The Voynich Ninja

(28-04-2024, 04:52 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(28-04-2024, 04:44 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."...change of perspective"?

That's what I would call it in this context.

German: "Perspektivwechsel"

Yes.. but where is the "change" here?  Rich has never changed his perspective regarding whether his ideas are evidence vs proof, or falsifiable etc.

(28-04-2024, 05:02 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes.. but where is the "change" here?  Rich has never changed his perspective regarding whether his ideas are evidence vs proof, or falsifiable etc.

We can assume that Rich's perspective is that the VMS is a modern forgery. If he is prepared (when asked) to take a partially contrary view, this can be described as a "change of perspective".  This corresponds to the definition of the term.

It should be noted that changes of perspective in the narrower sense are intended to find solutions to problems described. This does not apply to this case.

(28-04-2024, 02:39 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-04-2024, 10:57 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

I've stated my thoughts about this on many occasions, but I will do it again. The fact that the date and place of origin of the VMS cannot (yet) be precisely determined is not even remotely surprising nor is it unusual. Look at any medieval manuscript description or online record. Many will give only a century, or a range of fifty years, or just a question mark. Place of origin is usually a nation or region, rarely a city or specific community. Such attributions may change as more evidence comes to light or as more experts weigh in. This is what I do for a living. My job as a descriptive manuscript bibliographer is to examine the evidence and try to zero in more precisely on a date and place of origin. I do this every time I look at a manuscript that hasn't been carefully studied or attributed, and I have studied hundreds, if not thousands, of medieval codices and leaves over the last thirty years, following and researching the evidence to narrow the attribution from, say, France to Amiens, or from the fifteenth century to, say, the third quarter of the fifteenth century. These conclusions are based on stylistic comparisons to manuscripts that DO have a known date and place of origin, as well as evidence of authorship, artistic style, scribal work, and/or early ownership.

Hi, Lisa- Thank you for clarifying your views on this. The reason I was asking, is because... you may remember... I asked you this question after the Malta Conference,

"Considering that the overwhelming majority of pre-radiocarbon testing experts dated the Voynich in much later decades and even centuries than the C14 results showed, how influential was that dating on your opinions about the script? That is, would you, if there was no C14 dating, have come to the same opinions you hold, or rather come to an earlier or later date of origin?"

And you answered me that, long before the radiocarbon dating, you clearly knew that the Voynich was an early 15th century manuscript. So your current position is that it would actually not be clear, and not be the case that is so easily determined of this, nor any manuscript. That is is normal. But then doesn't this call into question almost the entire basis and identity of the Voynich AS an early 15th century manuscript?

I mean, it has been repeatedly argued to me, by many, and written about and described, a definitely having been created within from ten to maybe 30 years of the death of the calves used to make it. In fact, the very basis for "combining" the 50 to 60 year range of C14 sample results was because it was "assumed" it was penned and inked within ten years. But now we don't know that?

Please understand why I find this all interesting, if not perplexing: I see arguments for age and authenticity made on mutually contrary standards: When I point out the anachronistic evidence noted by a great many people, I'm told that "we know" this evidence is incorrect, because the Voynich is early 15th century. But when, on the contrary, my argument turns to "What about all the pre-C14 experts who identified the content as spreading over centuries, from the 13th to the 17th?", the answer is "this is normal in all manuscripts", to explain their confusion as ordinary, and not concerning.

And I've also been told, by you and others, that C14 doesn't have anything to do with it, but then, also, been told that C14 is the deciding factor which affirmed the (one or two) experts who thought it was. So in light of this, I'd have to ask the question, again, this way, "If it is ordinary for manuscripts, including this one, to cause such confusion as to age and origin, and since there was such confusion before C14, and not so much, after, doesn't this actually imply that C14 dating has been the over-riding deciding factor to the determination of early 15th century, and not the opinions, which did not say this?"

It looks to me as though the standards used to define the age of the Voynich vary, according to the counter argument presented to the 1420 paradigm.

(28-04-2024, 02:39 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The most prolific medieval author is named Anonymous. Most manuscripts have so far been assigned only a very imprecise date and place of origin. It does not follow that the authenticity of manuscripts without a clear date and place of origin should be questioned. Because it is not possible to prove absolutely that something is authentic, the burden of proof rests on the science to prove a manuscript is NOT authentic.

First of all, you have adding in a defining variable of authorship (with the introduction of the "anonymous" condition), which would, of course severely limit the number of described manuscripts. It is accepted that a great many manuscripts are anonymous, that is not argued here. But I disagree with you on the normal problems, and lack of them, with identifying the age, origin and content of most manuscripts. It does not take an expert to see the many cases of both real and forged manuscripts, and see that in the case of authentic ones, they understandably, logically, have fewer problems, if any, and stick to thier era and geographic origins far better than forgeries... or the Voynich.

But I see in this claim another attempt to "normalize" the Voynich, by claiming the very problems with it are normal in the world, when I have seen that they are anything but.

(28-04-2024, 02:39 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Therefore, I will always start by accepting that an object is what it purports to be unless I or someone else can prove otherwise. As I have stated on many occasions, there is absolutely nothing about the VMS that I find suspicious in terms of its authenticity as a fifteenth-century object. On the contrary, everything about the manuscript's physical and material properties supports the conclusion that this is a fifteenth-century object. If evidence surfaces that truly contradicts that presumption of authenticity, I will be very happy to revise my opinion.

