The Voynich Ninja

@Rich
Re point 3.
The swallowtail battlements (Italy) and the German text somehow contradict each other.
About the crowns. French crowns have the fleur-de-lis, Italian have shamrock, Habsburgs have the points. Interesting, you can find all 3 in St Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. Hence Habsburg. Nothing to do with this root.

Which is perhaps also an important point. Collecting information only by letter/post, perhaps Telegram and telephone but without the Internet.

Today it is clear. Information every minute. But can that be reconciled?

The problem I find is this sort of informational gap between Wilfrid and the VMs. It was suggested earlier in the "Voynich as genius, Voynich as moron" proposition.

The informational gap is between certain illustrations where the book contains information, but I've never seen anything that showed WMV had knowledge of those contents. Obviously, I would start with the comparison of the VMs cosmos and the investigation of BNF Fr. 565 and all that, along with the myth of mermaid Melusine of Luxembourg. Both of which are connected to the Duke Jean de Berry (d. 1416), and the resultant part of the Berry Library, later held by his daughter, Marie, Duchess of Auvergne.

The contention that these illustrations were copied by a modern forger is clearly problematic. Both BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 have cosmic diagrams centered on a pictorial, inverted T-O depiction of the Earth. Then, in the process of "copying" such a diagram, the forger just happens to turn pictures into words. Of course, if one is using a cosmic diagram from c. 1410 and promoting a text from the 13th century, one may not want to point that out.

The VMs artist has done far more than just copy. The combination of a Parisian cosmos inside the Shirakatsi wheel is a clear manipulation of data by the VMS artist. And it is an indicator of the artist's knowledge and method of operation. In part that method includes the combination of paired elements as above.

Another example is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. costmary. In the names of the 'Mary Garden,' this is the 'Herb of the Virgin.' In combination with the heraldic / angelic, winglike roots as a reference to Saint Michael in his role as psychopomp, this is a subtle representation of the Assumption. Are these the images copied / created by a modern forger who doesn't know about their existence? Even when there is something to support the otherwise unfounded 'Roger Bacon' theory, WMV has nothing relevant to say. I see that informational gap as a significant problem.

@Rich
Re point 11.
Voynich was a chemist. If he wanted to emphasise the name, then it wasn't exactly a masterstroke.
If he wanted to make the name disappear, then it wasn't a masterstroke either.
As for the colours, I know books that are older but the colours look fresher. But that doesn't explain why the colouring was applied cleanly once and then botched again. Would a forger really do that?
And who put the flea in Ethel's ear about South American cultures? There's nothing there. Neither art nor buildings or clothing and hats.

(24-04-2024, 02:16 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Rich
Re point 11.
Voynich was a chemist. If he wanted to emphasise the name, then it wasn't exactly a masterstroke.
If he wanted to make the name disappear, then it wasn't a masterstroke either.
As for the colours, I know books that are older but the colours look fresher. But that doesn't explain why the colouring was applied cleanly once and then botched again. Would a forger really do that?
And who put the flea in Ethel's ear about South American cultures? There's nothing there. Neither art nor buildings or clothing and hats.

I speculate that he didn't want to emphasize the name, but erase it. I base this idea on the fact that the "signature" was actually visible on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. before he started messing around with it. This can be seen in the pre-treatment photograph of f1r, which I "found"* in the Beinecke archives. This image does not seem to have been for "public consumption". In the original photograph, the signature is more visible than in my picture of it, which I will link here. But even my bad picture, if you look closely, you can see that it is readable:

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

I took that photo, hand held, with the light coming in the reading room window, with a 16mp Olympus Pen, kit 14-42mm lens. Next time I am there I would like to take another, better image with the camera I have now, a fine macro lens I also have, and my copy stand.

Point being, finding this image contradicts the various things he said about this signature. I don't remember them off the top of my head, but I think in one version he accidentally spilled chemicals and "found" the signature. Or that he thought he discerned some characters and then used the chemicals to try and bring them out. Greg Stachowski has some good comments about chemical treatments on that blog: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. He didn't agree with some of my speculations.

But here is the thing: Yes, Voynich was a chemist. So, as you imply, whether he was trying erase, or trying to emphasize, he certainly should have been able to do it right. Either it would have disappeared, or it would look stronger. But, it actually looks about the same or weaker than it probably looked when photographed in the photo I found.... which is why I go with the "tried to erase" scenario. Maybe he was dissolving the ink, for instance, and instead it stained the area around it. I don't know, and of course I am only speculating why it happened the way it did, and looks the way it does.

But yes, he was a chemist. That fact, though, makes it odder that we see what we see, when he should have known how to achieve some better result, given his knowledge. Jan Hurych wrote about this same issue, "Why Voynich had to use the chemicals on the original is still a mystery. True, it may have enhanced the signature but that could have been done on the copy or even by using colored filters or the negative as I did.  The longtime result of that chemical treatment  is that  the signature is now  less visible than it was right after the treatment. It is even less understandable since Voynich was originally a chemist."

