16-04-2024, 03:00 PM
Hi, Lisa:
Nor would I, make that argument. And I never did. You are generalizing the type of confusion over identification, which, in the cases you cite is very different than the case of the Voynich, in scope, quantity of elements of disparity, range of dating. No item, not the ones you list, nor any, have such an absolute problem with provenance, materials, content, age, geographic origin, construction, meaning, subject matter, and more. The real examples which elicit confusion do not come close... so the comparison is apples and oranges, it does not apply, and so does not forgive the Voynich for its unique case of confusion.
Well the only way that someone can claim, as you do, that there is not a "hint" of suspicion with the Voynich, is to ignore or inadequately dismiss the evidence that elicits suspicion. On almost every point you made in that paragraph, this has been done. All the things you mention have multiple suspicious elements, and ignoring them does not, should not, make them go away. They should be addressed.
This is clear when one critically reads the 2016 Yale Voynich publication. In it (I think you contributed to it, no?), when critically read, we find mentioned "unusual" and anachronistic findings in the construction, the stitching, binding, materials. In the McCrone report, too, we find a "binder not in" their "library", "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", that the ink of the last page marginalia turns out to be the same ink as the main text. And, as in my reply to Rene, the 50-60 year range (more if the error margins are considered) of C14 data... which is an odd thing in a supposedly cohesive manuscript... is simply adjusted down to fit an "assumed" verdict.
These things are just a drop in the bucket of anachronistic and anomalous features in the Voynich, all of which cannot be, should not be, so easily dismissed by you. In fact, I did watch, with interest, your terrific presentation at Welsley. But I should point out that even you reported, honestly and expertly, as is your practice, many anomalous features of the Voynich, and state as fact many things which are either opinion, incorrect, or still under debate. For instance, you say that the radiocarbon dating placed it “pretty solidly” between 1404 and 1438.
- You called the the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”, maybe referring to the important point that foldouts of this type are “very unusual” for the time of the RC dating.
- You described the the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over, saying how “odd” these things are: The order, the reorder, and so on, such as, “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”.
- On your chart, you put “Modern Forgery” on the side for “Meaningless”. But it is a common misconception that forgery=meaningless: most forgeries actually have meaning.
- You answered an ink question, "The ink is iron-gall ink, what you would expect, there is nothing special about it.", not considering nor mentioning the anomalies McCrone actually found in the ink. When asked if you know of any other book like this, you accurately describe the varied content, then say, "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 rightly answer, “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”.
- You pointed out that the quire numbers are probably 15th century, but that the, “… the foliation [page numbers] is probably 17th century”. This is a very common effect with the Voynich, that whenever anything is "too new" for early 15th century, it is said to have been added. When it cannot have been added, it is either ignored, or dismissed as an improper comparison.
- and many more examples like the above
The reason this is important to me is this: You are an expert, and I and everyone highly respects your experience and abilities. But like all honest feedback, we see problem after problem being noted, and usually acknowledged AS problems... but then dismissed and forgotten or ignored, and in later discussions like this one, where the unfounded claim is made that there is not a "hint" of anything suspicious. No, the "suspicious" has to be removed to make that claim... it is there, it is everywhere, in the words of every expert, every amateur, every report, even your own.
Don't get me wrong here, I must point out that I know this effect is an innocent one. But a common one, which unfortunately keeps the projected image of the Voynich very inaccurate and sterile.
Well you've added yet another parameter by which any testimony may be dismissed, by eliminating any by anyone who has not seen the Voynich in person. I strongly object to this. You don't need to see a Voynich character, plant, person, animal, zodiac, and so on, to know it intimately, and certainly enough to make valid judgements about it.
But more importantly, as I've amply pointed out, even those who have studied the manuscript in person, such as you, and many other experts in all fields, have reported back many anachronisms, anomalies, and inconsistencies of all kinds, which are never properly addressed, if addressed at all.
(16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Experts have been debating the age of manuscripts like The Book of Kells and the Beowulf Manuscript for decades, if not centuries, with estimates spanning hundreds of years. Dating manuscripts is subjective, in part because the science can't give us precision. C-14 dating is helpful, but not precise. Paleographic and art historical evidence are subjective, not scientific. Experts can, and do, disagree. That doesn't mean that the Book of Kells and the Beowulf Manuscript are forgeries. No one would make that argument.
Nor would I, make that argument. And I never did. You are generalizing the type of confusion over identification, which, in the cases you cite is very different than the case of the Voynich, in scope, quantity of elements of disparity, range of dating. No item, not the ones you list, nor any, have such an absolute problem with provenance, materials, content, age, geographic origin, construction, meaning, subject matter, and more. The real examples which elicit confusion do not come close... so the comparison is apples and oranges, it does not apply, and so does not forgive the Voynich for its unique case of confusion.
