The Voynich Ninja

(26-04-2024, 08:22 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Well I guess I do have a dog in the fight to use consistent standards and logic when evaluating evidence. 
But what I meant is that I have no dog in the fight regarding modern forgery vs authentic. 

I am actually not convinced of Rich's modern forgery theory (and have told him as much.)
I do, however, see that he has some valid observations and I respect his open minded-approach, politeness to those with a different opinion, and the consistency of his logic, all of which are often contrasted by some commenters.

Perhaps I am seeing those things more easily because I have not subscribed to any particular theory.

Hey Mark: You are correct, I did not understand your question.

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Not exactly. First of all, I don't say "must be", but that I feel it is "evidence of" forgery. Secondly, I do not think there is any problem with their opinions on date of origin (of the illustrations and "lettering"), let alone "fundamental". I think they are all pretty much correct. Let me say it again, this way, "The wide range of differing and often mutually exclusive opinions on the subjects of dating, content, and geographic origins (most of which I think are correct, if contrasting opinions) implies to me that this is a modern forgery. Genuine items do not exhibit these differences of content, or the opinions about them, as they are from one time, one place, usually limited to a content set that reflects a specific, smaller range, appropriate under some understandable context."

This is a fundamental point to my blog post which started this thread about, and which I've described there, and in a hundred same and different ways in over a decade. It was on my list of "Forgery Red Flags" in the lecture I gave at the NSA Historical Cipher Conference at John Hopkins in 2017. And it is based on my study of the nature of art and literature forgeries throughout history, and how they are and were perceived, and how they were and are revealed as forgeries.

(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?

Well it's a good guess, to assume that this is a common phenom among genuine Medieval and other artifacts and literature. But it is not the case. If you want to learn more about this subject, you should read my reading list on the history of forgery, posted in this thread, twice, and found here:

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

But in short, no, genuine items do not come close to the disparities of opinion which the Voynich exhibits. This is because genuine items match the time, hand, geography and content they were created under and with. Forgeries, in attempting to copy a subject, hand, and era, often miss. Well, if they don't, we don't know they are forgeries anyway. And when their are disagreement among experts, they are far more limited in scope than we see here. The Voynich is a unique and extreme example, and if a forgery as I believe, probably the most extreme one the planet ever saw... for scope of content and eras and styles. It's the Mack Daddy of forgeries.

As for Lisa, she told me that, long ago, before C14 dating, she knew right away, that it was and is obvious to her, that this is an early 15th century document. Perhaps she meant it was difficult for others? If you are reading this, Lisa, it would be better than Mark and I trying to define your views on this. But when I personally asked you this, at the Malta conference, my understanding from your answer was that this was "clearly" an early 15th century manuscript, and that this should not be a difficult answer to come to.

Another way to look at my position of is this: You know, we all know, that there is a great deal of expert and amateur disagreement on age, content and geography. That is a given. So each person, with a theory of their own, disagrees with any other theory that contrasts with their own. C14 genuinists disagree with any theory past about 1460. Newbold's theory disagreed with Singer's. Jules Janick (a friend of mine) strongly disagrees with my theory. Pelling, with his Averlino, disagreed with Claston's Anthony Askam authorship. The Comegys brothers disagree with me, and with Claston... on and on and on.

I, on the other hand, believe that almost all of them are correct (not fundamentally wrong, as you said). And I think the reason for all of them seeing all these contrasting and mutually exclusive things in the Voynich is because they are there. They are all right, not wrong. I think there are, or influences of, New World Plants, Jewish Iconography, Rosicrucian imagery. There is German, French, Czech, Nahuatl, Glagolitic, Latin, Algonquin, and other elements and influences used on the text and some imagery. I think the Voynich does contain images inspired by 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and even twentieth century optical devices, and imaginative uses of microscopic organisms and plant life, and anatomical features. It reflects, in part, the Medieval and Renaissance Herbal, Medicinal and baleonological (sp? sorry not looking that up right now) traditions, too. I do think Newbold and others were correct in noting the similarity between that image and a nebula. I do think Robert Sale is correct in noting his papal iconography, the galero, the blue and white stripes, and more. I do think the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal was intended to be an armadillo, as I and several others have noted... and that the "bird glyph" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is meant to be a "calderon", or New World Codex paragraph marker. I do think many are probably correct in that the words on the last page marginalia were meant as "pox leber". I believe the Rosettes was inspired by, and included because it resembles You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I almost forgot: I absolutely agree with Tucker, Talbot, Janick, the Comegys, O'Neil and others, that there are New World plants and animals, and influences on the glyphs and other items...

I could literally go on for hours, and pages of this. You know the vast corpus of stunningly wide range of subjects, ages, languages, all "seen" in the Voynich. Well you are "talking" to a person who does listen to them all, and agrees with most of it.

