The Voynich Ninja

Hi Rich,

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."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. 

So far, so good. Overwhelming is perhaps an overstatement, and many were credulously following Wilfrid's fairy tale of a Roger Bacon origin, so got it wrong for that simple reason.
No problem, I would say.

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Only one book cataloger, Lehmann-Haupt, in fact, matched those C14 dates. 

But this is a mis-representation. Four of them were close to the date, as I wrote before but you choose to ignore. Three of them had time to examine the MS and were within a few decades of the C-14 date.
(On a side note, two of them stated emphatically that the MS is genuine, not a modern fake).

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In addition, several post-C14 experts strongly feel the illustrations were added long after the creation of the calfskin. 

Who are they? Honest question.

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We also know (it is a fact, also) that blank parchment can, and has, sat for even centuries.

This is a bit of a half-truth. Blank old parchment exists in places where it cannot just be bought.
Larger amounts on the market are much less clear. I would not call it a fact.

But I can concede here. In the end, it is a case of "he could have". There is no evidence that he ever acquired blank parchment.

Interestingly, and as you well know, he DID acquire unused old paper.
He did not use that to create any fake.
Being a dealer, he sold it at a profit for what it was: unused sheets of old paper.
No risk, quick profit.

[attachment=8460][attachment=8461]

The bookworm is too small to leave such traces.
The main culprit is one of the nail beetles.
Some of these are more common in southern Europe and others are more common in the north.
They can be found in the most unlikely places.
Examples:

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

Hi, Rene:

(26-04-2024, 04:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Rich,

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."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. 

So far, so good. Overwhelming is perhaps an overstatement, and many were credulously following Wilfrid's fairy tale of a Roger Bacon origin, so got it wrong for that simple reason.
No problem, I would say.

I would call 14 to 16 out of the C14 dates, to from one to three (at most) in that range, certainly qualifies as "overwhelming". But also, you say it is attributable to a credulous adherence to Wilfrid's Roger Bacon origin... but this is not correct, as most of these experts didn't follow that lead at all, and even talked against it:



As you can see, only Newbold, Steele and Peterson were in or near "Roger Bacon" dates. Most were far out from there, so clearly Wilfrid's Bacon bent had no influence on their dating.

(26-04-2024, 04:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Only one book cataloger, Lehmann-Haupt, in fact, matched those C14 dates. 

But this is a mis-representation. Four of them were close to the date, as I wrote before but you choose to ignore. Three of them had time to examine the MS and were within a few decades of the C-14 date.
(On a side note, two of them stated emphatically that the MS is genuine, not a modern fake).

Yes, I didn't get around to adding one of the names to the list, but have been saying "about" and "or more" to address this. I mean, I was not ignoring your input... But I didn't realize it was now a total of four... I thought we were up to two, Lehmann-Haupt, who I have on my list, and the one other you suggested. Who are the other two? Re-reading your above comment, I see you say they "were within a few decades of the C14 date". With respect, though, Rene, that is fudging the standards of "nearness" to the dates for determining their accuracy of dating opinion. I mean, on the one hand, the raw C14 is adjusted on the "assumption" the book was made within 10 years (original explanation of what was done, since removed). But then, to get more experts near the C14, you now allow "within decades" of that dating to suffice.

It cannot be both... that is using different, hypocritical standards to support your position. No, I am applying the consistant standard used by those who claim the Voynich was created in a short time of around ten years, and so, those "within a few decades" are not under the standards given me here. And also, if I were to apply my own standards for this chart, and this determination, rather than yours, I would say it should be within a few months for a genuine manuscript. I'm being generous in allowing the ranges I have, I mean, already. But no, I won't agree that one must go out decades, and accept those expert opinions as being correct. Besides, there is the further point that those expert opinions are not accepted anyway!

Using variable standards anything can be claimed of anything, not matter what facts we have at hand.

And lastly, I don't recall any of them stating "emphatically that the MS is genuine, not a modern fake". Did you mention this in our previous discussions on this thread? I would be, and am, glad to include these quotes. If, however, you mean that there is merely an implication that, through their dating the illustrations and so on, I reject that. But if what you say can be attributed to them, through actual, specific quotes, then I would add them to my page (you know I update my blog pages to include additional or corrective information).

(26-04-2024, 04:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In addition, several post-C14 experts strongly feel the illustrations were added long after the creation of the calfskin. 