(16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Scientific analysis cannot prove that something is authentic; it can only prove that something is inauthentic, and none of the scientific evidence has given any hint that the VMS is not an authentic fifteenth-century object. No one who has spent any time with the actual manuscript has found anything suspicious about it...not Rene, not myself, not the curators, not the conservators, etc. etc. There are simply too many things that a forger would have to get exactly right: parchment, ink, pigment, provenance, documentation, sewing threads, evidence of previous bindings, centuries of use and staining, foliation in a later style, annotations by various hands, the erased inscription on 1r, multiple scribes, linguistic patterns, etc. etc. It is unimaginable that anyone could manage that. I have seen and studied many forgeries of medieval manuscripts over the last thirty years, and there is always something clearly suspicious. There were always suspicions about the Vinland Map. There was always a sense that something wasn't right about it, even during the period when it was thought to be geniune. There were always suspicions about The Gospel of Jesus' Wife. There is nothing about the VMS as an actual object that would make anyone with experience in working with medieval manuscripts doubt its authenticity.
Well the only way that someone can claim, as you do, that there is not a "hint" of suspicion with the Voynich, is to ignore or inadequately dismiss the evidence that elicits suspicion. On almost every point you made in that paragraph, this has been done. All the things you mention have multiple suspicious elements, and ignoring them does not, should not, make them go away. They should be addressed.
This is clear when one critically reads the 2016 Yale Voynich publication. In it (I think you contributed to it, no?), when critically read, we find mentioned "unusual" and anachronistic findings in the construction, the stitching, binding, materials. In the McCrone report, too, we find a "binder not in" their "library", "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", that the ink of the last page marginalia turns out to be the same ink as the main text. And, as in my reply to Rene, the 50-60 year range (more if the error margins are considered) of C14 data... which is an odd thing in a supposedly cohesive manuscript... is simply adjusted down to fit an "assumed" verdict.
These things are just a drop in the bucket of anachronistic and anomalous features in the Voynich, all of which cannot be, should not be, so easily dismissed by you. In fact, I did watch, with interest, your terrific presentation at Welsley. But I should point out that even you reported, honestly and expertly, as is your practice, many anomalous features of the Voynich, and state as fact many things which are either opinion, incorrect, or still under debate. For instance, you say that the radiocarbon dating placed it “pretty solidly” between 1404 and 1438.
- You called the the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”, maybe referring to the important point that foldouts of this type are “very unusual” for the time of the RC dating.
- You described the the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over, saying how “odd” these things are: The order, the reorder, and so on, such as, “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”.
- On your chart, you put “Modern Forgery” on the side for “Meaningless”. But it is a common misconception that forgery=meaningless: most forgeries actually have meaning.
- You answered an ink question, "The ink is iron-gall ink, what you would expect, there is nothing special about it.", not considering nor mentioning the anomalies McCrone actually found in the ink. When asked if you know of any other book like this, you accurately describe the varied content, then say, "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 rightly answer, “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”.
- You pointed out that the quire numbers are probably 15th century, but that the, “… the foliation [page numbers] is probably 17th century”. This is a very common effect with the Voynich, that whenever anything is "too new" for early 15th century, it is said to have been added. When it cannot have been added, it is either ignored, or dismissed as an improper comparison.
- and many more examples like the above
The reason this is important to me is this: You are an expert, and I and everyone highly respects your experience and abilities. But like all honest feedback, we see problem after problem being noted, and usually acknowledged AS problems... but then dismissed and forgotten or ignored, and in later discussions like this one, where the unfounded claim is made that there is not a "hint" of anything suspicious. No, the "suspicious" has to be removed to make that claim... it is there, it is everywhere, in the words of every expert, every amateur, every report, even your own.
Don't get me wrong here, I must point out that I know this effect is an innocent one. But a common one, which unfortunately keeps the projected image of the Voynich very inaccurate and sterile.
(16-04-2024, 12:40 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You cannot make a determination about the authenticity of an ancient object by studying digital images. These are three-dimensional, multi-valent objects that must be examined in person and in detail in order to issue an expert opinion.
Well you've added yet another parameter by which any testimony may be dismissed, by eliminating any by anyone who has not seen the Voynich in person. I strongly object to this. You don't need to see a Voynich character, plant, person, animal, zodiac, and so on, to know it intimately, and certainly enough to make valid judgements about it.
But more importantly, as I've amply pointed out, even those who have studied the manuscript in person, such as you, and many other experts in all fields, have reported back many anachronisms, anomalies, and inconsistencies of all kinds, which are never properly addressed, if addressed at all.