The Voynich Ninja

(20-03-2021, 12:32 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@proto57
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.

Hi, Aga: I didn't write of the wormholes, "They do not extend to the MS because these insects did not feed on parchment." That is a quote from the Yale book on the Voynich. The entire quote is,

“There are wormholes on the very few first and last folios. They don’t extend into the MS because these insects did not feed on parchment. The holes cut through writing and drawing elements, showing that they appeared after the MS was written.”

I opined on this in my "Rebuttal to NoFake" page, "This demonstrates the frequent misuse of forgery evidence, being spun to instead imply genuine. This because a clue often used to determine the authenticity of a document is the “lining up” of wormholes between sheets. But here, wormholes don’t line up with anything. So they are both being used to imply genuine, with, “there are wormholes”, and “through writing and drawing elements”; but then the evidence they are not genuine, i.e., they don’t line up to any other, continued, holes, is explained away, with “these insects did not feed on parchment”. So these particular ones did just the perfect amount of feeding: They ate through JUST enough parchment to prove it is old, then stopped… proving the parchment is old again."

In short I agree with you about these worms, and that they are normally found having bored through many materials. But the Voynich it seems has worms with different behavior (being facetious) which did just the right amount of eating, then stopping, to "make the Voynich real".

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

I could now, theoretically, ask:

"Could we have some evidence of the statement that the wormholes don't line up?"

Then, the answer, could, hypothetically be: well actually, they do, but that just proves that it was a very clever forger who made sure that they lined up.

So I won't ask.

@proto57
You always assume that the worm eats it because it is hungry. Think about it. It has wood to eat.
I see it like this. The worm is not in its natural environment.
Normally it should come to the surface when it gets softer. But it doesn't.
The poor worm is visibly confused and is looking for an exit, but it doesn't eat the parchment, it just pushes it in front of it.
And now how are you going to get it to do something that the forger wants? There are so many factors at play here. Humidity, he must not disappear. I can't just put a board on it or it's mud. And how long do I have to wait until he does something? Now it's more of a lottery than an intentional fake.
Your justifications are getting better and better.
I'd better look for a flea circus.

(24-03-2021, 02:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I could now, theoretically, ask:

"Could we have some evidence of the statement that the wormholes don't line up?"

Then, the answer, could, hypothetically be: well actually, they do, but that just proves that it was a very clever forger who made sure that they lined up.

So I won't ask.

(24-03-2021, 10:28 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@proto57
You always assume that the worm eats it because it is hungry. Think about it. It has wood to eat.
I see it like this. The worm is not in its natural environment.
Normally it should come to the surface when it gets softer. But it doesn't.
The poor worm is visibly confused and is looking for an exit, but it doesn't eat the parchment, it just pushes it in front of it.
And now how are you going to get it to do something that the forger wants? There are so many factors at play here. Humidity, he must not disappear. I can't just put a board on it or it's mud. And how long do I have to wait until he does something? Now it's more of a lottery than an intentional fake.
Your justifications are getting better and better.
I'd better look for a flea circus.

Well that got complicated pretty fast! But my very simple point here has been lost in all that, and claims by Yale and I are both confused in it all, and mis-characterized. I suspect, Aga, that you have not read my Rebuttal to Nofake page, or have misunderstood my points there. Let me try to clarify:

- I do not think the worm eats only because it is hungry, and I don't know all the reasons the worms eat and don't, and why they may stop and turn around, and so on.

- I am not, at the root of it, using wormholes, or worm behavior or not, to say that the worm hole evidence is proof of forgery or not.

What I am doing is pointing out how all evidence, no matter what it is, whether it is a sign of forgery or not, is used and misused to claim the Voynich is genuine, or, if not rationalized, ignored. And when it is evidence of forgery, it is rejected on the basis the Voynich is genuine, then a poorer comparison or explanation is substituted, then referred to as evidence the Voynich is real.

This is a pervasive activity in almost any discussion of the given evidence, and this wormhole debate are just another example of many. Another effect is the substituting a very complex example to explain an anomaly in place of a much simpler one when that points to forgery. The "Occam's Razor" thing. Look, Aga, at your complex explanation of worm activity, above and on other posts. It is not I who am saying worms did this or that to satisfy what a forger would want, it is you who is giving very complex rationalizations of worm behavior to explain the anomalous findings.

This is clear on my Rebuttal to NoFake page, which I would urge anyone to read. I'd be glad to comment on anything there, too. The page should clarify the problem here, the root problem, and my point: Rene and others use the expert opinion on these matters, worms and all, to validate their position that the Voynich is real and old beyond any doubt, when in fact, when critically examined, the experts are actually giving us information which at best is noncommittal, and at worst, actually telling us (if we want to hear, and actually listen) that the Voynich is new, and probably fake: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

To the wormholes in particular, here are my actual words and opinions on this issue, based on what Yale's experts described about them in the Voynich book they published,

"The Yale essay then describes random holes, that do not seem 'indicate a different arrangement of folios', but 'may have been stabbed by mistake while setting up the text for sewing; others may be merely evidence of insect damage'.

