The Voynich Ninja

(21-04-2024, 02:28 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The point is that unless there is a clear reference then any case (Rene's or otherwise) about whether Voynich had seen it is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant if the question is whether Rich's theory is wrong.  But I don't think it is irrelevant if the question is whether Rich's theory is falsifiable. 

Quote:If one found a letter that contains a clear reference (and of course that does mean the source of the reference itself must be unquestionably dated) then it would falsify the modern forgery theory.

I don't see how it falsifies the modern forgery theory without having settled the additional question about whether Voynich could have known about the reference and been inspired by it.  I don't think that is a straw man...firstly because a straw man is something that is intentionally misrepresented as the person's main position.  I am not doing that, intentionally or otherwise.  My posts were questioning whether the theory was falsifiable, not attempting to prove Rich's theory to be wrong, especially since others are far better placed in that regard than I am.

Secondly, it is relevant because it is an argument Rich has proposed in the past, and so it is conceivable, ceteris paribus, that it could be offered again in the future hypothetical case of a new discovered reference that is precise enough to meet your three criteria.  In such a case, the modern forgery theory would still not be falsifiable if Rich could still argue there was a chance Voynich knew of this reference and based it on that description.  The exceptions would be if we agreed conditions now about how low a probability of this could be tolerated to keep the theory alive, or if Rich agreed the lack of discovery so far of another book matching that description meant the probability of the Voynich being the subject of the description (rather than its result) was high enough to falsify the theory.   

Quote: But on the other hand, much of the discussion is unproductively lamenting that one will never be able to accomplish 3 simply because one person (Rich) will make it too challenging...But it is not a way to evaluate whether the manuscript is authentic or just a modern forgery.

It may well be unproductive for evaluating the strength of the modern forgery theory or the current consensus, but I only asked about falsifiability.  I felt it was relevant because some of Rich's arguments require tolerating what appears to be a low level of probability.  Maybe that itself seems a less productive question, but if it is falsifiable, surely we can agree exactly how and then move on? 

Quote:I agree that this is an effective way to denigrate Rich in order to more easily dismiss anything else he says.

I am not attempting to denigrate Rich for that reason or for any other.

(21-04-2024, 09:48 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't see ...

I can't respond to many your statements because they are simply declarations that overtly ignore the
explanations I provided. I am not trying to dismiss your responses - I just honestly can't conceive of how to break the logic down any further to make it easier to comprehend.

But I can leave you with the following two points. Of course, whether you choose to think them through or
not is entirely up to you.

1) If the modern forgery theory is "not falsifiable", then the alternative theory of authenticity must
necessarily be "not provable" ... fundamentally.
    (because A=true implies not-A=false)
Yet I suspect some of those who hold your view about the modern forgery theory being not falsifiable still blithely imagine a scenario where the Voynich has been proven to be authentic.

2) Now I'm sure the response by some to the above point (if not by you, by some others) will be
"that's right - we can never know for sure if either is true".
And that's fine if you want to go that way. (There is some truth to it - because evidence is never "absolute";
it always ranges between very weak and very strong.  I believe Rene alluded to the same thing earlier.
Mathematically, it is the reason we have to avoid probabilities being equal to 0.0 or 1.0 because various equations
inevitably blow up. But for practical purposes --i.e. in real life--, reasonable people accept that evidence can be either
strong enough, or weak enough, to provide an acceptable level of "proof" for or against a claim.)
If you don't want to accept evidence in a practical way -- that is, if you instead want to go with the "we can never know for sure if either is true" approach --  then
just be aware that that means there is no conceivable theory about the Voynich, or about anything else,
that is actually falsifiable (or provable).  One can ALWAYS come up with some conceivable explanation and then an
explanation for the explanation, and on and on until someone jumps the shark with "it's just glitch in the matrix".

(21-04-2024, 09:48 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It may well be unproductive for evaluating the strength of the modern forgery theory or the current consensus, but I only asked about falsifiability.  I felt it was relevant because some of Rich's arguments require tolerating what appears to be a low level of probability.  Maybe that itself seems a less productive question, but if it is falsifiable, surely we can agree exactly how and then move on. 

