kind of it's kind of a

1:01:19.200 --> 1:01:21.960
<v Speaker 1>hair puller. You know, a lot of you know, this

1:01:22.040 --> 1:01:24.400
<v Speaker 1>paper that I read was published in I think two

1:01:24.400 --> 1:01:27.880
<v Speaker 1>thousand two or something like that, and it's, as I

1:01:27.880 --> 1:01:30.720
<v Speaker 1>can tell, the last time, that's the only thing they

1:01:30.720 --> 1:01:36.280
<v Speaker 1>ever published about it. So interesting theory. Our next theory

1:01:36.840 --> 1:01:42.080
<v Speaker 1>is the Nueva Spana theory or New Spain theory, and

1:01:43.080 --> 1:01:47.680
<v Speaker 1>New Spain New Spain is when the Spanish came to

1:01:47.720 --> 1:01:52.440
<v Speaker 1>the New World and they started taking over and conquering.

1:01:53.040 --> 1:01:57.120
<v Speaker 1>They took over Mexico a little bit after that. A

1:01:57.160 --> 1:01:59.680
<v Speaker 1>little bit after that, Yeah, and then they also started

1:01:59.720 --> 1:02:03.320
<v Speaker 1>taking over parts of the continental US. Well to them,

1:02:03.480 --> 1:02:09.120
<v Speaker 1>that was they named it all New Spain, New York basically, yeah,

1:02:09.240 --> 1:02:12.400
<v Speaker 1>or New Amsterdam is it's it's called but yes, So

1:02:12.480 --> 1:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>that is what Nueva Espania means is New Spain, and

1:02:15.320 --> 1:02:19.600
<v Speaker 1>that's the area that references in and New Spain really

1:02:19.640 --> 1:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>took up a lot of the center of the current

1:02:23.480 --> 1:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>United States, so it's a very huge area. So this

1:02:27.520 --> 1:02:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the Nueva Spania theory is put out by two gentlemen.

1:02:31.320 --> 1:02:37.080
<v Speaker 1>We've got Dr Arthur Tucker and Mr Rexford Talbert, and

1:02:37.280 --> 1:02:42.320
<v Speaker 1>I had some brief email correspondence with Dr Tucker and

1:02:42.440 --> 1:02:46.320
<v Speaker 1>he was kind enough to send me their their research

1:02:46.360 --> 1:02:48.880
<v Speaker 1>and their writing. You get a condensed format, but there's

1:02:48.920 --> 1:02:52.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot to it, but let me kind of kind

1:02:52.040 --> 1:02:55.920
<v Speaker 1>of boiled down what their theory is. What these two

1:02:56.000 --> 1:02:59.600
<v Speaker 1>gentlemen decided to do was, rather than try to decipher

1:02:59.640 --> 1:03:04.560
<v Speaker 1>the next right off, they did something similar to what

1:03:04.680 --> 1:03:11.240
<v Speaker 1>the doctor's tias did, which is they focused on the illustrations.

1:03:11.680 --> 1:03:15.680
<v Speaker 1>They wanted to try and figure out if they could

1:03:16.200 --> 1:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>pinpoint those illustrations to specific plants, and they didn't just

1:03:21.480 --> 1:03:24.600
<v Speaker 1>focus on Europe. They went they looked at plants that

1:03:24.680 --> 1:03:28.640
<v Speaker 1>were known and had been discovered across all of the

1:03:28.680 --> 1:03:32.640
<v Speaker 1>known world at that time, and we're talking the mid

1:03:32.840 --> 1:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>fifteen hundreds what they found and and and they when

1:03:37.840 --> 1:03:40.960
<v Speaker 1>they when I say the mid hundreds, that's when they

1:03:41.080 --> 1:03:45.280
<v Speaker 1>think the manuscript was first quote unquote discovered. It happened

1:03:45.320 --> 1:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>in the well. They're they're basing it off of plants

1:03:49.360 --> 1:03:52.560
<v Speaker 1>that they knew were in the fifteen mid hundred range.

1:03:53.120 --> 1:03:55.200
<v Speaker 1>And that's and that's based on some other writings, which

1:03:55.320 --> 1:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>I'll get to in just a second. But what they

1:03:57.640 --> 1:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>did is they looked at the plans and one of

1:04:00.720 --> 1:04:05.400
<v Speaker 1>the ones that they found was called the Soap Plant.

1:04:06.800 --> 1:04:10.480
<v Speaker 1>They matched up the illustration in the description the illustration

1:04:10.560 --> 1:04:14.560
<v Speaker 1>to other books that were put out in this time range.

1:04:14.920 --> 1:04:20.080
<v Speaker 1>The soap Plant is depicted in the fIF fifty two

1:04:20.520 --> 1:04:25.360
<v Speaker 1>Codex Cruise batter Nous of Mexico. And I might have

1:04:25.440 --> 1:04:28.080
<v Speaker 1>mangled that pronunciation, but it's a book that came out

1:04:28.120 --> 1:04:32.560
<v Speaker 1>of Mexico at that time, and it evidently is considered

1:04:32.760 --> 1:04:36.120
<v Speaker 1>the first medical text that was ever written in the

1:04:36.160 --> 1:04:41.560
<v Speaker 1>New World, and that was written by Spanish in the Spanish. Yes, yes,

1:04:41.920 --> 1:04:46.360
<v Speaker 1>And they took that and they said, wait, we've got

1:04:46.400 --> 1:04:50.320
<v Speaker 1>these illustrations from that region of the world. Seemed to

1:04:50.400 --> 1:04:53.600
<v Speaker 1>match this one plant let's try and match it to others,

1:04:54.040 --> 1:04:55.600
<v Speaker 1>which is not a bad way to do it, you know.

1:04:55.680 --> 1:04:58.080
<v Speaker 1>Let's not look like I can't understand what the writing is.

1:04:58.080 --> 1:04:59.640
<v Speaker 1>So let me see if I know what the pictures are.

1:05:00.840 --> 1:05:03.440
<v Speaker 1>That's how kids learn how to read, right. It really

1:05:03.600 --> 1:05:09.040
<v Speaker 1>is still working on that. According to their research, they

1:05:09.080 --> 1:05:16.720
<v Speaker 1>have identified thirty seven plants, six animals, and one mineral

1:05:17.280 --> 1:05:21.400
<v Speaker 1>in the manuscript to the America's How did they identify

1:05:21.440 --> 1:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>the mineral, That's what I'm curious about. I'm not exactly

1:05:24.920 --> 1:05:28.600
<v Speaker 1>positive how they came to that conclusion. To be honest,

1:05:28.760 --> 1:05:31.640
<v Speaker 1>I read their research, but it's a little above my

1:05:31.680 --> 1:05:36.360
<v Speaker 1>pay grade, and so I didn't quite understand everything. This

1:05:36.400 --> 1:05:44.200
<v Speaker 1>whole thing is above but don't worry. But anyway, these

1:05:44.240 --> 1:05:50.040
<v Speaker 1>plants were depicted in other writings from post conquest Mexico

1:05:50.120 --> 1:05:54.200
<v Speaker 1>and North America. So they're saying, well, we see these

1:05:54.280 --> 1:05:57.440
<v Speaker 1>and we see those, so we kind of draw the

1:05:57.480 --> 1:06:00.840
<v Speaker 1>two together and say that it must have come out

1:06:01.680 --> 1:06:04.800
<v Speaker 1>of that region of the world. Are they saying then

1:06:04.840 --> 1:06:12.000
<v Speaker 1>that plants in the New World are blobbier and lack perspective? No,

1:06:12.160 --> 1:06:15.200
<v Speaker 1>But I guess my question would be that the female

1:06:15.240 --> 1:06:19.520
<v Speaker 1>figures right, not to like drive too hard on this,

1:06:19.600 --> 1:06:25.320
<v Speaker 1>but they're very clearly very European, and it's kind of

1:06:25.440 --> 1:06:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Western European. It's not what you see. The illustration style

1:06:30.600 --> 1:06:33.960
<v Speaker 1>of Mexico and North America at that time when the

1:06:34.000 --> 1:06:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Spanish had come was very different, different, and that even

1:06:39.120 --> 1:06:43.040
<v Speaker 1>just the illustration style of that time in Spain was

1:06:43.080 --> 1:06:45.680
<v Speaker 1>totally You don't see naked women from Spain in this period.

1:06:45.720 --> 1:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>In fact, you see like really covered in black clothing,

1:06:50.440 --> 1:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>very like morose women from Spain in this period. So

1:06:54.720 --> 1:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>I wonder if they have a theory to kind of

1:06:56.680 --> 1:07:00.880
<v Speaker 1>reconciles not forget it well, in that exactly it, because

1:07:00.880 --> 1:07:04.320
<v Speaker 1>you've got to remember that there's multiple cultures that have

1:07:04.480 --> 1:07:09.520
<v Speaker 1>been conquered, and they have different beliefs, and they have

1:07:09.560 --> 1:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>a different way of doing things, and it may have

1:07:11.720 --> 1:07:16.040
<v Speaker 1>been this weird melting pot and and here's here's something

1:07:16.040 --> 1:07:20.040
<v Speaker 1>that they write because they do try to address the text.

1:07:20.680 --> 1:07:23.320
<v Speaker 1>They don't try and crack it, but they do try

1:07:23.360 --> 1:07:26.800
<v Speaker 1>and address it. And I'm gonna, yeah, let me read

1:07:26.840 --> 1:07:30.960
<v Speaker 1>this directly. Here. A search of the surviving coduses and

1:07:31.120 --> 1:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>manuscripts from Nueva Espana in the sixteenth century reveals the

1:07:36.640 --> 1:07:40.440
<v Speaker 1>calligraphy of the Voytage manuscript to be similar to the

1:07:40.480 --> 1:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Codex Assuna, which is fifteen sixty three to fifteen sixty

1:07:45.520 --> 1:07:49.800
<v Speaker 1>six evidently was written in Mexico City. Loanwords for the

1:07:49.880 --> 1:07:55.360
<v Speaker 1>plant and animal names have been identified from the classical

1:07:56.080 --> 1:07:59.600
<v Speaker 1>And again I'm gonna apologize on the pronouncea. How is

1:07:59.600 --> 1:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>that again? Nah? Yes, that the Spanish, the Tino and

1:08:08.080 --> 1:08:12.640
<v Speaker 1>mixed texts, which are all different cultures in that area.

