The Voynich Ninja

One more thing, while this morning's coffee rush is still useful: There are many points in Touwaide's talk (as per the summary by MarcoP) which either reflect, or even elaborate, on ideas I've published on my blog or the VMs-Net, or thought of. I find this also gratifying. One of them is this:

"As the case of the Nuntius shows, gaining money is not the only reason for forgery. The second motivation is a game, a challenge, between the forger and art critics / experts.

"Locard's "exchange principle" suggests that criminals always leave traces behind them. For the VMS herbal, "grafting" could be the key: it points out that the plants were created by assembling elements derived from several different plants. Other details in the illustrations (e.g. the two faces in f33r) can be seen as more or less deliberate hints to the reader / expert. This hide-and-seek game creates something like a complicity between the forger and the expert."

Alain probably came to those ideas independently (which means something, I think, because once considering the modern forgery possible, these ideas and observations would naturally follow). But it reflects my thoughts about the "Puzzle Root", and that it may be a sort of "Catch me if you can", on the part of Wilfrid. And this, long before I seriously considered he forged the damned thing:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

As a "related aside", much like the arguments against the armadillo, the optics, the very many other anomalous, anachronistic and inconsistent elements of the Voynich, my suggestion this was a puzzle piece was dismissed: It was coincidental; it didn't look enough like a puzzle piece; it looked too much like a puzzle piece; I "wanted" to see a puzzle piece; then many other roots, which looked far less like a puzzle piece, were suggested... because they were "known at the time", i.e., "old enough for genuine".

And so it goes...

proto57 Wrote:1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious  consideration of Modern Forgery

I deeply resent you misrepresenting my statements.

My observations about Touwaide's botanical statements HAVE NOTHING (let me repeat this) NOTHING to do with his statements about whether it is a modern forgery, and I did not say OR imply that the two were connected.

It is perfectly possible (even common, in fact) for someone to be mistaken about one thing and correct about another.


The assessment of the botanical images and the statements about it possibly being a modern forgery are two separate issues. I disagreed with the modern forgery statements for separate reasons that have nothing to do with Touwaide's statements about botany.

Hi JKP... with all respect, you have mistaken my summary as a quote by you. I wrote:

"1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious  consideration of Modern Forgery"

That was not any quote, it was a summary and condensation of the thread of comments, by several people, as a whole. Where I did quote you, I did make that clear. For instance,

"I hate writing responses like this. I had high hopes for learning something from Touwaide. I am disappointed. He might be an expert in his respective field, but his understanding of the VMS seems to me to be superficial."

As to this,

"The assessment of the botanical images and the statements about it possibly being a modern forgery are two separate issues. I disagreed with the modern forgery statements for separate reasons that have nothing to do with Touwaide's statements about botany."

Well yes, that is good if you do separate the two. But the point was, and is, that the undermining of the skill, knowledge, whatever, of any expert, is often in an attempt to dismiss that expert on all related matters. Or sometimes, unrelated, even. So while you do deny this was the point, and I accept that did not intend this, the effect is the same: He's not so great on "A", so how can he be trusted on "B"? This is common and unfortunate tactic in argument.

But you say this effect was not intended, and so I certainly take your word for it.

proto57 Wrote:Well yes, that is good if you do separate the two. But the point was, and is, that the undermining of the skill, knowledge, whatever, of any expert, is often in an attempt to dismiss that expert on all related matters.

First of all, I do not do that and it was my statements that you quoted. People can be wrong about one thing and right about another. I strive to be specific in my critiques.

Secondly, you are making a big assumption. Perhaps YOU should not assume that criticism about specifics on a research forum is an attempt to undermine a person on other matters. People often disagree about research particulars that have nothing to do with a person's skills in other areas or their reputation as a whole.

Hi JKP:

"People can be wrong about one thing and right about another. I strive to be specific in my critiques."

Of course, and as I said, I accept that YOU did not connect your two critiques of Mr. Touwaide (botany and forgery). But please understand, since you criticized both his botany references, AND criticized his opinion of forgery, it would be natural for anyone... me included... to assume there could be a connection.

This, especially since it appears that much of Mr. Touwaide's belief in the modern forgery possibility is BASED on his observations relating to botany. They do seem connected to me, and I'm not sure how to disentangle them. For instance, the summary states,

"Locard's "exchange principle" suggests that criminals always leave traces behind them. For the VMS herbal, "grafting" could be the key: it points out that the plants were created by assembling elements derived from several different plants." This, after pointing out several similarities between plants in the VMs and other, known herbals... suggesting they were copied from them by Voynich, by being sketched at the British Library, "Following the parallel with Sloane 4016: Voynich used to frequent the British Library. He might have taken sketches of the manuscript there and later reworked the illustrations to create the VMS."

So the two seem to me to be inextricably linked: If Mr. Touwaide's botanical observations are correct, the evidence points to forgery; if he is poor with his botany, his forgery beliefs are undermined, too. So it may be purely coincidental to see them both independently, but you have to understand why I would have initially believed they were being linked.

