The Voynich Ninja

(05-11-2019, 12:07 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nice. What a top chap.
Ask him if the presentations where he gave his talk are going to be published.

I would broaden this question -> does he plan on publishing anything about the VM in the future?

I'm not going to wait too long, will send out the questions this afternoon. Here's what we got so far:

1) To what extent do you follow Voynich-related publications? Is there a chance you might publish something about the Voynich manuscript at some point in the future?
2) Do you think a more traditional herbal manuscript was used as a source for the Voynich plant images? If so, are there any indications for the type of manuscript that could have been used?
3) In your talk of 14 October, you say that the poor application of colors in the VM suggests that it is not an iatrosophion. Does this include later medieval notebooks such as family handbuchs? Did you just use the term iatrosophion as an illustration, or do you see any Greek influences in the VM?
4) For many people, the most surprising part of your talk was your considering the possibility that the VM could be a forgery, including Rich SantaColoma's theory that Voynich himself made the manuscript. In discussions about the VM, terms like "fake" and "forgery" are often used with different meanings. It can be a medieval document that pretends to be something it is not. It can be a forgery made relatively close to the 15th century carbon dating of the vellum (16th, 17th centuries) or it can be "modern", forged around the time Voynich supposedly discovered the manuscript - possibly by Voynich himself. When you say the VM could be a forgery, which of these options do you think is most likely, and how certain do you feel about this?

If you want any question added or my phrasing changed, please let me know!

A question from my side: Does SantaColoma's modern forgery theory contain any "idea" for radiocarbon dating or would Touwaide have to be asked explicitly about his opinion on this point ( if he supports this theory ) ?

Edit: Sorry, I hadn't read Koen's last post yet.

Mail sent

About a month ago I sent Touwaide a reminder, but I have not heard from him since. It's strange because he seemed even thankful for the opportunity to communicate his ideas more directly. I don't know whether something went wrong with the emails, or whether he's had a change of heart, or whether he's just taking a long time to reply... 

  maybe the questions were harder than he expected [=ducking=]. Sorry, it's probably not appropriate to be disrespectful, any number of things could have happened (including personal circumstances that we don't know about)... but I couldn't resist.


On a more serious note:

Lecture and photo conference by Alain Touwaide

The conference of Prof. Alain Touwaide will be held on December 4th at 12:00 in Aula 8 in Via Zamosch entitled: Ancient and Byzantine Greek medicine: cataloging and new interpretations.

I notice he also has courses going at UCLA.

@Koen : Is there any feedback on your last email to Touwaide in the meantime ?

Nop. After he said he would like to participate, he ignored all my subsequent mails. Not much more I could do :/

Nevermind

For your interest (all here), I did write to Mr. Towaide last year, and had a nice discussion with him.

He wrote back about the inclusion of my ideas, among those of others, in his lecture. He wrote, "I did refer to it in a lecture I delivered last Fall in Rome, something that surprised the Voynich community."

I don't personally think discussing theories other than the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal" SHOULD be surprising, and I sense it also surprised him that it surprised anyone.

But he is not a proponent nor does he dismiss my theory. He included it in his lecture "... for the purposes of completeness and objectivity."

My main interest in contacting Alain was not about his thoughts on my own theory (although I was curious), but because as an expert in botanicals, I wanted to know if he came across any that were a good match to the descriptions in the Carteggio, the manuscript I call "The Baresch Manuscript", since we at least know it is that. I believe that manuscript is not the Voynich, and may still be "out there", or was, and it may still be possible to identify it.

Considering his depth of knowledge and experience, I was wondering if he had any ideas. But the interesting thing, and effect I often run across, is that the strongly ingrained beliefs in the current paradigm make it difficult to even express a question which relates to a possible outside the positions within it. To anyone who accepts the elements of the paradigm, the Carteggio manuscript simply IS the Voynich. So he thought I was asking if there were any manuscripts similar TO the Voynich! Which of course I was not doing at all.

So I wrote again, to clarify:

"... I was [actually] asking if you ever came across any manuscript that meets the description of the manuscript they actually saw and discussed, as related in the Kircher Carteggio. It would have to fit these descriptions:

- be in a language, script and characters unknown to the 17th century men of these letters: Baresch, Moretus, Kinner, Marci and Kircher.
- contain plants "unknown to the Germans"
- have stars in it
- have illustrations which would evoke their description of possible "chemical symbolism"
- be in manuscript form
- possibly be similar looking to Glagolitic, Old Church Slavonic, Illyrian, and such"

But I have not heard back, and that's OK. Perhaps I will try again at some point, or maybe he is reading this... or some other expert on botanicals and herbals, who would be willing to think about this question, the root of it, if they understand my point in asking it.

"Where is the Baresch manuscript?".

Rich.

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