The Voynich Ninja

(25-03-2024, 08:49 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@asteckley
You write "Likewise, we have plant identification experts that have found the plant drawings resemble plants found in America." Now I have to ask, which experts? I don't know of a single expert on plants who has written anything about the VM manuscript - plants.

Really? Perhaps you should read Rich's article, and then obtain the writings of Janick and Tucker. Janick is a "distinguished professor of horticulture " and Tucker is an "internationally renowned botanist and is the co-founder and director of DSU's Claude E. Phillips Herbarium."  Together they have written two books "about the VM manuscript - plants". 

You may not like their observations -- I don't myself agree with all of them, not the extent of the similarities nor with their inferences regarding the manuscript's origins -- but arguing that they are not "experts" with relevant expertise in recognizing plant similarities, or that they have not "written anything about the VM manuscript", well that's just silly and doesn't really warrant any further discussion.

Your other comments are worthy points in discussing and reconciling a wider body of evidence, but you cannot use them to invalidate basic observations. With respect, I'm afraid you are entirely missing the point regarding the conflation of implications with observational conclusions.

(25-03-2024, 06:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well to me this seems to be about how we rely on experts. It is not because someone has any PhD, that they can be relied upon to assess a medieval artefact. 

Agree!

(25-03-2024, 06:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also don't think Rich should cherry pick from their findings. He likes that they said the plants are American, but he doesn't like that they did so in the framework of their Mexican theory.

Is it really necessary to accept all of the arguments of a researcher(s)  in order to accept any one of their arguments? Particularly in this case where the part that Rich seems to be accepting (i.e. the similarity to American plants) is that part which is related most directly  to J&T's area of expertise. And the part of their argument that Rich is rejecting is their implications regarding the origin of the manuscript.  He is accepting only what their 'expert observations' imply regarding when the manuscript could have been authored, not where or by whom.  

It is observational conclusions that one should not cherry-pick. And it is the implications of those conclusions that one should selectively filter in order to reconcile the observations with the wider body of evidence.

I have by no means bought into Rich's modern forgery theory, but so far, I only see that he is following a correct path of rational research.

(25-03-2024, 06:30 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again though, why would the European Voynich put so many American plants in his forgery?

It's a very valid question that demands some explanation.  One can easily come up with several plausible scenarios.

• Perhaps he was just grabbing all kinds of sources as fodder for illustrations, particularly since he was mashing up representations of the real plants with whimsical components (so he assumed no one would identify them or their geographic ranges.)
  
•  Perhaps he only hired someone else to produce the forgery but forgot to specify "avoid anything that might be post-Columbian". And perhaps he did not have the familiarity with American plants to notice the flaw. (He was, as you say, European, not American.) Or couldn't afford to correct the problem once noticed.
  

To be clear, I don't buy any of these. At the end of the day, the explanation may be that the resemblance to American plants is entirely coincidental.  BUT, the observation of resemblance remains. And the fact that that observation does imply a Post-Columbian time of origin also remains unless and until some other observation (or collective set of evidence) invalidates the implication.  And even then, it will remain a fact that some illustrations resemble American plants.

Until then, it is a question of whether there are enough cases of observational evidence that they collectively can all be explained by some particular theory. Various implications might get invalidated, but not the observational facts. Rich's modern forgery theory MUST explain the C14 dating and any counter theory MUST explain the resemblance of plant illustrations to some American plants.

Fundamental observation:
There's nothing American about it. I can only invalidate something if there is something there. But there is nothing, just a theory.

And the explanation of why I can't take them seriously.

Arthur Tucker and Rexford Talbert
According to two American botanists, Arthur O. Tucker and Rexford H. Talbert, the Voynich Manuscript shows plants of Central American origin[19][20].

This could indicate that the Voynich manuscript was drawn in Central America and written in a Central American language, possibly a language that is no longer spoken today[20].

The VMs botanical section stills seems to be an intentional trap for expert botanists. The almost obvious has been combined with the inexplicable. Botany is too complex. Try something simpler - like heraldry. Heraldry has a clear set of rules. Heraldry was one of the most common means of nonverbal communication in the Middle Ages. And there are only three pages at the start of the VMs Zodiac sequence. The VMs combines traditional armorial and ecclesiastical heraldic data to identify specific historical individuals. The VMs artist knows this history; it's a matter of informing the investigator.

How can expertise be achieved without relevant information?

I agree with both posts above. The Voynich is above all a historical artefact. It is not a botanically reliable plant portrait book.

The problem goes deeper than that though. Have you ever compared the supposed sunflower to an actual sunflower? Leaf shape, leaf arrangement, petal shape... The resemblance is so poor that most people even think they were actually talking about a different folio. There is just nothing there.

[attachment=8330]

@Koen
It's not just the sunflower. It's much more.
Moving the armadillo, America in general, language writing and inhabitants, somewhat into the 16th century, and classifying a normal zodiac sign in a normal European calendar as a jaguar kicks the can down the road.
Since he is not the only so-called expert with an academic title where the answers are questionable, and I would believe anyone, the VM is both one and the other.
Hence the answer to the question "I listen to the experts. And YOU?" Absolutely not.

Just to stay away from all the speculation, there is one important error in the graph, and there are two interesting omissions.



