I think for some people the manuscript is, sort of like a horcrux. They have stored a part of themselves in it and these people generally can't be reached.
A lot of people are probably just new though and mean well, I was one, I remember a member going off on me when I was new and looking back I totally deserved it, they didn't change much though.. I'm still an idiot, just a more unsure of myself idiot
Sorry to lower the mood but I'd like to hear any thoughts from the more technically/IT competent people on this forum about something that looks dodgy and has been upsetting me.
I did crack and open up the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.from Ahmet's site, because I heard that Ahmet is now claiming the video misrepresented a fictional claim he made on Göbekli Tepe having a Voynichese glyph as a real claim. So I looked for the Göbekli Tepe references in the Lies monster doc.
Ahmet's You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. was published in 2020 on his website and is 68 pages long. It is written in the same rambling style as his other writings on the website, often going off on tangents about how Proto-Indo-European is made-up. He draws etymological conclusions in the same pseudo-linguistic way he does in the other docs. In short:
it didn't stand out from any of the others.
On page 8 of the Lies of the Koen (or whatever he calls it) doc, Ahmet claims that when he published the article on his website, he explained its fictional nature in its description section on the list of all the articles. He alleges the Koen ignored this description or did not choose to translate it, and he also says the purpose seems to be to portray him as "disconnected from logic and historical reality".
He produces an English translation of the description oddly twice on page 9 (in more natural English) and on page 208. The description says the doc is a fictional piece, designed to highlight how people's imagination could lead us to thousands of different interpretations. Strangely, the description is preoccupied with justifying why the doc does not appear fictional: he says that to prove his point, he is
"writing this article as seriously as possible and will consciously omit this explanation within the main content of the article."
Ahmet provides a screencap on page 210 of this explanation in the Turkish description in the articles list, which also ends with a winking emoji. This is what the video chose to ignore, he says. But:
- I read through every description in the list of articles under Google Translate to decide which to prioritise reading as part of research to help Koen. I do not remember that article (or indeed any article) having such a lengthy description at all, and specifically nothing calling it fictional or referencing the Voynich manuscript.
- The Wayback machine does not show this description. Here is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and here is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The Göbekli Tepe doc is #4 in each of them.
- Two other articles (#4 on page 1 and #14 on page 2) have also recently had their descriptions edited and massively lengthened according to the Wayback machine. All the others appear the same. The two are the ones the original script drew the most from, until Ahmet insisted to Koen that the video about his solution must not mention his linguistic claims (despite being banned here for refusing to stop mixing them). They now contain disclaimers saying they are not related to the VM work.
Is there an innocent explanation for this? I don't like the idea that I'm going mad and somehow missed this description...but I also don't like the nature of the alternative conclusion I'm jumping to.
Given Ahmet's regular legal threats, I'd also feel better if I understood what's going on here. My understanding is that IF we are correct, the suspected order of operations is as follows:
1) Ahmet posts an article to his Voynich research website claiming that a Voynich glyph can be found on a stone in Gobekli Tepe.
2) I point this out in the video as one of the examples of what sets Ahmet's theory apart from others.
3) He (probably?) alters the description of the article on his website, explaining that it is meant as a joke.
4) He writes some very long articles about my many Lies. In them, he refers to the description which tavi and I missed out of apparent negligence
Ever published something so dumb that you had to go back and edit in that you actually meant it as a joke?
Screencaps are just images and an image can be whatever you want it to be.
Screen shots are not proof of anything.
I would take whatever wayback machine shows over a screencap every time.
Not to mention if you are the websites owner, you can change its content at will, take a screenie and revert the the webpage to its original state.
To be clear --None of the contents of this post #34 has never occurred in reailty.
[Edit: this emoji has dust in its eye and in no way indicates sarcasm]
Edit:
i can only use deepl, but the content of the current description seems to directly address issues that were raised in the "voynichtalk" video
obviously if that were so , then the current description was written after the video.
Ultimately there is no proof of whether the chicken came before the egg or vice-versa.
As an aside, regarding the emoji at the end of the description, emojis can now be used in court to signal intent.
South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLII): The court ruled that a "thumbs-up" emoji constituted acceptance of a contract, holding a farmer liable for breaching an agreement by failing to deliver goods .--> You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
tl;dr Wayback machine wins and the whole affair is not worth worrying about..
Thanks, Rob. The screencap doesn't show any date. It does indeed reflect how page 2 of the article list looks currently. But it doesn't reflect how the WB machine captured the list last year.
I don't want to accuse him of this, because (and maybe I'm naive) I find the possibility of it happening shocking, and I'm worried there might be something Koen and I are both missing here, especially as I haven't used the WB machine much in the past. Yet I can't find any explanation for why the WB machine archive might show such a different summary, and no one has suggested a reason on this thread yet.
(That's also a good point about some of the claims in the description. The description about when writing begun is at complete odds with the position Ahmet took repeatedly in the Calgary thread on the forum until his banning, and in his writings elsewhere. It's in line with what I said in the Calgary thread, and Ahmet refused to accept it.)
@tavie: A screenshot is not a good form of evidence. It is incredibly easy to fake not only the image content but also the actual timestamp of the file.
If I understand correctly, Mr. Ardic states that the Göbekli Tepe claim was supposed to be fictional (it's just a prank bro!). Why on earth would you publish something like that on a website that attempts to mimic an academic site? It literally has "research" in the domain name. The article section is called "publications/articles" and is formatted as if they were real academic papers with an "author" and a "publisher" column. Now I am not an academic, but to me it is pretty obvious that the visitors are supposed to take the content seriously. If you wanted to post more easy going content, a blog would be more suitable imo. I don't buy the explanation.
I mean, it is a joke, but not in that way.
There is the incident of the Sokal affair,
That was a faux scholarly article, though the reason for its creation was to test an academic journals intellectual rigor. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
It's a VMs Skwirl - and not the only one. Something Kompletely Worthless, yet Irresistible Regarding Language in the VMs. Like reading EVA.
You guys may have a hard time with Ahmet
His solution is just wrong. You don't need to know ancient Turkish dialects to see it. He uses basically simple substitution and as result gets unexisting words only vaguely similar to real words making word salad - no grammar and no sense. It's just like many other solutions.
But when you try to talk to him he will throw in your face a lot of tiny details about Turkish language which you won't be able to discuss as you don't speak it. And the outcome may seem confusing indeed.
There is something like Brandolini's law and somehow I remembered it when reading Ahmet:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
So to discuss with Ahmet papers which are 285 pages long you would have to write a document that is 500 pages long or so. That nobody would actually read anyway