Since posting the above, I did look and find that I had downloaded, and still have, the second version of your rebuttal to my theories, Rene. That is the page you took down from the old link: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Since you have told everyone that the reason was "... because the arguments it was addressing [mine] are unreasonable.", it would only be fair for me to show why I feel my points are not at all "unreasonable", and why your responses are do not effectively address them.
I'll do that as soon as I have a chance, in a "part II" to my rebuttal of your first page, which is still up: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Rich.
Klaus Schmeh mentions possible forgeries in cryptology in his latest blog. Among others, the VMS is also mentioned there.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Quote:However, there is also the hypothesis that Wilfried Voynich, who claims to have acquired the manuscript as a chance find in 1912 and after whom it is named, forged it himself. Voynich dealt in old books by profession and therefore had both a motive and the know-how for a forgery.
Last but not least, the fact that the contents of the manuscript are as meaningless as possible speaks for a forgery from the early 20th century. The writing is unknown, the content not readable, the depicted plants not identifiable and the depicted women (since unclothed) not assignable to any time or region. Even the depicted astrolgical symbols say nothing, since astrology was known pretty much always and everywhere in the history of Europe. So it seems that a forger was at work who wanted to prevent at all costs that anything about this book could arouse suspicion.
I think my point of view on this hypothesis is well known and does not need to be repeated here.
... fact that the contents of the manuscript are ... meaningless
BUT
... the content not readable ...
It is always a good idea to let people speak for themselves
(07-03-2021, 11:29 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even the depicted astrolgical symbols say nothing
I disagree with that. At least certain reasonable interpretations can be put forward, see e.g. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
And when the investigator doesn't know about 'X' (e.g. heraldry, etc.), the investigator doesn't see 'X' and so does not *investigate* 'X'. And therefore, in the analysis, 'X' does not exist. Don't bother saying that it does.
(07-03-2021, 11:29 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(quoting the blog of Klaus Schmeh: )
Last but not least, the fact that the contents of the manuscript are as meaningless as possible speaks for a forgery from the early 20th century.
A fine example of a non-sequitur.
The conclusion in no way follows from the observation.
Whether it is meaningful or not, and whether it is genuine or not, are two independent and unrelated questions.
Fakes exist. Specifically, fakes of old manuscripts exist.
In all cases these are meaningful documents.
That is a simple but sufficient proof of the non-sequitur.