Well that is another point I often demonstrate: It is said in discussions such as these, as you now, there is nothing out of the ordinary. But then when we go back and look at the actual, first impressions, the actual expert feedback, the impressions first given are anything but ordinary. It is of course an innocent effect to first see these things, but then filter them out later, when trying to define the Voynich as "ordinary". i can cite countless example of this, but you have done it, too. In your Welesley lecture, you noted many of them: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

- You called the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”.
- For the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over you described how “odd” things are: The order, the reorder, and so on. For instance, you said, "You're not supposed to go back and forth by nested bifolia… that’s just STRANGE” It’s WRONG. It’s not how it’s supposed to work”
- When asked, in the questions section, "Does it looks like other books?", the end of your answer was,"... as for the Zodiac section, if they really are calendrical, nobody really knows to interpret them. But no I don’t know of any other manuscript that has this particular combination”.
- When asked, “How unusual is it to have no punctuation?”, you answered, “It’s extremely unusual. We would expect to see punctuation. To see capital letters- in a Western language, certainly, and so it’s not clear whether the lack of punctuation is… if it’s encoded, part of the coding process. The same for the quote-unquote “capital letters”: Is that part of the encoding? Is that part of the way that the language has been recorded? Maybe. I don’t know. But you would absolutely expect, in this period, to have punctuation and capital letters. It is a very unusual feature."
- Pointed out that the quire numbers are probably 15th century, but that the, “… the foliation [page numbers] is probably 17th century”

That is a sampling from this one lecture, showing that you are not alone in noting the many problems with the Voynich, which are "unusual" for the supposedly known era it is claimed it was created in. Even in your recent talk with Koen, you noted the similarity between the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root, and the symbol for the Holy Roman Empire (I've queued to just before your noting this): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And that video, too, is full of observations as to just how odd, and unusual, and unexpected all the plants are. Later, in other discussions, it is described as an ordinary, run of the mill herbal, just like any other from its time.

As I said, you are far from alone in this. Everyone does this. This effect is prolific, because the reality is that the Voynich is simply sick with anomalies, anachronisms, inconsistencies of style, talent, content, and does not compare well with anything else on the planet. We all know this. We can all speculate on different reasons this is... you know mine. But the thing that is so interesting about it, to me, is just how all these observations disapear in discussions in which the opposite claim is being made: That the Voynich is just a plain-jane ordinary genuine manuscript which is obviously early 15th century. No, it isn't, and the fact it isn't is constantly noted by everyone... until they are talking about how "ordinary" it is.

And it is not just in these lectures and such we hear of these anomalies, which later are ignored. It is everywhere. The McCrone ink report describes "unusual" copper and zinc, and a binder "not in their library", among other anomolies, which they suggest be further tested... they never were, and they never get mentioned. It is said instead, wrongly, that "there was nothing unusual about the ink". You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. As you note, yourself, th Yale team likewise noted oddities and anachronisms in the materials and construction of the Voynich. Often they are described, then rationalized on some basis... but they are described. I have many of them, here, but my favorite quote from that book is this,

"The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery."

So that is a case in which a "very unusual", as in anachronistic feature, is noted, but is immediately dismissed on arguable terms. But note something here: It is obvious from the disclaimer that the writer was well aware that these "very unusual for the time period" foldouts are evidence of forgery. They realized it, they were thinking it, and they wrote it down... and then, felt compelled to counter it, immediately. I would, could, and have argued why this spin is incorrect, but that is not the point here:

The point is that in any discussion of forgery vs. genuine, this constant claim crops up, over and over, to defend old and genuine: That there is nothing unusual, anomalous, anachronistic, odd, whatever, in the Voynich... when past discussions, statements and writings, often by the very same people, reveal that this is not at all a correct reflection of what they have actually observed, with their own two eyes. But later, they are never explained, satisfactorily, if at all, and usually simply not mentioned again.

Rich.

Perhaps one should simply differentiate. Copy workshop or individual work.
A book where the same plant with the same dragon (I can't remember who or where the examples are) appears again and again in books, that would be ordinary.
A first printing of a Gutenberg Bible, edition of about 180, is rare. A diary is unique.
I categorise the VM as unique, nothing similar is easy to find.
Writing without full stops and capital letters is rare, but not unique.
Example. german

[attachment=8467]

I doubt it's worth splitting off into another thread, but having brought it up I wanted to follow up on the scanning auger microscope dating technique. I was able to obtain a PDF of the original paper, which says this:

"Numerous problems were encountered in preparation of the documents for SAM analysis. Large bound documents took more than a week to degas to 1 X 10"7 torr. This necessitated de-gassing all documents in advance and transporting them to the test site under vacuum. The high degree of vacuum necessary for SAM produced significant glue embrittlement, resulting in some binder damage. In addition, the large size of many of the documents precluded measurements in all but a very few
SAM instruments.
"To generate a sufficiently accurate regression expression that would be applicable to the general case will require far more truly dated samples, particularly on vellum and parchment."

