The Voynich Ninja

(07-10-2024, 06:29 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... The most probable way for a person to have gained that level of familiarity would be to have lived during that era.

I'm sorry, but this statement leaves me dumbfounded. Surely you can see the flaw in it, can you not?

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I

"All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum."

"



I am not so well with rich vocabulary (like You are) being an engineer, but your table above proves no doubt about it, that it could not had been Voynich in 16-th century forgering the Manuscript.

 So therefore it was not him! Point.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't believe all the plants, or all of the plant parts, are fake. I don't think anyone does, whether they believe the Voynich real, fake, old or new. I used the generalization "fake plants" (or however I worded it) for the sake of brevity. But in answer to your question, "why" would a faker include well known plants, along with fake plants? Dunno. It might sound dismissive and even petty, but I mean this, "Why not?". A forger could include all real, all fake, some fake some real, some made of real and fake parts, in any forgery, for a multitude of reasons. I don't think, in any conceivable case, it alters the outcome.

"

 Too many words are on the market, but not in the research science.  How do you think? Voynich dicided to include known plants in the case he was producing forgery with fantastic ones? Too improbable I would say (p= 0.000000001).

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well that is a matter of opinion, I don't think a forger would have had to have been a genius to do this. I know of many fake books created, which are often really quite amazing, and I also don't think genius was necessary. 

"
 Money for the velum and ink, money for the all real forgeries on plants, pharmacies , recipes,  "naked women phantasies"?
"And at last if it really be a forgery - which is the document from which was copied to be created? What is the provenience and underlying language of the forgery?"

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see in this the old "bugaboo" of definition........

.........................................................................................................

Rich.



* Just speculation, as all of it necessarily is, but "IF" the Voynich has meaning I think the plain text will relate to activities, items and people in the early 17th century Court of Rudolf II, as (poorly) understood by the 1904 book, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". Your mileage may vary.

 Rich. no answer to the last question. Only many words and white noise ( known in the radio technics).
 BR: Vessy

I believe that there is relevant, historical information that can be found in a few of the VMs illustrations. Of those, some also have a chronological provenance within the VMs parchment C-14 dating, such as the structure of the inverted T-O cosmos (BNF Fr. 565, Paris, c. 1410), the fashion of clothing focused on sleeves (c. 1420-1430), and that crazy, old potential identification of the Golden Fleece (1430).

All of these interpretations (none of them mine) have come from various investigations. If, for fun, we accept them as provisionally valid, how is it that the VMs artist possessed and represented the information that promotes these interpretations?

Options: 1) the artist lived during the first half of the 15th C. so, this information was lived experience; 2) the artist lived after the C-14 dates but did good research; 3) the artist lived afterwards, cobbled together a few random images and didn't really care; 4) other.

A person born c. 1400 could have lived into the 1460s or1470s. The final phase of VMs creation could have been a couple decades after the combined C-14 data. My preference is the first option, the artist possessed this knowledge through lived experience. 

If the paired, dexter diagonal, blue-striped tub patterns and the combined red galero on VMs White Aries can be interpreted as heraldic references to the historical Fieschi popes of the 13th C., it is interesting to note from the biography of Ottobuono Fieschi, [made a cardinal by his uncle, Pope Innocent IV, in 1251, then was the papal legate to England and later elected Pope Adrian V], that he was actually acquainted with Roger Bacon, so they say.

So, if WMV is the forger, the "evidence" of a "BACON" connection is in the VMs illustrations, but *nobody *used it!? That seems odd.

The duality of White Aries has been hidden. Somebody hid it. That would be the VMs artist's intentionally disguised creation.

[sorry, accidentally duplicated a comment, so I edited it to remove it]

(08-10-2024, 07:51 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum."

"
I am not so well with rich vocabulary (like You are) being an engineer, but your table above proves no doubt about it, that it could not had been Voynich in 16-th century forgering the Manuscript.
So therefore it was not him! Point.

My table shows a few things:

1) That you were incorrect in your stating, ""All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum." They did not, the expert opinions were spread across a wide range of dates, geographies and purposes.

2) Since real items tend to stick to the time and area they were created in, the diversity of content observed in the VMs, which confounded the experts, indicates it was assembled from many sources from many times, which is an earmark of a forgery.

3) "So therefore it was not him [Voynich]!" But your assertion there assumes it would be impossible for a twentieth century person to draw items from earlier times, or draw them well enough to fool experts. Both are historically and logically incorrect. A majority of forgeries, hoaxes and fakes are intended to look like from an earlier time, and many of these have fooled the best experts. Some still do. For example, because the (forged) Vinland map is of an ancient map, this means it cannot be a forgery? Of course not.