I actually had a whole response to this, and thought I had clicked "Post Reply", but apparently failed to. Maybe that is good in a way, because I think I can make my point much shorter (collective sigh of relief):

Ironically, asteckley cross-posted a similar thought to mine, but from the other direction: The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

I was looking at the other way, in that, by declaring Modern Forgery false, those who do have already admitted Modern Forgery is falsifiable. So then, why would anyone need to imagine "what Rich will say in the future", and then insert the opinion that I would (against my protests) reject any evidence? It does not matter what you think I would say, because you have already declared the Modern Forgery theory false, and therefore, declared the theory falsifiable.

An example, one of hundreds, in which Modern Forgery is declared "disproved", is in Dr. Skinner's book, "The Voynich Manuscript: The Complete Edition of the World' Most Mysterious and Esoteric Codex". In the introduction by Prinke and Zandbergen, they write,

[attachment=8452]

"... Rich Santa Coloma has made a number of claims about the authorship of the manuscript, most of which were disproved by the dating of the vellum to the early 15th century.", and, "... before finally deciding that the manuscript was a fake fabricated by Voynich".

That statement is an absolute, declaring my theory "disproved", that is, false, therefore, falsifiable. It can't be both ways, i.e, declared falsifiable, and at the same time, unfalsifiable, based on anything... let alone, what one imagines I may or may not say in the future. It is one or the other.

Rich.

(22-04-2024, 12:07 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ironically, asteckley cross-posted a similar thought to mine, but from the other direction: The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

Actually, i think you said it much better and more succinctly. 

But you should be careful with  referencing that quotation from the book. It looks an awful lot like "listening to the experts". And I've heard you don't do that.

(21-04-2024, 02:28 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That entire discussion about whether Voynich saw it or used it or faked it is a straw-man with respect to the theory
of the VMS being a modern forgery.  It only ever came into play (by Rich or whoever) in response to the claim that the letters
are evidence of the manuscript existing prior to the time of the letters -- because that evidence depends on a passage representing a clear reference.

It is quite a bit more complicated than that.

The main, perhaps only, truly important indications whether the MS is a modern fake comes from the forensic investigations.
Records providing evidence of its provenance are at best supportive.
The Marci letter already gives us two thirds of the whole story.

When the Barschius letter was found, this was not at all seen as proof that the MS is genuine. Its value was that it finally gave the name of the previous owner, a name Marci failed to provide in his letter.
This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921, but no evidence existed that it was really him.
It was researched by Brumbaugh in the 70's, but he could not resolve it.
The proof (that it was Barschius) came when the Kircher correspondence finally became accessible to the world.

The Barschius letter not only describes the illustrations in the MS, but also says "a piece of writing in unknown characters". That captures the essence of the Voynich MS, and the one thing that makes it stand out.

Could Voynich have created a fake MS in unreadable text, with lots of herbs and stars and arcane secrets, that a mediocre scientist once sent to a Jesuit, without knowing that such a MS once really existed, and was really sent between these two people? Hardly! (Understatement).

The complete unaccessibility of this information to Voynich is a nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that Voynich faked the Marci letter.

Now, knowing that the Marci letter is real, it also becomes clear that the Barschius letter refers to the Voynich MS, beyond reasonable doubt. (All the links between the various pieces of evidence can be found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

All these points we know, but the thing is that it is a simple "chicken/egg" problem. Which came first, Voynich's knowledge of the mentions by the men of the letters, and creating a fake Voynich, or his finding a genuine Voynich and he, and later others such as you, discovering the references relating to it.

It is possible to emphasize the latter with terms such as "complete unaccessability", which seems to favor the latter, but on examination of all the evidence, there is really no basis for this. There is no reason to think he didn't have access to this information, and as I have pointed out, the situation, and Voynich's known abilities and habits, do support the former: That he simply knew of the letters.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The main, perhaps only, truly important indications whether the MS is a modern fake comes from the forensic investigations.
Records providing evidence of its provenance are at best supportive.

The Marci letter already gives us two thirds of the whole story.