So...possible damage to the document, probable need to ship the document somewhere well off-campus, concerns about accuracy for vellum.

Here's what Joe Nickell's _Detecting Forgery_ has to say about the technique (which is also not encouraging :-<):

Scanning auger microscopy
A relatively new technique to determine the age of ink was developed by Roderick J. McNeil, an analytical biochemist who is director of his own Rocky Mountain Research Laboratories in Polson, Montana. The technique grew out of McNeil's interest in the Shroud of Turin (which he reportedly believes genuine, despite the scientific tests to the contrary), and is based on the concept that "the migration of ions from the ink is directly proportional to time."55
McNeil's technique, "scanning auger microscopy" (SAM) measures the ion diffusion of certain inks-especially iron-gallotannate ink-in paper and parchment. This migration of ions is extremely minute, only 1/2,000 of an inch in a thousand years,56 yet SAM is reputedly highly accurate. 57 Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman" was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately 01d.58
McNeil himself states:
The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication. 59
Drawbacks to the techniques are that it is "extremely costly" and that-according to document examiner George J. Throckmorton-"few laboratories in the United States have the necessary equipment, and only McNeil is considered an expert in the technique."60 Also, that SAM is not infallible is indicated by the "draft" of the Gettysburg Address owned by Lloyd Ostendor£
According to NcNeil's report to Ostendorf, "the body of the document showed a median age of 1869, plus or minus 10 years, based on seven samples measured in triplicate." (The inscription on the verso showed a slightly later median age, 1875, plus or minus fifteen years, probably because of sampling problems.) McNeil stated: "My overall conclusion regarding the document is that it is genuine; that is, that it was created in the time period purported by the document." He added, "Obviously, this type of testing can draw no conclusions about who created the document, only when it was created."61 Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil's tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance.
Actually, however, the handwriting evidence is decisive. A noted forensic document examiner, Maureen Casey Owens, who had twenty-five years' experience as an expert with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, stated, "The uncanny similarity in handwriting characteristics is evident not only in form and proportions, but also particularly significant in writing movement, beginnings, endings, and pen emphasis throughout the writings. Even margins and line spacings are close." She concluded: "These similarities are too striking to be coincidence and are highly suggestive of simulation. "62
Exactly where McNeil's technique failed remains to be determined. Perhaps the faulty SAM date had something to do with the suspicious ultraviolet fluorescence of the paper (mentioned in earlier chapters); that is, possibly some artificial aging technique was employed by the forger. As McNeil later told the Manuscript Society News (somewhat lamely): "It is unfortunate that I had a situation before me where there was no adequate coordination of all the information. I did not have access to other information I wish I had such as that the paper fluoresced. Dr. Joe Nickell was good enough to contact me on his own about this. Overall, I stand behind my results. I am fairly confident the paper is from the right period."63 Actually, the paper is from approximately the right period, but the ink was clearly applied in this century-probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests.
The erroneous SAM date might also have been in part because of difficulties McNeil had in performing the tests. As he reported to Ostendorf: "Since you desired that the document not be harmed in any way, sampling for Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM) was quite difficult due to grounding problems. The sample was rolled around a two inch diameter metal bar and rotated in sequents to locate adequate concentrations of ink for sampling." Also, he reported, "a very high angle of incidence relative to the surface had to be maintained to minimize noise and optimize grounding." 64
This one error should not cause us to dismiss McNeil's scanning auger microscopy dating method. Unfortunately, current evidence shows he also obtained an erroneous date (1921, plus or minus 12 years) for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper.65 In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages.66
Such errors were almost inevitable-even predictable. As James Gilreath of the Library of Congress' Rare Book and Special Collections Division asked in his book The judgment of Experts (which is about Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman"): "Who can doubt that an enterprising and knowledgeable (or even lucky) forger might beat the McNeil test at some time in the future?"67 As Gilreath told Ostendorf: "McNeil's test, like every other analysis, must be used in conjunction with the full range of information about the document, and considered with a clear and open understanding of the manuscript's provenance."68

Hi Karl: Yes that is all really interesting and important information, and hopeful, too. I've left your entire comment intact, with my own comments both above and below it.

I often recommend the book "The Judgment of Experts : Essays and Documents About the Investigation of the Forging of the Oath of a freeman". It reads like a true life detective novel, but at the same time outlines so many aspects of forgery detection, forgery creation and promotion, and so on.

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

It is also on my forgery bibliography: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
For some reason I missed listing the Joe Nickell's book, although is is another wonderful source of information. I have to put that on the list asap.

(29-04-2024, 06:49 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I doubt it's worth splitting off into another thread, but having brought it up I wanted to follow up on the scanning auger microscope dating technique. I was able to obtain a PDF of the original paper, which says this:

  "Numerous problems were encountered in preparation of the documents for SAM analysis. Large bound documents took more than a week to degas to 1 X 10"7 torr. This necessitated de-gassing all documents in advance and transporting them to the test site under vacuum. The high degree of vacuum necessary for SAM produced significant glue embrittlement, resulting in some binder damage. In addition, the large size of many of the documents precluded measurements in all but a very few
SAM instruments.
  "To generate a sufficiently accurate regression expression that would be applicable to the general case will require far more truly dated samples, particularly on vellum and parchment."

