The Voynich Ninja

Personally, I doubt Richard SantaColoma is real. I never met him and I suspect he is just a character dreamt up by a mischievous cabal conspiring to waste people's time on the internet. And I ask you, if you think that you have met him, whether it was the real Mr. SantaColoma or an imposter and how can you be sure which it was. Can you prove it? I would also observe that "asteckley" seems to pop into the conversation in line with Mr. SantaColoma, maybe the cabal are responsible for producing this commenter.

Yes, the genuine 15th manuscript theory is the default, but that doesn't make it unchallengable. For example, the continents always remaining in the same place used to be the default and the man who promoted continental drift (I forgot his name now) was ridiculed, then plate tectonics were discovered, after which, continental drift became the default which it still is.

And in this case, and I believe this is Mr. SantaColoma's (I apologize in advance if I got his title wrong) point, I think the genuine 15th manuscript theory is unduly defualt, because it rests on shaky evidence. So as such, rather than the default, it itself should be considered still just a hypothesis on the same level as the early 20th century forgery hypothesis and the 17th century forgery hypothesis.

And given that at least two known forgeris had at the very least passed through Voynich's hands, it, in conjuction with all the other evidence presented by Mr. SantaColoma, in my opinion, makes Voynich, and anything Voynich ever claimed, suspicious.

(07-11-2025, 11:34 PM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, the genuine 15th manuscript theory is the default, but that doesn't make it unchallengable. For example, the continents always remaining in the same place used to be the default and the man who promoted continental drift (I forgot his name now) was ridiculed, then plate tectonics were discovered, after which, continental drift became the default which it still is.

And in this case, and I believe this is Mr. SantaColoma's (I apologize in advance if I got his title wrong) point, I think the genuine 15th manuscript theory is unduly defualt, because it rests on shaky evidence. So as such, rather than the default, it itself should be considered still just a hypothesis on the same level as the early 20th century forgery hypothesis and the 17th century forgery hypothesis.

Thank you Battler, well stated. And to make it clear, I would not want mine, nor anyone else's hypothesis to be considered the "default", until we do know what it is.

Quote:And given that at least two known forgeris had at the very least passed through Voynich's hands, it, in conjuction with all the other evidence presented by Mr. SantaColoma, in my opinion, makes Voynich, and anything Voynich ever claimed, suspicious.

I am aware of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but can't for the moment think of the other one you are referring to. Maybe my brain is just tired. What other forgery do you mean? I have several other suspects, and so I'm wondering if one or both of the ones you are referring to are on my list...

Rich

---

(07-11-2025, 09:10 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Personally, I doubt Richard SantaColoma is real. I never met him and I suspect he is just a character dreamt up by a mischievous cabal conspiring to waste people's time on the internet. And I ask you, if you think that you have met him, whether it was the real Mr. SantaColoma or an imposter and how can you be sure which it was. Can you prove it? I would also observe that "asteckley" seems to pop into the conversation in line with Mr. SantaColoma, maybe the cabal are responsible for producing this commenter.

I can prove it... my parchment was dated, and it matches my content. Old.

(08-11-2025, 05:02 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am aware of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but can't for the moment think of the other one you are referring to. Maybe my brain is just tired. What other forgery do you mean? I have several other suspects, and so I'm wondering if one or both of the ones you are referring to are on my list..

I was referring to the Vinland Map since you wrote on your blog that Voynich used to own it at one point *and* its vellum has been dated to the exact same time frame as that of the Voynich Manuscript.

(07-11-2025, 02:25 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-11-2025, 01:16 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The 15th century creation of the Voynich MS is not a theory. That line is just rhetoric by Rich. It is the default, and any alternative needs solid evidence.

This argument by Rich misuses or misunderstands the various definitions of the word "theory". It is straight from the pseudoscientist's playbook. "Evolution is just a theory!"

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science [...] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the first kind. Since its inception, it has been changed, improved, added to... as is expected in the natural sciences.

Rich's theory is of the second type, "something that is unproven or speculative".

Assuming that something is an authentic version of itself is not a theory of any kind.

The Wikipedia definition of theory is misleading though. 