And likewise, if it is a forgery, two thirds of the story evaporates: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I posted this back in 2015, and none of the problems with that letter have ever been addressed. I'd be curious if you have an answer for them. Even one: Why do the fold lines make no sense, in any context (as I show in the video), when the fold lines in the other letters in the Carteggio, do? There are many problems with this letter in addition to that, so I have a real problem accepting, as a given, it is authentic. It does not affect my hypothesis if real, but would cast suspicions on "the whole story" if faked.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When the Barschius letter was found, this was not at all seen as proof that the MS is genuine. Its value was that it finally gave the name of the previous owner, a name Marci failed to provide in his letter.

This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921, but no evidence existed that it was really him.

It was researched by Brumbaugh in the 70's, but he could not resolve it.

The proof (that it was Barschius) came when the Kircher correspondence finally became accessible to the world.

"This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921"- but again, we have a chicken/egg problem, because just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too. We know he did, he is known for that. And in this case he admits to knowing about Barschius! Where from, but the same book, Philosophia Vetus Restituta, of course. Why is that so a problem? It actually supports my contention, that he had this information, and used it.

I mean, if Voynich did not admit to "suspecting" Baresch, it would be said that he didn't know, and since he didn't know, how could he make use of this provenance, and therefore, it "must" be the Voynich manuscript he had bequeathed to Marci. But, he did know about it. So how it that supportive of genuine? It is the opposite, it helps make my case.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Barschius letter not only describes the illustrations in the MS, but also says "a piece of writing in unknown characters". That captures the essence of the Voynich MS, and the one thing that makes it stand out.

Well far from it, Rene... "not only describes the illustrations in the MS"? From that letter,

Quote: "Now since there was in my library, uselessly taking up space, a certain riddle of the Sphinx, a piece of writing in unknown characters…”

“From the pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism, it is my guess that the whole thing is medical…”

“In fact it is easily conceivable that some man of quality went to oriental parts in quest of true medicine (he would have grasped that popular medicine here in Europe is of little value). He would have acquired the treasures of Egyptian medicine partly from the written literature and also from associating with experts in the art, brought them back with him and buried them in this book in the same script. This is all the more plausible because the volume contains pictures of exotic plants which have escaped observation here in Germany”

“… and bring forth the good (if any there is) buried in unknown characters in this book.”

“I here append a line or two of the unknown script to revive your memory of it, having previously sent a whole file of similar characters.”

To the scholars at the time, there were still a great many "unknown characters". In fact there are quite a few copied among the 2,000 letters of the Carteggio, being sent to Kircher for identification. Herbals were plentiful at the time. The "exotic plants" not observed in Germany can simply mean plants from other places... not necessarily unidentified. There is nothing even remotely "Egyptian" in the Voynich, and these men were familiar with Egyptian hieroglyphic and iconography. And also, there is little to nothing similar to "chemical symbolism", either, in the Voynich. Also, what happened to the "appended script"? Or the previous "whole file of similar characters"? Maybe they are "hiding" in plain site, because they are Aramaic, or an Arab variant, or Sumerian, or or or... no "Voynich Script" has turned up, anywhere, but there are plenty of "unknown scripts" that have been shared with Kircher.

Some "unknown scripts" to the men of the letters, sent to Kircher. This is not all of them. And a couple I copied from loose sheets... not attributed to any particular letter, from what I could see in the records. Could one of these be the transcription Baresh actually sent?:



Stars? All the above is not only meager, and could identify many manuscripts of the time, through Baresh's eyes, but makes allusions to styles not in the Voynich.

But then, it gets worse: inexplicably for a manuscript which Baresch and the others were very interested in having Kircher solve for them, they don't mention the most prominent identifying features, such as naked women in baths, tubs, tubes, the Zodiac, strange animals, THE ROSETTES, with the castles and pathways... and probably most importantly, he, none of them, mention the "signature", used now to claim De Tepencz owned it, used as proof... but Baresch, Marci, Kinner, fail to?

The descriptions in the letters are in no way acceptable proof that these men were discussing the Voynich we see today, and even work against it being the same work. So I never let this be glossed over like this, as though we should just accept it is provenance. It is not, by any standards.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Could Voynich have created a fake MS in unreadable text, with lots of herbs and stars and arcane secrets, that a mediocre scientist once sent to a Jesuit, without knowing that such a MS once really existed, and was really sent between these two people? Hardly! (Understatement).