The error is with Panofsky, whose range is shown as 1510 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

However, his first assessment after seeing and handling the MS in the 1930's was: 1410-1430
Some 30 years later he gave a new assessment, 1470 or 1510 - 1520. The correct range from all this is not 1510-1520. It is 1410 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

The first interesting omission is Richard Salomon, who stated:

Quote:it was written in the 15th century, possibly as late as 1450, possibly earlier in the century

So that would deserve a bar of 1420 (blue) - 1450 (orange).

The second omission is interesting in a very different way, but Rich may not have these details. 
Theodore Petersen had written to one of his contacts in the Vatican (A. Strittmatter), who consulted the respectable Mgr. August Pelzer about Roger Bacon in general, and Voynich's Bacon MS. Petersen had sent along some photostats. 
The answer came:

Quote:You will be interested also to know that in the course of our first conversation Msgr. P. remarked: 
"Die Voynich HS ist sicherlich nicht von Bacon. Sie stammt aus dem späten 16. oder frühen  17. Jhdt, höchstwahrscheinlich aus der Tschecho-Slowakei oder aus Polen." As I understand it, he considers the drawings representative of interests utterly alien to Roger Bacon.

The German part means: The Voynich MS is certainly not by Bacon. It dates from the late 16th or early 17th century, most probably from Czechoslovakia or Poland.

This could rate as probably the worst of all estimates, from a respectable expert.
Of course, he did not see the MS. Only some B/W photos.

All the rest is speculation.

I had started this reply much earlier but then ran out of time to post it. The site has been really busy this month and so has my life outside this group. So please forgive if this response is a little old now that so many more responses have been posted.

There is a side of me that wants to thank Rich for his post. He does make some good points in it and he has been researching the VM for quite awhile. While that might not make him a so-called expert, it doesn't mean his opinion isn't worth listening to. Quite the contrary actually. Just as are the many other opinions, opposing or not, of the many others who have also been researching the VM for a long time.

But Rich's blog post reads like a diatribe more than it does an honest opinion or an offer of useful information for thoughtful consideration. And as others have pointed out there are also errors and omissions in it. There are several staunch factions, like the hoax versus genuine ones, in VM research that seem to me to quite often distract everyone from being able to reach any kind of conclusion. As long as VM research remains a Tower of Babel, I doubt we will ever find, or at least not widely accept, any possible solution. I understand Rich's frustration and I sympathize but I don't think the post really accomplished anything other than allowing him to vent. The blog is Rich's and so he should post what he wants in it but I wish he would have written this post better, leaving all the venting and frustration and bias out and keeping all the good points in about the so-called experts and considering what they have said at varying times with both a measure of respect and one of skepticism.

I think it is good for VM researchers to consider what has actually been proven and more importantly what has not and then keep that all in context. It is also important to consider the backgrounds of those who propose anything about the VM, dating or otherwise, so their opinion can be judged according to the level of their knowledge, if not also their expertise (which is not the same as being an expert), professional or otherwise. And so much of what has been written about the VM is just that: opinion. Knowledgeable and well-researched perhaps but still opinion. Irrefutable proof of anything about the VM, and also what it is not, is in very short supply, the radiocarbon dating, the ink analysis and the protein testing notwithstanding, and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future. And any such proof will have to invariably consider and relate to and concur with all other aspects of the VM as well. The very best proof would be to thoroughly dissect and study and scientifically test all of the physical VM, not just samples here and there, and that isn't going to happen because this would likely destroy it in the process. Whether or not irrefutable proof is even possible otherwise remains to be seen. It may well be we will only ever achieve convincing proof of what the VM is or is not, in whole or in part. If we are even able to do that.

Personally, I have my own ideas about the VM and I expect them to change many times for the duration of my interest in the VM. I do pay attention to the experts in the various disciplines related to VM research and I consider them accordingly. I also consider others who may not be experts but who offer much knowledge and expertise. None of what I have read so far has irrefutably or even convincingly proven or disproven to me anything about the VM, in whole or in part. Not yet. Except possibly the dating of the vellum, the composition of the inks, the composition of the vellum and the conclusion that it is not a palimpsest but even then only in the context of the limited samples taken and tested. There is so much written opinion to consider and I am still very new to VM research. If you were to ask me if I currently agree or disagree with Rich about the VM being a forgery or a hoax (which, I might add, as much as he wants us to believe his post is open to other possibilities, he is still promoting that it is such), then I would have to say no and that is considering all aspects of hoaxes and forgeries, modern or otherwise. I am open to the possibility but I will need convincing proof of such and so far I have not seen that. Ultimately, anyone researching the VM, myself and Rich included, must limit ourselves to what we believe to be the best possible assumptions and lines of investigation and this is simply because there are so many possibilities and we each have only so much time to invest in something that we are not getting paid to do but rather are doing it from personal interest.

"Resembles" is not "is". It is not an identification. "Resembles" is a reasoning, not a fact nor a truth.


It is quite clear that if VM authors ever wanted their plants and roots to be generally identified and recognized, they would have painted them so. They had the skills and means to do it, but they chose not for some reason, maybe because the VM authors used the plants and roots as way to conceal information to the intended audience, mixing up different plant and root traits and parts, or even invented new ones. e.g. "a root with this and plant leaves like that means that".. or so.

For this, as VM plants are not botany, no botanist can be treated as expert or fact providing person in the matter. But they can provide a great fun for a blog.

Do you accept that in the zodiac sign Aries it really is an Aries even if it looks like a goat?
Or just because you know that an Aries belongs in this position?
What is a fact now?