The Voynich Ninja

Through imagery comparisons it is sometimes possible to identify the source of illustrations used in the Voynich. This is of course done all the time. The interesting thing is that many times images are "grouped" in one source... that is, several images seem to be copied from one book or manuscript, when none can be found in many other sources. For instance, only three books on microscopy each contain several close comparisons to specific Voynich illustrations; while no good or exact comparisons like these can be found in the vast corpus of other books on microscopes and microscopy.

This of course defies coincidence, especially when those sources... whether contemporaneous to the creation of the Voynich calfskin, or predating it, or post-dating it... are so varied. I mean, even if one discards (as is often done) those sources that defy one's choice of era for the Voynich, and keeps only those acceptable to the observer, it is still difficult to explain how the scribe had access to a wide range of sources, from geographically distant places, created over a large span of time. But if one includes all good comparisons, without prejudice to the time of creation of that source, the problem goes from difficult to impossible, leaving really only one reasonable conclusion.

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/the-sources-for-the-voynich-forgery

On top of that, there is context to the observations. They are not floating around in limbo, disconnected. For each of these comparisons, they have context in the Primer. From the post:

"The list below includes the Primer [1904 Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II, by Bolton], and then a selection of other sources for the imagery found in the Voynich. They all have one or more of the below characteristics. Some are direct, specific, and identifiable sources, and others are not specifically identifiable but probable works used as models and influences for the content of the Voynich.

• The item, person, activity can be directly traced back to Follies, the “Primer”, and or:
  
• The item is in some work, or in a work by some person, mentioned in Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II, and or:
  
• The item in the Voynich is related to the disciplines, activities, and items which would would reasonably expect to be found in the Court of Rudolph II, as imaginatively conveyed by Bolton in his faulty work.
  
• The item would, by being in the Voynich, fulfill the goal of the forgery, i.e., to look as though the book came from the Court of Rudolf II. That is, there is a reason behind these comparisons, that supports them being correct.
  
• Multiple comparisons sometimes come from single books as sources, further supporting the correctness of the hypothesis.
  

The fact that, through Follies, all these images from the Voynich connect to Bolton’s vision of the Court, and to each other, gives them context, and greatly lowers the possibility that any one of them, or all of them, is purely coincidence, paradiolia, or wishful thinking. These connections, to each other, and the Court, strengthen these identifications in the context of my hypothesis."

Since writing this post I've been reminded of the copies of the "Buch der Natur", also with several illustrations which can be reasonably tied to the Voynich, although predating it. I plan on adding this observation to the post today, for I agree this is another likely source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rich.

Now I'm confused, Rich. The majority of your recent blog (much of which you've posted in previous blogs) consists of post-medieval proposed exemplars for individual diagrams in the VMS.

Now you say you're adding the medieval Buch der Natur as "another likely source".


The forum threads include hundreds of images that could be likely sources. Are you compiling a list? Exactly what is your purpose? Why include Buch der Natur and not the many others?

Rich, regarding the red "bird"-shape, I'd say this is a better example than those mentioned in your post



Embellished initial V from this 15th C manuscript You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Discussed here, with additional examples in following posts: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-04-2021, 05:20 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now I'm confused, Rich. The majority of your recent blog (much of which you've posted in previous blogs) consists of post-medieval proposed exemplars for individual diagrams in the VMS.

Now you say you're adding the medieval Buch der Natur as "another likely source".


The forum threads include hundreds of images that could be likely sources. Are you compiling a list? Exactly what is your purpose? Why include Buch der Natur and not the many others?

I'm not sure what you are asking exactly, but I'll try to explain: there are a great many suggested comparisons between Voynich illustrations and outside ones, that is true. But there are those illustrations which match enough levels, with enough points, that they seem to be the specific source used. That is the point.

These are the reasons I like Koen's observations about these copies of Buch der Natur. Without repeating every point in the post, for instance, the long sought crayfish/lobster illustration showing the legs incorrectly emanating from the tail, rather than the torso.

Yes of course there are very general similarities to a great many other zodiac, herbal, medicinal, etc. illustrations, but they don't rise to the level of triggering the sense they are the actual illustration used by the Voynich artist. And THAT is the point of the blog post, and my interest in this and certain other blog posts by Koen, and here, and so on. There are many lobsters out there, and all could be suspected as influences, but the specific features of this one places it in a special category.

Will others set the line differently than me, between direct influence/copy, and merely a general sense of... ? Of course. But identifying specific source material is a very valuable thing, and I think in many instances it can be done, and has been done, even if the observer of the specific instance does not like the implications of finding them. And from reading Koen's blog and the comments, it is quickly apparent that others agree... this is probably the specific source- although others give a different "why" and "how" than I do.

Rich.