(18-10-2019, 05:30 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@R.Sale
In the negative/disturbed formation and assessment of the characteristic coherence as a symptom of disease, one speaks of incoherence or of absentmindedness or confusion of the train of thought. Thought contents that do not belong together are lined up and mixed. There is a lack of content structure and orderly flow of thoughts. An example of incoherent thought reported by Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926) is: "The girl is always unpleasantly acceptable tips on such occasions". Uwe Henrik Peters writes that, despite the deficiencies mentioned, a thematic overall context remains recognizable.[1] The formulation, which is sufficiently structured in content, syntactically correct and more understandable in terms of logical sequences, would require a longer execution of the sentence. This example shows a work of condensation as described by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) in the dream work, see chapter Orthology[2].

* - * - *

 Rather than looking to Freud or the “DSM-5”, I ducked out and went to “Webster’s”. The definition of coherent is consistent, logically connected, clearly articulated and intelligible. But, there is also the interpretation of the investigator, individual determination, as to whether the evidence achieves a cohesive status or not.

I hesitate to say much about the initial, herbal-like section of the VM. I have nothing against plants, but scientific botany just is not my thing. I gather Mr. Touwaide wasn’t a botanist either, though it could be his avocation. However, I am strongly in support of the problematic interpretations detailed in earlier posts by JKP. So, there is some difficulty in considering how much such discrepancies, the inclusion of these flawed and false assumptions, have influenced the determination of apparent coherence and incoherence in total.

Clearly there is a coherence of the first part of the VMs with the standard format of the medieval herbal, at least as far as being a sequence of folios that combine illustrated images of ‘plants’ and ‘text’. As a non-botanist, I see a few illustrations that seem probable as accurate identifications and a number that remain under investigation. There is a sort of ‘VMs’ strangeness that is stronger in certain representations than in others. It makes identification difficult. And this creates inconsistency. There is no sequence of plant illustrations to match that of the various, authenticated medieval, herbal manuscripts. There is no connection of plant identification with the linguistic text. And so, there is a notable level of incoherence.

An example of incoherence occurs when botanical elements are represented in ways that are not consistent with nature. Certain VMs leaf margins were drawn with a specific type of line pattern that cannot be found in the natural world, but the pattern occurs in three different images in the VMs.

In researching the VMs, the capacity of the manuscript to transmit the intentions of its creator is beyond our control. The old ‘It is what it is’. The presence and extent of coherence is then evaluated by the knowledge and experience of the researcher. What are the factors that are input for this determination of coherence? What happens when illustrated material is not intelligible? Perhaps something is misinterpreted; perhaps it remains unseen. What happens is that this material is not integrated, creating various gaps. And when these links of logical connection fail to materialize, the chain of coherence is broken by the absence of possible options.

This difficulty is partially corrected by the recovery of traditional terminology, by the recognition and use of specific information from the Bible, from history and from heraldry. From the Bible, for example, specifically from Deuteronomy the statement (included twice), that the establishment of truth requires two or more witnesses.  From history, the Genoese popes and the early 1400 cosmic illustrations of Oresme and de Metz. From heraldry, standard armorial insignia, hats as the marks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, traditional rules and terminology and heraldic canting.

A specific example of the recovery of traditional terminology is the naming of the nebuly line. And rediscovery of the etymology opens the possibility of the cloud-based interpretation and the connection with certain medieval representations of the Wolkenband. The cloud-based interpretation of the nebuly line clearly expands and strengthens the cosmic interpretation of VMs f68v3. Not to mention the 43 undulations.

Returning to the three VMs illustrations of leaf margins with strange patterns. These are nebuly lines. Three consistent witnesses. There are no plants with nebuly lines as leaf margins. The VMs plants, in varying degrees, are not coherent, from the botanical perspective. And here we see how an element, unknown and unnamed, such as this line pattern, can contribute a very minor amount to the relative incoherence, when unrecognized. And then, when known and named, the identification can not only contribute more strongly to the botanical incoherence, but at the same time it can set forth a new coherence based on the recovery of the example of traditional terminology – the nebuly line.

The use of nebuly lines as leaf margins is trickery, just as the use of text banners in the VMs cosmos is blatant trickery. The optical illusion of White Aries is an intentional disguise. The papelonny pun suddenly appears as a purposely built construction, once the proper, traditional name for the tincture pattern is recovered. This is where the consistency and coherence of the VMs is found – in heraldry – in the same sort of mindset that is capable of using heralding canting and intentional disguise. As an example, a family named DeLucy has a heraldic insignia showing three fish. The investigator sees the fish, that look like pike, but what is it supposed to mean? Anyone can guess. However, only with the recovery of the traditional name for this fish, a lucie, can there be a proper logical interpretation, even if it is based on a pun, that reveals the canted connections. In the VMs examples of the nebuly line and the papelonny tincture, the recovery of traditional terminology is the intermediate step that provides the logical connection between representation and interpretation. And the [intended / proper] traditional interpretation (as much as can be found) should be a necessary precursor to any determination of what is coherent or incoherent. Disguise for the author and difficulty for the investigator are then inherent in the fact that canting is part of the heraldic tradition. And the author has apparently chosen to use canting with intent - along with other tricks.