And in MY OPINION (god you guys tire me out. I need a Red Bull, pronto...), all these contrasting observations by all these experts can best be explained, simply be explained, by the Voynich being made by an early 20th century forger who had knowledge of and access to all these subjects, and sought to make a colorful and exciting "compendium" which would look as though it came from a great and forward thinking mind or minds.

So in short, I do think the vast majority of experts were and are right. All the things they see in there, are in there, because it is... IN MY OPINION *downs Red Bull* a modern forgery.

Rich.

(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.

Hi Andrew,

see this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and then play the video.

Of course, this is now 7 years ago and Rich may want to add if he has changed his opinion on any of these points.

I've been thinking again about Rene's timeline and what may have led people to their conclusions.
It's one of those things with the clothes. It's durable. It stretches over a longer period of time. Plus most of them are naked anyway. It's no different with hair.
I see a connection between the German text and the battlements. If I connect the battlements (*not before 1500 north of the Alps) with the German sentences, I am already in the 16th century. If I now add the name Tepenece, I am already after 1600 (Book available). This may also lead to Czechoslovakia, as battlements were present from 1540. (Romanticism)
I think this is one of the important criteria for the high estimate.

* Thanks to Koen's work, everyone should know that by now. It can also be found in Castles and Palaces of Europe and is part of the history of architecture.

(26-04-2024, 10:25 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 08:22 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Well I guess I do have a dog in the fight to use consistent standards and logic when evaluating evidence. 
But what I meant is that I have no dog in the fight regarding modern forgery vs authentic. 

I am actually not convinced of Rich's modern forgery theory (and have told him as much.)
I do, however, see that he has some valid observations and I respect his open minded-approach, politeness to those with a different opinion, and the consistency of his logic, all of which are often contrasted by some commenters.

Perhaps I am seeing those things more easily because I have not subscribed to any particular theory.

Well, you seem much more sympathetic to Rich's theory than most other commenters, so in so far as any of us can be said to have "a dog in this fight" I would say that you do. You may view your sympathy to Rich's narrative as being down to your being more logical than others, I beg to differ.

(27-04-2024, 06:04 AM)ReneZ 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.

Hi Andrew,

see this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and then play the video.

Of course, this is now 7 years ago and Rich may want to add if he has changed his opinion on any of these points.

Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.

I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.

I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.

If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue...  I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.

I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:

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

There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.

That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.

Rich.

(27-04-2024, 02:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.

I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.

I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.

If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue...  I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.

I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:

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

There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.

That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.

Rich.

Your presentation is very misleading. You don't think their datings are correct, as many of them make it quite clear that they don't think the manuscript is a modern forgery. You can pretend that they agree with you, but they don't. As just one example, how can the Voynich be written by Roger Bacon and at the same time be a modern forgery? It can't.

In addition with the same data in many cases they come to different conclusions from one another, and so they are mutually contradictory and therefore it is impossible for even all their analysis to be consistent with your theory or anyone else's.

You seem to be trying to co-opt, mostly dead, people who can't talk back to your theory despite the fact that they have made it clear that they don't endorse your theory.

(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="proto57" pid='59191' dateline='1714223347']

Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.

I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.

I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.

If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue...  I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.

I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:

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

There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.

That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.

Rich.

Hi Mark: You've made some clearly demonstrable errors, which are easily dismissed, here, in your rebuttal:

(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your presentation is very misleading. You don't think their datings are correct, as many of them make it quite clear that they don't think the manuscript is a modern forgery. You can pretend that they agree with you, but they don't. As just one example, how can the Voynich be written by Roger Bacon and at the same time be a modern forgery? It can't.

You conflate the dating opinions of the experts with a verdict of genuine. Yes, they very well may have believed the Voynich was authentic, and perhaps that can be implied by that dating. But there is nothing contradictory in anyone accepting that they dated the content correctly, which I do, while seeing in the circumstances of that dating (that is, the mutually contradictory dating opinions among experts), and coming to mine, or our, conclusions.

For instance, Singer saw the content as "Paracelcian", which would place the creation of the Voynich 100 years past the C14 dating of the vellum. I agree with him, I respect his judgment. Now, did he also think the Voynich was genuine? Maybe, it is irrelevant to whether or not is is genuine. Parcelcian content could have been put into the Voynich up to 1912. The same with Hugh O'Neil's sunflower and pepper identifications. One can accept his analysis and identities of these plants, while realizing that it is possible for those plants to have been applied to the vellum any time up to 1912.