... but as for other "specific sources" in the sense I mean it, and have explained it, above, of course I'm interested in others. In my blog post I've made it clear there are others. And of course I have seen a majority of them, and maybe like the crayfish, missed a few. But no, it is not intended as a comprehensive list...

And while I am interested in other such comparisons, and am always interested in seeing more, long passed is the point where they have told me what is up here. I mean, step into my shoes for a moment: If ten, then a hundred, then dozens of comparisons are found, they only continue to increase the validity of my argument. That is because it becomes increasing difficult to explain these comparisons in any other way than the one I suggest. These images cover such a wide range of places, times, cultures, meanings, and so on, that as more and more are found, it... IMHO... only decreases the likelihood that one to a few scribes in the distant past had access to all of them.

At what point do more help? I feel the case was made long ago, through an overwhelming mass of evidence. But I do understand that if one still believes the Voynich is old, and genuine, then it is a necessity to keep looking at each and every detail of each and every image, in a hope that one will somehow, someday, explain the Voynich in some genuine old context. But ironically, the continuing quest only raises more questions than it ever answers.

Again, in my opinion, as long as fake and modern are removed from the investigation, no amount of images will ever make any sense at all.

And so yes, there are a great many likely candidates on the pages of your forum, and in many blogs and so on. And I love looking at them all, and many are very good. But to me it is like finding yet more fingerprints, yet more hairs and DNA at a crime scene, when the case has already been made, and the convict on death row. And the defense lawyers will demand more fingerprint dusting, more tests, in the constant hope it may get their client off.

Maybe that will happen someday, and I will of course be interested in seeing it if it is found.

Well, this is just a personal observation, but if you jump from a position of the VMS being a modern "fake" (or whatever word you prefer) and then start adding medieval examples, then it either erodes your current argument or it makes it look like you are unsure and hedging your bets without overtly coming out about it.

So... putting that aside, because that's a personal impression, and approaching this in a more academic and pragmatic way... if you are going to include examples like Koen's example, then in order to be consistent you have to add the hundreds of other medieval examples (some on these threads, some on blogs) that are excellent representations of the imagery in the VMS, otherwise we cannot be sure exactly what your point is.

Rather than forgery, what I see in the VMs are increasing examples of deceptive appearance and visual trickery. The VMs cosmos is a prime example and the comparison is based on historical examples of BNF. Fr. 565 and Harley 334 from the investigations of E. Velinska. Careful comparison reveals that the Ms cosmos has the same interior structure as the c. 1410 version of the Oresme example, and at the same time there is a high degree of visual difference and a divergent appearance that appears intentional.

Take the central Earth in these cosmic representations, in the historical illustrations the representation if Earth is pictorial. In the VMs it is not. VMs retains the unusual inverted T-O structure in common with the others, but has changed from pictorial representation to an apparent linguistic description. This change is a code shift, a change in the method of communication. There is no way appearance goes through this process unaltered!! This is the trick that has been played. This is the type of deception that has been used to alter the appearance of the Earth (1), the surrounding stars (2), AND the cosmic boundary / nebuly line (3), which has the common (VMs & Oresme) structural factor of 43 undulations.

It is the same *structure*. And both the Oresme text and the Berry Apocalypse, with an uncommon use of a pure nebuly line as a cosmic boundary were in the library of Jean de Berry (d.1416)

And there is more trickery and deception involved. The VMs employs the disguise of combined illustrations. It is the deception created by imposing elements from one source to make a hybrid combination with elements from a second, potentially divergent source. In the VMs illustration, the Oresme version of the cosmos has been used to fill in the empty center of the wheel and eight curved spokes that is structurally the same as Shirakatsi's 'Eight Phases of the Moon' diagram. This is an indication of the level of sophistication involved in VMs deception. The explanation of the VMs representations requires familiarity with both sources to reveal the full reality. And this level of sophisticated deception is confirmed because it is repeated in the VMs illustration of the 'mermaid', with special, guest appearance by the Luxembourg version of Melusine with the Valois connection (Berry, Burgundy, etc.), or the combined use of armorial and ecclesiastical heraldry in the first pages of the VMs Zodiac sequence.

Lack of investigator familiarity with the similarities that VMs illustrations have with historical events does not negate the VMs data. Lack of traditional information, such as heraldry (nebuly lines, red galeros, papelonny fur, etc.), suggests potential problems in any attempted VMs interpretation.

(16-04-2021, 01:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, this is just a personal observation, but if you jump from a position of the VMS being a modern "fake" (or whatever word you prefer) and then start adding medieval examples, then it either erodes your current argument or it makes it look like you are unsure and hedging your bets without overtly coming out about it.

