The Voynich Ninja

There is some sliding around between disproofs of specific counter-positions, the "1420 position" as a whole, and the proofs of the MFH that should probably be laid out explicitly. There is a striking lack of consensus around what many of the drawings are, even among proponents of the same dating, and that should weigh on how we talk about the large groups under each umbrella.

First, those places where the consensus is poor can't fairly be said to be part of the 1420 position as widely held, so there isn't really a coherent refutation of "the 1420 position" to be had along those lines. This only applies where one is addressing the 1420 hypothesis as a whole, and it is an actual weakness of specific responses I am seeing. On the whole, though, it is perfectly possible to be agnostic about, for example, the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and still hold the balance of the evidence points towards the early 15th century.

Second, this lack of consensus rebounds on the MFH with a vengeance. Adding post-Columbian identifications to the discordant views merely strengthens the point that this line of evidence is not widely accepted evidence for any position, and that includes Voynich authorship. There is simply no widely held post-Columbian identification right now, and no surprise that this is not convincing to the great many people who do not share it.

While I agree that identification of a pre-Columbian possibility for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. beast is poor evidence for the 1420 position, it is mostly because this isn't ground anyone is going to "win their case" on. I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing, though I don't have a good sense what the consensus or lack thereof is around it or how productive it would be if that were the main controversy here instead.

(20-11-2025, 04:28 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is some sliding around between disproofs of specific counter-positions, the "1420 position" as a whole, and the proofs of the MFH that should probably be laid out explicitly. There is a striking lack of consensus around what many of the drawings are, even among proponents of the same dating, and that should weigh on how we talk about the large groups under each umbrella.

First, those places where the consensus is poor can't fairly be said to be part of the 1420 position as widely held, so there isn't really a coherent refutation of "the 1420 position" to be had along those lines. This only applies where one is addressing the 1420 hypothesis as a whole, and it is an actual weakness of specific responses I am seeing. On the whole, though, it is perfectly possible to be agnostic about, for example, the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and still hold the balance of the evidence points towards the early 15th century.

Second, this lack of consensus rebounds on the MFH with a vengeance. Adding post-Columbian identifications to the discordant views merely strengthens the point that this line of evidence is not widely accepted evidence for any position, and that includes Voynich authorship. There is simply no widely held post-Columbian identification right now, and no surprise that this is not convincing to the great many people who do not share it.

While I agree that identification of a pre-Columbian possibility for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. beast is poor evidence for the 1420 position, it is mostly because this isn't ground anyone is going to "win their case" on. I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing, though I don't have a good sense what the consensus or lack thereof is around it or how productive it would be if that were the main controversy here instead.

Those are a lot of words to say nothing more than that you don't think the drawing looks enough like an armadillo to count for much.

The fact remains that, if "proven" to be an armadillo, it is a killer for the 1420 theory.  And if it holds even a significant possibility of being an armadillo then it adds to the the body of evidence against the 1420 theory (and also towards a theory such as MFH). Even if it is just not enough to convince you that it outweighs the collection of other evidence for it.

Certainly, one can remain agnostic and feel the weight of evidence is in favor of the 1420 theory, but even then, one is admitting it contributes some level of evidence against it. Otherwise, one would not be agnostic. By your standard that adding this to the collection of evidence "rebounds ...with a a vengeance"  because of its level of acceptance implies that any evidence that isn't widely accepted to the point of consensus cannot contribute anything to the body of evidence -- and therefore to the balance of evidence that having a position on any theory depends on.

These images are from a post by Koen  in another thread:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

They do present one possible explanation (counter-armadillo) for the "scales".

 

(20-11-2025, 04:28 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is some sliding around between disproofs of specific counter-positions, the "1420 position" as a whole, and the proofs of the MFH that should probably be laid out explicitly. There is a striking lack of consensus around what many of the drawings are, even among proponents of the same dating, and that should weigh on how we talk about the large groups under each umbrella.

First, those places where the consensus is poor can't fairly be said to be part of the 1420 position as widely held, so there isn't really a coherent refutation of "the 1420 position" to be had along those lines. This only applies where one is addressing the 1420 hypothesis as a whole, and it is an actual weakness of specific responses I am seeing. On the whole, though, it is perfectly possible to be agnostic about, for example, the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and still hold the balance of the evidence points towards the early 15th century.

Second, this lack of consensus rebounds on the MFH with a vengeance. Adding post-Columbian identifications to the discordant views merely strengthens the point that this line of evidence is not widely accepted evidence for any position, and that includes Voynich authorship. There is simply no widely held post-Columbian identification right now, and no surprise that this is not convincing to the great many people who do not share it.

Hi Rik: But of course it has been famously and correctly pointed out that "consensus is not science". One person, or none at all, for that matter, could have the correct answer, and that will still be the correct answer. The number of those who believe otherwise, no matter how many that is... it could be all of them, for that matter... can all still be wrong. 

