The Voynich Ninja

(07-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why don't you? That's a serious question... why don't you want to hear alternate arguments to your own viewpoint? It is proper, scientific, valuable and productive to have discussions with people of all understandings and experience, even those we don't agree with. Why don't you want that?

I do. That is why I sent you the two links to my YouTube videos. Did you watch them? I'm still waiting for your comments.

(07-04-2024, 06:23 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why don't you? That's a serious question... why don't you want to hear alternate arguments to your own viewpoint? It is proper, scientific, valuable and productive to have discussions with people of all understandings and experience, even those we don't agree with. Why don't you want that?

I do. That is why I sent you the two links to my YouTube videos. Did you watch them? I'm still waiting for your comments.

I did begin to watch your videos, as I promised I would, but was distracted last night. And I am interested in seeing them, and will. I have not yet commented on them yet, which I will do under the videos... or, if you would rather, in the Ninja posts discussing them.

Rich.

---

(07-04-2024, 05:21 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just a quick clarification.
Rereading my post #52,  i feel that the last line could be interpreted as a little rude.
I hereby wholeheartedly assert that that was not my intention, it was meant to add a lighthearted tone,
my apologies for any confusion caused.

Also, my post was simply an anatomical observation regarding only the 3 VMS zodiac roundels vs Wilfrids cat. Nothing more, nothing less.

I understood the tone of your comments, Rob, and didn't take it as rude at all. Its sometime hard to "read" the tone of a comment, so I get why you would want to be sure. But I did think it was funny, and lighthearted.

Rich.

(07-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did begin to watch your videos, as I promised I would, but was distracted last night. And I am interested in seeing them, and will. I have not yet commented on them yet, which I will do under the videos... or, if you would rather, in the Ninja posts discussing them.

My preference would be for comments here on Ninja and not on YouTube.

(07-04-2024, 06:59 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-04-2024, 04:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did begin to watch your videos, as I promised I would, but was distracted last night. And I am interested in seeing them, and will. I have not yet commented on them yet, which I will do under the videos... or, if you would rather, in the Ninja posts discussing them.

My preference would be for comments here on Ninja and not on YouTube.

OK, PJ. I may as well put the comments here then. First of all I want to say that there is one upvote on each video, and they were put there by myself the other day. Point being, I meant what I said, and did go to look at the videos, and I even upvoted them. I always want to give some time and effort to the work of others, and apologize for not getting to it sooner...

As for the first one, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", I have no reason to dispute any of your points. I mean, I don't know that they are right or wrong interpretations, but that being said, they could very well be correct. We just don't know. What I would say, and have said to others in the past, is that when you feel you have a hypothesis for the meaning of anything in the manuscript, look for supporting evidence. Maybe you have, I don't know.

Are you idea based in Judeo-Christian beliefs? The idea of "Immaculate Conception" is somewhat evoked by the example you show, of the reclining woman and the star. Could be of course.

And like everyone, I do have my own personal, and those of others, beliefs as to what some of the iconography you show are to me. But I will avoid injecting my ideas here... most everything is open to multiple interpretations. But as for this (starting about the 1:27 time on the video), where you are referring to the star group on the top left of

"The large star-soul on the left may be the father and the smaller star-souls in a group may be his children. The line from the small group of star souls to the large center face image may be showing how this soon to be sent to Earth start-soul is to become in life"

... I will point out that most believe this star group is actually the Pleaides, as this constellation is of course known as the "Seven Sisters". But maybe this would mesh with your idea of a "father and the smaller star-souls", as I think Pleaides has had many interpretations assigned to it over the millennia. Maybe that works for you, or is of interest?

As for your other video, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", again I have no way of knowing whether your ideas are the correct interpretations, but I have no reason to discount them, or counter them, and so I could not say one way or the other. But could they fit what we see? Sure they could. Also, I would say you are far from alone, for if you read D'Imperio, many of these ideas... well, similar to yours... have been suggested long ago: The ideas of pregnancy, the anthropomorphic nature of the female characters possibly representing ova. Your "fluid" hypothesis for the figure at about 1:06 I have not seen before, but "why not"? The figure does seem female to me, but still it may be male.

Your ideas that the rings, and crucifix, and other illustrations may imply the authors were relating the importance of marriage before... well "release" of you know what... again, could be. They do seem to be wedding rings, and that is certainly a cross.

Anyway, I have no reason to argue against any of your ideas here... but I should mention that we have all seen many hundreds of interpretations of these, and many other illustrations. Thousands really. And many are really wonderful ideas, as yours are. But the problem always is that there it is difficult for any ideas... mine included... to build a case for them, one that tells ourselves that this one or that one is the correct one. So if you feel your ideas are correct, build a foundation under them... find supporting evidence, either in similar comparisons in other works, or further support within the Voynich.

That's all we can do, really. And best of luck...

Rich.