I don't agree with this at all, and I think you will understand why when I point this out: Of course a modern fake (or any construction at all) can have "medieval examples" in it. Fakes can be copied and/or influenced from any time before they were created, at the whim of the faker. Why would it only have those examples copied from just before it was made? Why should those be the only ones I point out?

"Hedging my bets"? Why? As I see it the Voynich has many influences from all eras, why would I leave them out? They are often ones that people on these forums think are very good, and I think they are very good, also... like Koen's lobster. I do agree that the VMs lobster (crayfish, whatever) is most likely copied from the sources Koen and the rest believe they are probably copied from. And my hypothesis includes such medieval comparisons also, just as the 15th century genuine theories do.

There is no "hedging of bets"... and I admit you now have confused me with these issues. The Voynich is, I believe, a modern compilation of illustrations from a great many sources, a great many times, copied and interpreted in some exact, and many imaginative ways. It was created to give the illusion of being an old compendium, and as such it will include illustrations from many eras. There is no logical reason I can conceive why I should stop as some date backwards, and not include illustrations before that date. Voynich didn't. They are there.

Think of it this way... in these images contemporaneous, or pre-dating, your timeline, we have agreement. I think that is nice, don't you? Welcome me here! I'm agreeing... I often agree... with many of the great discoveries and observations genuinists make.

(16-04-2021, 01:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So... putting that aside, because that's a personal impression, and approaching this in a more academic and pragmatic way... if you are going to include examples like Koen's example, then in order to be consistent you have to add the hundreds of other medieval examples (some on these threads, some on blogs) that are excellent representations of the imagery in the VMS, otherwise we cannot be sure exactly what your point is.

Well you are welcome to approach discussing and supporting your hypothesis in any way you deem fit, of course. But I feel, first of all I am quite pragmatic, and at the same time choose not to spend my time listing somewhere each and every illustration that I and hundreds of others have found. First of all, it would be a pointless exercise, as no image before 1908 affects my theory in a negative way, as a 1908 forger can of course copy anything in it from the first Neanderthal cave art, to Christmas 1908.

Secondly, although no image detracts from my theory, as above, the more I use actually strengthen my argument for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread, and weaken genuine*. My point there is that I am not sure why you want me to list them, when I don't need to, and it only makes the case for genuine/old thinner and thinner.

Anyway, I appreciate the suggestion, but I will continue to explain my hypothesis in the way that I find most descriptive, and add image comparisons as I feel necessary.

Rich

* That one of the great, and constantly increasing problems for the 1420 Genuine Paradigm IS the constantly increasing mass of likely sources, which come from a very wide range of eras, artists, scribes, disciplines, and geography. This is because it becomes increasingly unlikely that a 15th century scribe or scribe had access to all these sources. And at the same time, it becomes increasingly likely that a modern person, such as a scholar or bookseller, who would have had access to all these sources due to modern ability to travel, combined with the mass of material in print by then, would have had access to all of them, to copy and serve as influences.

This is in fact why genuine literature and art from all eras up to the modern one tend to have a very consistent content and style, and why forgeries are inconstant, with anachronisms and other anomalies. The former usually can't; the latter, can. The Voynich is admittedly a mess of all eras, all disciplines, with art styles of all types, ranging throughout Europe, with possible influences from almost the entire globe. It is a glaring example of this phenomenon. Almost every discussion among genuinists, of these sources, self-consciously discusses this problem, but only in through the prism of old/genuine: Each time this happens, it creates a conundrum. A great example are the comments on Koen's crayfish post, in which the discussion is mostly about "how?" did the Voynich scribe see this? Or did he/she see a copy of it? But it was so old... but the copies are rare, and so on. It is a problem, in the context of genuine/old, each time, which rarely gets satisfactorily explained, or must be rationalized in convoluted ways. But gets worse when pulling back, and looking a the vast corpus of great comparisons all at once. The problem is frankly insurmountable. These 15th century scribes would have had to have been very mobile, which they were not. Or they would have had access to some vast, historically unknown collections, which they did not.

Or, far more simply, a modern era, 1908 person, with piles of books from all over the world stacked like the walls of a fortress around them, and even had access to trains, and even cars, to rapidly visit the libraries and collections of Europe, therefore having access to all the sources observed in the Voynich.

(15-04-2021, 07:47 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, regarding the red "bird"-shape, I'd say this is a better example than those mentioned in your post



Embellished initial V from this 15th C manuscript You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Discussed here, with additional examples in following posts: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That is a great one, I agree, Koen.

Quote:"Hedging my bets"? Why? As I see it the Voynich has many influences from all eras, why would I leave them out?

But you are leaving them out. That's why I'm confused about your message. It seems inconsistent (at least to me).

Quote:[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Well you are welcome to approach discussing and supporting your hypothesis in any way you deem fit, of course.[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Which hypothesis??[/font]