The Voynich Ninja

(16-03-2021, 06:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you know well what I mean here, Rene,

Perhaps. I tried to avoid having to guess.

However, it is really inconsistent to, on the one hand, quibble about terminology, and then on the other to expect people to guess what is meant with what you say.

You have used the term "genuine 15th century cipher herbal" (and similar) on your blog as the opposite of "fake by Voynich". That isn't correct. The opposite is just: "genuine 15th century". What sort of genuine 15th century book it really is, is another story.

Now, saying that "genuine 15th century" is just a theory like any other, is exactly what I called rhetoric.
It is not advancing our understanding of the manuscript in any way.
Just like all hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in the libraries of the world, this manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise.

The right people to raise a suspicion, and then to perhaps prove it, are the conservators, the historians and the forensic experts who have handled the manuscript.
This has been done, more so than the vast majority of manuscripts in the world, and it passed with flying colours.
People interested in this should read the reports of actual fakes, like the "Archaic Mark" and the more recent Galilei fake, to see how this process works.

Edit:
PS:
This of course more belongs in the "Return of the fake" thread.

(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(16-03-2021, 06:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you know well what I mean here, Rene,

Perhaps. I tried to avoid having to guess.
However, it is really inconsistent to, on the one hand, quibble about terminology, and then on the other to expect people to guess what is meant with what you say.

You have used the term "genuine 15th century cipher herbal" (and similar) on your blog as the opposite of "fake by Voynich". That isn't correct. The opposite is just: "genuine 15th century". What sort of genuine 15th century book it really is, is another story.

You again are making my point, Rene. This and every discussion purposefully dissolves into an argument about exactly what is and is not contained in the given identification of the Voynich as a genuine 15th century European document, so that it becomes a slippery moving target. This is one way defense of that paradigm avoids answering to the many anomalies, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies within it. The whole Voynich story practically leaps from the pages of Thomas Kuhn's work, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". The methods of defense of what I call the 1420 Voynich Paradigm are a perfect case study of both the proper and improper ways a paradigm defends itself against outside criticism. I won't go into the list of them, but would urge everyone who is not familiar with the book to read it.

This one case is outlined there... miring a critique of a paradigm through shifting definitions to avoid answering the points of the critique. But yes, I think you know very well what I mean by the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Paradigm, and picking that apart by "herbal or not", "cipher or not", "1420 or not", and "What does 'genuine' really mean, anyway?" are all deflecting from a real discussion about why "that thing" is actually a hot mess.

(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, saying that "genuine 15th century" is just a theory like any other, is exactly what I called rhetoric.
It is not advancing our understanding of the manuscript in any way.
Just like all hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in the libraries of the world, this manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise.

It absolutely does advance the study of this, or any other manuscript, by not assuming anything about it until it is properly examined. If you assume it is genuine, then it can only be genuine to you. Every image, every test, every comparison, will be filtered first for non-genuine content, and only those things which fit genuine will be considered. This is unscientific. It also leads to a necessity to contort logical observations into illogical apologetic statements and claims. There are hundreds of these, but I'll cite just one for an example: In the Yale Voynich book, it is observed that the use of foldouts in a 15th century manuscript are "very unusual", and "rare" (they are, in this form, at this time, actually unique). This observation, this fact, evidence, what have you, is actually telling the experts something: The Voynich might be far newer than 15th century. But here is what was written, instead:

"The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery.”

So a genuine and useful insight is discarded and lost because of a preconception the Voynich must be 15th century, with an incorrect use of an incorrect claim that it would be "quite difficult" to get these large sheets. The Yale book, other books, articles, sites and interviews are peppered with such defenses of anachronistic features, all very similar to this one. The observer, being an honest and qualified person, relates the observation, but then discards it because they are not treating 15th century as a theory at all, but as settled fact. They filter their own observation with, as you wrote, "... this manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise." And in circular logic loop, it can never be seen or considered other than real.

(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The right people to raise a suspicion, and then to perhaps prove it, are the conservators, the historians and the forensic experts who have handled the manuscript.