1:08:13.280 --> 1:08:15.919
<v Speaker 1>So they they're kind of to me, it sounds like

1:08:16.160 --> 1:08:20.240
<v Speaker 1>it's we're melting them all together. Everybody's together in the

1:08:20.360 --> 1:08:26.519
<v Speaker 1>styles are all kind of shifting together similarly. I've gotta

1:08:26.520 --> 1:08:28.320
<v Speaker 1>I gotta say that I took a look at the

1:08:28.320 --> 1:08:31.639
<v Speaker 1>Codex Alsuna and I didn't think the calligraphy was all

1:08:31.680 --> 1:08:35.280
<v Speaker 1>that similar. It's not. And this is the issue. It's

1:08:35.320 --> 1:08:36.800
<v Speaker 1>the same thing again. I don't mean to beat a

1:08:36.840 --> 1:08:39.719
<v Speaker 1>dead horse here, but we go back to Da Vinci. Yeah,

1:08:40.560 --> 1:08:43.360
<v Speaker 1>the style is the same, but everybody kind of used

1:08:43.360 --> 1:08:46.400
<v Speaker 1>the same kind of writing implement which forces you to

1:08:46.439 --> 1:08:50.360
<v Speaker 1>write in a similar manner, but they're not the same.

1:08:50.720 --> 1:08:52.200
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I kind of like the theory that

1:08:52.360 --> 1:08:55.679
<v Speaker 1>like it's another relic of the Aztecs. And that's that's

1:08:55.760 --> 1:08:58.200
<v Speaker 1>kind of where this point they I never saw them

1:08:58.240 --> 1:09:03.240
<v Speaker 1>come out directly and say this is an Aztec language derivative,

1:09:04.000 --> 1:09:08.360
<v Speaker 1>but you really kind of get that sense the way

1:09:08.360 --> 1:09:11.680
<v Speaker 1>they write about that. Again, the Codex a Sooner was

1:09:11.680 --> 1:09:17.480
<v Speaker 1>written by Spanish and by my Spaniards, correct by Aztecs, right,

1:09:17.680 --> 1:09:20.599
<v Speaker 1>And so you know these guys actually took the trouble

1:09:20.720 --> 1:09:25.400
<v Speaker 1>to to learn this, this ancient written language of the

1:09:25.439 --> 1:09:27.760
<v Speaker 1>Aztecs before they murdered him. Well, but if you think

1:09:27.800 --> 1:09:32.200
<v Speaker 1>about not not every Aztec would have been killed, some

1:09:32.320 --> 1:09:36.559
<v Speaker 1>of them would have escaped, either as slaves or free people.

1:09:37.160 --> 1:09:39.960
<v Speaker 1>You've then got a job, and they pass this on

1:09:40.000 --> 1:09:42.520
<v Speaker 1>to their children. You've got to hang onto your cultures,

1:09:42.680 --> 1:09:46.759
<v Speaker 1>as every every culture does, teach it to your children,

1:09:46.800 --> 1:09:49.479
<v Speaker 1>so it doesn't go away. And some of that might

1:09:49.479 --> 1:09:51.639
<v Speaker 1>have bled true. I gotta tell you. I looked at

1:09:52.200 --> 1:09:56.400
<v Speaker 1>some of the some of the alphabets and of the

1:09:56.439 --> 1:09:59.880
<v Speaker 1>additionous people's like the Maya, the Mayan's, the all Man

1:10:00.479 --> 1:10:03.240
<v Speaker 1>and the Aztecs, and they were basically they didn't seem

1:10:03.320 --> 1:10:06.920
<v Speaker 1>to have a written alphabet so much as hieroglyphics. And

1:10:07.120 --> 1:10:09.519
<v Speaker 1>so I mean I don't know that there's any evidence

1:10:09.640 --> 1:10:12.400
<v Speaker 1>that's that any of the indigenous cultures here had any

1:10:12.479 --> 1:10:14.960
<v Speaker 1>kind of writing system like this, But I got to

1:10:15.040 --> 1:10:17.679
<v Speaker 1>be honest, I think one of the most compelling theories

1:10:17.760 --> 1:10:20.760
<v Speaker 1>in terms of who might have written this is that

1:10:20.960 --> 1:10:25.120
<v Speaker 1>it was, you know, like a slave language or like

1:10:25.240 --> 1:10:30.680
<v Speaker 1>a gypsy roving caravan language, because it's it just kind

1:10:30.680 --> 1:10:33.800
<v Speaker 1>of fits the parameters right with the language that's trying

1:10:33.880 --> 1:10:37.360
<v Speaker 1>to be actively trying to be not what a lot

1:10:37.439 --> 1:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>of people are writing. Then it's meant to be a

1:10:39.640 --> 1:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>private language, but that it's written for a lot of people,

1:10:43.840 --> 1:10:45.559
<v Speaker 1>but that it was a group of people that could

1:10:45.600 --> 1:10:47.920
<v Speaker 1>have very easily been integrated into a different culture or

1:10:48.040 --> 1:10:50.400
<v Speaker 1>died out. I think that's a very interesting idea. It

1:10:50.600 --> 1:10:53.360
<v Speaker 1>is that you know, you know what with that theory,

1:10:53.560 --> 1:10:55.679
<v Speaker 1>the problem I have with it is that there would

1:10:55.680 --> 1:10:59.240
<v Speaker 1>be other remnants of this language around and instead of

1:10:59.360 --> 1:11:02.599
<v Speaker 1>just this one thing. And so that's why I find

1:11:02.600 --> 1:11:04.600
<v Speaker 1>out a little hard to believe. But that's also the

1:11:04.680 --> 1:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>hard part about history, and especially areas that are a

1:11:07.960 --> 1:11:12.599
<v Speaker 1>lot of turmoil during history. Think about all the relics

1:11:12.960 --> 1:11:18.960
<v Speaker 1>from the past that had been burned and destroyed, have

1:11:19.040 --> 1:11:21.720
<v Speaker 1>been burned. Yeah, I mean these things, you know, we

1:11:21.960 --> 1:11:24.479
<v Speaker 1>people gather, Oh my gosh, these are all the same.

1:11:24.560 --> 1:11:26.559
<v Speaker 1>We've got a house and we've got to protect them.

1:11:27.080 --> 1:11:29.600
<v Speaker 1>And then somebody drops a lamp and the whole thing

1:11:29.680 --> 1:11:32.080
<v Speaker 1>goes up and smoke. So it could be that they

1:11:32.200 --> 1:11:35.439
<v Speaker 1>had collected all this stuff and somebody was writing it

1:11:35.720 --> 1:11:38.000
<v Speaker 1>and they it was the Inner Library Loan of the

1:11:38.080 --> 1:11:40.600
<v Speaker 1>Aztec World, and they sent it to somebody else, and

1:11:40.640 --> 1:11:43.800
<v Speaker 1>then the entire library goes up in flames, and here's

1:11:43.840 --> 1:11:46.280
<v Speaker 1>the one surviving copy of it. But you know, actually,

1:11:47.520 --> 1:11:49.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, one thing I could conceive of is that

1:11:50.000 --> 1:11:53.800
<v Speaker 1>imagine an ancient surviving text from somewhere, something, something that's

1:11:54.000 --> 1:11:58.240
<v Speaker 1>really really old, and somebody like a monk along about

1:11:58.240 --> 1:12:01.080
<v Speaker 1>the fourteen fifteenth century, finds it and it's kind of

1:12:01.120 --> 1:12:03.240
<v Speaker 1>crumbling and he thanks. You know, I've got nothing else

1:12:03.320 --> 1:12:05.560
<v Speaker 1>going on in I lift in my life. So you know,

1:12:05.680 --> 1:12:07.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe what I'll do is I'm going to copy this

1:12:07.680 --> 1:12:10.320
<v Speaker 1>whole thing over, even though I don't even quite understand it,

1:12:10.880 --> 1:12:13.439
<v Speaker 1>copy the whole thing over, and just so it's preserved

1:12:13.479 --> 1:12:16.880
<v Speaker 1>for posterity, you know, And so maybe that maybe if

1:12:16.960 --> 1:12:19.519
<v Speaker 1>this thing is actually real, which again I'm not buying

1:12:19.520 --> 1:12:21.519
<v Speaker 1>into that entirely, but maybe if it is, maybe it

1:12:21.560 --> 1:12:25.400
<v Speaker 1>actually dates back a lot further and somebody basically made

1:12:25.520 --> 1:12:28.120
<v Speaker 1>hand copy of it, and that's the one we have.

1:12:28.400 --> 1:12:31.320
<v Speaker 1>So we're looking at a flawed copy, is what you're saying. No,

1:12:31.600 --> 1:12:34.280
<v Speaker 1>it might, it might. It might be a meticulous copy.

1:12:34.439 --> 1:12:36.479
<v Speaker 1>But it's a copy. So that means that number one

1:12:36.520 --> 1:12:39.200
<v Speaker 1>and it's not going to be precise. It's not that

1:12:39.479 --> 1:12:41.439
<v Speaker 1>it's not gonna be a xerox. Yeah, and it could

1:12:41.439 --> 1:12:45.120
<v Speaker 1>be potentially thousands, that's what I'm saying. It's it's something

1:12:45.160 --> 1:12:47.960
<v Speaker 1>that could be much much older than the fourteenth or

1:12:48.000 --> 1:12:50.479
<v Speaker 1>fifteenth centuries. Interesting, And that's that's a good theory. I

1:12:50.800 --> 1:12:53.120
<v Speaker 1>hadn't even thought about that before. I only thought about

1:12:53.280 --> 1:12:58.800
<v Speaker 1>just now. Well, while while we're on crazy theories, I

1:12:58.960 --> 1:13:00.920
<v Speaker 1>have one because I feel like a little bit of

1:13:00.960 --> 1:13:04.160
<v Speaker 1>a looney theory. It's a good one. Yeah, I like.