There was an effort to establish a specialized definition for the word theory -- one that is somehow unique to scientific usage and that involves an emphasis on certainty of its claims. That only started around the 1980's though, and it largely came out of the rising debates on Evolution, starting with Stephen Jay Gould. The modified definition spread more widely later on when American educators were responding to the push to include Creationism in schools.

The aim of coming up with that special definition was to counter arguments that were being posed against Evolution -- and, in particular, those of the Creationists (which were the source of your "pseudoscientist" reference.)  They were trying to combat implications that Evolution was a theory only in the more colloquial sense of the word -- that is, being only a guess or a hunch that lacks any actual evidence. They wanted to weaken those criticisms by implanting, into the discourse, the idea that true scientists used the word "theory" in the sense of "proven certain" and never in the sense of "just a theory". 

You can see that effort in the way Wikipedia piles on pleonastic modifiers to add stuff that already went without saying: 
        "a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science" [emphasis is mine].

Of course, scientists don't use the word in that loose way that non-scientists might use it in everyday banter. But they also don't use it to refer only to an idea that it is so well-confirmed that it is certain and indisputable. That is a fabrication.

Instead of Stephen Jay Gould (and most certainly instead of Wikipedia, which is known for editors acting to enforce political biases), one should look to Thomas Kuhn' whose concepts of what a theory is, are truer to the practical usage in science. (Hopefully his classic book is already familiar to people here, but if not it is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

In most fields of science, a theory involves a "model" that provides a conceptual representation of the real world. That model can be used to explain the empirical observations and also to predict the behavior and reactions expected in controlled experiments. But in forensic fields (like we have with VMS research) where we are not trying to predict behavior, but simply trying to explain collected observations, a "story" would be the analogous element. The theory's story describes a sequence of events that explain the observations.

In any case though, it is the theory with the most explanatory power that is, typically, the one that most will subscribe to because it is most useful for understanding the observations or for predicting what will happen under given conditions. And so typically, that theory will dominate the community and it usually becomes THE theory for a period of time. (Not always, but usually. The supersedence of Newton's theory of gravity by Einstein's theory is an example where the old theory, despite being dis-proven, remains dominant for most practical purposes because it retained explanatory power for kinematics.)

But the dominant status does not mean, as the Wikipedia description implies, that the theory is now "proven" and therefore it is the "correct" theory that no other can replace.  Any theory remains only as good as its explanatory power and, if another theory comes along with greater explanatory power, then that new theory usually becomes THE theory. (Although the transition is not simple -- which is the main subject of Kuhn's book.)

The point is, scientists do NOT simply use "theory" to refer to some one-and-only theory that is proven while considering all others to be without evidence (or what Wikipedia incorrectly calls "hypotheses"). They consider contending theories to be on a spectrum with different amounts of evidence and different explanatory powers. And when there is one with significantly more explanatory power, then it is generally more widely adopted ... while it lasts.

Contrary to your comment, Koen, Rich's argument doesn't misuse or misunderstand the "various definitions of the word 'theory'". (Nor does Rich himself, by the way.) He is simply proposing a theory (his Modern Forgery Theory) that challenges the current widely accepted theory (I think he calls it the 1420 genuine theory, but I usually say the 15th century theory or something to that effect). BOTH theories have evidence and BOTH have stories that explain some, but not all, of the observations. Which one has the greater explanatory power at this point in time is certainly a matter of opinion -- there are questions that each one can answer and others that they cannot answer but only propose plausible explanations. But NEITHER theory is proven.

You clearly think that the 15th century THEORY is significantly more explanatory, which is fine by me (and I'll venture to say, is fine be Rich). We can all agree there is evidence that supports it. But it is delusional to think that that theory is therefore proven, that it is the only valid theory, or that anything suggesting evidence that contradicts it is simply invalid. (That last part is me -- I don't know if Rich would call you delusional.)

Ironically, you are also trying to do what the Creationists were trying to do (or at least what the Evolutionists believed they were trying to do) and which was largely responsible for the Evolutionists trying to promulgate a new definition for "scientific theory" in the first place. You are trying to dismiss Rich's theory by suggesting that it is a theory in that common or everyday sense of the word --  a hunch that is unproven and without evidence. But both theories still do remain unproven and both involve speculations (as you did claim, but misleadingly, only on Rich's.)