So...possible damage to the document, probable need to ship the document somewhere well off-campus, concerns about accuracy for vellum.

Here's what Joe Nickell's _Detecting Forgery_ has to say about the technique (which is also not encouraging :-<):

Scanning auger microscopy
  A relatively new technique to determine the age of ink was developed by Roderick J. McNeil, an analytical biochemist who is director of his own Rocky Mountain Research Laboratories in Polson, Montana. The technique grew out of McNeil's interest in the Shroud of Turin (which he reportedly believes genuine, despite the scientific tests to the contrary), and is based on the concept that "the migration of ions from the ink is directly proportional to time."55
  McNeil's technique, "scanning auger microscopy" (SAM) measures the ion diffusion of certain inks-especially iron-gallotannate ink-in paper and parchment. This migration of ions is extremely minute, only 1/2,000 of an inch in a thousand years,56 yet SAM is reputedly highly accurate. 57 Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman" was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately 01d.58
  McNeil himself states:
  The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication. 59
  Drawbacks to the techniques are that it is "extremely costly" and that-according to document examiner George J. Throckmorton-"few laboratories in the United States have the necessary equipment, and only McNeil is considered an expert in the technique."60 Also, that SAM is not infallible is indicated by the "draft" of the Gettysburg Address owned by Lloyd Ostendor£
  According to NcNeil's report to Ostendorf, "the body of the document showed a median age of 1869, plus or minus 10 years, based on seven samples measured in triplicate." (The inscription on the verso showed a slightly later median age, 1875, plus or minus fifteen years, probably because of sampling problems.) McNeil stated: "My overall conclusion regarding the document is that it is genuine; that is, that it was created in the time period purported by the document." He added, "Obviously, this type of testing can draw no conclusions about who created the document, only when it was created."61 Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil's tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance.
  Actually, however, the handwriting evidence is decisive. A noted forensic document examiner, Maureen Casey Owens, who had twenty-five years' experience as an expert with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, stated, "The uncanny similarity in handwriting characteristics is evident not only in form and proportions, but also particularly significant in writing movement, beginnings, endings, and pen emphasis throughout the writings. Even margins and line spacings are close." She concluded: "These similarities are too striking to be coincidence and are highly suggestive of simulation. "62
  Exactly where McNeil's technique failed remains to be determined. Perhaps the faulty SAM date had something to do with the suspicious ultraviolet fluorescence of the paper (mentioned in earlier chapters); that is, possibly some artificial aging technique was employed by the forger. As McNeil later told the Manuscript Society News (somewhat lamely): "It is unfortunate that I had a situation before me where there was no adequate coordination of all the information. I did not have access to other information I wish I had such as that the paper fluoresced. Dr. Joe Nickell was good enough to contact me on his own about this. Overall, I stand behind my results. I am fairly confident the paper is from the right period."63 Actually, the paper is from approximately the right period, but the ink was clearly applied in this century-probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests.
  The erroneous SAM date might also have been in part because of difficulties McNeil had in performing the tests. As he reported to Ostendorf: "Since you desired that the document not be harmed in any way, sampling for Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM) was quite difficult due to grounding problems. The sample was rolled around a two inch diameter metal bar and rotated in sequents to locate adequate concentrations of ink for sampling." Also, he reported, "a very high angle of incidence relative to the surface had to be maintained to minimize noise and optimize grounding." 64
  This one error should not cause us to dismiss McNeil's scanning auger microscopy dating method. Unfortunately, current evidence shows he also obtained an erroneous date (1921, plus or minus 12 years) for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper.65 In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages.66
  Such errors were almost inevitable-even predictable. As James Gilreath of the Library of Congress' Rare Book and Special Collections Division asked in his book The judgment of Experts (which is about Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman"): "Who can doubt that an enterprising and knowledgeable (or even lucky) forger might beat the McNeil test at some time in the future?"67 As Gilreath told Ostendorf: "McNeil's test, like every other analysis, must be used in conjunction with the full range of information about the document, and considered with a clear and open understanding of the manuscript's provenance."68

I left your whole whole quoted block intact. As you say, it is not entirely encouraging, as there seems to be a possibility for tremendous error. So along with the obvious potential benefits is also tremendous risk. I think that it could be a problem that the originator of this use of this technique, McNeil, seems to be the only one currently implementing it. I just looked around the internet a bit, and do not see that the use in dating documents is being used by other people, or groups, but maybe I missed it. I think it would be much better if others independently ran these tests on the some of the same documents as a sort of cross-check.

I wonder if this has been suggested to the Beinecke? Are the risks to the ms., and the costs, too high? I would love to see it done, nonetheless. 

A couple of points here, also pertinent to this discussion of Expert Opinion:

"Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman" was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately old". Yes, this an example of a very common issue with forgery detection. In fact, it was "our own" McCrone which failed to find problems in the ink of the Oath, and had declared the document authentic. The letter they wrote, to this effect, is in the "Judgment..." book, linked above.

"The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication."

