The Voynich Ninja

(20-11-2025, 09:02 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?

Well, that would depend on when he nailed down the specifics of his aim, wouldn’t it.
The story considers "even though not consciously aiming to restrict his content to a specific historical period".

(20-11-2025, 09:13 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(20-11-2025, 09:02 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?

Well, that would depend on when he nailed down the specifics of his aim, wouldn’t it.
The story considers "even though not consciously aiming to restrict his content to a specific historical period".

But then, why choose Bacon when he knew the imagery he used was ~200 years later? Yet again, given his expertise with rare books, he knew he was going to expose his fraud. Why not choose, say, a lost work of Pico della Mirandola, from the right time period? It's weird, Voynich could not be both intelligent and expert and dumb and ignorant, I think.

On a related note, today I was at Harvard and saw a codex created by the Spanish Forger...not his usual MO of scraping text away to add pictures, but faking an entire codex: using old parchment, creating nested quires, writing the text of Suetonius, illustrating it, sewing the quires and binding the whole thing to pass off as an authentic 15th-c. manuscript. No one who had spent time with authentic manuscripts could look at this codex today and not immediately realize that it was a modern forgery. While not "proof", this does speak to the idea of the VMS being a modern forgery - there's just no way anyone could pull that off convincingly. There are way too many pieces that would have to be perfectly authentic...parchment, ink, pigments, sewing, structure, binding, provenance evidence, etc. etc. The Spanish Forger, who knew what he was doing, got away with it at first but couldn't pull it off in the long-term. I sincerely doubt Voynich could either. It's one thing to forge a painting or miniature on a piece of parchment. It is quite another to convincingly craft an entire codex.

Here's the Houghton record of the Suetonius manuscript:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And here a few images from when it was sold by Christie's:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(20-11-2025, 09:24 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But then, why choose Bacon when he knew the imagery he used was ~200 years later? Yet again, given his expertise with rare books, he knew he was going to expose his fraud. Why not choose, say, a lost work of Pico della Mirandola, from the right time period? It's weird, Voynich could not be both intelligent and expert and dumb and ignorant, I think.

I'm pretty sure Rich has covered that question and why there was great motivation to claim Bacon, and also to later give up on that idea. 
In any case, none of it is relevant to what I posted and the story posed for consideration. Perhaps you hit reply on the wrong post.

There is a passable 13th C reference to the Fieschi popes, based on the combination of armorial and ecclesiastical heraldry on VMs White Aries, but no one seemed to notice, not even WMV.

(20-11-2025, 09:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No one who had spent time with authentic manuscripts could look at this codex today and not immediately realize that it was a modern forgery. While not "proof", this does speak to the idea of the VMS being a modern forgery - there's just no way anyone could pull that off convincingly.

I don't doubt it.  But just curious.  The date of that forged codex is 1890, right? When was it found to be a forgery? 

I gather that the Vinland Map was forged in the 1950s but the first solid evidence of forgery was found in 1972, and it still took a decade or two for that to become a consensus.  Does that mean that forensics is catching up with the forgers?  Or are they still decades ahead?

All the best, --stolfi

Amid this long-running discussion on the merits of the 20th-century forgery hypothesis, I have to wonder: To what extent do we have consensus on the least likely period in which the VMS could have been created? For instance, if it's either an authentically 15th-century document (regardless of whether it contains meaning) or a singularly elaborate 20th-century forgery, then it can't be an 18th-century forgery.

(20-11-2025, 09:02 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?

This will be repetitive to many, but I think you missed it, Mauro, so I will briefly repeat myself:

1) I in no way believe this was created to look as though it was created by Roger Bacon, nor at all look like it came from the XIII century, in the first place, but rather to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century (as that Court was inaccurately and fancifully described in Carrington Bolton's "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II")

2) Much of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., matches the above choice, or is close to it.

As I write in my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

"I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him. At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim). Sometime later, the 1666 Marci to Kircher letter was forged, in order to strengthen this new, intended, Bacon authorship."

And of course, as is rightly pointed out by many, Voynich could not have known of the future advent of radiocarbon dating, and so picked the wrong age vellum for his purpose. I see asteckley has proposed a suggestion as to why 15th century parchment may have been a more likely, if still happenstance, choice at hand.