1:13:04.479 --> 1:13:07.799
<v Speaker 1>I like the loony lunacy of it. This one, however,

1:13:08.640 --> 1:13:13.080
<v Speaker 1>I shouldn't. I shouldn't be cruel, right, I should be,

1:13:13.160 --> 1:13:16.960
<v Speaker 1>but a little bit. Yeah, let's have it. There's a guy,

1:13:17.479 --> 1:13:24.720
<v Speaker 1>what's the guy's name, vicolat Vola. That's a crazy name,

1:13:24.880 --> 1:13:29.240
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty crazy. Yeah, So he thinks that the Voytage

1:13:29.320 --> 1:13:33.760
<v Speaker 1>manuscript details the spontaneous creation of d n A through

1:13:33.800 --> 1:13:37.000
<v Speaker 1>the use of sound or a direct line from God.

1:13:40.360 --> 1:13:44.599
<v Speaker 1>Not making fun of keep going because this is where

1:13:44.600 --> 1:13:49.360
<v Speaker 1>he gets well. So basically he thinks that this manuscript

1:13:49.840 --> 1:13:53.280
<v Speaker 1>is not something to be deciphered. It is something to

1:13:54.320 --> 1:13:59.120
<v Speaker 1>read and pray on and channel prophecy directly from God.

1:14:00.520 --> 1:14:04.000
<v Speaker 1>So he says it's religious text basically, Yeah, so more

1:14:04.040 --> 1:14:06.080
<v Speaker 1>than a religious text. It sounds like it's kind of

1:14:06.160 --> 1:14:10.800
<v Speaker 1>like the ark of the cabinet. It's actually channel's enormous energies. Right,

1:14:10.840 --> 1:14:13.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, I guess how I would how I describe

1:14:13.360 --> 1:14:16.519
<v Speaker 1>it as like when people speak in tongues, that it's

1:14:16.560 --> 1:14:19.599
<v Speaker 1>like written in tongues almost, and that like you could

1:14:19.640 --> 1:14:21.720
<v Speaker 1>read it and pray on it and meditate on it,

1:14:21.840 --> 1:14:24.080
<v Speaker 1>and if you were the special kind of chosen person

1:14:24.200 --> 1:14:27.479
<v Speaker 1>by God, he would come down to you and say, oh, yeah,

1:14:27.560 --> 1:14:30.400
<v Speaker 1>this is what it means. He's actually using this method,

1:14:30.680 --> 1:14:33.400
<v Speaker 1>has deciphered someone was for some of it for us,

1:14:33.840 --> 1:14:35.960
<v Speaker 1>and I will read to you what he says it is.

1:14:36.640 --> 1:14:39.360
<v Speaker 1>This is verbatim, and again he deciphered this. How just

1:14:39.520 --> 1:14:44.040
<v Speaker 1>to praying on it and go okay, because he's one

1:14:44.040 --> 1:14:45.800
<v Speaker 1>of the worthy people. You know. I gotta say that's

1:14:45.800 --> 1:14:49.840
<v Speaker 1>a pretty cool and sacrament system. It's like unbreakable. Okay.

1:14:50.080 --> 1:14:53.400
<v Speaker 1>So the name of a flower its heart of fire.

1:14:53.640 --> 1:14:56.560
<v Speaker 1>It makes the skin beautiful when made an ointment, the

1:14:56.640 --> 1:14:59.479
<v Speaker 1>oil is pressed from the buds. The ointment is used

1:14:59.720 --> 1:15:02.080
<v Speaker 1>for the wrinkles. It is suitable for the kidneys and

1:15:02.160 --> 1:15:06.120
<v Speaker 1>the head, as the flower prevents inflammations. It is antibiotic.

1:15:06.720 --> 1:15:09.920
<v Speaker 1>Plant is ten centimeters in its height. It grows hot

1:15:10.040 --> 1:15:13.599
<v Speaker 1>and dry slants. The plant is bright green by its color.

1:15:14.840 --> 1:15:21.280
<v Speaker 1>And it's in Ethiopia. In somewhere in Ethiopia. You're welcome everyone. Well,

1:15:21.360 --> 1:15:23.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, actually I've got some wrinkles. I'm going to Ethiopia.

1:15:24.840 --> 1:15:27.240
<v Speaker 1>I guess. You know. The thing is is like believe

1:15:27.320 --> 1:15:31.080
<v Speaker 1>what you want. But it's like, how hard is it

1:15:31.200 --> 1:15:33.760
<v Speaker 1>to believe somebody who says, well, I am the only

1:15:33.840 --> 1:15:38.200
<v Speaker 1>person who can decide. Through through the years, there's been

1:15:38.240 --> 1:15:40.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of Charlatans that have come forward and said

1:15:40.920 --> 1:15:44.719
<v Speaker 1>they had the translation. And I'm not going to pitch

1:15:44.760 --> 1:15:47.040
<v Speaker 1>a stone at this guy, but he seems to be

1:15:47.400 --> 1:15:50.040
<v Speaker 1>part of that camp. To me, that's that's that's kind

1:15:50.080 --> 1:15:55.680
<v Speaker 1>of mostly it just seems too convenient, Yeah, especially for

1:15:55.760 --> 1:15:59.240
<v Speaker 1>something that's so popular. The thing that I know about

1:15:59.280 --> 1:16:02.760
<v Speaker 1>people who act really receive prophecies is that they don't

1:16:02.800 --> 1:16:06.479
<v Speaker 1>go around screaming about it, and they don't speak in

1:16:06.640 --> 1:16:08.920
<v Speaker 1>the way that this guy is speaking, which is like,

1:16:09.080 --> 1:16:12.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm so much better than you, I know everything, and

1:16:12.200 --> 1:16:14.120
<v Speaker 1>this is so there's a little arrogance in there that

1:16:14.200 --> 1:16:16.760
<v Speaker 1>you don't appreciate arrogance. Yeah, I think that, like, you know,

1:16:16.840 --> 1:16:19.280
<v Speaker 1>if you, okay, find whatever you're going to receive a

1:16:19.360 --> 1:16:22.000
<v Speaker 1>prophecy from God, sure I should come with a little

1:16:22.040 --> 1:16:26.120
<v Speaker 1>humility because don't say you're the greatest person in the

1:16:26.160 --> 1:16:29.560
<v Speaker 1>world exactly, because I leave that to your your followers

1:16:29.600 --> 1:16:31.479
<v Speaker 1>to do. And I've now set up a website where

1:16:31.479 --> 1:16:34.000
<v Speaker 1>you can donate at because I know, and if I've

1:16:34.040 --> 1:16:36.040
<v Speaker 1>got a direct line to God, I don't want to

1:16:36.040 --> 1:16:38.599
<v Speaker 1>piss God off. And you know, queer that whole deal,

1:16:38.840 --> 1:16:41.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, So I'm gonna I'm gonna totally be you know,

1:16:41.720 --> 1:16:44.040
<v Speaker 1>humble about the whole thing. I don't know, it's just

1:16:44.200 --> 1:16:48.360
<v Speaker 1>a weird Yeah, that situation, that's a really incoherent theory.

1:16:48.479 --> 1:16:52.400
<v Speaker 1>What about what about the lizard people. Dr Backs suggested

1:16:52.439 --> 1:17:02.320
<v Speaker 1>this theory. Yeah, yeah, he suggested this theory. Yeah, that

1:17:02.439 --> 1:17:05.160
<v Speaker 1>there's like subterranean lizard people. What do you think? Do

1:17:05.160 --> 1:17:07.200
<v Speaker 1>you want to let him tell it? Yeah, let's let's

1:17:07.240 --> 1:17:10.639
<v Speaker 1>have this. He had a pretty good take on it. Yeah, okay,

1:17:10.880 --> 1:17:14.280
<v Speaker 1>well a recent one. I actually appeared on Coast to

1:17:14.360 --> 1:17:17.400
<v Speaker 1>Coast Radio on US Radio a few nights ago, and

1:17:17.520 --> 1:17:19.920
<v Speaker 1>someone emailed me and suggested that they're convinced that the

1:17:19.960 --> 1:17:26.360
<v Speaker 1>manuscript was written by lizards, lizards from having inside living

1:17:26.439 --> 1:17:33.360
<v Speaker 1>inside the earth. Yeah, now that was me just kidding. Now,

1:17:33.400 --> 1:17:35.120
<v Speaker 1>I said to them, I hope not, because that means

1:17:35.160 --> 1:17:37.760
<v Speaker 1>that we may be we may be somebody's lunch quite soon.

1:17:40.160 --> 1:17:42.240
<v Speaker 1>But that that was That was one idea which I

1:17:42.280 --> 1:17:46.040
<v Speaker 1>haven't seen before. Okay, well, so much for the lizard people.

1:17:46.760 --> 1:17:50.120
<v Speaker 1>So next theory is that it's a hoax. There's a

1:17:50.200 --> 1:17:52.040
<v Speaker 1>couple of a couple of different theories out there. One

1:17:52.160 --> 1:17:55.519
<v Speaker 1>is that Voyage himself wrote this, created this entire thing,

1:17:55.600 --> 1:17:57.479
<v Speaker 1>and made up that he bought it somewhere in Italy.

1:17:58.360 --> 1:18:01.920
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's kind of unbelievable because never one

1:18:01.920 --> 1:18:05.720
<v Speaker 1>why would anybody bother? But never But more importantly the

1:18:06.360 --> 1:18:08.799
<v Speaker 1>age of the materials. Did he happen to stumble across

1:18:08.840 --> 1:18:12.080
<v Speaker 1>some vellum and some ink that was like five years old? Yeah,

1:18:12.479 --> 1:18:15.000
<v Speaker 1>I remember back had a pretty interesting take on this.

1:18:17.160 --> 1:18:20.760
<v Speaker 1>We're illuminating. Let's let's go to him. A few years ago.

