The Voynich Ninja

(04-10-2024, 09:18 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps he has presented some additional evidence beyond what SantaColomo has presented in his blogs and posts but his obviously ill-informed and biased position that is apparent from his preface makes me doubt the value of the book.

No there isn't any new evidence or discussion of existing evidence, just blanket denial that there is any evidence of provenance before 1912:

Robert C. Williams Wrote:The provenance before 1912 is purely speculative (or fake) and undocumented for lack of evidence.

I've read it (skipped many chapters about historical background, various irrelevant hoaxes and biographical information that fill 99% of the book) and found no argument: Voynich did it, period.

(04-10-2024, 09:33 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No there isn't any new evidence or discussion of existing evidence, just blanket denial that there is any evidence of provenance before 1912 ...
...
[Williams basically says...] Voynich did it, period.

This is particularly ironic because one of Wlliams' other books is "The Historian's Toolbox"... described with..." The Historian’s Toolbox introduces students to the theory, craft, and methods of history and equips them with a series of tools to research and understand the past."

 (Physician -- heal thyself.)

This always reminds me a bit of the reply I got from Romance Studies when I informed them about Cheshire's many transgressions against the field of linguistics: "We found that there are many interpretations of the Voynich manuscript and that this paper offers one of them, so we have taken the decision that no further action is needed." Basically, even people of whom we should expect some scientific rigor may observe the behavior of Voynich theorists and decide to join in. Like a wall that attracts more vandalism since there's already a lot of graffiti on it.

(04-10-2024, 09:02 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1. Blogs are not the place to publish your novelty in research, because if you dig for years to obtain some truth in the field and publish your findings- there is a faster one who will cash on your ideas. And that is why all researchers and innovators are usually poor (only one example Nicola Tesla).

I agree it has probably been a mistake to reveal much of what I have, in my blog. I think that, given the general trend to believe the Voynich is old and genuine, I feel somewhat "safe" that my ideas won't be used by others... even though instances do crop up, I haven't learned that lesson!

Quote:    The VM is a real ancient book. What about the ink and the physical material was it faked too? What about the plants- were they hoax too? And the pharmacy part with all the names of the roots? 

As you must know, the ink was not dated. Some claim, incorrectly... in fact this error cropped up in the recent MSI youtube video... that McCrone said the ink was proper for the 15th century. But they never say that in their report, it is others who claim they did. Also, McCrone says of the ink that the find of "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", and a "binder" not Gum Arabic, and "not in our library" should all be further explored. That is, they had questions that were never answered, about the ink.

And the dating of other physical materials does not date the manuscript, which could have been penned at any, later, time.

Many who believe the Voynich IS fifteenth century think the plants may be fake also, as in some sort of hoax to either sell the Voynich for more money, or puff up the reputation of a doctor who owned it, and so on. In fact, if one thinks the plants real, and not a hoax, that opens the possibility of the very excellent comparisons made by Janick and Tucker (and others) to New World varieties. So "fake plants" might fit better with old, than it does with newer. If real plants, then comparisons must necessarily compete with post-Columbian identifications.

I do not think anyone has determined the pharmacy sections show names of roots... but let's say, for the sake of argument, it does. Can we not label a fake root with a fake or real name? I mean, labeling a root does not make it a real root, I don't think.

Rich.

From page 96 (p. 69 on Google Books preview):

Quote:In 1912, Voynich sold a medieval herbal to the Welcome Trust (MS 334), with which he was in frequent contact. The herbal showed an image of a dog ripping up a mandrake plant root from the ground. On January 13 Voynich wrote Charles Thompson asking if he wanted to keep the Roger Bacon “13th century medical manuscript which I sent for your inspection.” Thompson did not. He would not pay more than ten pounds for it. This was probably the Voynich manuscript in some form. Thompson returned it to Voynich.

MS 334: Voynich bought it in 1912 and the Wellcome Trust purchased it in 1925 according to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The correspondence between Voynich and Thompson is here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

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

(04-10-2024, 09:33 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... there isn't any new evidence or discussion of existing evidence, just blanket denial that there is any evidence of provenance before 1912:

Robert C. Williams Wrote:The provenance before 1912 is purely speculative (or fake) and undocumented for lack of evidence.

I've read it (skipped many chapters about historical background and various irrelevant hoaxes that fill 99% of the book) and found no argument: Voynich did it, period.

Well I am in the rare position of agreeing in this case of an argument FOR forgery. But "yes", I agree his argument does not have much, if any, teeth to it. He does not point out the weaknesses and contradictions to the use of the Letters of the Carteggio as provenance, as I do, and feel I have. And he does not point out my recently posted argument that Voynich could have well seen the Letters or references... (although that was posted after his book was finished).

He may not agree with my thoughts on these points, but he has no substitutes for arguing against pre-1912 provenance... he just dismisses the Letter references. Actually, he doesn't seem to mention them! I just searched my kindle copy for "carteggio" and "sphinx" to see if those references are in the book, and I had forgotten he did have them, but they are not. He only relates the given Voynich time line partly implied BY the Letter references, but not the references themselves.

I hope this does not sound like a case of sour grapes on my part. But also, maybe, I am in an almost unique position to make these observations, as the point the author is trying to make is almost exactly the one I have particularly delved in, and for a very long time. I hope it is understood that if I thought he made that case, I would be ready to admit it, as it would back up my own... even if it hampered my own chance at publication. But I genuinely don't feel it does what it set out to do.

Rich.

In the search page for author Robert C. Williams on Amazon the only book that does not link Robert C. Williams is the new one.

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

[attachment=9315]

Would be ironic if this book itself is the actual forgery. 


Apart from the missing Amazon link (which may be a common occurrence for all I know) I don't see any indication though. It's still a bit weird. Guy hasn't published anything in a decade or two and writes his first VM publication at the age of 86. Must be a hobby.

(04-10-2024, 03:28 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Guy hasn't published anything in a decade or two and writes his first VM publication at the age of 86. Must be a hobby.

Useful Assets, published in 2019
Topsham, Maine: From the River to the Highlands, first edition 2015
The Forensic Historian, first edition 2013
The Historian's Toolbox, first edition 2006

<<  The Historian's Toolbox A Student's Guide to the Theory and Craft of History - 5th Edition - Published September 19, 2024 by Routledge.  >>
expands on the previous version with   "...new sections on the Voynich manuscript..."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.