Where the VMs creator has used canting (etc.), the VMs investigator needs to use 'un-canting'. Only two problems: What is it that has been canted? How does the canting process work in specific VMs examples?

(26-10-2019, 09:56 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[portion deleted for brevity]

This, especially since it appears that much of Mr. Touwaide's belief in the modern forgery possibility is BASED on his observations relating to botany. They do seem connected to me, and I'm not sure how to disentangle them. For instance, the summary states,

"Locard's "exchange principle" suggests that criminals always leave traces behind them. For the VMS herbal, "grafting" could be the key: it points out that the plants were created by assembling elements derived from several different plants." This, after pointing out several similarities between plants in the VMs and other, known herbals... suggesting they were copied from them by Voynich, by being sketched at the British Library, "Following the parallel with Sloane 4016: Voynich used to frequent the British Library. He might have taken sketches of the manuscript there and later reworked the illustrations to create the VMS."

So the two seem to me to be inextricably linked: If Mr. Touwaide's botanical observations are correct, the evidence points to forgery; if he is poor with his botany, his forgery beliefs are undermined, too. So it may be purely coincidental to see them both independently, but you have to understand why I would have initially believed they were being linked.

I did not want to read too much into the forgery hypothesis based on Touwaide's botany statements because his forgery statements might be based on a number of other beliefs/factors/assumptions besides his observations about botany. His primary interest, as far as I can tell from his vitae and publications, is in the history of science/medicine in a more general sense.

Yes, I agree they may be linked, perhaps even strongly linked, but I don't have enough information about Touwaide's ideas to know how much weight his botanical observations gave to his ideas about forgery. Maybe over time that relationship will become more clear, but for the present I prefer to comment only on what has been explicitly mentioned so far.

Hi JKP:

"I did not want to read too much into the forgery hypothesis based on Touwaide's botany statements because his forgery statements might be based on a number of other beliefs/factors/assumptions besides his observations about botany."

Yes I think there probably is more, in addition to the botany points he alludes to. But like you, I'd have to know more about his ideas to know if and what they are. At least he considers the availability of parchment one contributing factor (he cites the Franceshini element of my hypothesis), however one wants to categorize that: Evidence? Opportunity? But I was sent a couple of photographs from his presentation, and he used at least the entire first part of my hypothesis in them. Whether or not that implies an overall acceptance of that hypothesis, or was meant only to cite my work in general, I don't know.

"His primary interest, as far as I can tell from his vitae and publications, is in the history of science/medicine in a more general sense.

"Yes, I agree they may be linked, perhaps even strongly linked, but I don't have enough information about Touwaide's ideas to know how much weight his botanical observations gave to his ideas about forgery. Maybe over time that relationship will become more clear, but for the present I prefer to comment only on what has been explicitly mentioned so far."

And that is all we can do, of course. I'm sure I will have a chance to discuss it with him, perhaps sit in on a talk if there is one near me, in the States. I'll ask him if he has a site or blog which summarizes his thoughts on all this.

While I am here again, I want to make a couple of related points:

1) My opinion on "expert" opinion, really, on all opinion, is the same whether the person agrees my hypothesis plausible, or not: I want to know WHY they feel the way they do. I have and do have many who follow and believe my 1910 Forgery Theory the most probably and plausible, but if they don't know WHY it is, the evidence that makes up the concept, then I rely on that feedback as little as I would if they disagreed. Agreement and disagreement are both equally valueless without a full understanding of what that judgement is based on (IMHO).

2) I often agree with most experts... many of us do... when they are sharing their observations, but not necessarly on their opinions about what those observations mean. A good example for me would be Janick and Tucker, and other New World botanists. Yes, I absolutely agree that a great many of their plant comparisons are New World, but don't necessarily agree with their dating. I think those New World plants are there, yes, but because the forger put them there in 1908/10. Likewise, Mr. Janick agrees with, and has used, the armadillo reference, and my own "Bird Glyph" observations, in his book... but disagrees, strongly, that this is a modern forgery. So I wholly respect his, and many other, expert observations, but like all of them, and most others, I have my own ideas why those things they see, are there.

I only point this out because it relates to this thread, and yours, and others, thoughts on the work of Mr. Touwaide. I understand you can agree with some of what he has to say, and disagree with other parts of it. When I know more, I may also not entirely agree with him. None of this is black and white, is my point, for any of us, nor should it be.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

A blog post by an Italian (Noemy Biagini) who apparently was at the talk:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.