1:18:20.880 --> 1:18:25.080
<v Speaker 1>The Yale Library which owns the manuscript now, and they

1:18:25.200 --> 1:18:28.360
<v Speaker 1>got some people from the University of Arizona to look

1:18:28.439 --> 1:18:31.519
<v Speaker 1>at the vellum and study it. So they took very

1:18:31.600 --> 1:18:34.480
<v Speaker 1>tiny samples of the velom from different parts of the manuscript,

1:18:35.120 --> 1:18:37.799
<v Speaker 1>and they analyze them and found that they're very consistent

1:18:37.920 --> 1:18:42.080
<v Speaker 1>in their dating to round about four four thirty, with

1:18:42.160 --> 1:18:45.360
<v Speaker 1>a certain range, of course, but definitely it's fifteenth century,

1:18:45.840 --> 1:18:47.880
<v Speaker 1>and that throughout a lot of the other series. There

1:18:47.880 --> 1:18:50.799
<v Speaker 1>were theories that it was made in the seventeenth century,

1:18:50.960 --> 1:18:53.320
<v Speaker 1>or that it was a twentieth century hoax and so on.

1:18:53.800 --> 1:18:57.000
<v Speaker 1>But unless somebody kept a large amount of expensive vellum

1:18:57.479 --> 1:18:59.840
<v Speaker 1>for hundreds of years without using it, which seems a

1:18:59.840 --> 1:19:04.680
<v Speaker 1>bit unlikely, I reckon it's a fifteenth century manuscript. And

1:19:04.760 --> 1:19:06.760
<v Speaker 1>also the ink, and I've analyzed the ink and that's

1:19:06.800 --> 1:19:09.840
<v Speaker 1>all entirely consistent with that date. That no kind of

1:19:09.920 --> 1:19:12.760
<v Speaker 1>modern chemicals, innocent song. So it seems to me that's

1:19:12.800 --> 1:19:14.519
<v Speaker 1>one of the few things we can be pretty sure

1:19:14.520 --> 1:19:17.600
<v Speaker 1>about it. It's the fifteenth century manuscript. Another theory is

1:19:17.680 --> 1:19:22.080
<v Speaker 1>that it was a hoax by Roger Bacon. Sir Roger Bacon,

1:19:22.160 --> 1:19:23.680
<v Speaker 1>was he, sir? Well he was a night, wasn't he.

1:19:24.720 --> 1:19:28.280
<v Speaker 1>I think so, yes, Sir Roger Bacon. Uh. Some people

1:19:28.360 --> 1:19:31.320
<v Speaker 1>have theorized that it was created by Roger Bacon. Bacon,

1:19:31.360 --> 1:19:33.000
<v Speaker 1>as you know, it's one of the original fathers of

1:19:33.080 --> 1:19:38.639
<v Speaker 1>the scientific method, and Voyage himself believed that Bacon wrote

1:19:38.680 --> 1:19:41.320
<v Speaker 1>the book and only Bacon would have the capability of

1:19:41.400 --> 1:19:45.040
<v Speaker 1>doing so. The problem with this theory is that Bacon

1:19:45.120 --> 1:19:47.519
<v Speaker 1>died in twelve nine, which is long before the Board

1:19:47.640 --> 1:19:52.080
<v Speaker 1>the book was created. Yeah, so that unless somebody was

1:19:52.240 --> 1:19:55.479
<v Speaker 1>copying his work like you would suggested, it could have

1:19:55.560 --> 1:20:00.280
<v Speaker 1>been Bacon. Somebody could have copied, but it wasn't Bacon. Yeah,

1:20:00.360 --> 1:20:07.479
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't Bacon. I'll tell you why. Well, yeah, right,

1:20:07.720 --> 1:20:10.000
<v Speaker 1>Bacon didn't do it. Somebody. It could have been a hoax.

1:20:10.080 --> 1:20:11.920
<v Speaker 1>Somebody could have done it. Somebody could have done this

1:20:12.000 --> 1:20:13.960
<v Speaker 1>as a hoax. The reason I don't think it was

1:20:14.080 --> 1:20:18.960
<v Speaker 1>a hoax is this, if previously I mentioned page seventy five,

1:20:19.120 --> 1:20:23.519
<v Speaker 1>and I found other pages that have some some recurring words.

1:20:23.960 --> 1:20:26.280
<v Speaker 1>So there's a word on here that I'll call golf

1:20:26.400 --> 1:20:30.000
<v Speaker 1>C C eight G. So if you look at it,

1:20:30.040 --> 1:20:37.800
<v Speaker 1>look at the actually yeah, yeah, yeah, um, So this

1:20:37.920 --> 1:20:39.800
<v Speaker 1>is what I was talking about that recurred a couple

1:20:39.840 --> 1:20:41.479
<v Speaker 1>of times in the page that you wouldn't expect to

1:20:41.880 --> 1:20:46.160
<v Speaker 1>in any sort of space. Right. Well, on the same page,

1:20:46.320 --> 1:20:50.760
<v Speaker 1>this word appears like about nineteen times, and I was

1:20:50.920 --> 1:20:55.240
<v Speaker 1>noticing that, and small variations on the word I've underlined

1:20:55.280 --> 1:20:57.639
<v Speaker 1>them in different the word itself of an alige in origin,

1:20:57.840 --> 1:21:00.200
<v Speaker 1>and the variations i've an aligned in green. And so

1:21:00.240 --> 1:21:02.040
<v Speaker 1>I have a look. Yeah, so it looks it looks

1:21:02.080 --> 1:21:06.080
<v Speaker 1>a bit like there's the the a, but also maybe

1:21:06.120 --> 1:21:08.880
<v Speaker 1>it's like a ce, but maybe it's like two seeds.

1:21:09.120 --> 1:21:10.840
<v Speaker 1>So it's a question of like, yeah, is this a

1:21:10.880 --> 1:21:14.240
<v Speaker 1>small variation. It's it's just bad handwriting, variations in handwriting,

1:21:15.400 --> 1:21:17.760
<v Speaker 1>because they're all slightly different. But it looks to me

1:21:17.880 --> 1:21:21.400
<v Speaker 1>like just differences in handwriting. So the word the word

1:21:21.439 --> 1:21:24.840
<v Speaker 1>appears like many, many, many times on this page, and

1:21:25.040 --> 1:21:28.240
<v Speaker 1>sometimes it appears one right after the other. Uh. And

1:21:28.360 --> 1:21:32.599
<v Speaker 1>so if you're trying to concoct a convincing hoax, especially

1:21:32.600 --> 1:21:35.240
<v Speaker 1>if you're Sir Roger Back and a smart guy, then

1:21:35.400 --> 1:21:37.080
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to do something as stupid as this

1:21:37.200 --> 1:21:39.240
<v Speaker 1>unless you have utter contempt for your the people you're

1:21:39.240 --> 1:21:42.200
<v Speaker 1>trying to fool. Uh. And I think it goes for

1:21:42.360 --> 1:21:45.360
<v Speaker 1>pretty much any hoaxter that you're not going to repeat

1:21:45.439 --> 1:21:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the word forty times on a single paget looks really well.

1:21:50.479 --> 1:21:53.200
<v Speaker 1>And I and I know Joe and I briefly discussed

1:21:53.280 --> 1:21:56.280
<v Speaker 1>this is. I see in the words that you've pointed

1:21:56.320 --> 1:22:00.640
<v Speaker 1>out some similarities, but they're they're not entical to me.

1:22:00.920 --> 1:22:03.479
<v Speaker 1>And when I look at them, let's say, let's just

1:22:04.120 --> 1:22:07.800
<v Speaker 1>call it. The last three characters are seemed to be

1:22:08.520 --> 1:22:11.599
<v Speaker 1>relatively consistent with the small variants, but let's just call

1:22:11.680 --> 1:22:15.240
<v Speaker 1>them consistent. But I don't see that that means it's

1:22:15.280 --> 1:22:18.080
<v Speaker 1>the same word. To me, it's the same thing as

1:22:18.160 --> 1:22:21.960
<v Speaker 1>having I N G at the end of something. So

1:22:22.640 --> 1:22:28.920
<v Speaker 1>I am seeing being believing those all in in the

1:22:29.200 --> 1:22:32.479
<v Speaker 1>same I guess for me to like take Joe side

1:22:32.520 --> 1:22:36.800
<v Speaker 1>on this, the first part looks really really similar. In words,

1:22:36.960 --> 1:22:39.839
<v Speaker 1>there's just the middle like one or two letters depending

1:22:39.920 --> 1:22:42.960
<v Speaker 1>on the word that are a little different. And I

1:22:43.080 --> 1:22:46.280
<v Speaker 1>think that, like, okay, so right, believing twelve times in

1:22:46.320 --> 1:22:48.360
<v Speaker 1>a row, it's not going to look these. No, it's

1:22:48.400 --> 1:22:50.760
<v Speaker 1>not gonna look identical. You're right. So that's what I

1:22:50.840 --> 1:22:54.519
<v Speaker 1>think we're seeing is small handwriting variations and when and

1:22:54.800 --> 1:22:57.479
<v Speaker 1>I I know that that you're looking at these and

1:22:57.600 --> 1:22:59.960
<v Speaker 1>some of these I'm looking at the same page as

1:23:00.080 --> 1:23:04.960
<v Speaker 1>you are, and I don't think that they are identical.