(04-04-2024, 03:46 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But again I appreciate such input and rebuttal to my own ideas. For instance, in this case, you have refreshed my memory on some points, caused me to consider others, and made me realize I ought to spend more time on this issue. For one thing, I am exited to experiment on a scrap of 16th century manuscript parchment I have (it fell out of the binding of my Erasmus Bible, it was used as filler). I'd like to put my own notion to the test: Can I replicate the damage seen on Voynich f1r? I also ordered a copy of the 1966 Vinland Conference, something I have really wanted a copy of...


Rich

For the sake of completeness on the topics discussed on this thread, yesterday I received my copy of the 1971 publication, "Proceedings of the Vinland Map Conference" (edited by Wilcomb E. Washburn). On pages 31 and 32, in "The Case is not Settled", Robert S. Lopez writes,

"It is not beyond the power of a good paleographer to imitate perfectly any medieval handwriting on blank sheets of genuinely old parchment and with ink freshly made from a medieval recipe. Such ink cannot be artificially aged on paper, but the Vinland map is on parchment, where fresh ink can look old if it is skillfully discolored. It is still easier to produce wormholes with a hot wire or with live worms."

Lopez's footnote to the above, "This is not merely an assumption. I know an Italian paleographer whose hobby is to forge medieval script on authentic parchment and with ink made from medieval recipes; he does it for his and his friends' amusement, but I for one would be unable to detect the forgery, were it for his intention to deceive me. And I have heard from reliable sources of an English antiquarian who has a stable of live worms."

As I also wrote, the tools of the forger include(d) many methods of faking wormholes (bookworms, whatever) of all types, and often very convincingly. Forgers have used awls, drills, wires, and even live worms. So Lopez's mention is far from solitary. But I was curious as to what was said on the subject at the Vinland Conference, and now we know. As usual, though, it piques my interest still further in this subject, and I hope to look into Lopez's archives to see if he left further and more detailed information on his knowledge of the use of live "bookworms" to forge. And who the heck was this "English antiquarian"? Obviously later than Voynich's time, by many decades... but this dropped hint is very intriguing to me.

(11-04-2024, 04:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.fresh ink can look old if it is skillfully discolored.

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

(11-04-2024, 04:50 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-04-2024, 04:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.fresh ink can look old if it is skillfully discolored.

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

Yes! Here are a couple of points, which I am not sure were mentioned:

1) It has been suggested that the faded yellow ink may be of organic origins, and therefore could be C14 dated. Unlikely, though, that there would be enough. Also, it could have been added later... so if that ink were old, it proves old; but if new, doesn't prove new.

2) According to McCrone's analysis, the binder used over the ink was "not in [their] library". That is, they could NOT identify it. It was not Gum Arabic. They suggested it be further tested, and I agree.

Well, it is a far longer discussion about all this, but, in effect, I think myself and many others would hope for many more tests that could be performed... further C14, further spectrographic, multi-spectral, DNA even. But money, and concerns of damage, all valid, make this difficult and unlikely... for the time being.

Rich

What qualifies Newbold, Wilfred Voynich, Brumbaugh, Gordon Rugg as experts on Voynich dating?

I suspect that some of the others you cite as experts when it comes to dating the manuscript are nothing of the kind.

If your answer is that they have academic qualifications. My answer is that their qualifications are not in fields relevant to Voynich dating.

As far as the other experts that you list I would ask you in each case how you justify including them as an expert in Voynich dating and precisely what their statement regarding dating is. I am not saying there are no people with relevant skills in this regard, but your idea of who are experts is not mine.

Not sure if it is time for a summary yet, but let me propose one.

In the short, medium, long past, many people made estimates about the age of the Voynich MS. 
They based this on various criteria.
These criteria could be studied/challenged, but this has not really been done.

Many got it wrong, some got it right (as we can now say with full hind-sight).

That's it.

(15-04-2024, 12:56 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not sure if it is time for a summary yet, but let me propose one.

In the short, medium, long past, many people made estimates about the age of the Voynich MS. 
They based this on various criteria.
These criteria could be studied/challenged, but this has not really been done.

Many got it wrong, some got it right (as we can now say with full hind-sight).

That's it.

That is certainly the best summary.
But we should not forget the original context and why this thread was started:

(23-03-2024, 08:32 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wrote this in response to the frequent admonition that if I would only "listen to the experts", I would realize why my various ideas... and my current Modern Forgery hypothesis, are wrong.

 

I think Rich's original point here was that he has been admonished for not listening to the experts, yet he has in fact listened to them at least as much as anyone else has. Or as much as anyone can, given the amount of disagreement about who is or isn't an expert and the lack of consensus among them.

Now that I have had a chance to read through more of what Rich has said (within this thread and in previous writings), that seems to be true.  There might be a lot of things about his theory that one could debate, but the idea that he doesn't listen to the experts just isn't one of them.