By the way, if I recall correctly, Lisa Fagin-Davis has emphasized the point in her latest lectures that the authenticity of the VMS can NEVER be proven! One CAN prove it is a forgery, but one cannot prove it is authentic. The reasons should be obvious, but I think she also explained them.

Aside: Rene calls the 15th century theory the "default" . On the other hand he also doesn't think it is a theory.  Of course, I realize he is trying to suggest is that it is the ONLY CORRECT theory -- the ONE theory that is "proven", Basically that is just subscribing to the fabricated idea that the Evolutionists came up with ... that scientists use the word "theory" for that special status that assumes it is so well-confirmed that it is therefore the only theory -- beyond questioning and sacrosanct.

(07-11-2025, 04:25 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-11-2025, 01:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So the question is raised how and where.
The available evidence suggests a clear and straightforward way. No need to repeat it.

About "how and where": there is a need to repeat it, especially in scientific publications, because fake stories get repeated so much that they remain the default, in saecula saeculorum, if nothing is done to rectify them.

I tried to add a sentence on Wikipedia challenging the villa Mondragone story, with the source of the alternate story from your website: it was reverted because many more sources mention villa Mondragone, so it must be the One True Story...

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

That is a bit sad, but it shows one of the main weaknesses of Wikipedia.
Now just the simple change of location from Mondragone to Castelgandolfo, by itself, does not fundamentally change the story. At the same time, there are many new details.

I admit that the web page you quoted is not likely to help, as it is something that has evolved over the years, and sort of intends to also show that evolution. I have been thinking of redoing it, but then there are so many things that I could or should be doing.... It is just not a high priority.

The right source is the quoted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This is quite long, in Italian, and covers many areas irrelevant for the present discussion.
I made an English summary, connecting it to the letters from Strickland to Voynich, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Again, this is relevant for the question how Voynich obtained the Marci letter (actually, the Voynich MS) but it does not answer it.

(08-11-2025, 12:17 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I made an English summary, connecting it to the letters from Strickland to Voynich, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

This is the one I linked, its copy on academia.edu actually: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-11-2025, 06:55 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-11-2025, 05:02 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am aware of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but can't for the moment think of the other one you are referring to. Maybe my brain is just tired. What other forgery do you mean? I have several other suspects, and so I'm wondering if one or both of the ones you are referring to are on my list..

I was referring to the Vinland Map since you wrote on your blog that Voynich used to own it at one point *and* its vellum has been dated to the exact same time frame as that of the Voynich Manuscript.

Oh I see! Yes well that path of inquiry only got as far as outlining some curious coincidences which I later explored, but which also never went to a level that I could even call a "theory".

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

It is still very curious to me, but it may be that it ARE just a tremendous coincidences. Probably the biggest point against Voynich owning the actual Vinland Map by 1908 (when Zimmern wrote the article and made that curious description) is the form of anatase (famously) determined to be in the ink. It is of too modern a form to have been used before about 1917 to 1920. But if it ever turned out that McCrone and others who claim this are wrong, I would consider the idea possible, and even plausible.

The coincidences are actually even more curious than those I've outlined on that page. I only didn't discuss those over the years as I was privately doing follow up research on them. Below are the points in the published pages, and a few I have not discussed:

1) The C14 dating of the Voynich and the Vinland Map not only overlap, they are, as it turns out, virtually identical: The Voynich, 1404-1438; the Vinland, 1404-1440.
 
2) They are both made of calfskin.

3) Zimmern described seeing "some" item in Voynich's Libreria, when discussing his maps, which described pre-Columbian knowledge of the New World:

Quote:“Indeed, of many things revealed by a visit to this library none is more strange to the common or garden person than the fact here impressed upon us that America was by no means the terra incognita before the days of Columbus that our school books led us to suppose”.

There was nothing else which I could ever find that would do this, except the various sagas, but then, to a very limited extent, and also considered fictional at her time. And I don't think her description fits. It is almost as though she was being "coy" about what she saw, as though she didn't want to give away too much (?).

4) Soon after she wrote the article, there opened in Florence, a few blocks from Voynich, the bookseller shop of Davis & Orioli. They both knew Voynich, of course. In fact Voynich convinced Orioli to get into the bookselling trade.