1:23:05.120 --> 1:23:10.400
<v Speaker 1>And and let me just just explain why is if

1:23:10.640 --> 1:23:16.040
<v Speaker 1>you look at words that are written in an older

1:23:16.479 --> 1:23:22.360
<v Speaker 1>handwriting or even type setting style, you can see, let's say,

1:23:22.520 --> 1:23:26.280
<v Speaker 1>the letter F, there's what's known as a ligature where

1:23:26.400 --> 1:23:29.560
<v Speaker 1>two letters are joined. So if you have an F F,

1:23:30.600 --> 1:23:32.880
<v Speaker 1>it can be just right lower case, lower case, right

1:23:32.960 --> 1:23:35.920
<v Speaker 1>next to each other, or there's a ligature where the

1:23:36.120 --> 1:23:41.320
<v Speaker 1>fs are actually connected to make what looks like one character,

1:23:41.920 --> 1:23:45.040
<v Speaker 1>but it is one character in a type setting personally,

1:23:45.160 --> 1:23:49.479
<v Speaker 1>but they're they're two different. Some of those look like

1:23:50.280 --> 1:23:53.200
<v Speaker 1>the cross of what we're saying is the F of

1:23:53.320 --> 1:23:58.240
<v Speaker 1>golf sometimes too seems to be short and contained, sometimes

1:23:58.280 --> 1:24:01.080
<v Speaker 1>seems to come across the L. And I don't disagree

1:24:01.160 --> 1:24:04.479
<v Speaker 1>that maybe that is just handwriting, but to me, in

1:24:04.600 --> 1:24:08.080
<v Speaker 1>a way. I almost wonder if they are different and

1:24:08.200 --> 1:24:12.000
<v Speaker 1>distinct characters. I'm not just I'm not, you know, disavowing

1:24:12.040 --> 1:24:16.600
<v Speaker 1>what you're saying. I just I see intricacies in the

1:24:16.760 --> 1:24:20.120
<v Speaker 1>letter forms that I don't know mean that they're the same.

1:24:20.240 --> 1:24:23.040
<v Speaker 1>But you're writing it's hard to say. It is hard

1:24:23.080 --> 1:24:27.040
<v Speaker 1>to say that I have just drawn on this. Do

1:24:27.120 --> 1:24:32.200
<v Speaker 1>you know how much that's worth? I collection, I've been

1:24:32.200 --> 1:24:35.040
<v Speaker 1>going over with a highlighter. I'm gonna mail it back

1:24:35.080 --> 1:24:39.840
<v Speaker 1>to them. The way that the author forms the a

1:24:41.439 --> 1:24:45.000
<v Speaker 1>kind of it's kind of like two CS and I

1:24:45.160 --> 1:24:47.840
<v Speaker 1>just drew on their Joe's looking at it. Yeah, I

1:24:47.920 --> 1:24:49.760
<v Speaker 1>see what you're saying. It's like I think that that's

1:24:49.840 --> 1:24:53.200
<v Speaker 1>just handwriting. Like this one here, for example, there's two cs,

1:24:53.280 --> 1:24:55.880
<v Speaker 1>but they're sort of like the second sea is drawn.

1:24:56.080 --> 1:24:58.280
<v Speaker 1>It's so close it almost looks like the one character.

1:24:58.360 --> 1:25:01.400
<v Speaker 1>But I think they're two se us. This is not

1:25:01.800 --> 1:25:04.120
<v Speaker 1>and this is why this has been going on for

1:25:04.640 --> 1:25:08.080
<v Speaker 1>at least a hundred years that we know of for sure.

1:25:08.240 --> 1:25:11.600
<v Speaker 1>If not therefore, yeah, I know exactly. But but but

1:25:11.720 --> 1:25:14.040
<v Speaker 1>what I'm saying is that, like as far as the

1:25:14.120 --> 1:25:16.400
<v Speaker 1>hoax thing goes, the fact that this same word, and

1:25:16.439 --> 1:25:19.439
<v Speaker 1>it appears to me to be the same word. Let's

1:25:19.960 --> 1:25:23.720
<v Speaker 1>let's accept but okay, well i'm let's but you know,

1:25:23.920 --> 1:25:26.200
<v Speaker 1>let's just accept that if you're doing a hoax, you're

1:25:26.200 --> 1:25:29.240
<v Speaker 1>not going to do words that look exactly look look

1:25:29.479 --> 1:25:31.920
<v Speaker 1>very very similar to the word right next to them,

1:25:32.600 --> 1:25:34.400
<v Speaker 1>over and over again in your text. You're not going

1:25:34.479 --> 1:25:35.880
<v Speaker 1>to do that because you want to you want to

1:25:35.920 --> 1:25:39.200
<v Speaker 1>have a really convincing hoax, you know, So this is

1:25:39.240 --> 1:25:41.280
<v Speaker 1>not the way to do it. So obviously these are

1:25:41.400 --> 1:25:44.680
<v Speaker 1>these people were either very incompetent hoaxters or it was

1:25:44.760 --> 1:25:47.719
<v Speaker 1>not a hoax. Alright, well, so much for the hoax.

1:25:47.800 --> 1:25:51.680
<v Speaker 1>We've conclusively proven it's not a hoax. And so well,

1:25:51.760 --> 1:25:54.559
<v Speaker 1>not exactly because I mean, actually, if you're a hoaxter,

1:25:54.680 --> 1:25:57.200
<v Speaker 1>you're probably you're probably kind of convincing. Your readers are lazy.

1:25:57.200 --> 1:25:59.280
<v Speaker 1>You're not going to get that from the page. And

1:25:59.400 --> 1:26:03.200
<v Speaker 1>that's just Gonn glanced at it. Look at the pictures,

1:26:03.280 --> 1:26:06.200
<v Speaker 1>especially the naked bodies, you know, stuff like that. Yeah,

1:26:06.360 --> 1:26:08.760
<v Speaker 1>so that's the blah blah blah. We shouldn't know that

1:26:08.960 --> 1:26:10.960
<v Speaker 1>the words that we were just talking about are literally

1:26:11.080 --> 1:26:12.840
<v Speaker 1>right next to a pool with a bunch of naked

1:26:12.920 --> 1:26:17.519
<v Speaker 1>women in Yeah, so onto our next theory. The next

1:26:17.560 --> 1:26:22.160
<v Speaker 1>theory is it's just gibberish. Gordon Rugg a British psychologist,

1:26:23.120 --> 1:26:25.120
<v Speaker 1>and says that there's a case that it might just

1:26:25.280 --> 1:26:28.600
<v Speaker 1>be entirely made up and just gibberish. He published a

1:26:28.640 --> 1:26:31.679
<v Speaker 1>paper in two thousand four saying that it's a hoax

1:26:31.920 --> 1:26:35.519
<v Speaker 1>most likely, and he had come up with the system

1:26:35.720 --> 1:26:39.760
<v Speaker 1>that used uses a grill of words. Basically, so he's

1:26:39.800 --> 1:26:44.840
<v Speaker 1>got three tables side by side, uh prefix, root, suffix,

1:26:45.080 --> 1:26:47.639
<v Speaker 1>and then a piece of cardboard that's got three little

1:26:47.760 --> 1:26:52.000
<v Speaker 1>rectangles cut in it. You move this thing around on there,

1:26:52.400 --> 1:26:55.160
<v Speaker 1>and wherever you light upon you've got three, you know,

1:26:55.280 --> 1:26:57.840
<v Speaker 1>one or two characters for the prefix and maybe three

1:26:57.920 --> 1:26:59.760
<v Speaker 1>for the root and one or two for the suffix.

1:27:00.280 --> 1:27:03.479
<v Speaker 1>You just copy those down ontoor manuscript and then move it,

1:27:03.680 --> 1:27:05.840
<v Speaker 1>copying the next set down, copying the next set down.

1:27:05.880 --> 1:27:07.640
<v Speaker 1>You can get up. You can come up with a

1:27:07.720 --> 1:27:12.240
<v Speaker 1>gibberish system that is very consistent and kind of convincing,

1:27:12.400 --> 1:27:17.040
<v Speaker 1>and so that and uh so, basically he made up

1:27:17.360 --> 1:27:21.639
<v Speaker 1>gibberish language to prove that though this looks like regular language,

1:27:21.960 --> 1:27:25.280
<v Speaker 1>it's just who or it could be it's a it's

1:27:25.320 --> 1:27:28.280
<v Speaker 1>a uh. He He also named the suspect, which is

1:27:28.439 --> 1:27:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Edward Kelly was a con artist. Yeah, yeah he uh.

1:27:34.680 --> 1:27:36.320
<v Speaker 1>If you're one of our listeners, you might want to

1:27:36.640 --> 1:27:39.559
<v Speaker 1>do a Google on this. There's a language that Edward

1:27:39.640 --> 1:27:43.360
<v Speaker 1>Kelly and this other guy created. Andrea Schinner I believe

1:27:43.720 --> 1:27:47.200
<v Speaker 1>was him. Uh. They created a language they called Enokian,

1:27:47.280 --> 1:27:49.720
<v Speaker 1>which is spelled e n O c h I A

1:27:50.040 --> 1:27:52.479
<v Speaker 1>n He was. He was close friends with Queen Elizabeth

1:27:52.520 --> 1:27:55.479
<v Speaker 1>the first Yeah, just throw that, yeah, and okay and

1:27:55.520 --> 1:27:57.799
<v Speaker 1>so and Okian is uh if there's there's a wicky

1:27:57.920 --> 1:27:59.280
<v Speaker 1>on it and you can read all about it. It

1:27:59.400 --> 1:28:02.800
<v Speaker 1>doesn't the characters don't look like this, but it's it's

1:28:02.920 --> 1:28:06.040
<v Speaker 1>entirely conceivable that this guy maybe could have made up

1:28:06.040 --> 1:28:11.599
<v Speaker 1>another bogus language besides the nokiin so, but besides fraud.

1:28:11.640 --> 1:28:14.639
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we're back into the fraud thing again. Another

1:28:14.760 --> 1:28:18.759
<v Speaker 1>theory is that it's gibberish because it was just basically

1:28:19.080 --> 1:28:23.080
<v Speaker 1>somebody who was autistic did this, and so some of

1:28:23.160 --> 1:28:26.439
<v Speaker 1>somebody was just like just sat down and you know,

1:28:26.840 --> 1:28:29.040
<v Speaker 1>maybe from a wealthier family. So they actually had some

1:28:29.160 --> 1:28:31.320
<v Speaker 1>envelopment ink for him to write with. So if you're

1:28:31.320 --> 1:28:34.200
<v Speaker 1>a peasant, you probably don't have that. And h or

1:28:34.240 --> 1:28:36.679
<v Speaker 1>maybe he was an autistic monk and he just wrote

1:28:36.680 --> 1:28:38.840
<v Speaker 1>a lot of gibberish and drew a lot of weird

1:28:39.439 --> 1:28:43.719
<v Speaker 1>drawings and stuff. And I think that the autistic based

1:28:43.760 --> 1:28:46.519
<v Speaker 1>on my based on my looking at some of these pages.