"There you see that they do not know the origin of these holes, nor, I point out, can they differentiate between worm holes and accidentally poked holes. From these statements by the experts, I think it is perfectly reasonable to come to alternate opinions, such as that previously used parchment with old holes was used. Or, perhaps, with worm holes, and disassembled and re-used, as the holes do not line up to anything… and so on."

And then, after Yale claims the worms "don't feed on parchment" (their words, Aga, not mine), I wrote,

"This demonstrates the frequent misuse of forgery evidence, being spun to instead imply genuine. This because a clue often used to determine the authenticity of a document is the “lining up” of wormholes between sheets. But here, wormholes don’t line up with anything. So they are both being used to imply genuine, with, “there are wormholes”, and “through writing and drawing elements”; but then the evidence they are not genuine, i.e., they don’t line up to any other, continued, holes, is explained away, with “these insects did not feed on parchment”. So these particular ones did just the perfect amount of feeding: They ate through JUST enough parchment to prove it is old, then stopped… proving the parchment is old again."

The point is not whether or not these specific wormholes, and the discovery of their extent and location, are evidence of forgery; the point is that no matter where they are; or whether or not they even know they are wormholes or not; or line up, or not; or what material they appear in, and do not, is totally irrelevant to the examiners at Yale: Wherever and whenever these worms did all these things or not is inexplicably attributed to genuine. If it does not line up, say they don't eat parchment. When they do eat parchment, claim it is proof of age. When they line up, say it is because another cover was on the book. When they don't, ignore it. When any holes "should not" be wormholes, say they are punched accidentally by the binder. When they "should be" wormholes, say they are wormholes. And so on.

It is interesting, it has good observations in it, but the conclusions are not only worthless, but at the very least do not indicate, to any degree whatsoever, that these holes are any evidence the Voynich is old, or genuine... which is what continuously gets done, everywhere they are mentioned, including this thread.

Now why and how the wormhole situation might be indicative of forgery is another discussion, but that is not my point here, and has not been.

(25-03-2021, 05:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I am doing is pointing out how all evidence, no matter what it is, whether it is a sign of forgery or not, is used and misused to claim the Voynich is genuine, or, if not rationalized, ignored. And when it is evidence of forgery, it is rejected on the basis the Voynich is genuine, then a poorer comparison or explanation is substituted, then referred to as evidence the Voynich is real.

If you want people to believe you, Rich, then quite simply all you have to do is explain why the Voynich is relatively untouched by worms.... and show which other books of the same material have been devoured by worms.

I have already understood them correctly.
Wormholes were and are faked to simulate a certain age and character. Not only for books, but also for furniture, textiles, etc.
But not all holes are the same.
There is a difference between difficult and simply not possible.
Holes yes, surface texture no.
So museums are full of fakes in their archives. The museum knows that. All things that were sold to them 100 years ago.
You have to be aware that if you suspect a forgery, you will find it out today. The time around 1900-1912 was simply not so far advanced that it would not be noticed today.
Investigations today clarify almost everything.
With the Nebra disk, for example, we know where the gold and copper came from.
Or that Nefertiti (Berlin) is genuine, even though the colour seems quite new.
Such examinations are expensive and are only carried out on exclusive pieces.
The VM manuscript has had enough examinations to say that there are no signs of forgery.
It is possible to sell something to a private person as genuine. But as soon as an official examination is due today, you simply have bad cards.

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

Rich is mixing up the holes that can be seen in the paper lining of the spine, and the holes in the first and last folios of the MS.

This (taken from Rich's post):

Quote:"The Yale essay then describes random holes, that do not seem 'indicate a different arrangement of folios', but 'may have been stabbed by mistake while setting up the text for sewing; others may be merely evidence of insect damage'.

refers to the holes in the paper lining of the spine, which can be clearly seen in the thread of Wladimir, and of course here:

The insect holes of interest are those on the first and last folios in the MS, and they line up from one folio to the next.

Another MS on parchment that was bought by Voynich at the same time and from the same collection as the Voynich MS is a Boccaccio MS now in the library of the University of Chicago. Its details can be found in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., entry J14.
A digital scan of the MS is here:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[/font]
It has the same type of wormholes on the first and last folios.

There is nothing suspicious about them.

[attachment=5405][attachment=5404]
Now I may not understand correctly.
I don't really care about the holes.
To make it clearer. It is the trace where the worm leaves on the parchment. That has a characteristic surface.
When the hole is in it, you can't see it anymore.

[attachment=5406][attachment=5407]
The normal insect frass can be faked well, but it usually only occurs in the paper