The Voynich Ninja

(22-11-2025, 01:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2025, 11:14 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2025, 06:00 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There may be cases where people who thought the Voynich was fake at first, then changed their mind and thought came to think it was real, and old, but I haven't seen any yet.

You don't think that there are people who thought the Voynich was a modern fake prior to the carbon dating and then subsequent to the carbon dating changed their mind. I would have entertained the possibility that it might be a fake prior to the carbon dating, but subsequent to it I think it extremely unlikely.

Hi Mark: Well I didn't know anyone, and you answered it. Perhaps there are many others. So you did think it was a fake, of course I didn't know that. I've been "around" since 2007 or so, and have of course read mailing list and BB traffic going back to the 90's, and I can't recall anyone else who seriously considered this. There were a couple of mentions on the web, but it usually was in the form of offhand musings. There is the 1989 article by Michael Barlow in Cryptologia, but he asks it as a question, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..*

On what bases did you think it was a fake, back before the testing? Was it the illustrations, writing, the provenance, or something else? Did you think it was a modern fake or an old one? Did you think someone had used modern parchment to make it? I mean, most forgeries are made from old materials anyway, and when the results came out people were surprised at the age of the parchment. What age did you think the parchment was, and where did you think they sourced it?

I'm genuinely curious what features made you think this, and how you feel about those same features now, and why the dating of the parchment caused you to change your mind about them?

Rich

You haven't read what I said carefully. I said "I would have entertained the possibility that it might be a fake prior to the carbon dating". I used the word "might". I didn't say that I personally thought it was a fake. I said prior to the carbon dating the likelihood that it was a fake seemed significantly greater to me than it does now. That was for the simple reason that unusual historical documents sometimes turn out to be fake, so that could be a possibility in this case. The carbon dating, however, swings the pendulum firmly into the "not a fake" category. Scientific dating techniques tend to be much more reliable and rigourous as they are based in hard physical science than the various speculations of people who considers themselves "experts" on the subject.

When specialists first looked at the site of Gobekli Tepe they suggested it might be Byzantine or from another modern era, but when carbon dating was applied it gave a date of around 9,500 BC. Now, you might suggest that Gobekli Tepe was a fake archaeological site as there was no clear consensus as to it's dating from experts. I would say that dating is difficult and the specialists got it wrong.

(22-11-2025, 02:18 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You haven't read what I said carefully. I said "I would have entertained the possibility that it might be a fake prior to the carbon dating". I used the word "might". I didn't say that I personally thought it was a fake. I said prior to the carbon dating the likelihood that it was a fake seemed significantly greater to me than it does now. That was for the simple reason that unusual historical documents sometimes turn out to be fake, so that could be a possibility in this case. The carbon dating, however, swings the pendulum firmly into the "not a fake" category.

I see, thanks for clarifying. We are back to "zero" then! Because of course probably everyone would have had the possibility of fake in the back of their mind, and even, expressed it at the level had, as you relate to us. But my point was that I know of no person who genuinely believed the Voynich was fake, who then later... for whatever reason... changed their mind to 1420 genuine. So far I've only seen it go in the opposite direction, from genuine to fake, or genuine to the possibility of fake.

As for the carbon dating "swinging the pendulum firmly into the 'not a fake' category", this is only if one disregards the common usage of old materials by forgers; the fact that the content of the Voynich didn't match the C14 dating (And as you know, also, when that dating was first revealed, it was a shock to the community, exactly for that reason); the reality of the supplies of old, unused vellum; Voynich's plausible access to much old material after 1908; and more, all of which make the dating of the parchment not having the effect you project. What I mean is, while some now use the C14 dating as evidence the Voynich is "that old", that was not always the case... and this can only be asserted if one discounts the overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary... which they need to do. So of course you or anyone else can believe the C14 points to genuine, but I would, and do, argue that it did not have the effect you claim, putting the Vms "firmly into to 'not a fake' category'.

Quote: Scientific dating techniques tend to be much more reliable and rigourous as they are based in hard physical science than the various speculations of people who considers themselves "experts" on the subject.

I absolutely agree the C14 testing is very reliable and rigorous. It would be incorrect to assume that my bases for thinking the Voynich a modern fake also must mean that I discount or argue with that dating, which seems to be the implication of what you wrote there. No, I trust the dating, as far as it shows us the parchment is from (approximately) the late 14th through mid 15th centuries

Quote:When specialists first looked at the site of Gobekli Tepe they suggested it might be Byzantine or from another modern era, but when carbon dating was applied it gave a date of around 9,500 BC. Now, you might suggest that Gobekli Tepe was a fake archaeological site as there was no clear consensus as to it's dating from experts. I would say that dating is difficult and the specialists got it wrong.

Please stop telling me all those things I supposedly "might suggest" are fake, and projecting "why" I would think this. That is a gross misrepresentation of my thought process, and the patterns of forming, and evidence I use in my opinions, which I meticulously explain to you and others. I would not and have not suggested any particular thing is a fake solely based on "no clear consensus as to dating from experts". That is another Straw Man, a false argument, i.e., "Rich would say this that and the other thing are fake, because of x,y, and z". This is a false method of attempting to discredit my opinions about the Voynich, by implicating that my standards are poor, unscientific, and indiscriminate.