1:28:46.520 --> 1:28:48.400
<v Speaker 1>And I'm gonna show you guys another one here on

1:28:48.520 --> 1:28:51.839
<v Speaker 1>page seventy five, we saw the recurrence of a particular

1:28:51.920 --> 1:28:55.639
<v Speaker 1>word in my opinion and Devon's I think, many times.

1:28:56.439 --> 1:28:59.080
<v Speaker 1>And you get along to page eighty, it's another one

1:28:59.080 --> 1:29:02.400
<v Speaker 1>who randers it randomly selected and the word of the

1:29:02.479 --> 1:29:04.160
<v Speaker 1>day on that one is one that I called gulf

1:29:04.280 --> 1:29:09.479
<v Speaker 1>a g O L F A W and that appears

1:29:09.560 --> 1:29:12.599
<v Speaker 1>many many times on this page. Uh. The other one,

1:29:13.920 --> 1:29:16.600
<v Speaker 1>golf c C A G appears on here too, but

1:29:16.680 --> 1:29:19.599
<v Speaker 1>it seems to not appear quite as much. Yeah, which

1:29:19.600 --> 1:29:22.679
<v Speaker 1>would suggest to me as somebody who is possibly artistic

1:29:23.000 --> 1:29:26.360
<v Speaker 1>and somebody who's a little ow c D. He'll fixate

1:29:26.479 --> 1:29:28.840
<v Speaker 1>on a set of characters and reproduce us over and

1:29:28.920 --> 1:29:31.840
<v Speaker 1>over again until another one comes along. It catches sort

1:29:31.880 --> 1:29:35.000
<v Speaker 1>of catches his interest and he starts writing those. I

1:29:35.040 --> 1:29:37.560
<v Speaker 1>can see that that that makes sense and it's not.

1:29:37.880 --> 1:29:42.559
<v Speaker 1>And we've seen things like that and you know today, yeah, yeah,

1:29:42.680 --> 1:29:44.320
<v Speaker 1>and and the fact and the fact of the matter

1:29:44.479 --> 1:29:48.360
<v Speaker 1>is is that I can't think of any comprehensible language,

1:29:48.400 --> 1:29:50.800
<v Speaker 1>any language that we know about, that would have this

1:29:50.920 --> 1:29:53.880
<v Speaker 1>kind of repetition in it. This is not I don't

1:29:53.920 --> 1:29:57.160
<v Speaker 1>believe that this is language. I think it's gibberish. And

1:29:57.479 --> 1:29:59.840
<v Speaker 1>and and so I'm basically what I'm putting forth is

1:29:59.880 --> 1:30:04.280
<v Speaker 1>the autistic month month theory. Yeah, I can see that,

1:30:04.640 --> 1:30:07.880
<v Speaker 1>and I'm not going to disparage that at all. What

1:30:08.080 --> 1:30:10.439
<v Speaker 1>I do wonder, though, is if we look at this,

1:30:10.680 --> 1:30:13.439
<v Speaker 1>some people have said, well, this is a scientific manual

1:30:13.520 --> 1:30:16.640
<v Speaker 1>of some kind, and have you have any of you

1:30:16.920 --> 1:30:21.320
<v Speaker 1>ever cracked open a biology book and you'll see the

1:30:21.640 --> 1:30:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Latin name followed with the derivative that's more of a

1:30:25.240 --> 1:30:29.880
<v Speaker 1>general name, and you'll see that word every couple of

1:30:30.040 --> 1:30:32.880
<v Speaker 1>words in there. You know, it's the genus blah blah blah,

1:30:32.880 --> 1:30:35.120
<v Speaker 1>genus blah blah blah, genus blah blah blah, genus in

1:30:35.240 --> 1:30:38.880
<v Speaker 1>different variants. So I almost wonder if it's let's just

1:30:38.920 --> 1:30:40.640
<v Speaker 1>say it was the soap plant, because that was in

1:30:40.760 --> 1:30:45.559
<v Speaker 1>the New Spain theory is it's the soap plant something

1:30:45.680 --> 1:30:52.040
<v Speaker 1>something soap plants plural, and then something something soap planting.

1:30:52.439 --> 1:30:54.479
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, I mean, I'm just spitballing here, but

1:30:54.560 --> 1:30:57.040
<v Speaker 1>I could see why that repetition might be in there

1:30:57.960 --> 1:31:02.240
<v Speaker 1>for that one, because they're referencing it's specifically over and over.

1:31:02.400 --> 1:31:08.040
<v Speaker 1>And I know that what people prescribe as the names

1:31:08.120 --> 1:31:11.120
<v Speaker 1>of the plants on the pages aren't the words that

1:31:11.200 --> 1:31:14.360
<v Speaker 1>you're pulling out. But I'm just I'm kind of I'm

1:31:14.479 --> 1:31:16.879
<v Speaker 1>looking at it. I'm wondering if maybe that's a possible

1:31:16.960 --> 1:31:20.240
<v Speaker 1>reason for this frequency that you're seeing. To further that, right,

1:31:20.320 --> 1:31:22.680
<v Speaker 1>if we're going to take like the Latin name of

1:31:22.720 --> 1:31:25.400
<v Speaker 1>a plant, somewhat in that Latin names of plants, are

1:31:25.960 --> 1:31:30.000
<v Speaker 1>this word repeated, this word right, like brutus, brutus or something. Obviously,

1:31:30.120 --> 1:31:34.640
<v Speaker 1>that's so that would help explain why I'd be like

1:31:35.560 --> 1:31:39.240
<v Speaker 1>in succession. I honestly like just throw that out there.

1:31:39.400 --> 1:31:41.759
<v Speaker 1>Don't know where I land on this theory. Somewhere between

1:31:41.800 --> 1:31:44.679
<v Speaker 1>the two of you. Well, I gotta tell I'm gonna

1:31:44.720 --> 1:31:46.439
<v Speaker 1>tell you, I have not had a chance to review

1:31:46.800 --> 1:31:50.479
<v Speaker 1>um a huge amount of this manuscript. I'll probably look

1:31:50.479 --> 1:31:52.439
<v Speaker 1>at some more of it. I'm not going to devote

1:31:52.479 --> 1:31:55.240
<v Speaker 1>my life to it. I haven't had that much time.

1:31:55.320 --> 1:31:58.040
<v Speaker 1>So I went out and basically randomly pick some pages

1:31:58.120 --> 1:32:00.160
<v Speaker 1>and just started looking at looking at stuff and looking

1:32:00.200 --> 1:32:03.080
<v Speaker 1>at patterns, and I started noticing repetition in the world,

1:32:03.160 --> 1:32:07.920
<v Speaker 1>and and and so I would encourage our listeners to

1:32:08.120 --> 1:32:10.679
<v Speaker 1>go out and look at page seventy five and page

1:32:10.760 --> 1:32:12.560
<v Speaker 1>a D and look at look for the repetition, but

1:32:12.640 --> 1:32:14.880
<v Speaker 1>also look at other pages, but also look at other

1:32:14.920 --> 1:32:16.800
<v Speaker 1>pages and tell us what you think. Tell us what

1:32:16.840 --> 1:32:18.920
<v Speaker 1>you think about about the theory. See if you find

1:32:18.960 --> 1:32:22.960
<v Speaker 1>a similar sort of pattern of repetition of words over

1:32:23.040 --> 1:32:25.599
<v Speaker 1>and over again, which would kind of support the theory

1:32:25.680 --> 1:32:29.720
<v Speaker 1>that I think. And there's a true crowdsourcing here to

1:32:29.880 --> 1:32:32.880
<v Speaker 1>support my theory that this was some person with O

1:32:33.040 --> 1:32:36.840
<v Speaker 1>c D or a person with autism who was sat

1:32:36.960 --> 1:32:39.600
<v Speaker 1>down in a little room somewhere with some vellom and

1:32:39.640 --> 1:32:43.040
<v Speaker 1>some ink and just did his thing, just obsessed over,

1:32:44.560 --> 1:32:47.960
<v Speaker 1>just kept doing. And yeah, and so uh, there is

1:32:48.000 --> 1:32:51.320
<v Speaker 1>another theory. This is uh. This is also from page

1:32:51.360 --> 1:32:55.920
<v Speaker 1>seventy five. There's a four letter grouping that appears repeatedly

1:32:55.960 --> 1:32:57.800
<v Speaker 1>also in some of the words that we've talked about,

1:32:57.840 --> 1:33:01.720
<v Speaker 1>like saying golf c C h G for the first

1:33:01.760 --> 1:33:05.000
<v Speaker 1>four letters of that word, which really do look too

1:33:05.120 --> 1:33:08.560
<v Speaker 1>to my eyes like golf, geo lf. They really do

1:33:10.000 --> 1:33:12.040
<v Speaker 1>appear many many times in that pain. I can just

1:33:12.160 --> 1:33:17.720
<v Speaker 1>imagine ancient plaid shorts. Yeah, for you know, as we

1:33:17.760 --> 1:33:21.240
<v Speaker 1>saw recently pbr shorts. Yeah. So anyway, take a look

1:33:21.280 --> 1:33:24.240
<v Speaker 1>at that, telling what you think. Uh, would you agree

1:33:24.240 --> 1:33:27.320
<v Speaker 1>that it appears there a lot? Oh? Yeah, but I

1:33:27.360 --> 1:33:29.760
<v Speaker 1>guess for me, there are a lot of languages in

1:33:29.840 --> 1:33:32.439
<v Speaker 1>this world that instead of doing like I n G

1:33:32.640 --> 1:33:35.599
<v Speaker 1>like we do, right, do a prefix like that's possible

1:33:35.640 --> 1:33:40.400
<v Speaker 1>to it? Doesn't Arabic do something like that. It's it's

1:33:40.439 --> 1:33:44.040
<v Speaker 1>a suffix in Arabic. Uh No, anyway, But if you

1:33:44.120 --> 1:33:46.120
<v Speaker 1>look at it, though, it does look like golf, which

1:33:46.439 --> 1:33:48.960
<v Speaker 1>leads me to believe that this was actually a text

1:33:49.040 --> 1:33:57.240
<v Speaker 1>written by and a medieval golf pro plans to avoid. Yeah, exactly.