This covers several points I often make: First, the separation of expert opinions regarding the dating of writing, as opposed to analysis and detection of forgery. Those experts who "... authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three" were NO LESS wrong after it turned out twenty six were forgeries. I mean, this claim that by my separating out the opinions of an expert as to dating, from the possibility the object so dated is still a forgery, is not only logical, but a common practice and occurrence. It is wrong, I mean, to insist I must reject all the expert dating opinons if I think the Voynich may be a forgery, because, on the contrary, both can be true at once: Their dating of the content can be correct, and that content can STILL be used in forged material without them either being aware, or even knowing this if they happened to speculate on authenticity. If a forgery, an item in no way negates their dating advice, they are separate issues.

Another point is that it was "surprising" to researchers that "... the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication." Yes, paper, not parchment. But the point still stands: It is wrong to use the speculated non-availability of materials as evidence of genuine, and no one should ever be "surprised" at cases in which old materials are used. And as I've not beaten that dead horse enough... "Libreria Franceshini". Poor horse, but he deserves it.

But a third point, which runs in a way counter to the finding of the 26 forgeries: Considering that McNeil's technique has been shown to occasionally fail, I would wonder, and worry, if any mistakes were made in these Revolutionary War documents? Have they been retested? It would be awful if anything is determined to be a forgery, as much or more than if a forgery is said to be genuine. The lost of value would be immense to the owners.

I think the SAM technique is, though, very promising, and hopefully is something that could someday be done on the Voynich.

Rich.

EDIT TO ADD: ... on more point on the above, which I meant to add but forgot: "Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil's tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance."

Sound familiar? It turned out this document was a forgery, yet part of the reasoning it was genuine was an assumed nonavailability of the original to the forger. Obviously the availability of source materials is of huge importance to our own question of authenticity of the Voynich, which is why this constant back and forth with me and others over possible accessibility of the information in the Letters of the Carteggio. I don't accept they were inaccessible, while other say it was "impossible" for Voynich to have seen this information (or the letters themselves). Also obviously, I can't, we can't, make a direct comparison between these cases... no two cases are alike. Not in details. But the point is, here, people are surprised after the fact, but should not be, at the tremendous and insidious efforts and abilities of the forger throughout history. Which, again, is why I often recommend my forgery bibliography. I think for many who think my hypothesis impossible, will, when learning the historical practices and abilities in actual cases of forgery, will have their eyes opened, and look at things very differently than is reflected now, in many of the objections to my hypothesis.

(28-04-2024, 03:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It all starts to become 'semantics', but I would say a red flag IS evidence. It's just not proof.

I have to disagree here.
They are not evidence in favour of anything.

Having different views about the MS origin is not evidence of a fraud, because this is not unusual and happens with genuine manuscripts as well, as Lisa clearly stated (and I regard her an expert in the sense of the title of this thread).

Exactly the same holds for the lack of provenance (also confirmed by Lisa). (*)

So: not evidence, but a reason to look more closely (as in the case of the O-rings - though the parallel isn't perfect). And that was my point before. This closer look has been made. In the case of the Shuttle the cause of events could be clarified (we had a similar issue with the first Ariane-5 but I digress). In the case of the Voynich MS nothing irregular could be identified. That's also quite a clear outcome because the methods available to an early 1900's faker were quite limited. Even the vastly superior methods available to the Galileo fake, 100 years later, were detected.

Another point raised in the same talk (IIRC) was the observation that Voynich offered money to Newbold in case he could prove that the MS was by Roger Bacon.
That this should be evidence in favour of a fake is a non-sequitur. It just does not follow.

If he could prove Voynich's suggestion that the MS is a Roger Bacon, then that would increase the value of the MS very considerably, regardless whether it is genuine or a fake.

(In fact, if he indeed faked the MS, he would have known either that the text is meaningless, or he would have known how to decode it. Either way, how could have left Newbold dangling and lose his reputation? Now this is certainly subjective, but worth wondering about).

Note (*): I could say a lot about the lack of provenance. Real fakes don't have any, but the Voynich MS does. However, this won't bring anything in the present discussion.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(28-04-2024, 03:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It all starts to become 'semantics', but I would say a red flag IS evidence. It's just not proof.

I have to disagree here.
They are not evidence in favour of anything.

I think part of the disagreement may be that you seem to be viewing evidence as a binary thing -- so if something isn't strong evidence,
then it is not evidence at all. But I view evidence as always on a spectrum from very weak to very strong.
(I thought you yourself even pointed that out somewhere in a recent thread.)

I think you would be hard-pressed to convince people that the cracks in the O-rings that 
were formally reported and correlated to cold weather, were not "evidence". They were evidence that existed long before the disaster.
The problem was that it was just viewed by the decision makers as evidence that was not strong enough to affect launch decisions.

I was probably wrong in suggesting it is a matter of semantics. In fact, "Red flags" are by definition "evidence",
albeit just one type of evidence. More specifically, a red-flag is by definition evidence that is (or was at some point) viewed by
at least some as too weak to warrant consideration.  Evidence that is strong enough to get consideration without
question,  never gets categorized, even later on, as a red-flag -- because it is taken for granted to be worth considering.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(28-04-2024, 03:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It all starts to become 'semantics', but I would say a red flag IS evidence. It's just not proof.

Having different views about the MS origin is not evidence of a fraud, because this is not unusual and happens with genuine manuscripts as well, as Lisa clearly stated (and I regard her an expert in the sense of the title of this thread).