The "right people". And that is another way of dismissing challenges to a paradigm: Claim a challenge is invalid, as it does not rise to a proper level of expertise. Well first of all, more experts, from more fields, have been wrong about the Voynich than have been right. Many are provably still wrong about it. Picking only those experts one deems right, then saying most experts are right, is unscientific. Secondly, you and I both accept many non-expert opinions and observations. That is fine, we all make up our minds about it. But if one chooses the "right people" only by those who give opinions we agree with, anything can be said to be true, or false. There are "right people" available to back up an opinion under the sun. Thirdly, if we actually listen to what the experts actually tell us they observed, it turns out that it is not necessarily what you want to believe. Just read the Yale book carefully, and read my rebuttal to your "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." page. Because you relied heavily on the Yale book, it is a good place to start.

Almost any honest expert interview, article, or book is innocently peppered with all the many anachronisms, inconsistencies and internal hypocrisies the Voynich actually exhibits. The Voynich is unexplained, and not known to be either genuine nor 15th or any other century, and in any real open description or discussion of the Voynich, this is readily apparent. So as you do, I find the opinions of the experts always valuable, but not in the same way as you do. If you listen and read every word, and don't assume "... the manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise", you will see these things, too. It is only when one cherry picks the "right words" from the "right people", that one can assemble a vision that suitably fits one's preconceptions.

(16-03-2021, 09:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This has been done, more so than the vast majority of manuscripts in the world, and it passed with flying colours.
People interested in this should read the reports of actual fakes, like the "Archaic Mark" and the more recent Galilei fake, to see how this process works.

Well I would counter it very much has not been done, as there is a rejection of the serious problems with the Voynich, based on the preconceptions you describe above: That it is old, that it is genuine. It never gets to the point of an actual examination, because the real problems with it are dismissed on false grounds, ala Kuhn. As I often say, if the Voynich were dropped in our laps today, just as it is, with the provenance provided, it would be laughed of the stage in short order. It is only by insisting it only be seen as real, using reliance on observations and standards from long ago, that have no place in today's scholarly world.

As for your two examples of fakes (which, by the way, many experts thought real), above, it again illustrates the cherry picking of specific, known forgeries, which have only a few similar "forgery characteristics" to the Voynich. If one is interested, yes I would urge people to learn of those, but also the great many other forgeries, and their stories of investigation, revelation, nature, impressions. Almost every single one of the thousands of literary and art forgeries throughout history have had, and many still have, staunch expert and amateur defenders alike. And also, the Voynich has more forgery red flags, forgery characteristics, than any known forgery, or believed genuine item, for that matter. If one is interested in learning the true history of forgery, check out my forgery bibliography found here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All the best, Rich.

Edit to try and remove some huge spaces...

To add a great quote about "the right people", and "expert opinion", from "Faking MesoAmerica" (listed on my forgery bibliography):

"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dismissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."- Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, "Faking Mesoamerica"

Rich

Let's stop arguing from fixed positions and actually dig into the VMs - radical research - aimed at the roots. There is a single detail, easily overlooked, but essential by virtue of its traditional significance. The illustration of VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (White Aries) is constructed so that there are two different paths of interpretation regarding the orientation of the blue-striped patterns on the two tubs in the upper left. The radial interpretation is perhaps more apparent, while the more subtle, 'in situ' interpretation is more actual, and far more historical, especially when seen in combination with the red galero.

Having historical figures subtly stuffed in and scribbled over, while also being verified in four different ways, opens the possibility of further connections, like the congruent connection to Stolfi's marker.

@proto57

You are right, wormholes can be faked. But not all of them. The insect frass is easy to fake. Many small holes.
But these are exactly what we don't have in the VM. A really fat maggot did that. Since it only ate the surface and wandered over the parchment, it left its traces.
You can't fake these marks that look like little dimples. They are characteristic of this culprit. Woodworm.

You only have to look closely and you can read the sequence.
Parchment, VM writing, discolouration by tannic acid, worm track.
Worm eats VM writing and tanning discolouration.
Worm track, Tepence signature, Tepenec signature blurred, worm track.
Wooden cover removed, worm gone. The fact that a new binding with new threads has now appeared is no more than normal.