1:33:57.400 --> 1:34:00.040
<v Speaker 1>And and and in this particular spot, he's got the

1:34:00.120 --> 1:34:02.200
<v Speaker 1>naked chicks on the on the golf green. Do you

1:34:02.240 --> 1:34:06.280
<v Speaker 1>see that it's green and they're naked. Yeah. Yeah, that's

1:34:06.320 --> 1:34:08.800
<v Speaker 1>how you distract your rivals at the game. Yeah, So

1:34:08.960 --> 1:34:11.519
<v Speaker 1>it's a medieval golf bro. So do we have any

1:34:11.560 --> 1:34:14.960
<v Speaker 1>other theories? We do? Another one? We do? We do?

1:34:15.120 --> 1:34:17.120
<v Speaker 1>We have? I think we have one more. It's just

1:34:17.280 --> 1:34:22.200
<v Speaker 1>the one more left, which is opening the gates to

1:34:23.080 --> 1:34:27.599
<v Speaker 1>crazy town. We talked about the lizard people a little bit. Well,

1:34:28.160 --> 1:34:32.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of people are putting forth that they think

1:34:33.520 --> 1:34:38.040
<v Speaker 1>that this is a book written in an alien language

1:34:38.120 --> 1:34:42.680
<v Speaker 1>by an alien people who have left it for us

1:34:42.800 --> 1:34:45.840
<v Speaker 1>to teach us one. I don't know. I you know what,

1:34:46.080 --> 1:34:47.840
<v Speaker 1>I gotta be honest with you. I am so glad

1:34:47.920 --> 1:34:52.599
<v Speaker 1>that our listeners like that we hate the alien theories. Yeah,

1:34:53.120 --> 1:34:55.680
<v Speaker 1>here's here's the thing about the alien theory. And this

1:34:55.960 --> 1:34:59.920
<v Speaker 1>this I actually this is pretty interesting when you get

1:35:00.040 --> 1:35:03.880
<v Speaker 1>it into is it the I think it's the cosmological

1:35:04.160 --> 1:35:07.920
<v Speaker 1>section where there's kind of what seems to be almost

1:35:08.000 --> 1:35:14.320
<v Speaker 1>like celestial bodies. Well, there's illustrations that appear to be

1:35:14.439 --> 1:35:17.479
<v Speaker 1>the Milky Way galaxy, the spiral of the Milky Way,

1:35:18.640 --> 1:35:25.160
<v Speaker 1>and they also appear to be the Andromeda galaxy. And

1:35:25.439 --> 1:35:29.519
<v Speaker 1>and the thing is we can because we have the

1:35:29.920 --> 1:35:35.440
<v Speaker 1>technological capability Havelogy have the technology to look at these galaxies.

1:35:36.000 --> 1:35:38.920
<v Speaker 1>We can see what they look like. The problem is

1:35:39.040 --> 1:35:42.400
<v Speaker 1>is that if this was written in the early to

1:35:42.760 --> 1:35:48.800
<v Speaker 1>mid four hundreds, we didn't have the technology to see that.

1:35:49.400 --> 1:35:54.040
<v Speaker 1>We know, the telescope to be able to focus on

1:35:54.160 --> 1:35:56.880
<v Speaker 1>a galaxy that is so far away, or to have

1:35:57.040 --> 1:36:00.519
<v Speaker 1>something that can see our own galaxy, we didn't have that.

1:36:00.600 --> 1:36:05.320
<v Speaker 1>I mean the regular telescope using lenses that came about

1:36:05.360 --> 1:36:10.439
<v Speaker 1>in the sixteen hundreds about right, I think even earlier

1:36:10.479 --> 1:36:13.240
<v Speaker 1>than that. But I mean, but it wasn't such a

1:36:13.360 --> 1:36:16.360
<v Speaker 1>high quality that you could you could see a blob. Yeah,

1:36:16.479 --> 1:36:19.760
<v Speaker 1>exactly at the time that this was written, people were

1:36:19.800 --> 1:36:23.120
<v Speaker 1>already looking at Andromeda and had already been noted. But yeah,

1:36:23.160 --> 1:36:26.240
<v Speaker 1>you couldn't make out the spiral arms, right, we didn't.

1:36:26.280 --> 1:36:29.240
<v Speaker 1>We couldn't clear, we couldn't get the clarity. So that's

1:36:29.280 --> 1:36:32.960
<v Speaker 1>where people say, well, we didn't. We couldn't see it

1:36:33.400 --> 1:36:37.160
<v Speaker 1>that well to note all that detail to then draw

1:36:37.400 --> 1:36:41.080
<v Speaker 1>and record that, which means that somebody else was out

1:36:41.160 --> 1:36:46.600
<v Speaker 1>there and able to see that. Yeah. Yeah, no, I

1:36:46.640 --> 1:36:49.879
<v Speaker 1>mean Galileo was around in like the late fifteen hundreds.

1:36:50.760 --> 1:36:53.800
<v Speaker 1>I guess I don't know how accurate carbon dating is.

1:36:54.000 --> 1:36:56.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how sure we are about this stuff.

1:36:56.320 --> 1:36:59.639
<v Speaker 1>That is like that's within a hundred years. I feel

1:36:59.680 --> 1:37:02.040
<v Speaker 1>like that's maybe within the margin of error. But now,

1:37:02.120 --> 1:37:04.360
<v Speaker 1>Galileo and I don't think I ever ever made out

1:37:04.520 --> 1:37:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the spiral arms of Andromeda. He personally probably not. But

1:37:10.479 --> 1:37:13.840
<v Speaker 1>but that's that's I don't think. Yeah, that's fair, yea.

1:37:14.080 --> 1:37:17.000
<v Speaker 1>But also, who's to say I am apparently playing Devil's

1:37:17.000 --> 1:37:19.840
<v Speaker 1>advocate on this one today? Are apparently who's to say

1:37:19.920 --> 1:37:24.880
<v Speaker 1>that that wasn't just like a artistic license exactly, somebody

1:37:25.000 --> 1:37:27.880
<v Speaker 1>just made up a spiral so the spiral um and

1:37:27.960 --> 1:37:31.360
<v Speaker 1>I missed this particular port, this particular illustration. Is it

1:37:31.439 --> 1:37:34.519
<v Speaker 1>a spiral s seen from above or is it as

1:37:34.520 --> 1:37:38.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of an oblique angle? It's from above, yeah exactly,

1:37:38.600 --> 1:37:42.200
<v Speaker 1>it's from above, yeah exactly. So it could very easily

1:37:42.320 --> 1:37:46.080
<v Speaker 1>be people again seeing what they want to see and

1:37:46.240 --> 1:37:50.320
<v Speaker 1>applying it to what we now know, yeah exactly. And

1:37:50.400 --> 1:37:53.000
<v Speaker 1>so the Aliens might have shared with us the Andromeda

1:37:53.200 --> 1:37:55.479
<v Speaker 1>or you know, are we also live in a spiral galaxy,

1:37:56.160 --> 1:37:58.360
<v Speaker 1>and so the Aliens might that might be a depiction

1:37:58.400 --> 1:38:01.640
<v Speaker 1>of our own galaxy. You know, Devon, just tell up

1:38:01.640 --> 1:38:03.559
<v Speaker 1>a picture of it to me. This is obviously a garden.

1:38:04.960 --> 1:38:08.160
<v Speaker 1>It's obviously it looks a bit like a labyrinth. It's

1:38:08.200 --> 1:38:11.080
<v Speaker 1>a plan for a garden. Okay, no galaxy, never mind

1:38:11.280 --> 1:38:15.960
<v Speaker 1>ancient landscape architect. It might have been that the Aliens

1:38:16.160 --> 1:38:20.879
<v Speaker 1>came down to us and basically bought brought us tributes

1:38:20.960 --> 1:38:26.559
<v Speaker 1>of shrubbery. That this looks like, Hey, I just pulled

1:38:26.600 --> 1:38:29.960
<v Speaker 1>up another picture of it, of course, but I maintain

1:38:30.040 --> 1:38:32.760
<v Speaker 1>that it looks a lot like a video game map

1:38:32.880 --> 1:38:37.720
<v Speaker 1>of the world, or like like I don't know, like

1:38:37.800 --> 1:38:42.720
<v Speaker 1>a blueprint for buildings or something. I mean, you know,

1:38:42.840 --> 1:38:46.120
<v Speaker 1>it could be a lot of things. You kind of say, oh,

1:38:46.400 --> 1:38:50.400
<v Speaker 1>it's stars, but again it's something where you don't know

1:38:51.400 --> 1:38:54.760
<v Speaker 1>what the hell of the text is describing. I can

1:38:54.880 --> 1:38:58.519
<v Speaker 1>make it anything I want. This is why I like

1:38:58.720 --> 1:39:01.120
<v Speaker 1>the approach that dr Backs is taking someone because he's

1:39:01.160 --> 1:39:03.240
<v Speaker 1>trying to figure out the word, because he figure out

1:39:03.280 --> 1:39:05.680
<v Speaker 1>what they are. He has been presented right with so

1:39:06.040 --> 1:39:08.880
<v Speaker 1>many different theories about like, oh, maybe this person wrote it,

1:39:08.960 --> 1:39:12.759
<v Speaker 1>maybe it's about this, and he keeps saying, that's very interesting.