Your desire to link the two is not supported. There is a difference with accepting and expert identification, and drawing a particular conclusion from it. They are separate. It is valid and ordinary, common, and even scientific to draw our own conclusions from expert opinions. The law parallel has been brought up here, and it applies: Both the defense and the prosecution bring forward experts, who give contradictory testimony about the evidence. That testimony is often mutually exclusive, and it is up to the jury... not, usually, experts... to decide what all that expert testimony means to the case. A perfect parallel to the Voynich... I listen to all the experts, agree with their observations and dating, and come to my conclusion as to what it means. Actually, you do, too, by throwing it all out, on the basis that their dating is wrong. Why is that any different?

(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In addition with the same data in many cases they come to different conclusions from one another, and so they are mutually contradictory and therefore it is impossible for even all their analysis to be consistent with your theory or anyone else's.

Well I'm surprised you actually didn't catch the problem with this sentence, before you sent it, and almost expect it to be gone when I post this answer! Obviously you have just totally supported my point, and in a very specific and exact way: Yes, "... they are mutually contradictory", that is the point I make, which is exactly WHY it is "... consistent with [my] theory" and no one else's. All other theories have to discard all or some of this expert opinion. Genuine/old has to throw out almost all of it, precisely because it is not consistent with their position, and arguable supports forgery.

(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You seem to be trying to co-opt, mostly dead, people who can't talk back to your theory despite the fact that they have made it clear that they don't endorse your theory.

But Mark, don't you see the irony in your stating this? It is you, and others who adhere to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher theory that discard almost all of the testimony of all these "mostly dead people", and no, they can't "talk back to you", either, about that. I do not discard their voice, as needed to support genuine. I listen to them, I value and use their input.

I can't say how they would react with the advent of the C14 results, but would, if I could, ask them what they now all thought, realizing that their dating observations were many decades, even centuries, away from the creation of the parchment. I can only wonder. Likewise, I could wonder what they would say to people today who say they are all wrong, based on that same C14. You say they are wrong, how do you think Charles Singer, Panofsky, O'Neil, et all, would respond to you?

Rich.

It is clear that you are trying to be very selective about when you listen to people you call experts and when you don't. The manuscript being "geninue", or not, is a dating conclusion. If you respect these people's opinions you should listen to their resounding conclusion that the Voynich is not a modern forgery and not downplay or ignore that opinion.

The contradictions between the different datings does not imply your theory is true. I think that many or most of the people that you list can hardly be considered "experts" when it comes to dating as I said a long time ago. Was "Newbold" really an expert? In addition the difficulties in dating an object like the Voynich in part account for the various datings.

Why have you chosen to focus on the opinions of mostly dead people? Why not refer to people who can tell you what they actually think of your theory?

(27-04-2024, 03:54 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is clear that you are trying to be very selective about when you listen to people you call experts and when you don't. The manuscript being "geninue", or not, is a dating conclusion. If you respect these people's opinions you should listen to their resounding conclusion that the Voynich is not a modern forgery and not downplay or ignore that opinion.

So your contention is that we must accept every shred of the opinions of others, or discard it all, and there is no in between? I not only strongly disagree, but can probably cite countless examples of when selective use of expert opinion is done, and even required, to buttress 1420 genuine. And it is you who have decided that the dating conclusions are also genuine conclusions? Then explain how you reject Charles Singer's verdict here, and don't accept his entire theory?

Another allegory springs to mind: Those people who thought they saw the lights of UFO's on a hill somewhere. Well, it can be shown they DID see lights, but it turns out they were a mirage from distant cars. We can therefore accept their observation, while throwing out their conclusion. That is valid, and done all the time. In this case the allegorical comparison would be in your proving they never saw those lights. I, on the other hand, listen to the observation, judge it on its merits or lack of them, and come to my own conclusion as to what it means.

(27-04-2024, 03:54 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The contradictions between the different datings does not imply your theory is true. I think that many or most of the people that you list can hardly be considered "experts" when it comes to dating as I said a long time ago. Was "Newbold" really an expert? In addition the difficulties in dating an object like the Voynich in part account for the various datings.

You have sort of "switched gears" here, and now reintroduced another argument for the disregarding of experts: Is this one or that one "enough" of an expert, or the right type of expertise, or experienced enough, or had enough familiarity with the Voynich, etc.. Which is fine, really, but not pertinent to the point of my accepting their dating, and yet coming to different conclusions as to what their disparity of opinion tells us.

I also note you went to the "low hanging fruit" of the case of poor Romaine Newbold, and avoid the less vulnerable reputations of Panofsky, O'Neil, Singer, and so on. But I would say that, despite his being led astray by various provably and proven incorrect ideas about the Voynich, he did have a respectable reputation before that, if a somewhat tarnished on after his Voynich fiasco.

We can always find some nugget of gold in even the worst collection of clap trap. I don't agree with you, I mean, that it must be all or nothing, when it comes to anyone's opinion. One risks "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" if we do.

But