Again, your presumption is that it would be "without knowing", and I reject that as being a foundation-less assertion.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The complete unaccessibility of this information to Voynich is a nail in the coffin of the hypothesis that Voynich faked the Marci letter.

Well again you make this claim, but there is no basis for it, and actually evidence he was "on the trail" of his desired provenance, as he knew of one player, Baresch, already. And we know he had his friend with long ties to the Villa, Strickland. This was a habit of his, to learn a bit of something, from somewhere, then feign ignorance of the scope of it, and wait for someone to do his footwork for him... thus creating the illusion that it was an independent find. That this "footwork" sometimes happened long after his death was not up to him, and he succeeded often enough. I think a good example, paralleling my suspicions of his name-dropping Baresh (didn't he make a suggestion that some other connection might be found in the Jesuit collections? I have to look for that...), is the case of his "Topence" request to the Prague Archives: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

"You Say Tspenencz, I Say Topencz" outlines the (IMHO) absurdity of his request. He clearly knew the answer, and the proper spelling, he was "playing dumb" to get a letter back that he could use as "proof" of his desired provenance. He did this with his "Lost Chart of Magellan", with his "Boy Sketch", with the artist of the miniatures in his "Lives of the Martyrs", and on and on. He would make a suggestion, feigning ignorance, and then when he got a response, act like it was an original observation by the expert so queried.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, knowing that the Marci letter is real, it also becomes clear that the Barschius letter refers to the Voynich MS, beyond reasonable doubt. (All the links between the various pieces of evidence can be found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

But you don't "know" the Marci letter is real, anymore than I know it is fake. It is our opinion and speculation only. And it is not "clear" that the Barschius letter refers to the Voynich, it is your opinion. It is your prerogative to think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that is of course your right. But it is an opinion, not clear to everyone, and certainly not a fact, as is obviously implied.

Here is a recurring problem: I make every effort to never lead anyone astray by confusing my speculation and opinions with facts... this is one of the reasons I'm so wordy (besides having difficulty in my native tongue). I try to be very conscientious of this, because I do not want to give anyone false impressions that my opinions constitute known facts.

When people read these discussions, the net result is they believe it is "hypothesis" against "proven truth", when it is really hypothesis vs. hypothesis. It also wastes much time for newcomers, because they always start off their interest with a false understanding of what is known and what is just opinion about the Voynich. It sometimes will take years, if ever, before many people learn that what they thought was hard and fast settled fact, was really just an opinion. I don't think that is fair to them, and it sets the whole investigation back when it happens.

Rich.

In our own obsession with the rosettes and the ladies, we forget sometimes that the manuscript is mostly plants.

If you want to point out the relevance of your sphynx to the self-proclaimed Oedipus of Egypt, framing it as a book of exotic plants (which, in Baresch' eyes it may well have been) is a good choice.

(22-04-2024, 02:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is quite a bit more complicated than that.
...

Thanks Rene!
That is a very helpful summary and as usual, I find the breadth of useful information on your website invaluable.
Looking through it again, I'm still looking for the additional connections to tie the letter references indubitably to the Voynich manuscript, and I will continue to do that more. And to further digest the details of Rich's analysis of the same evidence.

Meanwhile though, I have the following quick question that I'm kind of surprised is not discussed anywhere. (I may well be missing it somewhere on your site or Rich's writings or elsewhere.). I have not been able to find any answer myself, but that is very likely due to my limited experience in historical letters and where to even find the information. (Google does have its limits.) So I expect you or others will surely be able to provide an answer far quicker than I can find one. 
My question is in relation to Kircher's letter of 12 March 1639 which includes:

"the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's, and they use the same script here in Rome to print missals and other holy books in the Illyrian language."

[Before I get to my question, let me preface it all by saying that I am taking for granted that this English translation from Latin is accurate. I wish I knew Latin to better validate it but I don't. I trust that you and everyone else quoting the letters have validated these translations. The only reason I mention this is that if one asks Google to translate the passage, it says something very different. But then Google is hardly a reliable source for translation. It actually translates the passage as:

"Finally, another leaf appeared to be written in an unknown character. Let him know that it was printed in the Illyrian idiom, in the character which D. Hieronymi popularly calls; and they use the same character here in Rome in printing missals and other sacred books in the Illyric language."

