(21-04-2024, 12:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the ink or other materials can be dated (such as if organic components can be carbon dated) to the early 15th century then Rich can argue that Voynich used old ink in his manuscript.
In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery.
There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich.
So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.
Well let me give my actual view on this, while pointing a few things out: The general feedback about "what Rich would say" reflects to me an opinion about why my current rejections of proposed evidence and opinions on it are, and that they are seen as weak. That's fine of course... all of this is opinion. But the thing is, the idea that I have taken good evidence, and then rejected that good evidence, is being carried over this hypothetical new evidence. I mean, it is saying, "He already won't accept our proofs, so he never will". That is incorrect.
I do have standards, and limits, as we all do. They may be different than those of others... well, they are different... but I would say I'm not as much an extremist on demands for perfection as is being assumed here. There are a great many situations by which new evidence would convince me that the Voynich is genuine, and old. First I'll address the ones above:
- I would NOT think that ink which carbon dated to the 15th century could reasonably be considered faked. As people have noted, and I agree, a forger in 1910 would not have predicted the upcoming advent of the radiocarbon dating process, and so they would not have gone through the trouble of, say, finding 500 year old galls to make it, or like that. This is also why I think, contrary to others, that the dating of the calfskin is actually a sign of forgery, because that dating does not match the expert opinions as to the content on it. He would not have known, nor cared, the actual calander age of the calfskin. So what is good for the goose... yes, if the ink carbon dated to the early 1400's, that would be proof the Voynich was early 1400's.
- "In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery." Well I don't believe the drawing "are shown" to be early 15th century, first of all. To say they are, one must be selective of people and opinions which say they are, and ignore the others, which don't (one point of this thread I wanted to reiterate, as it is timely). But that being said, there is plain text content which would prove the manuscript genuine: If the information in the content is something that could not have been known to a 20th century forger, perhaps something revealed at a later date than 1912. There are many secrets of history only revealed in recent times, which a forger of 1910 could not have known... use your imagination, I could think of hundreds if I tried. That would be proof.
Strong evidence would be if the plain text, even if of something a 1910 forger MIGHT have known, would be if there were no errors in phrasing, or description, or the like. No "pox leber" type anachronisms, I mean. In the Vinland Map there were various cases of improper phrasing and such, like the form of Leif Ericson's name, and others, which at least cast suspicion on the map's authenticity. Most forgeries have these problems, it is extremely difficult for even an expert forger to avoid them. I call it "The Star Trek Effect", because if you think of that show, they were doing their best to mimic a time far in the future. But they have bell bottoms, hair styles and other "tells" it was made in the late 1960's. So: If the resultant plain text has no "tells", if it was pristine, that, to me, would stop me in my tracks, in the sense I would no longer consider that the Voynich was a forgery, but "probably" genuine. Especially since I think Voynich was to at least a large part responisible, and I think he was in no way capible of avoiding such mistakes... because I don't think he DID avoid such mistakes. Point being, that is my standard for him, and so pristine content, no tells, yes that would be powerful evidence of genuine.
- "There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich." Of course not. First of all, the 1665/66 Marci letter was in his hands, not planted somewhere. And I think it was made by him to fill a gap of ownership that he desired, and done so "after the fact" of the Big Crime. No, I do not think he was off forging other evidence of the Voynich's provenance, or he probably would have pointed to it before he died in 1930, or it would have been found by now. There are infinite situations in which such evidence would turn up, which would prove the Voynich genuine. There are still untapped archives and collections, which Voynich would have had no chance of having seen nor known about, because they were not opened or discovered until after 1910, or still are not. I think a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was found hidden in a pilaster of a staircase, where it clearly had been for centuries. And some Roman soldier's letters were found buried (and still readable) by Hadrian's wall. Cases like this are numerous... and while we can't know until we see it, of course such a source or item would prove the Voynich genuine.
And I've rejected supposed "proof of forgery", too, as I described. I was baited with a supposed letter by Wilfrid, which was to be produced for me if I went back to Italy to see it in person... they didn't want me to take pictures of it, and would not send me a copy. But it didn't pass the "smell test" to me, and I passed. I also rejected forged "proof of genuine", such as that fake Kircher book that excited people for awhile. Each item must be judged on its merits and failures, no matter if it supports my ideas or not.
So as I've said before, I see this very differently than many of you, in that it is not that my standards of proof of authenticity are so high, and impossible to meet, it is just that they are a bit higher than what is currently used to buttress genuine. Just because I don't accept what has been offered as "poof" does not mean nothing would meet the standard of "proof" to me. Not that other's standards are "wrong", but I would say that mine are not "wrong" either, we all just have different standards. And there are of course cases of standards of proof and disproof that transcend anyone's opinions, and which are unassailable, too... such as suggested here, carbon dating of the ink. Not everything rises to that level of standard, but I know that standard exists, and would acknowledge and accept that.
Anyway, I always think of that great comment by a US Supreme Court judge, when asked how one would know the difference between "art" and "pornography". He said of pornography (paraphrasing), "You will know it when you see it". Trouble is, one person's art is another's... you get the idea. This is all subjective, but I do have standards, too. I'm not close to the "genuine proof skeptic" you seem to think I am.
Rich.