(19-11-2024, 11:38 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I finally finished my new video. This one is about fraud, forgery and fakery of all kinds. Meaning, lack of meaning, good intentions, bad intentions, John Dee, Wilfrid Voynich or the Crossbowman.
This video is the one that took me the longest to make so far. It includes both known and new research and highlights some lesser known aspects as well. As usual, I tried to learn some new animations along the way, and attempted to keep it visually interesting.
I owe thanks to Lisa, Rene and Marco for their input and factchecking of the script, and to Cary for reviewing the video before publication.
I also provided English subtitles, which should make it a bit easier to watch for those who like them.
Enjoy!
Again, I really appreciate the discussion about my rebuttal to Koen's video, agree with me or not. Yes, the individual points are important, and should be discussed, I think. Even though people here often do disagree with me, I sense that most everyone wants to know as much as possible about every aspect of the Voynich, and are interested in some of these little "nooks and crannies" that often get glossed over. Like me, you sincerely want to know the answers to them, and don't want to have to rely on others processing the information for them.
And that is the overriding point to my rebuttal. Koen, your argument, to seem successful, absolutely relies on a restriction of ideas, and limiting of all known information to only those things which make your points for you. I personally don't do this, and also, I don't think it is fair to others. I would rather people discuss every single aspect of every theory, and see every shred of evidence, and all the opinions, so that they can make up their own minds. I don't feel my ideas will die under the light, but also feel that, if they do, then that would be correct and proper.
[EDIT by Rich]: It turns out that Koen did NOT remove my post, as I first wrote, below. Perhaps the Youtube "bot" saw something in it, a word, an unacceptable link, or whatever. My apologies to Koen for making this mistake before checking with him.
So I ask you, seriously, to explain to me, to us, why you do this? I read every single comment under your video, and even commented on one of them.
You erased my comment, and substituted your own! Below is a screenshot
after you erased my comment:
[
attachment=9422]
The comment was by a seditt5146: "Na dude, those are micro-organisms. You can easily match the images up with many common yeast and bacteria. Why I never see more people discuss this is beyond me."
So this being a deep interest of mine, as well of others, I wanted to assure seditt that he/she was far from alone. I pointed out that plant and animal cells, and also diatoms, were often suspected to be in the Voynich. Then I linked to the ORF video at about the point where this issue was discussed, just before I appear in it. And so on... I gave very appropriate response to this commenter, and my answer would have been of interest to them, and others.
But you deleted my answer! And this is what I mean... if you theory relies on censoring discussion, in keeping your viewers ignorant of alternative input and observations, even of facts, they how solid is it, really? As for your
replacement answer to seditt, "Because it’s conspiracy level nonsense”, I'd have to first ask why so nasty to someone who was genuinely interested in an aspect of the Voynich that occurred to them? And to a person who wanted to watch your video?
And I noted that you didn't give similar short-shrift to others in the comments who offered less... compelling?... theories. You didn't delete their comments (or at least, I checked back in a few times, and didn't notice that they were also gone). And by the way, for anyone interested, I practice what I preach. You can see that on my youtube channel, named "proto57". I feel it is important to have open discussions, even if the commenter is nasty and contrary... which seditt certainly was not. Poor guy/girl... I hope they retain an interest in the Voynich after THAT.
And so on. Similarly to that incident, and to your video for that matter, you hold back information in order to strengthen your point(s). Here is another example, of several:
[
attachment=9423]
OK, so this person writes, "Isn't some of the plants look [sic] like New World Species? That doesn't fit into the 1400-1430 dating" That is, to me, agree with them or not, a wonderful observation. Maybe they read that somewhere, maybe they thought of this themselves. I don't know.
But your answer was purposefully (because you know these things) incomplete, and entirely misleading as a result. First of all, as I pointed out in my rebuttal to your video, your claim that was the poor quality copies which kept others from making proper judgements is simply not... in every case... correct. Many of the experts had access to either the Voynich itself, by appointment, or to the fine, and oversized photostats which the Voynich's had prepared for this purpose. As I also pointed out, I've seen them. And also, many others had access to the film strips... I think, by the time O'Neil opined on his sunflower and pepper. But you don't show those photostat copies, nor even a film strip print. You show either a newspaper print, or something from D'Imperio, notoriously poor. That is not what most of those people saw.
And there was another, if small, but still important omission in your answer, because O'Neil also identified a pepper... a type from the New World. As for "everyone went with it because he was a botanist", well I don't know if that was the sole reason that his ideas held sway, and still, actually do with some... but to your point here, he was a botanist, and a very respected and experienced one. Were the copies so bad that the could not make a valid identifications? I doubt it, for this and the reasons above.
But to me the worst part of your answer to this interested and well meaning person was your omission of ALL the post-high res scan botanical experts who feel they have identified MANY New World plants! You just left it out, as though it didn't happen. What about Tucker and Janick? You know of them, you have used them in your blog. You even have a picture of the cover of one of their books! And they feel they have (well we lost Tucker years ago) identified DOZENS of plant as being New World plants. And Tucker and Janick are far from alone in identifying New World plants, and other content.
And also, since they did this after "instant access to good scans on the internet", as you say, it undermines the point you are making in the very answer. And, it is simply, provably, false. Such identifications didn't stop when good scans became available: If anything, they vastly increased!
Anyway, of course you have the right to your opinions, and even the right to omit anything you so choose. But this frequent, selective editing of the fact and opinion base of the Voynich "story", in order to garner hits, a following, and agreement, I don't feel is a good path to be pursuing. It is unfair to those people who have a genuine interest in the Voynich, and who are hungry to learn as much as they can toward that end.
You have convinced many new people, with that video alone so far, that there is no merit to my own hypothesis, nor any modern fake theory, but at what cost? Don't you trust your viewership to know all and make up their own minds? Or are you worried as to what conclusion they would come to, if they knew everything? I would say you should trust them, as I do. That is good for them, for everyone... but it would also be good for you.
Rich.