4) And the chart shows clearly that the content is not even a match to the age of the vellum it is penned on. That is, whomever did create the Voynich picked the wrong age vellum to make it. This makes sense, because they would not have known of the coming advent of radiocarbon dating.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't believe all the plants, or all of the plant parts, are fake. I don't think anyone does, whether they believe the Voynich real, fake, old or new. I used the generalization "fake plants" (or however I worded it) for the sake of brevity. But in answer to your question, "why" would a faker include well known plants, along with fake plants? Dunno. It might sound dismissive and even petty, but I mean this, "Why not?". A forger could include all real, all fake, some fake some real, some made of real and fake parts, in any forgery, for a multitude of reasons. I don't think, in any conceivable case, it alters the outcome.

"

Too many words are on the market, but not in the research science.  How do you think? Voynich dicided to include known plants in the case he was producing forgery with fantastic ones? Too improbable I would say (p= 0.000000001).[/quote]

Perhaps my answer was "lost in translation". But the probability of including any combination of real and fake plants, cannot, I would counter, be defined by probability. The "odds" compared to other forgeries? To fakes of any kind? You are welcome to say the unique combination of fake and real plants, and fake and real plant parts, found in the Voynich, is "improbable", but on what grounds? It is what it is.

That being said, my opinion/guess/speculation as to why this was done was multi-fold: It would insulate the forger from detection, as most forgeries are revealed by errors in attempts to create a genuine looking item. That is very hard to do. The Vineland map, again, is a great example: They tried to make a real map, but copied an error from an 18th century engraving, and used an anachronistic phrase. With Oath of a Freeman, the Hitler Diaries... shot for authentic, but missed on technical and historical grounds. I have a fake "Autobiography of Shakespeare" from 1909 which I found at a tag sale decades ago... I had not heard of such a thing. A half hour in a library showed me many chronological and other factual errors. But if that author had made up a person, and made up their biography, we would have nothing to compare it to, and it would pass.

In the case of the Voynich, the plants are just off enough to not be identified with certainty; with just enough detail to imply they were meant to be real plants. Vague, unidentifiable. Just like the text... unidentifiable. There is nothing for one to dig their teeth into, and say, "This is SUPPOSED to be this, but it is wrong, therefore, forged". Everything is wrong, and there is nothing to compare it to. This keeps it safe from detection.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well that is a matter of opinion, I don't think a forger would have had to have been a genius to do this. I know of many fake books created, which are often really quite amazing, and I also don't think genius was necessary.

"

 Money for the velum and ink, money for the all real forgeries on plants, pharmacies , recipes,  "naked women phantasies"?

"And at last if it really be a forgery - which is the document from which was copied to be created? What is the provenience and underlying language of the forgery?"[/quote]

I notice, and others may have notice by now, when I counter one of your arguments, rather than refute me, you move on to another item, rather than explaining why my answer was wrong. As you did with your claim that everyone agreed, since 1945... and now, the "genius" point I made. But your answer here, about what document was copied to make this forgery... I did actually answer you: Yes, there is a specific definition of the word "forgery", which usually entails an "original" to be copied from. As I pointed out, the Voynich (as my hypothesis describes it) arguably does fulfill "forgery" to some extent, as items and styles are loosely copied from other works. Words like "hoax" or "fake" involve purpose and intent of the fake, and I can only assume what those motives were. I think "hoax" is probably closest, though... as the intent was too fool others, I believe. And I think you understand what I mean when I say "forgery", a term we all understand to mean "Not real, made to look like an old thing that it is not".

But another thing about your complaint here: You bring up the fact that it does not look like a copy of anything which came before, and therefore cannot be considered a "forgery". But actually, the fact that nothing like it exists... not the look, content, writing, construction, nothing... is actually a red flag it is not real. Few human created items exist in a vacuum. Even if they are one of a kind, the age, purpose, meaning, something is identifiable. The VMs has nothing. Even something as unique and anachronistic as the Antikethera Mechanism... one of a kind... can be dated, and the purpose can be determined.

So, no, you are correct, the Voynich, if fake, may not technically be a forgery; but its uniqueness implies forgery.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I see in this the old "bugaboo" of definition........
.........................................................................................................
Rich.

* Just speculation, as all of it necessarily is, but "IF" the Voynich has meaning I think the plain text will relate to activities, items and people in the early 17th century Court of Rudolf II, as (poorly) understood by the 1904 book, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". Your mileage may vary.

 

(08-10-2024, 07:51 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich. no answer to the last question. Only many words and white noise ( known in the radio technics).

 BR: Vessy

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean. I thought I answered every question of yours from last time... and anyone who knows me it is a somewhat painful habit of mine to tediously address each and every point directed at me. So if I missed something, please ask that question again...

... but if you meant the "bugaboo of definition" was the "white noise", I did answer it again, above. Call the Voynich forgery and/or hoax, fake or whatever, what I mean by this is well known by everyone by now, and you can read what I mean, here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Would a fake book which was based on the descriptions and objects found in many real books be considered fake, forgery, hoax, fraud, or something else? Its actually a good question... the Voynich is entirely unique... maybe it needs its own definition.