EDITED TO ADD: I looked up Jan's opinions on this, again, and he had written about that pre-chemical picture... found on: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Jan wrote, "8 - (Page 421) Here is the famous statement by WMV that when he got the VM, the margins on the first page "had appearance to be blank" and only due to the "accident" (when the photo was "underexposed") the name of Tepenec was revealed. He also mentioned that he applied the chemical treatment afterwards, so we can assume the Plate 2. must have been be made only after that. The reason is obvious: sole underdevelopment would not make the picture so dark as it is and both the "signature" and the other text would appear to be light grey. As we can see, they both have the same shade of darkness."

You see, it makes no sense. And add to this, what I have said repeatedly (but it applies here, again), "Since the signature was visible to Voynich in 1912 or so, it would have been the same or moreso to the Men of the Letters, yet they did not share this vital bit of information with Kircher? It would logically be the first thing they would have told him about, IF THEY SAW THE VOYNICH." Sorry, I was shouting. You know us Gish Gaffers, or Bish Binglers, Wing Wangers, or whatever that was I was compared to.

About Ethel and South America... I didn't mean to imply that she thought the Voynich was South American. She thought it was by Roger Bacon. What I meant was that the illustrations and writing have been evokotive of South- and Meso-American plants, animals and writing, and so I wonder if part of the motivation for creating the Voynich as we see it was to appeal to Ethel. Yes it did appeal to her, but no not in a South American way. Sorry if that I was confusing. Anyway, did you ever read her book, "An Interrupted Friendship"? It was the prequel to The Gadfly, and describes the protagonist's early adventures in South America. It is actually a very interesting and entertaining book and worth reading. Anyway, I looked up the customs she attributed to the various peoples they met in her fiction... and she really seems to have done her research. Much of it was very accurate. The woman was really amazing.

As for colorful pictures being "botched". Do you mean damage, or sloppiness? If you mean "botched" by damage, then I would surmise it is to try and make it look old. Art, literature and even currency forgers routinely damage thier works, in an effort to make them look old, used and therefore, authentic. Anyway, you, along with others, use age, wear, staining and damage as evidence the Voynich is old and authentic, right? So there is your reason right there... whether this one is real or fake, you look to said damage as evidence of authenticity. So if that is what you meant, you have answered the question "why"? he would do this.

Rich

* I write "found" in quotes, because while I assume many others had seen this before me, nobody reported it, let alone photgraphed and posted it anywhere... that I have seen. I did watch a lecture online where they used the picture I took of it. I don't think it has been re-photographed by anyone since I wrote my post about it. I found many things over my two full days in the boxes there, and many of which have never been reported, let along posted. I found, for instance, his "collection" of loose "Beckx Ex Libris" labels, along with their accompanying description labels. Like what the eff? The case is often made that the Beckx label "with" the Voynich shows it is real... but two things: Where is the Beckx DESCRIPTIVE label for the Voynich? That was the practice: Ex Libris AND descriptive. But no descriptive has been found. And two (or three?): Voynich had a bunch of these, so he had a supply. And also, why would he leave the Ex Libris in some books, like the Voynich, but not in others, and collect those in a pile?

I also found the shorthand note (presumably written for a letter, maybe transcribed by Anne?) which was for a letter to Newbold, offering 10% of the first $100,000 Voynich got for his Bacon Cipher, if Newbold's "Translations" stuck, and 50% of anything over $100,000. Two things about this: I was repeatedly told, years ago, "Since Voynich never tried to sell it, and would therefore not profit from it, why would he forge it? It would be expensive to make, take time, and risk his reputation for nothing". Well now we know, through this and other information... Kraus's word, for instance... that Voynich actually did intend on making a fortune off the Voynich...

... and so on. The point being, over and over again, things that are curious and questionable lie in archives, after being seen by many.

[attachment=8456][attachment=8457]

What I mean by the botched job is the colouring of the plants with paint. Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v.
Is that how you would do it as a counterfeiter? 

About the photocopy where you took the photo. The Tepenece lettering is neither better nor worse than it is today. If you look closely, you can also see the cloud of plaster in some places. What now? Bad photocopy, bad chemist or bad photographer.
No matter what, it looks exactly the same as it does today.

But what is nice to see on the photocopy is that the lid had a leather cover. Wrapping. The edge is clearly visible.


By the way.
How do you keep a stack of whole sheets of parchment for 500 years, at a time when the material was scarce and often needed, when supplies were constantly coming in, and that without mixing it with parchment from other centuries?

Why are the pages with pictures more worn than the pages with only text? (recipe section). Is this intentional, or is it simply because pictures are more interesting than text alone, and so have been used more over the years?

This has nothing to do with forgery, it's just the ravages of time.
That's my opinion now. All things considered, there is no other option.

