The Voynich Ninja

It was actually meant as a joke.
Nevertheless, the C-14 test is something solid that you can't simply refute with an opinion/thesis.
The wear and tear is something tangible, it's there, you can see it.
The retanning is there, you can see it. The wormholes are there, they are real.
But you only have your opinion on everything. Maybe from a few others. But that doesn't really count.
What you really need are facts. Bring them.
Otherwise we can talk about God and the world. There will never be a result.

Moved to Voynich talk.

(25-04-2024, 03:33 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nevertheless, the C-14 test is something solid that you can't simply refute with an opinion/thesis.
The wear and tear is something tangible, it's there, you can see it.
The retanning is there, you can see it. The wormholes are there, they are real.
But you only have your opinion on everything. Maybe from a few others. But that doesn't really count.
What you really need are facts. Bring them.
Otherwise we can talk about God and the world. There will never be a result.

We should all be careful to apply your advice equally to both sides of the debate. And avoid treating inferences from facts as if they are facts, regardless of what theory they happen to support or weaken.

(21-04-2024, 09:57 AM)voynichbombe Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Back to the experts: What about Alain Touwaide?

Hi, VoynichBombe: I had remembered your (rhetorical, I think) question, and have thought about it in relation to this "expert" topic". The case of Mr. Touwaide is an interesting one. I mean, we have experts accepted or rejected on many different personal criteria: Area of expertise, experience, knowledge of the Voynich in particular, adherence to the range of C14 dates... or not, and many more discussed on this thread.

But Alain Touwaide is a unique case. There was initial excitement that someone with his background took an interest in the Voynich. But it seems that when it was was learned that he took my ideas seriously enough to include them prominently in his lectures, he was suddenly dropped from discussion. This is unfortunate, as he has many interesting insights which cover a lot of ground, and would be of use to many people.

So added to the list of criteria for rejecting an expert might be if they suggest Modern Forgery is an option.

And he didn't even talk about my ideas because he thought Modern Forgery was the solution, he only felt that it was one of multiple possibles. I actually wrote to him, asking him about this, and he explained that he does not have a firm opinion on what the Voynich might be. He said he included my hypothesis in his talk, which he said "surprised the Voynich community", but he had only included them out of a "duty" for "completeness and objectivity".

I appreciate that, and think it is important to discuss everything. And I've often said that even though I disagree with people, I always want to hear them out. I always learn something new, like new things to look for, or ways to test my own ideas that I had not thought of.

Rich.

Distinguish between fact, theory and conclusion.
That the worm was there is a fact. That it may also have destroyed the bond is theory. A conclusion would be that the book was rebound for this reason.
The fact is the C-14 text. Result does not matter.
Advice. Ask Yale to do the test again.

Aga, as it is obvious to everyone, I love to engage in discussion, and offer my opinions any any and all things presented to me. But one thing I don't appreciate is anyone attributing things to me that I do not believe. No one likes this, so please stop.

Also, "straw man arguments" are a method which actually undermines the positions of the person using them, because it then appears they cannot counter the real argument being presented, and must instead argue invented ones for their opponent in the discussion. I ignored it the first time, but I you repeated some of them and posted again, so I need to respond.

(25-04-2024, 03:33 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nevertheless, the C-14 test is something solid that you can't simply refute with an opinion/thesis.

The wear and tear is something tangible, it's there, you can see it.

The retanning is there, you can see it. The wormholes are there, they are real.

But you only have your opinion on everything. Maybe from a few others. But that doesn't really count.

What you really need are facts. Bring them.

Otherwise we can talk about God and the world. There will never be a result.

(26-04-2024, 10:00 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Distinguish between fact, theory and conclusion.
That the worm was there is a fact. That it may also have destroyed the bond is theory. A conclusion would be that the book was rebound for this reason.

The fact is the C-14 text. Result does not matter.

Advice. Ask Yale to do the test again.

You've inspired me to make a "copy paste" list of my actual positions on these things, to save time when I am misrepresented. I'll have to work on that. But meanwhile:

1) I do not refute the C14 data, and do believe the different samples vellum of the Voynich all originate from between the late 14th and early 15th century. I only take issue with the "combining" of these results into the much shorter 1404-1438 range, as this was admittedly done based on an "assumption" the manuscript was made in a shorter period of time.