Of course, that is true -- having different views is not evidence of anything
(except perhaps that there is enough weakness in all the evidence that reasonable people are disagreeing.)

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I could say a lot about the lack of provenance. Real fakes don't have any, ...

That is also true ... but typically only in retrospect.  The only reason that fakes pass for authentic for any length
of time is because, until they are discovered, they DO have evidence of such things as provenance, because either the evidence
has been entirely manufactured, or the strength of the evidence has been judged to be much stronger than it turns
out to be. (And then it typically gets re-evaluated by the same judges as weak in retrospect.)

Evidence has to be weighed collectively.
A lot of weak evidence can still outweigh other evidence that is much stronger.
But, ideally some single piece of evidence is found that outweighs all evidence to the contrary.
Or at least enough pieces of evidence that taken together have that same effect.
(Like perhaps a newly found written confession by Voynich himself... or a description of manuscript that is so detailed
that it could refer to nothing but the VMS, and found in a source that is simply unquestionable.) 
At that point, it would seem reasonable to graduate the evidence to the level of "proof."

I, for one, just don't happen to think we're there yet.

The similarity of some drawings to optical instruments exists.
The similarity of drawings to American plants exists.
The similarity of a one drawing to an armadillo exists.
The offering of money to Newbold is documented.

All of those things are evidence. None of them are proof.

And some -- like the Newbold offer -- can provide evidence in favor of different possibilities to different degrees.
I do agree that if its strength is technically equal in favor of all candidate theories, that it will contribute net-zero
and could be discarded.
But the question isn't whether these things are or aren't evidence; it is what the strength of the evidence is in
each case, and especially cumulatively for or against any particular theory.

I don't (or at least haven't much so far) outlined my own arguments for the strength or weakness of the various evidence related to theories of authentic vs forgery.
I only take issue with the outright dismissal of things that are obviously evidence that needs to be weighed in at least to some degree and not simply declared as "not evidence" or worse "non-existent".

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote='asteckley' pid='59232' dateline='1714315198']
It all starts to become 'semantics', but I would say a red flag IS evidence. It's just not proof.

[/quote]

I have to disagree here.
They are not evidence in favour of anything.[/quote]

You state many things here as absolutes, when they are actually opinons, first of all. Something I am constantly admonished not to do, and I agree, and don't do it.

But red flags are evidence, that is the point. They are not proofs. Red flags... things out of an expected range for the item being investigated, and perhaps similar to something the item should not be... are used everywhere as evidence.

But more importantly in the case of the Voynich, there are far more red flags evidencing forgery than there are for even many other forgeries. The sheer number of them is further evidence in itself. Again, statements that these are not a problem, or that the nature, or number of them, is not a problem, is not supportable when one verses themselves in the history of actual forgeries. Which is why I always recommend my forgery bibliography... many of these complaints would dry up, as they are baseless rebuttals to my list.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Having different views about the MS origin is not evidence of a fraud, because this is not unusual and happens with genuine manuscripts as well, as Lisa clearly stated (and I regard her an expert in the sense of the title of this thread).

Well we can go back and forth, and you or anyone can state this as an absolute fact, when it is not, but again, if one learns the history of forgery, and compares that to the history and description and identification of genuine items, I would say this is not the case. As for your use of Lisa as an expert:

1) Lisa is a wonderful woman, and has a great deal of experience and expertise as a paleographer
2) I completely agree with her identification of elements and styles in the Voynich, that they do reflect early 15th century
3) I see in her observations, as I have listed, her noting a great many anomalies and anachronisms in the Voynich, which she does not, later, include in discussions such as these. This is probably due to a natural filtering of those honest observations, but she does see them, and at first, report them, as everyone does
4) As I said, I accept Lisa's observations, all of them. What she sees in there, I believe are in there. But by your accepting her judgement, I point out, again... and this is the key topic to this thread... that you, or any genuinist, must then reject all the observations and opinions of Singer, Panofsky, Toressela, Brumbaugh, O'Neil, Steele, Tucker, Janick, Peterson, Ludden, Dennis, Rugg, Constable, Voynich, Newbold, and a few others... perhaps "many" others. In fact, Lisa is the only living person I know of who claims to have predicted the C14 date range, before that range was determined.

So as I said, I respect her observations, but respectfully will not hold her overall claim that everyone else is and was wrong. I "listen to the experts", all of them, Lisa included... and don't need to do, as genuinists do need to do, to reject all input but hers, Lehmann-Haupt, and that other guy you mentioned (I don't agree with the other two you added, as they go against your own claim that the Voynich was created in a short period of time, and they have been rejected by the 1420 Paradigm on other criteria, anyway, already).
5) With respect, I would not say that Lisa is a Voynich expert in any case. Now as I said, she is a wonderful paleographer, and very observant and I agree with much of her input. But if you listened to the Malta presentations, and to the Weseley Lecture, she has many errors and inconsistencies in her understanding of the Voynich, and makes new, unproven, and previously unheard of (to my knowledge) assertions about it and its provenance.