Quote:While I agree that identification of a pre-Columbian possibility for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. beast is poor evidence for the 1420 position, it is mostly because this isn't ground anyone is going to "win their case" on. I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing, though I don't have a good sense what the consensus or lack thereof is around it or how productive it would be if that were the main controversy here instead.

Just to make it clear, I have no interest in "winning a case" for Modern Forgery. I argue and discuss it to learn if there area any valid supporting or detracting arguments. Even if I convinced everyone my theory was the correct one, I still would not accept that this proves my case. In fact I have had those who do support my theory, both publicly and privately (look at the comments on my Youtube videos and blog posts if you doubt this), and while I appreciate and thank them for that support, it only adds to my theory to the degree that the individual actually understands the reasoning behind the points I make.

I mean, I don't want anyone swayed by simple emotion, or persuasion by colorful arguments, or by any perceived misrepresentation of the pro and con arguments on my part. That is empty and meaningless to me. So the numbers on either side of my case are also meaningless to me. 

What IS very, very, important to me is the mass of evidence on either side. Unless and until there is a proof of some sort, one way or the other, what each "side" has are almost entirely circumstantial cases. The "circumstantial case" is a valid basis for rendering a judgement, in science, law, philosophy. People have spent their lives in prison, and even been put to death, on circumstantial, indirect evidence. Almost all cases ARE circumstantial, in fact.

And I do see that those who do believe in 1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal also value the importance of arguing a circumstantial case... for instance, you just did this in the post I am quoting, when you state, "I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing...".

You are countering any possible armadillo opinion... singular... with the suggestion that such an opinion is outnumbered, and countered, by "research into clothing styles". But your rebuttal ignores the many "clothing styles", and many other identifications, which counter those. That is the point, for me, in this argument:

I believe there is a vast perponderence of actual indications of anachronism and anomolous content, materials and construction, which far outnumber the evidence from the early 15th century, which, by the way, can exist in a 1910 forgery. So I don't even argue, for instance, the medieval clothing styles, the writing styles, the "nebuly lines" of Richard and Elitska, and a thousand other things. I only include ALL of the other things which 1420 Genuine must dismiss and ignore in order to make their own "circumstantial case".

Which brings me back to the list I am working on: I intend to include everything pointing to the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and even early 20th centuries, which are the basis for me making what I believe is an overwhelming circumstantial case for Modern Forgery. This will help in explaining to those who mistakenly believe there is no such evidence, that, as you say, the clothing styles are "only" 15th century, or the this and this and this are "only" 15th century. No they are not... with equal or even better comparisons, that is far from the case.

Rich

(20-11-2025, 05:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Those are a lot of words to say nothing more than that you don't think the drawing looks enough like an armadillo to count for much.

This is not a fair summary of my position, nor what I said!

(20-11-2025, 05:20 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(20-11-2025, 05:03 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Those are a lot of words to say nothing more than that you don't think the drawing looks enough like an armadillo to count for much.

This is not a fair summary of my position, nor what I said!

Well, if there is anything you said that doesn't distill down to that, then it doesn't come through.  Perhaps in your last sentence?  ...where you say you think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles? That was outside of my summary, so I guess that was unfair.  

But I'm also not sure what you mean by "obscures" -- perhaps that was not quite the right word you meant to use. Are you saying that consideration of evidence, like this drawing, that might be detrimental to a particular theory is only distracting everyone from focusing on other evidence that might be more favorable to it, and it should therefore be disregarded or abandoned?  I guess that would make sense if the drawing being confirmed as an armadillo only hinted at trouble the 1420 theory. But it wouldn’t be mild trouble: it would be a direct problem that the current theory can’t really explain.

I agree that it’s unlikely there will be a single “silver bullet” observation that settles the identification beyond doubt, although it’s not impossible. And I’ll admit I’ve swung back and forth a lot on how strong the evidence is for vs. against the armadillo reading. The most recent argument I’ve seen, which I reposted above —Koen’s point about similar scale-like markings appearing on other, clearly non-scale animals—goes a long way, in my view, toward making the non-armadillo interpretation more plausible, even if the first impression still strongly suggests “armadillo.”

(20-11-2025, 06:40 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are you saying that consideration of evidence, like this drawing, that might be detrimental to a particular theory is only distracting everyone from focusing on other evidence that might be more favorable to it, and it should therefore be disregarded or abandoned?

I am not saying this, and you know I am not saying this because you quoted my post where I did not say it. Since I am not needed to write my own arguments on this thread, I will leave you to argue with me without further input from me.

The whole "looks like" argument is problematic. The VMs cosmos, White Aries, and Melusine are representative of examples where the artist has taken active steps to disguise the comparative historical images.