Who are they? Honest question.

Arthur O. Tucker and Jules Janick, for two. Dr. Edith Sherwood for another. Alain Touwaide feels that some of the plants may be post-Columbus, and has said, "If it’s a forgery, someone could very well have had the idea of creating the forgery on the basis of New World flora. At the most, it shows a possible source of the forgery.” There are a couple of others, too, at least. But you know all this, so I don't know why you are asking me this, again. Are they on your website? You ought to include them, if not. I know you have pre-C14 opinions of O'Neil, or think you do. The later ones may be valuable to your readers, also.

(26-04-2024, 04:52 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We also know (it is a fact, also) that blank parchment can, and has, sat for even centuries.

This is a bit of a half-truth. Blank old parchment exists in places where it cannot just be bought.
Larger amounts on the market are much less clear. I would not call it a fact.

But I can concede here. In the end, it is a case of "he could have". There is no evidence that he ever acquired blank parchment.

You have created a bit of a "mini straw man" here, by adding "larger amounts" to my actual statement. It is not a "half truth" as I actually stated it: "... blank parchment can, and has, sat for centuries". That is a complete truth. And we do have quantities, such as the stocks in the British records office, and the blank pages of the 350 year old ledger I describe in the links below. So, large amounts, yes. Accessible or not- you added in the claim "it cannot be bought", when actually you do not know this. Of exactly the right age?

Again, you alter what I describe until it is not factual, then say I tell a "half truth". But this is not what I have said. I describe, accurately, true and factual situations, then I opine on those, and make it clear when I do. They only become "half truths" if they are modified by others, after I state them, as you did, here.

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/old-blank-vellum-sitting-around/

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

And besides, it would not have taken all that much vellum, anyway: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

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

Quote:Interestingly, and as you well know, he DID acquire unused old paper.
He did not use that to create any fake.
Being a dealer, he sold it at a profit for what it was: unused sheets of old paper.
No risk, quick profit.

You often admonish me for something I do not do (without disclaimers), and that is stating something as fact, when it is my opinion. But here is another example of you doing exactly that: You state, "He did not use that to create any fake." You not know this, you have no way of knowing this. And yes, he did sell unused sheets of ancient paper... we agree. To me, this is what is called "proof of concept", an indirect way of knowing that a practice or event is plausible, by parallel example. We know he had and sold blank ancient paper, we know he bought the Libreria in 1908, which had vast stacks of known and unknown materials, many of which were being sold for purposes as mundane as fish wrapping. And more... these are all proof of the concept, and allow me to plausibly hypothesis he also may have reasonably had blank ancient vellum, and used may have used it.

All this is, to me, another of many clear examples which demonstrate that what I actually report, what actually happened, must be re-defined, altered, filtered, in order to avoid the damning implications that the Voynich has very serious problems. My words must be re-written to say things I did not say; variable sets of standards must be applied to both accept and then reject things that "don't fit"; exact examples which don't exist must be demanded and required to make a case for forgery, while for 1420 genuine, it is merely necessary for unfounded opinions to suffice; and it is insisted that every point must be analyzed and challenged for forgery, while genuine and old is allowed to exist on opinions, incorrect facts, and by rarely satisfactorily answering important and difficult questions.

But I am fully happy to continue pointing this out, so others are not continually led down the primrose path. What they then do when realizing these things, if they do, is up to them of course. But it is very important to me to help them understand how this Paradigm defends itself, and what to look out for.

Rich

Where is the evidence that error and variation in dating of historical documents like this is not commonplace? Is getting a date 100 years out quite normal when dating medieval objects without readable text? There seems to be an assumption that a higher precision in dating is normal, but where is the evidence for that? How accurately do you expect someone to be able to date an object like this without the assistance of carbon dating and on what basis do you expect that degree of accuracy?

Hi Mark: I'm not entirely understanding all your points on this, or to what opinions or statements of mine, if any, they apply, but I'll try to answer...

(26-04-2024, 06:21 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Where is the evidence that error and variation in dating of historical documents like this is not commonplace? Is getting a date 100 years out quite normal when dating medieval objects without readable text? There seems to be an assumption that a higher precision in dating is normal, but where is the evidence for that? How accurately do you expect someone to be able to date an object like this without the assistance of carbon dating and on what basis do you expect that degree of accuracy?