If this translation is more accurate, then the "sameness" has nothing even to do with the manuscript that the letters referred to elsewhere -- Kircher is simply saying there is another document (or leave of sheet) besides the manuscript in question and that IT uses the same script as is used for the missals and books. If this is the case, my question is moot, but it also brings into question all of the translations and the analysis that you and others have put forth.  So I am assuming this Google translation is just plain wrong. Easy enough to check, but I myself have not done so.]

Now I have been unable to find any examples, or any information at all, regarding "St. Jerome's script".  Kircher says "unknown" script, but the script itself -- that is the "font" -- was clearly known to him, and so his use of the word unknown was either in reference to it being unknown to Moretus or to the fact it was unreadable, being either encrypted or conveying an unknown language. But in either case, he says it is in the "same" script.
I recognize that the question that this raises is so glaringly obvious, that I am clearly just missing where the numerous Voynich researchers before me have provided the answer.

Given that this script was used "in Rome to print missals and other holy books", there must surely be a significant quantity of surviving documents that we can turn to to see examples of it. (Well at least "one" somewhere must have survived?) And therefore, at least according to Kircher, those documents must provide additional examples of the Voynichese script, yet its commonly said that there are no other examples, so I am confused. What am I missing? (Again, I am assuming the translation is correct since most everyone has been relying on it to connect the letter to Voynich's manuscript.) The letter clearly says that the script is the same. I realize that it probably isn't identical -- at very least if they are actually "printed" there will be some variation between the printed and handwritten characters. But it must be similar enough that Kircher had no problem calling them the "same". So looking at any examples of St Jerome's script would certainly remove almost any uncertainty as to whether the manuscript in the letters is actually the Voynich manuscript.

P.S. As I finish writing this this and am about to hit the submit button, I notice that I have missed the most recent comments by proto57 which look like they might have already dealt with scripts and maybe even provided some of the answer. Sorry if that is the case, but it is late here and so I won't just now read it through to check.

@Rich
I wonder, was Voynich even able to make a forgery (physical condition)?
After his time in prison and his stay in Siberia, he has a disability in one shoulder/arm.
If I look at his cat, he could perhaps still draw naked women. But would that be enough to forge a letter/Handwriting?
I think you could read that from his handwriting. I just don't have any.
He was a chemist and pharmacist and first had to be motivated by someone from the British Museum to trade in books. He was not a history scholar.
Did he even have enough knowledge of history to make such a forgery? How much time would have to pass to accumulate enough knowledge?
Even a cleaning lady can sell second-hand cars, but she's still not a mechanical engineer.

(22-04-2024, 04:37 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921"- but again, we have a chicken/egg problem, because just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too. We know he did, he is known for that. And in this case he admits to knowing about Barschius! Where from, but the same book, Philosophia Vetus Restituta, of course. Why is that so a problem? It actually supports my contention, that he had this information, and used it.

So here I have a problem.

And this problem is: I strongly suspect that you are aware that what you are saying is not supported by the evidence. And I strongly suspect that you are aware of this evidence. But the people reading here are not.

That this supposedly supports your contention is just a smoke screen.

He had his people research the Bohemian history after he got the MS and the Marci letter. Years after.
Garland told him about Tepenec and Marci, while miss Howe found the reference in Philosophia Vetus Restituta. That was in 1921. 

I am sure that you know that.
The only thing that supports your contention, is your own contention (not supported by any evidence) that he did not first find out in 1921, but already knew in, say, 1911.

We know what Voynich was doing in 1911-1912, with respect to Strickland and the Jesuits. He was securing a deal that would make him millions of dollars (in modern equivalent), and he was successful.
When the Vatican was approached by the Jesuits, they already had Voynich's bid for the lot. And the single most valuable MS had already passed through his hands and was on its way to Hungary, only to be sold to a wealthy New York banker for even more money than expected. 

Now you also wrote:

Quote:just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too

.

Fortunately, that's an easy one. Voynich never in his life had access to the letters.

With respect to my problem mentioned above, I will not be provoked any further.