The VMs critter illustration consists of three parts. The middle part "looks like" a nebuly line. In medieval imagery, a nebuly line can represent a cosmic boundary. In the VMs cosmos the artist has used a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary. The animal representation that a medieval artist would associate with a cosmic boundary is most likely the lamb of the Agnus Dei. The example of BNF Fr. 13096 is a demonstration of the three-part solution and a structural match with the VMs.

It looks like a sheep:

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

Or maybe a fleece:

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

At the risk of adding something to this MFT thread that might cause a new line of  (unnecessary?) debate, I'll add something that I've suggested in private, but have left half-baked. It is just something one might consider in the story of MFT. (By "story", I just mean the artifact of a forensic or "retrodictive" theory, like previously described in comment You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..)

One common criticism of the MFT (if not the most common basis for counter-argument) is: “How could Wilfrid Voynich have packed in so many details—clothing styles, motifs, etc.—that also happen to align with the parchment’s radiocarbon (C-14) date when that technology didn't exist and wouldn't have even been foreseen?”
Two background points can help suggest a natural answer to that:

1.  In Europe, animal-skin parchment was common through the 1400s. Paper began replacing it in the 1500s, after which parchment was used mainly for especially important or formal documents (think, for example, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence).
   
2. Document survival isn’t even over time. The farther back you go, the fewer manuscripts survive. In general, there are more extant documents from the 15th century than from the 14th, more from the 14th than the 13th, and so on.
   

Taken together, these points suggest that if someone were composing a forgery and was starting with animal-skin parchment, 15th-century content might be exactly what you’d expect to see: it’s the latest period when parchment was still routine and the period for which examples are most plentiful and influential.
Now imagine Voynich happened to acquire (and be inspired by) a sizable cache of parchment. Given his expertise with rare books, a few things follow:

• He would know that a convincing forgery would be set in a time when parchment use was still normal—i.e., pre-1500.
  
• The materials and styles most likely to shape his imagination (even while trying to come up with something that looked highly unusual and therefore appealing, and even though not consciously aiming to restrict his content to a specific historical period) would be the later-parchment era, especially the 1400s, because those are the parchment manuscripts he’d have encountered most often. 
  

So he would have a natural tendency to produce content consistent with the 1400s. He might even have assumed his stack of parchment dated from that era—but even if he didn’t, it wouldn’t have mattered much to him: there was no age-testing at the time, and he knew the parchment was sufficiently “old enough”. 

One can imagine the following graph -- but this is strictly meant for conceptual illustration -- not representing any verified data.

[attachment=12525]

(20-11-2025, 08:28 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At the risk of adding something to this MFT thread that might cause a new line of  (unnecessary?) debate, I'll add something that I've suggested in private, but have left half-baked. It is just something one might consider in the story of MFT. (By "story", I just mean the artifact of a forensic or "retrodictive" theory, like previously described in comment You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..)



One common criticism of the MFT (if not the most common basis for counter-argument) is: “How could Wilfrid Voynich have packed in so many details—clothing styles, motifs, etc.—that also happen to align with the parchment’s radiocarbon (C-14) date when that technology didn't exist and wouldn't have even been foreseen?”

Two background points can help suggest a natural answer to that:

1.  In Europe, animal-skin parchment was common through the 1400s. Paper began replacing it in the 1500s, after which parchment was used mainly for especially important or formal documents (think, for example, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence).
   
2. Document survival isn’t even over time. The farther back you go, the fewer manuscripts survive. In general, there are more extant documents from the 15th century than from the 14th, more from the 14th than the 13th, and so on.
   

Taken together, these points suggest that if someone were composing a forgery and was starting with animal-skin parchment, 15th-century content might be exactly what you’d expect to see: it’s the latest period when parchment was still routine and the period for which examples are most plentiful and influential.

Now imagine Voynich happened to acquire (and be inspired by) a sizable cache of parchment. Given his expertise with rare books, a few things follow:

• He would know that a convincing forgery would be set in a time when parchment use was still normal—i.e., pre-1500.
  
• The materials and styles most likely to shape his imagination (even while trying to come up with something that looked highly unusual and therefore appealing, and even though not consciously aiming to restrict his content to a specific historical period) would be the later-parchment era, especially the 1400s, because those are the parchment manuscripts he’d have encountered most often. 
  

So he would have a natural tendency to produce content consistent with the 1400s. He might even have assumed his stack of parchment dated from that era—but even if he didn’t, it wouldn’t have mattered much to him: there was no age-testing at the time, and he knew the parchment was sufficiently “old enough”. 

But why use XVth century imagery if his aim was to pass it as a lost work of Bacon? That would be quite weird to do, given his expertise with rare books. Why not use XIIIth century imagery?