5) Approximately 40 to 50 or so years after those two bookshops, and their owners, were near each other in Florence, the very same Davis was instrumental in not only the presentation and sale OF the Vinland Map, but he knew where the Speculum Historale and the Tartar Relations were located, and who owned them. That is, he put these three works back together, so that they could be sold together, to the Beinecke (more accurately bought for the Beinecke, where they are together, today.

There are few more interesting points which fill this out still more. But I would call those stunning coincidences, and still of a level that causes me to continue to look into various aspects of it. But then, some of these, too, have met dead ends. For instance, I have been looking for the rest of the Speculum Historale... it was part a total of, I think, 25 books of a set of works by Beauvais, and the Beinecke only has... forget the number, but their copy is comprises a few chapters. Where is the rest of it?

Point being, it would probably also be of calfskin, and also of the same date range, and so I hypothesized that, if Voynich or some other person had these, they could have created "a Voynich" from their blank pages. And they do have many blank pages, but, it seems, not enough to create a Voynich. And each page is not large enough to have made more than one bifolio, and the hypothesis "needs" a hundred of so of them.

So it remains a loose, floating hypothesis, with many unanswered questions, and serious flaws, before it rises to the level I would consider even possible, let alone plausible. For the time being it is a set of curious coincidences, which will probably be just that, and a stern warning that "all the glitters is not gold".

I probably should write a second "disclaimer" at the head of the blog post, to make it clear that, until and unless these problems were resolved, I would not, and do not, have any reason to continue to believe... or support the contention, that Voynich may have owned the Vinland Map.

Edit to add: There are, however, several works which I am looking into, which Voynich owned, which do have curious, and more than curious issues about them. If they are even forgeries, which I cannot say at this point, I don't believe Voynich had a part in creating them. Off the top of my head, right now, I think it is five items, maybe six. Even if correct, this would not imply the Voynich Ms. is, likewise, a forgery. It would only show that he was capable of knowingly or unknowningly selling forgeries. But we already know this through the case of the Columbus Miniature, so I've spent my time elsewhere, for the most part. By the way... not for you, you've seen it... but look at the fake map on the back of the Columbus, then look at the Vinland map. Different lettering, but very similar overall style and line:

[attachment=12105]

(08-11-2025, 12:53 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-11-2025, 12:17 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I made an English summary, connecting it to the letters from Strickland to Voynich, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

This is the one I linked, its copy on academia.edu actually: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is probably still too long and complicated for many people who don't have a deep interest.

At the same time it does not even spell out all the evidence just how confidential this book deal was (*).

I haven't used Wikipedia for ages, and it must be in an existential crisis, with all the AI robots answering
all questions....

- 
Note (*): the purpose of this was to inform of new evidence, not to disprove the completely fictional story of Voynich borrowing the Kircher correspondence from the Jesuits, in order to discover evidence to create a fake book in addition to his original old manuscripts.

(07-11-2025, 02:32 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-11-2025, 01:08 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- I have this theory

- Prove me wrong

- If you can't, I win

That is not what I mean.  The last line is "If you can't, then my theory remains possible".

OK, I understand that. If anyone is looking for public opinion (as in politics), then the term would be "win", but when it is about finding out the truth, then it is indeed "remains possible".

Now the term "possible" covers a wide range of probabilities, and is a subjective term. The same thing could be "barely possible" for one, and "quite credible" for someone else.

To get out of that difficult situation, one can usually decide relatively easily whether for statements or hypothesis there is any evidence or not.

For most alternative explanations, there is no evidence at all. They tend to be "possible" or "could have happened".

I know that you are fully aware of that, and you look for evidence of your own hypotheses.

I am also fully aware that alternative explanations can be formulated. 

For some time, there has been the alternative explanation that the Voynich MS (and all the other ones) were not in Villa Mondragone, but in a castle in Austria. The evidence for that was that Voynich had said so himself. (He never ever mentioned Villa Mondragone).
I followed that trail quite intensively, but it eventually became clear that it was a lie by Voynich.

All the reasons behind that story are now also fully understood:
- Why he argued this in the first place
- Why he changed his story
Here again, the "why" is interesting but not too important, since we know what really happened from letters that were long hidden in the Vatican.