2) The worm holes may be real, they may be faked. But even if real, they also may have been faked with live insects, as this was and is a tool of the forger's trade.

3) I do not dispute the wear, nor the staining, of the manuscript. I know it is "there", and never said otherwise.

4) I never claim that my opinion is factual or proven, when it is not. And I don't tell anyone else what to think, I only give my views on issues, and explain on what basis and on what evidence I give that opinion.

5) When I base my opinions on the opinions of others, or reject opinions of others, I also make that clear that I have, and on what basis.

6) I never tell you nor anyone what to think, and I do not claim I have proven my hypothesis. 

7) To reach my opinions, I use both circumstantial evidence, and direct, provable evidence, and try to make the distinction between the two, clear every time.

8) My disagreeing with anyone should never to be confused as an "ad hominem", no matter how distasteful my opinion may seem to their hard held and heart-felt beliefs. It is always meant in the spirit of open debate, which I feel is necessary to advance understanding on any unresolved subject.

I included a few other claims about my approach method and positions in that list while I was at it. I also will point out, again, that I am very wordy, in part, because I try to carefully adhere to the above rules and standards for myself, exactly to avoid misrepresentations of my positions, and charges that I am being in some way flippant with the facts, or hostile in any way, neither of which I ever intend.

So it is great to disagree with me, and we have both had an opportunity to hash out all these issues. Anyone interested in where we both stand can easily search this long thread to find them.

But inventing positions for me does not strengthen the case for your opinions, but weakens them, while it is also wrong to do this. I also have a good imagination, and could invent positions for you, too, and if I didn't think it was wrong to do, I would. I understand where you stand on these points, and never tell you to feel otherwise.

Rich.

I don't have to invent things.
It's quite simple.
The C-14 test has opened the box. Schrödinger's cat is alive.

[attachment=8459]

As for the wormholes/structure.
Take parchment, put a worm on it and wait. Do it and prove that it works and looks the same as other examples. And document it.
The structure is always the same for this species.

(26-04-2024, 03:28 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't have to invent things.

It's quite simple.

The C-14 test has opened the box. Schrödinger's cat is alive.

OK then, as I've said, I do not dispute the C14 (raw) test results. Will you answer a question? As these conversation often go, I am asked, over and over, to explain a great many things, and I do my best to answer every single question. And, as Maxwell Smart famously said, "And loving it!".

On the other hand, I ask counter questions, thousands over the years, and a high percentage of them get ignored. You have not addressed the core theme of this thread, in fact. And this is not as much a challenge, as genuine curiousity on my part, how you would answer this question, then:

"It is a fact that the overwhelming number of expert opinions, before the c14 tests were determined, actually believed that the Voynich was inked with it's lettering and illustrations at far different times than that dating eventually showed. Only one book cataloger, Lehmann-Haupt, in fact, matched those C14 dates. In addition, several post-C14 experts strongly feel the illustrations were added long after the creation of the calfskin. We also know (it is a fact, also) that blank parchment can, and has, sat for even centuries. So how do you explain that all these experts are wrong about the dating, and you are right?"

In the spirit of true discussion, your reasoning behind this is missing, and it would be very interesting for me to see how you explain it. I've shown you mine, how about you show me yours?

Rich.

(26-04-2024, 03:39 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the wormholes/structure.
Take parchment, put a worm on it and wait. Do it and prove that it works and looks the same as other examples. And document it.
The structure is always the same for this species.

Well that is an interesting experiment to undertake, and as I've already said, this "wormhole" discussion has inspired me to try. Meanwhile, really, the test has been run, because forgers have successfully used live worms to fake age in art and literature. So, my test would really be moot to this issue, it is already settled... despite your protestations. But it will be fun to do, and yes, I would of course document it. BUT:

You say, "The structure is always the same for this species" (italics mine).

How did you determine "this species"? We know wormholes are caused by a great many species of insect, usually some sort of beetle in the larva stage. How did you learn the Voynich-larva species? This is news to me.

Rich.

Edited to add link to list of possible species... is the species you identified as the Voynich one, on this list?: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.