That is NOT an ad hominem. It is fair, when you have held her up as your source, for me to make these points. And it has been pointed out many times, even on this thread, that we must look at all of any expert's expertise, and how it might or might not relate to the Voynich itself, and that is all I am doing here. If she was not brought up as an example of an expert to listen to, I would not have brought this up. But among the problems with her understanding of the Voynich, and the nature of forgery, or manuscripts in general, or states as fact things not proven, and even provably incorrect, and so on. This not all of them:

1) She stated as irrefutable fact that De Tepencz owned the Voynich, when this is pure opinion.
2) Claims claims the "pre-treatment" photo (which I found and published) was taken “in the 19-teens”, but she does not know that. Actually this photo is “pre-treatment”, meaning probably soon after 1912. But she then seems to show a POST treatment photo of the page.
3) “Whether he just gathered up a whole group of manuscripts, and said ‘sure, I’ll take these’, or whether he carefully looked through them, and he decided he thought the manuscript looked interesting and he wanted it, we don’t know, because he refused to say where he bought the manuscript”. We know it is not the first (if he bought it at all) but the latter, as Voynich claimed he didn't notice his "ugly duckling" until after the purchase. This is key, and shouldn't be ignored nor misstated like this.
4) Claims that when he brought the Voynich to the US about 1919, that he “Immediately tries to sell the manuscript”, and that he “wants $100,000 for it”. Well that is interesting, because for years I was told that the Voynich Manuscript was real because, supposedly, he “Never tried to sell it”, i.e., he didn’t want to profit from it. I argued for years that even though he didn’t put it in his catalog, it does not mean he never intended to sell it. All this talk ended when I FOUND the note, in shorthand, for a letter to Newbold, promising 10% of the first $100k, and 50% of the next $50k, should he sell it. But now, for some reason, Davis is promoting that “as soon as he got here, he tried to sell it”, which is not correct.
5) “This is a huge amount for a manuscript. He can’t get anybody to buy it, because he refused to say where he got it, so people assumed he just made it himself”. Well of course this is not part of the long record of the Voynich's history, so I'm not sure where Lisa came up with this. If she is correct, first of all, I'd love to see evidence of her assertion here. Also, I note, if anyone did suspect the manuscript AS a forgery, and especially why they did, so early on, this would be groundbreaking. So if this statement is true, and not wild speculation, we should know the source of it.
6) “So this is all helpful, we know we can place it in Prague, that’s useful, but that’s 150 years after it was written. It could have traveled. Just because it spent years in Prague doesn’t mean it was written in Prague”. Again, stating as fact, when it is not.
7) Claims that the radiocarbon dating placed it “pretty solidly” between 1404 and 1438. She seems unaware, or chose not to mention, that the dating actually spanned over 60 years between samples, and that the dates given are a combined age, on the “assumption” the book was made in a shorter period.
8) Mentions gallows, and how she is “digging into” them to figure out what they are. However, she does mention, so seems to be unfamiliar with? the most similar characters to the gallows, found used as decorations, in Cappelli’s Lexicon.
9) “The Voynich letter forms are somewhat analogous to the letter forms in that [Huntington] Codex. Although the early 15th century Italian humanistic origin of this Huntington ms. is certainly consistent, with both the carbon 14 dating, and the stylistic evidence, uh, those correlations are suggestive, but not determinative. The humanistic tendencies of the glyph-set, the color pallet, and the style of illustrations, suggest an origin in the early 15th century, and the stylistic zone that includes the Italian peninsula”. Well this is probably true, and I accept this identification of some characters... but as many have noted, there are a great many characters which to not follow this, nor any one particular identification. I mean, it ignores the others, of other possible origins and styles, and only choses those which fit the desired time frame.
10) Suggests that her find of 5 scribes means “it seems more likely that there is meaning underneath it”. Why? Five scribes can't write meaningless text?
11) Small thing, but she shows a sheep when describing the process of parchment production, when the skin of the VMs is actually calfskin. However, it is a rookie mistake. 
12) Lisa put “Modern Forgery” on her chart on the side for “Meaningless”. It is a common misconception that forgery=meaningless, when a quick reminder that most forgeries actually have meaning corrects this: Think Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the Hitler Diaries; the Howard Hughes Will; the White Salamander letter; the Oath of a Freeman; and many more. Yet time and time again, forgery is wrongly equated with lack of meaning, and genuine with meaning, and so on. Here it is, again.
13) States that there are modern forgeries out there, but, she says, “They almost always have something suspicious, that makes you think, ‘this doesn’t seem quite right to me’”, then, “The entire Voynich Manuscript, I think it is exceedingly unlikely, almost impossible to imagine, that it could be made in the modern period and be con… not have anything that makes you think… be suspicious of it. Everything… I’ve studied the manuscript half a dozen times, so I’ve spent hours with it- at the Beinecke- and there is nothing in it that makes me suspect that it is anything other than what it purports to be”. But she has seen much that is suspicious, anomalous, anachronistic, in it. See a short list, here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
14) “An acceptable solution must account for all of the observations I’ve mentioned here today, not just one or two”. I agree, but would argue that a) not all of her, nor the observations and knowledge of others was in that lecture, that day, they were cherry picked for those that support her hypothesis, and 2) not all the observations are correct
15) “The ink is iron-gall ink, what you would expect, there is nothing special about it. The pigments are typical botanical pigments." This is not correct, re the McCrone report, which cites "unusual copper and zinc", a (not gum Arabic) binder which was not in their library, unexplained titanium dioxide, and more. There is much "special" about it, and even McCrone, in that report, suggests further testing and study.

