(17-11-2025, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (17-11-2025, 03:29 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I mean, I see it that way, as a mess. A jumble of styles from several centuries, made with the wrong materials, from the wrong eras, that is only accepted as old or genuine on the basis that people want it to be old and genuine, and who then incorrectly state "we know" it is old and genuine.
Rich
To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. I can't prove that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. However I think is so unlikely to be the case that I don't waste my time with that hypothesis.
Ultimately at core the carbon dating of the vellum seems to provide a strong reason to accept the dating and the counter arguments that you have presented to the dating seem flimsy by comparison. Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating and so no reason to collect a large amount of 15th century vellum to support a fake dating. You can doubt the effective dating of the myriad of other objects dated using carbon dating. I spent some days browsing through 15th century letters in the Milan State Archives in February. Are you telling me that they are probably all fake too? What about all the other supposed objects dated by carbon dating are they all fake? What about all the other 15th century manuscripts? It seems to me that the core motivation for claiming the Voynich to be a fake is that we can't read it and if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now; I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
Hi Mark: You have used a few Straw Men in your response to me, in that they don't reflect my positions on my own theory, or the use and validity of C14 as a whole. The fact that people need to create straw men, rather than rebut what I really say and think, only reinforces my understanding that there are no good responses to the evidence I actually do base my theory on. It tells me that I am certainly on the right track. But to break it down, not necessarily in the order you wrote them:
Quote:Ultimately at core the carbon dating of the vellum seems to provide a strong reason to accept the dating and the counter arguments that you have presented to the dating seem flimsy by comparison. Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating and so no reason to collect a large amount of 15th century vellum to support a fake dating.
You seem to conflate two issues here: The dating of the parchment, which I do accept; and the dating of the writing and illustrations on the parchment, for which there are many different dating ranges given by many amateurs and experts. And I agree with your point that "Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating", which is actually evidence of the Voynich being fake. Why? Because the C14 dating does not match the content!
He picked the wrong parchment, not the right parchment. When the C14 results came out they were controversial exactly because they didn't match the overwhelming number of expert opinions.
It took maybe a month or two before everyone started to "toe the C14 line", and eliminate those experts who didn't match the C14, and only accept any new experts on the scene who validated that the Voynich content must have been made in the early 15th century. That is science done backwards. We should not adjust our opinions, and weed out the uncomfortable ones, but rather listen to what both the C14 and those valuable opinions actually tell us: The content does not match the C14 dates.
Quote:You can doubt the effective dating of the myriad of other objects dated using carbon dating. I spent some days browsing through 15th century letters in the Milan State Archives in February. Are you telling me that they are probably all fake too? What about all the other supposed objects dated by carbon dating are they all fake? What about all the other 15th century manuscripts?
This another Straw Man you have created, and not at all based on any reality about what I think of the process and value of carbon dating. Of course I value the important use of the process of carbon dating, but as I explained above, when the C14 date of any item does not match other aspects of that item, we should be concerned. And each case must be treated separately based on its own merits and flaws. If any of the letters you saw and refer to have serious anachronisms I would hope that you, too, would then question them. Would it be right for me to assume, of you, that you would not?
Well it is not fair of you to assume I blanket ignore valid C14 results, anywhere, including the Voynich. Stating anything else is another Straw Man, not me.
Quote:It seems to me that the core motivation for claiming the Voynich to be a fake is that we can't read it and if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now; I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
That Straw Man strays even further from my beliefs and claims than the other ones. I in NO WAY have ever, and do not now, claim that the possibility of meaningful text, or gibberish, supports either old and real or new and fake. As I've often... and correctly if I might boldly claim... most forgeries do have meaning anyway. However, the burden on the genuinists is to find meaning, because the opposite is true, that most meaningless documents are fake (for one reason or another). BUT I don't even use THAT point as one against it being real, as I would be fully ready to accept that a gibberish document could have been produced in the early 15th century.
Your other point, also not mine, that "... if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now..." is one I have heard, and it goes something like, "There were no ciphers, codes nor any other systems from the early 15th century which had the necessary complexity to still remain unsolved in the modern age, therefore the Voynich cannot have been written then".
No, I don't feel that way, and actually agree with you that "I don't believe that necessarily the case".
None of the points and rebuttals you have made actually address my real thoughts and writings on all this, except in the most tangential ways. This is something I often find, as I said... people arguing 1420 Genuine are not arguing everything really known about the manuscript, they are forced to be selective, and reject much solid counter evidence; and at the same time, when arguing my Modern Forgery Theory, must restate elements of it, and the basis and reasoning I use for those elements, in order to attempt to make a case against it.
And one last thing, relating to the first part of your rebuttal to me...
Quote:To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. I can't prove that it wasn't written by a visiting alien.
... the tactic of making some vague insinuation that my ideas are "of the ilk" of alien, flat earth, conspiracy, tin foil hat theories and so on, is, to me, a base and ineffective method of argumentation. It is clearly meant to paint my own ideas with the same brush. Why, Mark? Why do you feel a need to be that way? Obviously I could do the same to all those who believe 1420 Genuine, or really any other unproven theory on virtually any subject. I don't, and never have, because I find it distasteful. I'd rather make my points with respect for the person I am having a discourse with, no matter how much we both disagree.
But if we remove the ad hominem implications of your statement, in essence you are saying that "You can't prove it wasn't written...", and therefore is valueless. Well everything here is unproven, for you, for me, for anyone else. However, again, that is not in any way an element of my case. I don't use the (possible, and so far) unsolvability of it as any form of evidence, and also point out that my theory IS falsifiable.
And also, provable, as is 1420 Genuine. But I actually think proving it genuine should be far easier, as all that needs to be found is one shred of evidence it existed before some afternoon in Italy in the summer of 1910. So yes, not finding a atom of anything in that direction probably means something... but I don't use that as an element of my own theory, only as suspiciously undermining genuine.
Rich