1:39:13.120 --> 1:39:16.360
<v Speaker 1>But I'm going to approach the text linguistically. A smart

1:39:16.439 --> 1:39:19.439
<v Speaker 1>move because you can say, yes, the minute you say

1:39:19.760 --> 1:39:23.759
<v Speaker 1>this is about biology, you start to decode the text

1:39:24.000 --> 1:39:26.920
<v Speaker 1>and it's about biology because you can make it be

1:39:27.080 --> 1:39:30.000
<v Speaker 1>whatever you want it to be. So again, that's why

1:39:30.120 --> 1:39:33.040
<v Speaker 1>I think like his approach is really the most interesting

1:39:33.160 --> 1:39:39.120
<v Speaker 1>and probably the the best that we have right now. Yeah, though,

1:39:39.640 --> 1:39:44.720
<v Speaker 1>dr backs, if you're listening, please look at page We

1:39:44.760 --> 1:39:46.880
<v Speaker 1>spend too much more time on this. I'm a little

1:39:46.880 --> 1:39:51.559
<v Speaker 1>disturbed by what I see there. Yeah, and I feel

1:39:51.640 --> 1:39:53.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of bad about this. I've been pretty busy lately

1:39:53.800 --> 1:39:55.920
<v Speaker 1>and I didn't have time to start attacking this until

1:39:56.120 --> 1:39:59.200
<v Speaker 1>pretty recently. And if I had more time, I would

1:39:59.240 --> 1:40:01.160
<v Speaker 1>have been looking at more pages to find more of

1:40:01.240 --> 1:40:03.559
<v Speaker 1>this stuff. But that's what our listeners for. They're going

1:40:03.640 --> 1:40:05.400
<v Speaker 1>to go out and do this, and that's what the

1:40:05.479 --> 1:40:07.840
<v Speaker 1>last couple of hundred years of people trying to figure

1:40:07.840 --> 1:40:11.320
<v Speaker 1>it out before you have also been doing. So there's

1:40:11.320 --> 1:40:15.800
<v Speaker 1>a ton of legwork already done for us. Yeah. Does

1:40:15.840 --> 1:40:18.080
<v Speaker 1>anybody else have any last minute theories to to put

1:40:18.120 --> 1:40:19.840
<v Speaker 1>out on this one before we put it to bed

1:40:20.600 --> 1:40:24.160
<v Speaker 1>pod people? No? No, no, no, let's say perfect spheres

1:40:24.720 --> 1:40:29.280
<v Speaker 1>the Tyler. No, it's definitely not him. So which, Joey,

1:40:29.439 --> 1:40:33.600
<v Speaker 1>what do you believe that it's? Yeah? I think that

1:40:33.720 --> 1:40:38.360
<v Speaker 1>it's gibberish written by an autistic person most likely. Okay, Devin,

1:40:38.400 --> 1:40:40.400
<v Speaker 1>how about how about you? Where do you follow that?

1:40:40.560 --> 1:40:44.880
<v Speaker 1>I honestly don't fall anywhere on this. I think that

1:40:45.720 --> 1:40:48.759
<v Speaker 1>you know, as I was just saying that Dr Facts's

1:40:48.800 --> 1:40:51.800
<v Speaker 1>approach is kind of probably the most solid approach, is

1:40:51.960 --> 1:40:56.479
<v Speaker 1>that you just kind of have to say, uh, but

1:40:56.720 --> 1:40:59.760
<v Speaker 1>let's see if we can decipher the text. Although I

1:40:59.840 --> 1:41:01.880
<v Speaker 1>do like the theory that was floated in the A

1:41:02.040 --> 1:41:04.719
<v Speaker 1>M A that it was this like family that wrote

1:41:04.760 --> 1:41:06.840
<v Speaker 1>this thing. They're all really smart. It has kind of

1:41:06.920 --> 1:41:14.040
<v Speaker 1>HINDI flares. It might have been Italian, but of me says,

1:41:14.280 --> 1:41:18.240
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, got it? Well? I I also really

1:41:18.400 --> 1:41:20.840
<v Speaker 1>I like the direction that Dr Max is going, and

1:41:20.880 --> 1:41:25.120
<v Speaker 1>it seems the most solid and concrete. I also appreciate

1:41:25.280 --> 1:41:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the different approach that Dr Tucker took with the way

1:41:29.800 --> 1:41:33.600
<v Speaker 1>of a Spana that seems to have some credence. I

1:41:33.720 --> 1:41:36.960
<v Speaker 1>see holes in it, but I see holes in just

1:41:37.120 --> 1:41:41.240
<v Speaker 1>about everything that's done, and so I I unfortunately I'm

1:41:41.320 --> 1:41:44.960
<v Speaker 1>not I'm not settled on one particular theory. I see

1:41:45.000 --> 1:41:48.360
<v Speaker 1>things that I like that are promising, and that's as

1:41:48.439 --> 1:41:51.680
<v Speaker 1>far as I'm willing to go. Yeah, all right, Well,

1:41:51.800 --> 1:41:55.200
<v Speaker 1>ladies and gentlemen, if you have any theories. I'm sure

1:41:55.240 --> 1:41:58.240
<v Speaker 1>you do, then we would love to hear from you.

1:41:59.040 --> 1:42:01.400
<v Speaker 1>There's if you want to see any of the research

1:42:01.560 --> 1:42:03.120
<v Speaker 1>that we've got, and we'll put up a bunch of

1:42:03.200 --> 1:42:09.000
<v Speaker 1>this research. There's a lot of it. Yeah, seventeen hours

1:42:09.120 --> 1:42:11.720
<v Speaker 1>later we're done recording, we will put up a bunch

1:42:11.760 --> 1:42:13.720
<v Speaker 1>of the links. Those links are gonna be on our

1:42:13.760 --> 1:42:17.200
<v Speaker 1>website as always. That is going to be Thinking Sideways

1:42:17.280 --> 1:42:20.720
<v Speaker 1>podcast dot com. You can listen to the episodes while

1:42:20.760 --> 1:42:23.400
<v Speaker 1>you're on the website. I know a lot of people

1:42:23.439 --> 1:42:26.479
<v Speaker 1>are doing that, and then some people like to download

1:42:26.520 --> 1:42:29.040
<v Speaker 1>them and a lot of people go to iTunes to

1:42:29.320 --> 1:42:32.639
<v Speaker 1>get those. If you're on iTunes, go ahead and take

1:42:32.720 --> 1:42:36.320
<v Speaker 1>the time to subscribe, leave this comment and rating if

1:42:36.360 --> 1:42:38.880
<v Speaker 1>you get the chance. A lot of folks are leaving

1:42:38.920 --> 1:42:42.720
<v Speaker 1>comments on the website as well, which is fantastic. You

1:42:43.840 --> 1:42:47.040
<v Speaker 1>can always get us on stitchers, so if you don't

1:42:47.080 --> 1:42:48.720
<v Speaker 1>have the time to go to the you don't not

1:42:48.840 --> 1:42:51.040
<v Speaker 1>able to get the website, and you use stitcher for

1:42:51.120 --> 1:42:54.519
<v Speaker 1>many mobile device, you can stream the episodes right there.

1:42:55.640 --> 1:42:58.680
<v Speaker 1>We're on Facebook, so you can find us. You can

1:42:58.880 --> 1:43:02.799
<v Speaker 1>like us at the suggestion of a listener. We recently

1:43:02.920 --> 1:43:06.120
<v Speaker 1>created a Facebook group for our listeners to get together

1:43:06.280 --> 1:43:09.560
<v Speaker 1>and chat about stories stuff like that, which seems to

1:43:09.760 --> 1:43:15.120
<v Speaker 1>slowly be building a little momentum. So it's starting to

1:43:15.240 --> 1:43:17.200
<v Speaker 1>gain some momentum. It a little slow right now, but

1:43:17.280 --> 1:43:21.920
<v Speaker 1>it's brand that's that's exactly the problem. A lot of

1:43:21.960 --> 1:43:26.840
<v Speaker 1>people okay, now, yes, now they know um. And if

1:43:26.920 --> 1:43:29.160
<v Speaker 1>you want to go ahead and tell us your theories,

1:43:29.240 --> 1:43:32.240
<v Speaker 1>you can just write us an email. That email address

1:43:32.400 --> 1:43:35.680
<v Speaker 1>is Thinking Sideways Podcast at gmail dot com. We try

1:43:35.720 --> 1:43:39.920
<v Speaker 1>to respond pretty pretty quickly. Yeah, we try to stay

1:43:39.960 --> 1:43:44.120
<v Speaker 1>up on topic. Usually it's an intern, but he loves

1:43:44.160 --> 1:43:46.280
<v Speaker 1>the idea of an intern. But now we do try

1:43:46.320 --> 1:43:48.479
<v Speaker 1>to get back to everybody as quickly as possible. And

1:43:48.880 --> 1:43:51.080
<v Speaker 1>I know there's a few folks who probably haven't gotten

1:43:51.080 --> 1:43:53.479
<v Speaker 1>a reply yet. That's I apologize. We've just been a

1:43:53.479 --> 1:43:57.599
<v Speaker 1>little swamped with this story. But we will get to Yeah,

1:43:57.680 --> 1:44:00.920
<v Speaker 1>we all have jobs. Yeah there's that so yeah. But

1:44:01.600 --> 1:44:05.320
<v Speaker 1>that having been said, that is the mystery of the

1:44:05.439 --> 1:44:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Voyantage Manuscript. It's a lot of information. Thank you everybody

1:44:09.920 --> 1:44:13.760
<v Speaker 1>for staying with us for the whole time. It's a

1:44:13.880 --> 1:44:17.560
<v Speaker 1>lot I understand, but hopefully you've got some of the

1:44:17.920 --> 1:44:20.320
<v Speaker 1>things that you hadn't heard before, because that's what we're

1:44:20.360 --> 1:44:23.000
<v Speaker 1>trying to do, is get you as many as we can. Definitely,

1:44:23.520 --> 1:44:25.000
<v Speaker 1>I feel like I feel like we should put an

1:44:25.040 --> 1:44:27.280
<v Speaker 1>East dragon for all the people who made it to

1:44:27.360 --> 1:44:32.000
<v Speaker 1>this point. That's a good point. We're awesome, and so

1:44:32.240 --> 1:44:39.360
<v Speaker 1>are you. That's a good one. Verified or were all right?

1:44:39.439 --> 1:44:41.880
<v Speaker 1>Ladies and gentlemen, Thanks a lot. We'll talk to you

1:44:42.040 --> 1:44:45.360
<v Speaker 1>next week. And you're special, just so special.