... my asterisked (*) speculation was just that. I have no idea of course what, if anything, the Voynich "says". But I label such speculations as such. Was that the "white noise" you meant? Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Rich.

(06-10-2024, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I notice, and others may have notice by now, when I counter one of your arguments, rather than refute me, you move on to another item, rather than explaining why my answer was wrong. As you did with your claim that everyone agreed, since 1945... and now, the "genius" point I made. But your answer here, about what document was copied to make this forgery... I did actually answer you: Yes, there is a specific definition of the word "forgery", which usually entails an "original" to be copied from. As I pointed out, the Voynich (as my hypothesis describes it) arguably does fulfill "forgery" to some extent, as items and styles are loosely copied from other works. 

But another thing about your complaint here: You bring up the fact that it does not look like a copy of anything which came before, and therefore cannot be considered a "forgery". 

So, no, you are correct, the Voynich, if fake, may not technically be a forgery; but its uniqueness implies forgery.

I see in this the old "bugaboo" of definition........
.........................................................................................................
Rich.

* Just speculation, as all of it necessarily is, but "IF" the Voynich has meaning I think the plain text will relate to activities, items and people in the early 17th century Court of Rudolf II, as (poorly) understood by the 1904 book, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". Your mileage may vary.

Hello Rich, by all my respect to You and Your work, which I read two times, I cannot agree with your statement about VM being a forgery. And I will remain in this belief, whatever comes in times being.
White noise in Your answer is not providing proofs about the forgery-  original script and original Language.
Let us assume, that I have some more information from the text and I have the proof of an ancient text peeking out from the script. How do I make known these crumbles of truth, without being stolen from the sales geniuses? How do I make the people believe, after thousands of claims of cracking the code or that the manuscript being fake? How do I do it?

(14-10-2024, 05:39 PM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let us assume, that I have some more information from the text and I have the proof of an ancient text peeking out from the script. 
How do I make known these crumbles of truth, without being stolen from the sales geniuses? 
How do I make the people believe, after thousands of claims of cracking the code or that the manuscript being fake? 
How do I do it?

Like everyone else, you could publish an article in a scientific or other journal, publish a book, or keep a blog or video channel. 
You won't be the first to do it, and you might not be the last.

If, one day, I were to find the solution how the text was created, I would first of all confide with a few people whom I know I can trust. I would probably choose two. These would then be able to confirm the discovery whenever necessary.

This will only work if the solution is both complete and convincing.

If the solution is not convincing, the witnesses will not be able to confirm anything.

If any solution is only partial, it will be possible for others to complete and/or improve it, and there is not much one can say about that. 

Now, as much as it is clear to me that the 'Voynich faked it' hypothesis is wrong beyond all reasonable doubt, if ever there is solid evidence that he did do it, then I will of course accept it.

Also, a hypothetical translation is not at all evidence that the MS is genuine.
Not even a correct translation, including identification of the author, would be evidence that the MS is genuine.

The indications that the VM is a genuine document are overwhelming. As ReneZ says, it is beyond all reasonable doubt. However, there will always be people who doubt it. The world is like that and we have to accept it.

It reminds me of the case of the man on the Moon. Incredibly, there are still millions of people who think this is a falsehood, even in the Western technological world. No reasoning is valid to convince someone who thinks this way. Nor that space rocket technology was available 40 years before the first arrival on the Moon in 1969, nor that the US sent expeditions up to six times, nor even that the Soviets themselves, the competitors, recognized the feat.

Ultimately, as in the case of Voynich, everything comes down to a problem of knowledge and understanding. The VM, as I see it, is a problem of understanding. Of trying to penetrate the persuasive force that astrology had on the people of the time. Even a cardinal like Pierre D'Ailly, a contemporary of the VM, believed that the main historical events were determined by astronomical conjunctions.

(14-10-2024, 11:50 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, a hypothetical translation is not at all evidence that the MS is genuine.
Not even a correct translation, including identification of the author, would be evidence that the MS is genuine.

 Hello ReneZ,
 Could You define what is a hypothetical translation and how does it differ from a true one if all the world does not know the truth? One should have a reference point to decide, but no one has it, as it seems to me.
 There is an Italian song "Parole, Parole", my greetings with this song
  Oh, yes, the true translation and the identification of the author will bring out from the bottomless pit, in which we all are now.
  I ask myself why am I here? And the answer is, because these people also care about the manuscript. Then I ask myself why they ignore my translation. And the answer is maybe they do not want to be awaken. It is like a heavenly dream, that if one is awoken one may hurt oneself, like with the somnambulism. 
  But there is another reason which keeps me with you. I know that I cannot understand everything from the text and I need support. The person who created the text maybe was Hermes or the  Devil himself. (Last sentence is only hypothesis) They did not want to give it to the common people. Maybe we do not want to dig it further?
Be healthy!