When looking at the historical use of radiocarbon dating to determine the age of parchments, I had come across this:

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/c14-dating-of-parchment-testing-the-test-in-72/

From the above, "C14 Dating of Parchment: Testing the Test in ’72", I wrote,

"The procedure they used, discarding results based on known dates, actually showed that the tests alone could not be relied on. They would, in effect, have been clueless with undated samples. In fact, although the testers seem to present the results as though “C14 works for vellum”, they actually have this very telling passage:

Quote:It is interesting that the radiocarbon dates after correction and calibration for secular variations correspond to thier known historical ages. But the nature of the calibration curve first developed by Suess sometimes permits age ranges or alternative dates rather than unique dates. Consequently, for samples of unknown age it may be necessary to use independent criteria to narrow the choice.

Italics are mine. But the point is, this whole test of the test could be summed up as follows: “If you don’t know the date of a vellum document, C14 will not give it to you. It could be well over a hundred years off."

No doubt there have been many refinements of the process for radiocarbon dating of parchment since 1972. But from what I can tell, from the beginning, the accuracy of these tests rely a great deal on additional, outside evidence and assumptions. And usually, in the case of parchment, one has a date written on the document, or some other expert verification to buttress the results of the test. But in the case of the Voynich, the only thing we had, other than the test results, was a raft of expert opinion which overwhelmingly disagreed with the dates!

So what to do? Well you know well what I think about all this. But your point is a very good one, and also one I never couch: How good are those dates? I have found myself necessarily accepting that the raw results are correct, and would not deign to question them, as my full understanding of the methods, process and math required is short of what would be valuable. So I agree with those dates. It is a case in which I must rely on the experts, like when going into surgery or having a root canal. Not time to second guess them, no time for eight years of surgical training.

But again, a good question. How do we know? How do we know that the dates ARE correct, and this manuscript does not, indeed, match the overwhelming number of expert opinions, which I think would place it somewhere in the 17th century (not sure, I'd have to do the means and averages and all that)? And a question which I've also avoided asking... I have bigger fish to fry... Is about the change in f68 from "uncleaned" to "cleaned", and the resulting huge swing in resulting dates. Well, what got cleaned off, to change the dates? Were the other samples cleaned? If so, did their dates change? If not, why not?

We may not know the answers to all these things, but some might be found, or implied to, in the actual radiocarbon reports, which after a years-long struggle, finally shook from the tree: https://proto57.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/the-long-awaited-voynich-radiocarbon-report/

It can be downloaded from a link on that page.

TLDR: I don't know the answers to your questions, and the implications of all the unknown and possible answers are endless. Therefore, if an until there is more information forthcoming, which I doubt (forgive me), I must needs accept the raw C14 data. And, anyway, it (IMHO) supports forgery anyway.

Rich.

Rich

You don't seem to have understood me.

Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

It seems to me that variation in dating of historical objects with no readable text by people is probably quite normal and so the different dating of different people is to be expected. How accurately do you expect an individual to be able to date an object of this kind? Lisa Fagin Davis pointed out that difficulties in dating medieval text like this is normal. Have you compared it to the dating of other medieval objects without readable text? How.accurate are they?

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.

(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.

Well, why then does he think that different people coming to different datings of the Voynich manuscript somehow supports the idea that it is a modern forgery.

My point is that different people coming to different datings of a medieval manuscript like this is probably quite normal. I suspect dating a medieval manuscript with no readable text is probably very hard to get right.

(26-04-2024, 07:52 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.

Well, why then does he think that different people coming to different datings of the Voynich manuscript somehow supports the idea that it is a modern forgery.

My point is that different people coming to different datings of a medieval manuscript like this is probably quite normal. I suspect dating a medieval manuscript with no readable text is probably very hard to get right.

I have no dog in this fight. But I kind of marvel at Rich's patience in explaining the same thing over and over again.

(26-04-2024, 07:55 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:52 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.

Well, why then does he think that different people coming to different datings of the Voynich manuscript somehow supports the idea that it is a modern forgery.

My point is that different people coming to different datings of a medieval manuscript like this is probably quite normal. I suspect dating a medieval manuscript with no readable text is probably very hard to get right.

I have no dog in this fight. But I kind of marvel at Rich's patience in explaining the same thing over and over again.

From your previous comments, you clearly do have a dog in this fight.

I marvel at our patience in reading and replying to Rich's theory.