You also write: They do not extend to the MS because these insects did not feed on parchment.
Tell that to the worms, we also find them in Styrofoam. It's in their nature to seek out softer zones. Always between hard wood and bark.

Now I can set a certain date. The C-14 test confirms, and corrects it to an earlier date. Which other evidence also confirms.

Letters after 1910 are nice for history, but have no real value on age or origin.
Marci letter, maybe, maybe not.

There are a lot of clues. You have to see them and research them properly.
People think, but unfortunately never to the end.

Therefore, your assessment of "no fake" has no meaning for me.

Once the extraordinary union of blue stripes and red galeros is reset in its proper historical perspective, even the 'evidence' used to obfuscate the proper identification becomes evidence in favor of its validity. Everything would indicate that the artist was very familiar with the elements displayed, even when we, as readers, are not.

There are still difficulties with the hidden popes. They put a big scratch and dent in "genuine'. If things are genuine, why are they hidden, disguised and obfuscated? If the VMs were genuine, such references would would be clearly obvious. Instead, the illustrations are dubious; they are devious and duplicitous. They are dualistic combinations in several significant examples; the cosmos, the mermaid, the VMs critter.

WMV didn't understand what the VMs contains. He called it what he wanted it to be. If he had know of the hidden popes, he could have called them as evidence on his behalf. He did not understand the VMs cosmos, instead he got Newbold's folly - Andromeda. And yet WMV apparently lacked the proper data to correct this error - even though he (WMV) was the 'creator' of the text. He did not understand the mermaid, or the Agnus Dei.

The VMs is an example of "Make or Fake Burgundy". The various examples, Melusine, and the Golden Fleece, and La Sainte Hostie de Dijon, in the text, mark a strong orientation, either original or imposed, by the VMs creator. For a purpose, yet to be determined, if that is possible - despite intentional obfuscation and potentially significant material destruction. The sophistication (and obfuscation) of the construction, based on history and tradition, would seem to strongly indicate a purpose of some sort.

@R.Sale

I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
The vessels have ornaments and these were simply given a colour. There is no concealment.
A pope is not hidden either, and it is a biretta you see. This is a 14-15 century priest's cap. Unless it's a normal one. These come in red, or blue, green, yellow and black. With or without bullets.
There is not a single reference to Burgundy in the VM. That is only your interpretation.
Even though Strasbourg is still in the Alemannic language zone at this time, there is no reference to Burgundy.
And no, there is no golden fleece in the VM, and certainly no sacrificial lamb or anything like that. Nor is there an Agnus die, but there is an Agnus Castus.

It simply has to be said, even if it costs me my membership.
What you write is bullshit, and an insult to those who do real research.

Peter M.

Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)

Aga,

Are you acquainted with the origins of the Roman Catholic tradition of the cardinal's red galero, when it began and who started the tradition of giving the cardinals red hats? This is a part of ecclesiastical heraldry, using different colors , green for abbots, a different rank within the hierarchy; white for the Norbertines > Premonstratensians, a different order within the church, an order which interestingly held on in the Low Countries during the 1400s, while other western Premonstratensian abbeys were fading out. 

The tradition of the cardinal's galero being red originated with Pope Innocent IV., who was Sinibaldo Fieschi.  The Feischi armorial blazon is, bendy, argent et azur. Diagonal stripes alternating silver (white) and blue, and descending from the bearer's upper right. So there are the blue stripes.

VMs White Aries clearly has blue stipes and red and white hats What does it mean? The inner figure with the blue stripes is also one of the characters that has a red hat. If this illustrated association is meant to represent a member of the Feischi family as a cardinal, then there were several occasions where Sinibaldo's nepotism was showing, most notably his nephew, Ottobuono Fieschi, in 1251 CE.