(25-04-2024, 08:11 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I mean by the botched job is the colouring of the plants with paint. Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v.
Is that how you would do it as a counterfeiter? 

About the photocopy where you took the photo. The Tepenece lettering is neither better nor worse than it is today. If you look closely, you can also see the cloud of plaster in some places. What now? Bad photocopy, bad chemist or bad photographer.
No matter what, it looks exactly the same as it does today.

But what is nice to see on the photocopy is that the lid had a leather cover. Wrapping. The edge is clearly visible.


By the way.
How do you keep a stack of whole sheets of parchment for 500 years, at a time when the material was scarce and often needed, when supplies were constantly coming in, and that without mixing it with parchment from other centuries?

Why are the pages with pictures more worn than the pages with only text? (recipe section). Is this intentional, or is it simply because pictures are more interesting than text alone, and so have been used more over the years?

This has nothing to do with forgery, it's just the ravages of time.
That's my opinion now. All things considered, there is no other option.

But here is the problem, Aga, with all your observations... or mine, too, at this level, because I don't dispute many of the claims you make, as they could be correct. It is just that we don't know. And, it goes, again, exactly to the theme of this thread.

The way I see it is this: It is your hypothetical genuine 15th century scribe, vs. my hypothetical 20th century scribe. And they each of us can suppose "what they would do or not do" endlessly, and even find real world comparisons for each effect we all see.

For instance, you write, "Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v. Is that how you would do it as a counterfeiter?" But don't you see, I could make the claim, "Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v. Is that how you would do it as a genuine artist?" I mean, I could counter your opinion, easily, with my own, and vice versa, for each of these points, for ANY point, at this level. In this case I can simply say that "A genuine artist would be more consistent, as it is their genuine, learned talent, which does not change, while a forger is copying that style, they don't really possess that talent, and that is why we see this inconsistency".

Do you see my point here? That just like the case of playing the experts like violins, picking this one, and discarding that one, using one opinion of one expert and discarding the rest, one can likewise use almost any feature of the Voynich, and cast it in a way that supports their viewpoint. I'm not saying many of my observations are "better", or as Rene was claiming, saying that anyone should only "listen to me". My point is that these things, at this level of evidence, can be connected to any situation in the real world, with actual examples, to make a case... while the exact opposite case can also be made.

So the net result is that anyone can make the Voynich anything they think it is, think it should be, and think it is not, by these sorts of arguments. So they don't help us learn what the Voynich is.

Now my purpose in pointing this out, about your observations, is NOT to argue for mine. Well, unavoidably, maybe a bit: I would, I do and can make the point why I believe what I think is the correct interpretation, but have done that at length, and in doing so, have striven to avoid the pitfalls of endlessly going 'round and 'round with no landmarks in sight. I think that can be done, and it is done through an overarching context which sort of "tunes" the violin. I feel "Context is King" here, and believe I have found that context, which is my foundation, my landmark, my litmus test (to throw a bunch of metaphors at you), which brings all these observations of all of us into focus (Ok, one more metaphor).

And I don't mean as "context" the broad, unfocused general ones of "It's real" and "It's fake", but more specific ones of why it was made, when it was made, who made it, where it was made, and by what means it was made. I feel I have a context for that which then helps resolve many of these smaller questions, such as your ones, here. So that is the way I look at it, and when I hear any genuine arguments, I look to see "what is the context" for this argument? In this case, the claim a genuine artist would create both good and bad coloring qualities. OK, but why, and how does this fit with the rest of the Voynich, and in what context?

Anyway, that is my feedback on this point. Rich.

Just searching the ninja forum and noticed that there is no actual "Modern Forgery Hypothesis" thread.

Theory and practice.
Theoretically, you can do anything. In practice, however, things look different.
Opinions on the situation.
Opinions don't count, only facts.
The fact is that your opinion doesn't count, ergo, the manuscript is real.

(25-04-2024, 02:25 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just searching the ninja forum and noticed that there is no actual "Modern Forgery Hypothesis" thread.

I thought that Jackson et all had a forgery thread? Usually though I consider that many of my, and other "forgery or not" topics crossover into many other categories, such as this one on my "Expert Opinion..." blog post being in news. There are few genuine or forgery discussions that would be limited to only a genuine or forgery category, I mean.

But how the distinctions between topics, and creation of topic categories, can and are handled are always the prerogative of the admins, of course, and are going to vary from forum to forum.

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

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/04/21/sources-for-the-voynich-forgery/

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

Rich.

---

(25-04-2024, 02:37 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Theory and practice.
Theoretically, you can do anything. In practice, however, things look different.
Opinions on the situation.
Opinions don't count, only facts.
The fact is that your opinion doesn't count, ergo, the manuscript is real.

Well, on the contrary I very much think your opinion does count, Aga, and I'm sorry you feel that way about mine. Agree or disagree, we should all listen to each other, and consider the viewpoint of others, or we stagnate... the whole field will stagnate, and an answer will stay out of reach.

Rich.