I will, and do, explain what I think is fake, and not, and the reasons for coming to these opinions. In the case you use here, Gobekli Tepe, it never even would have occurred to me that it was fake, and like others, been fascinated by the discoveries there, and also the ever increasing fine tuning of the dates it was built and used. I would use your example, and many others, in fact, differently than you do, in explaining why the represent "science done right", which as I have also explained, I do not feel is the case with the Voynich.

Rich

(22-11-2025, 02:18 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I said prior to the carbon dating the likelihood that it was a fake seemed significantly greater to me than it does now. That was for the simple reason that unusual historical documents sometimes turn out to be fake, so that could be a possibility in this case. The carbon dating, however, swings the pendulum firmly into the "not a fake" category. Scientific dating techniques tend to be much more reliable and rigourous as they are based in hard physical science than the various speculations of people who considers themselves "experts" on the subject.

Carbon dating is hard evidence that the parchment is old. As evidence that the manuscript is authentic, it’s about as weak as it gets.

The Vinland Map parchment was carbon dated to ~1434 — basically the same time as the Voynich parchment. Didn’t stop it from being a total fake. So no, a matching carbon date doesn’t “swing the pendulum” anywhere. If anything, it should make you a little less impressed by the pendulum metaphor.

(22-11-2025, 05:12 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2025, 02:18 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I said prior to the carbon dating the likelihood that it was a fake seemed significantly greater to me than it does now. That was for the simple reason that unusual historical documents sometimes turn out to be fake, so that could be a possibility in this case. The carbon dating, however, swings the pendulum firmly into the "not a fake" category. Scientific dating techniques tend to be much more reliable and rigourous as they are based in hard physical science than the various speculations of people who considers themselves "experts" on the subject.

Carbon dating is hard evidence that the parchment is old. As evidence that the manuscript is authentic, it’s about as weak as it gets.

The Vinland Map parchment was carbon dated to ~1434 — basically the same time as the Voynich parchment. Didn’t stop it from being a total fake. So no, a matching carbon date doesn’t “swing the pendulum” anywhere. If anything, it should make you a little less impressed by the pendulum metaphor.

So, you appear to be saying that we should ignore the dating of all the objects dated by carbon dating as unreliable.

What about the dating of Gobekli Tepe, the Antikythera Mechanism, the body of Richard III and so very many others?

(22-11-2025, 06:02 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, you appear to be saying that we should ignore the dating of all the objects dated by carbon dating as unreliable.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. It's not even what I appear to be saying —it's what you imagined I was saying.

If you want to be taken seriously by us "experts", it's necessary to comprehend what's actually being said, and not just respond to what you wish was said just so you can repeat an irrelevant point.

(22-11-2025, 06:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-11-2025, 06:02 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, you appear to be saying that we should ignore the dating of all the objects dated by carbon dating as unreliable.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. It's not even what I appear to be saying —it's what you imagined I was saying.

If you want to be taken seriously by us "experts", it's necessary to comprehend what's actually being said, and not just respond to what you wish was said just so you can repeat an irrelevant point.

Well, you are welcome to imagine your expertise on the subject. I can comprehend what you are trying to communicate, but sadly the reasoning or lack thereof that I have read for this fake claim has not impressed me.

- Mark Knowles: It's about separating the date of the parchment / vellum from the date of the contents written onto it. We know the physical material the contents are written on, is genuine from the early 15th century. But that does not automatically apply to the contents written onto it.

What would prove the manuscript to be genuine?

(23-11-2025, 12:25 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What would prove the manuscript to be genuine?

In my personal opinion (and of course others might have different ideas about this), to know the Voynich Manuscript is genuine and 15th century:

1) An undeniable reference to the Voynich, which existed sometime long before 1912. This would be a catalog listing, or description in a letter, and so on, which cannot be mistaken for anything but the Voynich. I feel it would have to include the most "dramatic" and identifying features of the Voynich, pretty much how we describe it today: Nude women in baths, zodiac, name of Tepencz on the first page, copied characters like the gallows, and so on. We would know it when we saw it, I think.

2) One or more of the missing pages of the Voynich, which is found in a place which was provably out of reach for Voynich in his lifetime. Perhaps in the binding of some book, for instance. Many ancient books used scraps from other, discarded books. If a page or part of a page testable as being from the Voynich was found in such a "time capsule", I would be satisfied the Voynich is genuine and old... as old as the source it was found in, at least (an ancient strip of a vellum Latin document fell out of the binding of my 1647 Erasamus Bible, as it is in bad shape):

[attachment=12572]

3) Another work which is obviously of the same content of the Voynich, which would show that it is not unique, and part of a genuine... discipline? Group? Of course this would have to be "old enough". This would be weaker proof, but I think such a work, sufficiently similar to the Voynich, would show it could be from a real discipline, with "sister works".

4) A successful translation which clearly reflects the reason for its creation, the content, etc., in such a way that shows it is convincingly genuine. I can't predict what that might be comprised of, but I think it possible that there could be some plain text which would be sufficiently convincing.

I think there are a couple of other things that would work, maybe, but at the moment I forget what they might be. What do you think would prove it old, and real?

Rich

Thanks Rich,

"What do you think would prove it old, and real?"
For me the level has been reached already, for the reasons loads of people will have gone in to and I won't needlessly repeat.
It's just my personal opinion, I might be wrong, I have been many times.. sometimes daily.

It is good to see your requirements though. I would love to see any/all of these pop up in time, though I have my reservations. 
Especially on point 4!