Clearly there are two ways to interpret the orientation of the blue-striped patterns on the VMs tubs. The zodiac tub patterns show a strong but fickle affinity for certain basic, heraldic patterns from the start on VMs Pisces. Interpreting the orientation of the blue-striped patterns according to their radial presentation is one possible perspective. Interpretation of the orientation as it sits on the page is the other possible perspective. This second perspective then reveals two blue-striped patterns with an orientation compatible with the Fieschi pattern. The precise Feischi pattern, simple as it seems theoretically, is a bit hard to pin down. The colors can get reversed. The standard interpretation of a bendy of six parts imposes a modern rule for the counting of parts that would not have been relevant until several centuries after the C-14 dates. The modern structure of three divisions across the top line is also problematic for bendy patterns. An alternate version, with the topline divided by four can be found on the tomb of Pope Adrian V. (Ottobuono Fieschi).

It's not just the intentionally misdirected orientation at play here. The blue stripes are fighting against double coverage. The second part is the obfuscation of pattern and creation of ambiguity caused by filling in the lines between the blue stripes with certain patterns of ink lines. These are intended to block interpretation. If combined with the blue stripes, the result cannot be validly interpreted. Heraldry does not allow the combination of tincture designation systems. Pigments and hatching patterns do not coexist in heraldry, and it is a mistake to allow that they might. It is a 'mistake' intentionally placed in the path of progress.

That is how the identifications are hidden. Here is how they are structurally supported. Both cardinal and pope are in the proper hierarchical spheres. Both are in the most favored heraldic quadrant. Both are on a page that has the only medallion 'inhabitant' suitable for sacred sacrifice - White Aries. And there is a three-page structure where the blue-striped patterns are mirrored in location, in quadrant and in sphere, on two preceding pages by one of heraldry's obscure furs, called papelonny. This ties everything together, with a bit of subtle - till you see it - <hear it> - heraldic canting. It's the "pape' to 'papelonny' pun paired. The pair of witnesses required by Deuteronomy.

Perhaps it may still seem that these identifications cannot be absolutely proven, perhaps that level of proof may not be essential. It is only necessary that the VMs images be mistaken for the history they reveal. So that those who know the history can follow the history, and those who don't know the history can look elsewhere, and leave what has been hidden undisturbed. So if there is bullshit to be found, I suggest you will find it comes from the VMs.  

The examples that you cite, such as the Golden Fleece, do not originate with me, but have previously been reported by various others. I view the identification as plausible and preferable to other current choices. And in that case, it is the nebuly line that gives credence to the Agnus Dei interpretation, the animal that belongs with a cosmic boundary. I believe such interpretations follow from relevant medieval traditions and historical information, if you don't want to follow them, don't.

(12-03-2021, 08:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question is not whether the MS could or could not be meaningless. It could be either, no doubt. The question is whether it is meaningful or not.

Likewise, the question is not whether the MS could or could not be a modern fake, or whether Voynich would or would not have done this. The question is whether it is, and whether he did it.

If one looks at the discussions on these topics with this in mind, it is easy to see which discussions have no chance of leading anywhere...

I wrote this on 12 March, and I think that it is applicable to some of the later posts on this topic.

Fakes exist, but the fact that they exist is not sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich MS is one. For exactly the same reason one could argue that the Mona Lisa is a fake.

Just one example: worm holes could have been faked. Indeed, this is possible but that is not the question (see above).
All the details that Wladimir found in the binding could have been faked in 1912.
But was it really?
The answer from the experts is clear.

Also, such an eminent and unprecedented fake, without any codicological flaw, of a genuine 15th century manuscript would never be sold as a 17th century herbal from Jacobus de Tepenec.
Jacobus who???
And on parchment...

Now the last paragraph is, strictly speaking, also an argument of the type "would or would not have" so one may ignore it. However, this is really a massive indication against the proposed hypothesis.

I have one page dealing with the modern fake theory:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That should be enough. Rich has complained that I took down the second one, but this theory is already getting far too much attention. There are so many other more interesting ones that barely get any attention.
And I don't want to write more than necessary about what is NOT.

(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fakes exist, but the fact that they exist is not sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich MS is one. For exactly the same reason one could argue that the Mona Lisa is a fake.

But that is an invention on your part, a complete straw man creation, because I did not, and do not, say "... the fact that [fakes] exist [is] sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich is one". Re-stating my actual arguments into something easily rebuttable is no argument at all. But it causes me to spin my wheels, and forces me to point this out... as all such false arguments about what I really believe, and what I really am saying. So it is effective in that regard, but is not helpful to anyone who wants to see a real debate on this subject.