There is much more than the above list, which points to a very superficial, basic, and sometime erroneous understanding of the history of the Voynich. If someone wants to shout that it is wrong, or unfair of me to point this out, I will say that it the practice of critical examination of experts is actually championed constantly to analyze the understandings and beliefs of any who is chosen to accept, and who to reject. And Lisa herself suggests this of herself, "As the only Humanist in the Zoom-Room, it is my job to be the voice of the manuscript, ensuring that the work of my colleagues is consistent with my material observations”. She has likewise suggested, elsewhere, that she be the clearing house for any Voynich theories. As the self proclaimed "voice of the manuscript", and yours, and others, use of hers as such, it is further reason that it is completely fair to offer this critique in response.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Exactly the same holds for the lack of provenance (also confirmed by Lisa). (*)

So: not evidence, but a reason to look more closely (as in the case of the O-rings - though the parallel isn't perfect). And that was my point before. This closer look has been made. In the case of the Shuttle the cause of events could be clarified (we had a similar issue with the first Ariane-5 but I digress). In the case of the Voynich MS nothing irregular could be identified. That's also quite a clear outcome because the methods available to an early 1900's faker were quite limited. Even the vastly superior methods available to the Galileo fake, 100 years later, were detected.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the high degree of forgery skills in the early 1900's. Museums, libraries and other collections are rife with examples of items long since believed genuine, and discovered to be anything but. And before you say that, yes, they were discovered, true... but it is ongoing, it never ends. There are many examples of items in collections so good that even the forgers, when they came clean, had trouble determining whether they were their work or not. The artist, Van Meegern (sp?) actually had to appear in court in the mid-century, to defend his own ability to create the works he made, to avoid a charge he had collaborated with the NAZIs by selling genuine items! Just look at the long drawn out process with the Vinland map, which is now a forgery, and one which many... even you... held up as falsely impugned AS a forgery. It was that good, and so, only recently was the case determined. And if the forger of the Oath had not blown himself up in a car, that item would be revered as genuine... as his "mishap" was the impetus to actually question it at all. There are countless similar examples throughout history which counter your assertion here.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another point raised in the same talk (IIRC) was the observation that Voynich offered money to Newbold in case he could prove that the MS was by Roger Bacon.
That this should be evidence in favour of a fake is a non-sequitur. It just does not follow.

You are fully welcome to reject any point on my list, that is your prerogative of course. But I would say that a huge tenet of human ethics is that one should not be bribed for a positive review, or viewpoint, for a very good reason. It is part of law and society, in advertising, sports, social media, really every aspect of society: If one offers reward for a specific, desired outcome, it undermines the ethics of both involved, and casts doubt on the asked for outcome to begin with.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If he could prove Voynich's suggestion that the MS is a Roger Bacon, then that would increase the value of the MS very considerably, regardless whether it is genuine or a fake.[/quote}

Well, yes. But to make this assertion, it must be agreed the money was an incentive for a certain outcome, after all.

[quote="ReneZ" pid='59260' dateline='1714400131']
(In fact, if he indeed faked the MS, he would have known either that the text is meaningless, or he would have known how to decode it. Either way, how could have left Newbold dangling and lose his reputation? Now this is certainly subjective, but worth wondering about).

I don't think Voynich gave a rat's butt about anyone's reputation... and I could and probably will write a blog post about his true character, implied by his own words and actions. I think he used and discarded Newbold like so much dirty laundry. But I point out that, once Newbold was sicced on the Voynich, with a $100,000 bone in his teeth, he turned out to be a loose cannon in the end. He actually hurt the reputation of the Voynich, and of Wilfrid by association, with his far-fetched claims. But your point about Voynich trusting Newbold, if a fake, to NOT decipher it, is one I have thought about. In that case, two possible scenarios: 1) The content has no meaning, so he didn't worry, and 2) whatever the content was, and I think probably not "Baconesque" but "Horciciky-esque", he may have not worried so much. It would mean he was just back to what I surmise was his earlier, less profitable intention for it.

(29-04-2024, 03:15 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Note (*): I could say a lot about the lack of provenance. Real fakes don't have any, but the Voynich MS does. However, this won't bring anything in the present discussion.

Actually, you are incorrect: Real fakes very often have provenance, although either real and misused to attach to, or falsely created and planted. I think the Voynich has both. But your thinking this is the case is another reason I urge you, and anyone, to read all they can about forgery. You will learn that many of these assumptions about the history and practice of forgery that I hear all the time, as arguments, simply are not so.

Rich.

(29-04-2024, 05:37 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.8) Mentions gallows, and how she is “digging into” them to figure out what they are. However, she does mention, so seems to be unfamiliar with? the most similar characters to the gallows, found used as decorations, in Cappelli’s Lexicon.

My first guess for why this was not mentioned in a talk that had a lot to cover would not be that a professional paleographer was unfamiliar with anything in Cappelli, especially when she has worked on the manuscript for years.