(20-11-2025, 09:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On a related note, today I was at Harvard and saw a codex created by the Spanish Forger...not his usual MO of scraping text away to add pictures, but faking an entire codex: using old parchment, creating nested quires, writing the text of Suetonius, illustrating it, sewing the quires and binding the whole thing to pass off as an authentic 15th-c. manuscript. No one who had spent time with authentic manuscripts could look at this codex today and not immediately realize that it was a modern forgery.

Hi, Lisa: I had not heard of that one, thanks. I can't tell from the record just how many pages it is, only that it contains 10 illustrations.

The interesting thing about this, to me, is that a common rebuttal to my theory was that no forgeries are more than one or two leaves. I used the case of the 19th c. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which, while not a forgery, is an "homage", and quite long and took quite a bit of time and effort (by a very busy man at that).

Quote:While not "proof", this does speak to the idea of the VMS being a modern forgery - there's just no way anyone could pull that off convincingly. There are way too many pieces that would have to be perfectly authentic...parchment, ink, pigments, sewing, structure, binding, provenance evidence, etc. etc.

Well I would be inclined to agree with you, IF I... or Yale and many others in fact... also believed the Voynich's pieces are "perfectly authentic", for:

1) The parchment does not match the content put upon it
2) The ink and pigments contain "unusual copper and zinc", an unidentified "titanium compound", they used a gum binder not found in McCrone's "library" (not Gum Arabic, nor others expected and usual). McCrone actually suggests further testing was needed to determine the type and origins of these.
3) The sewing shows You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Yale.
4) The structure has anachronisms, such as the foldouts, which are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for a Medieval manuscript... Yale, again.
5) The binding is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... as they used (Yale yet again), "Although parchment or leather spine linings were commonly used at this time, paper spine linings like that found in the Voynich Manuscript were not.” But there are more problems with the binding, which can be read about in Yale.
6) There is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and what is used AS provenance even works against the work compared to being the Voynich. In a sense you and others have agreed with me on that, only suggesting that it is not unusual to NOT have provenance in way of explaining this glaring problem:

[attachment=12531]

So as I often say, the only way to claim the Voynich is not suspicious, or at the least problematic, and filled with anachronisms and anomalies (as compared to the usual Medieval manuscript, which even those who tout 1420 Genuine, accept it is not), is to not address the very many real questions raised about it, and raised by the very experts and institutions which are used to claim gave it a pass. They didn't. These questions still need to be answered, or the claim of a flawless Voynich should not be projected.

Quote:The Spanish Forger, who knew what he was doing, got away with it at first but couldn't pull it off in the long-term. I sincerely doubt Voynich could either. It's one thing to forge a painting or miniature on a piece of parchment. It is quite another to convincingly craft an entire codex.

I've read quite a bit about the Spanish Forger. You know of course that it is no longer believed it was one person, but rather a group of forgers from a "forgery workshop", and probably not in Spain. It is believed they worked in wood, oils, inks, ivory, and glass, too. I think there is a suspicion that the famous Greek forger of those religious Icons... slips my mind at the moment... was one of their artists. I have the 1970's Morgan book, which by that time included I think less than 100 of the Spanish Forger works, and actually Voynich's "Columbus Miniature" forgery (he didn't do it, of course) was on the list. Or, I think, they included it, but as "other", not sure if it was by the Spanish Forger or not.

And yes, they are continually realizing that other works are forgeries... it is an ongoing process as they are examined, and techniques improve. But here is the thing: Many forgeries, even highly problematic ones, still are accepted... many times when they never deserved it... for decades, even centuries. You point this out, yourself, by citing the Spanish Forger, and the Suetonius manuscript. The Vinland map is another example, in which hundreds of experts fought tooth and nail trying to drag that Viking dog over the finish line.

In fact on these very Ninja pages it was argued to me, only a few short years ago, that the "Voynich was real, because the Vinland map, although problematic, is definitionally real". 

This is an ongoing process, I mean. New forgeries are revealed all the time. Many must exist, and also may never be revealed. But I don't think this one, or any one, should pass unchallenged, when there are so many unanswered problems. Which, again, is why I'm here... to remind everyone that the Voynich is far from the Bristol Ship that is commonly claimed, and should not continue to pass without a bit of better and deeper scrutiny.

(20-11-2025, 10:38 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This will be repetitive to many, but I think you missed it, Mauro, so I will briefly repeat myself

I was specifically answering to the (sub-)theory by @asteckley in post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., not to the modern forgery theory in general (in any of its versions, including yours).