The actual point I am making is that when you learn about all the cases and characteristics of art and historical forgeries (as in the bibliography I posted in a link earlier in this thread), you learn that the Voynich more of those characteristics than any other known forgery, or any object considered real. I often say the Voynich is a "textbook case" of forgery. This subject has been the core of two of my talks on the Voynich. To varying degrees, these are what I call the Red Flags of Forgery (and "no" these are far from the only elements in my hypothesis):

1)  Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions
2)  Has poor, contrary and/or missing provenance.
3)  Contains anachronistic content
4)  Owner/seller lies about provenance
5)  Contains incorrect uses of iconography
6)  Improper tools, methods, and/or materials used to create it
7)  It looks "too new”
8)  There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, the original
9)  Copy of illustrations from books, catalogs, and real objects
10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion

So "no" one could not say the Mona Lisa is a forgery on any grounds, certainly not with any argument I make for the Voynich, as it actually has no characteristics of a forgery (that I have ever heard of).

(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just one example: worm holes could have been faked. Indeed, this is possible but that is not the question (see above).
All the details that Wladimir found in the binding could have been faked in 1912.
But was it really?
The answer from the experts is clear.

I would second your opinion that the "answer from the experts is clear". As I've pointed out... and thanks to my need to rebutt your "nofake" page my eyes were opened to the very large extent of this phenomenon... the last comprehensive publication on this subject actually reveals how many anomalous and anachronistic characteristics the Voynich exhibits. I outline many of them here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Over and over the experts point out problems with the Voynich in that book. Why? Because they are experts, and are not going to hide the problems. It is just how one reads it... they must be glossed over by anyone who thinks the Voynich might be real.

It is the same for the ink tests. Most people here probably believe that McCrone determined that the ink of the Voynich was proper for the 15th century. But the report never says that. The report gives the cold hard facts about the composition of the inks, but does not give that judgement. That the ink fits the 15th century type inks (and of course you or I can mix those up today, anyway) is the opinion of others based on report. But even that report states various odd things, that nobody will answer: The unusual copper and zinc (why are they unusual? For "the time", or in those quantities, or at all?). The "titanium compound": Why? What type? As a white? And the binder: McCrone says the binder in the Voynich ink is not in their database. They do not know what it is. No, these things do not mean it is a fake, I am not saying this. What I am saying is that others read these things and say "See, the experts say everything is sunshine and bunnies". But the experts do not say that... they all point out, the linguists, the scientists, the binding experts, the ink tests, even the C14 tests, and so much more... they point out, they report, anomoly after anomoly, things that don't fit, that they can't explain... and readers and listeners ignore those problems (well I don't, many don't), and say...

"The experts give it a pass with flying colours". But they didn't. You did.

(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, such an eminent and unprecedented fake, without any codicological flaw, of a genuine 15th century manuscript would never be sold as a 17th century herbal from Jacobus de Tepenec.
Jacobus who???
And on parchment...

Jacobus de Tepenec was actually made quite famous under his birth name of Jacob Horciciky, and one of the stars of what I believe was the primer for the Voynich Manuscript: 1904's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., by Bolton. He and his (probably ficticious) brother Christian Horcicky were in that book, as herbalists, botanists, and physicians. That being said, didn't Voynich push Roger Bacon as the author by the time it was announced? You point out one of the probable reasons for the possible change of authorship... name is everything.

(21-03-2021, 08:49 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have one page dealing with the modern fake theory:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That should be enough. Rich has complained that I took down the second one, but this theory is already getting far too much attention. There are so many other more interesting ones that barely get any attention.
And I don't want to write more than necessary about what is NOT.

And I think I've sufficiently addressed, and defused, all of your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But I do have the second page, and will rebut that also, when I have a chance. I think that is fair because you have referred to that missing page as though it is unassailable. It is also fair because it was directed at me, and my ideas. I have the right to respond, even though you removed it.

I've often noted that you would prefer that we discuss other alternate theories, rather than my modern forgery. But you never actually address the true points of my theory, but use alternates to my points and argue those instead, as you did again, above.

Rich

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

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