(04-01-2026, 12:56 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene and immediately said the writing was humanist (of northern Italy) which would place it at the very beginning of 15C, he also said the Zodiac names were added later using French spellings of the time, so far this seems to hold true.
I'm sorry I've discussed so many topics with so many people, I cannot remember if I asked you if you have read "The Elegant Enigma" by D'Imperio. What you say about the expert Rene knows may be true, but using any expert that happens to agree with early 15th century is cherry picking. As I've often said, and anyone can learn from D'Imperio, and many other sources, dating of all elements of the Voynich has been all over the map and calendar since Voynich "found" it. Another factor... filter really... must be whether or not the chosen expert- because you do have to choose one, while modern forgery accepts the judgement of all of them- you must determine if the chosen expert made such judgement pre or post C14 dating. You can't place bets after the roulette wheel stops spinning.
Anyway, the point is, you can pick an expert to "prove" anything, because experts almost always disagree... and, BTW, high levels of varied expert opinions tend to rise when presented with forgeries, because they are not as consistent as genuine items, for obvious reasons.
Quote:This should also address - "That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory". My standard is expert opinion. I don't care what "internet guy" thinks, or "adjacent field guy" thinks. Well I do, that's a bit of a lie, but as "Likely Fact".. you know what I mean.
Well as above, again, consult D'Imperio, and much of the early- up to pre-C14 expert opinions on the Voynich. If "expert opinion" is truly your "standard", then we actually agree... or should agree... You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., whom you used above. I made this point in the post linked in the previous sentence, when Koen similarly made the claim he listened to the experts, and I do not. No, I listen to MORE experts than anyone else, I don't need to discard any of them, as forgeries often exhibit multiple styles and sources, genuine items rarely do. They are consistent, uniform, as they are usually produced in a specific time and place, and the writers of them only know that time and place.
Quote:These are the opinions a theory should contend with, not some botanist (who knows nothing of manuscripts) or internet guy.. but people who actually know what they are on about. In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it. To think this was due to a 17C then turned 13C fake is very difficult for me to follow. (Though I am also "internet guy," so pinch of salt).
What is inconsistent?
What is inconsistent are: The expert opinions for the characters, the style, the objects ranges from the 13th to the 17th centuries; the construction has modern elements; the foldouts date to a hundred plus years past the C14 dating; the plants have been expert identified from Old Europe and the New World; the pharmacy/herbal "jars" look nothing like those; the ink and paints have unusual and unexplained elements and unknown binders in them; the covers are 17th century goatskin; it matches no other styles of the supposed era, or any era, which is also inconsistent with a real work; and so much more about it is "inconsistent". Saying it is "consistent" over and over, while never actually explaining WHY these problems are not problems does not suffice.
And to assert that, "In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it.", is simply not true, for all the reasons I've listed here. And again, it sounds like you have not read D'Imperio, for starters, because if you had you probably would not believe this is so. "Literally" very little "comes back to early 15C", a far cry from everything. Again, the only way to claim the Voynich is "consistent" is to ignore the many inconsistency. It is one of the most inconsistent items in literary history, in fact.
Quote:The real inconsistences are with the characters of the "forgery story". Wilfrid makes a 17C manuscript, then removes (literally cuts out) all evidence of such.. but thinks armadillos and microscopes are funny to leave in, then facing a 17C manuscript that needs to be 13C.. and everyone needs to ignore the removed signature.. well, then he writes a letter. The letter directly links the manuscript to the 17C and Rudolph (STOP!) who happens to have a botanist who would be interested in herbals.. who's signature we just removed - hopefully to never be discovered! If I was near him at this time I would slap him! How stupid do you need to be?! "You could have written it from anyone in the last 600 years Wilfrid!!!.. You chose this guy?!!"
.. though in the next breathe he is a genius pulling off some 17C writing that fools everyone.
The story does not make sense. It's not believable.
Well you have purposefully complicated my very, very simply hypothesis, I think. But: About the "armadillos and microscopes", you can't argue with success, right? I mean, if they are that, and left them in, they have been fooling thousands for well over a century by now. So if he thought "few will get it", he was right about that. He also left the sunflower and capsicum pepper, a practical tracing of a diatom only found in the 19th century, Rosicrucian symbolism, and so much more. All of which did not rise to the level of convincing many, including you, Rene, Koen, and hundreds of others, that this is a fake. Which is fine, we disagree... but my point is this, again: the claim seems to be that if this was a forgery, he would have done it better; while if a forgery, these things don't reveal it to you. Wouldn't that make it a "Good enough forgery to fool you"?, and therefore these decisions you complain should have been done better, were actually done pretty well?
That is hard to explain, I'll try another way: You claim that, if a forgery, he would not have left an armadillo, because that would have been stupid, as it would give it away; while at the same time, the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. animal does not look like and armadillo, to you,
so it could not have been a bad choice to leave it in there, as you contend.
For the rest I sort of guess what you mean by it, but again it over complicates and misstates the contentions of my theory in several ways. My timing is very clear, and very simple: 1908 find unused vellum; 1908 to 1910 create fake botanical manuscript to look like it came from Rudolf's Court; realize it falls short of that in some way(s), and that Bacon was becoming all the rage; edit the work for obvious "non-Baconesque" content, rebind; write letter now pointing to Bacon, and explaining that now problematic signature; make up Dee story; goad that useful tool Newbold into helping, with a $10,000+ carrot.
Quote:You are a very good researcher and things you dig up I could never do myself so I have a lot of respect (I just tend to talk plainly.. probably rude at times which suggests otherwise). I don't care if the VMS is real or fake, I just walk where the compass points. In that respect I look forward to all your future updates on the blog, but I just can't follow the forgery stuff, so far for me it's not where the compass points. Maybe one day it will.
Well thank you for the former, that is very kind. As for sounding "rude", no, as I did take it as part of your style, and your passion, and not any sort of personal animosity. And of course, follow your compass... just make certain to check your pockets for magnets! Ha!
Rich
(..I'm sorry, I'm a windup merchant)