(31-10-2025, 12:26 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (31-10-2025, 09:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The situation with the watermark and its relevance for the genuine/fake question of the Marci letter is really straightforward.
Let's look at an extreme, hypothetical situation.
In this situation, the watermarks of all Marci's letters would be known and would all be the same, and genuine 17th century. Now the watermark of the Beinecke letter would be different, yet also genuine 17th century.
What would be the conclusion?
It would be: "Aha, he used different paper for this letter".
Now let's look at another hypothetical situation.
In this case, we know the watermarks of many or all of Marci's letters, and there are several (genuine) different ones.
This shows he used different types of paper. That the Beinecke letter is also different is completely normal.
In reality, we do not know the watermarks of any of his other letters, with the exception of perhaps one that was drawn out in this thread.
So, in reality, there is absolutely nothing to be concluded from the watermark.
That would be flawed reasoning. In both of your scenarios, you have declared the letter genuine a priori.
The relevant scenario is that we have many Marci letters known to be genuine and they all contain the same watermark, but it's different than that on the Beinecke letter. That would make the Beinecke letter suspiciously different and increase the probability that is is not actually Marci's.
That would be EVIDENCE against authenticity. And like most evidence (and like ALL evidence related to the provenance of the VMS), it would be probabilistic. Its strength or weight would depend on factors like HOW MANY Marci letters do we have and how certain are we of their authenticities. But they would still comprise a statistical sample from which we infer the properties of the whole -- just like is done with all statistical sampling.
As Rich stated, if we find none of the others examples of the same watermark in the other (known genuine) papers of Marci, it would be evidence that that letter MAY BE inauthentic.
The consideration of probability as brought up by asteckley here is the core issue, I think. Almost all investigations, forensic or criminal, are circumstantial, and rely on the probability determining the relative importance of evidence. So the two extremes that you describe, Rene, actually do tell us something, and (potentially) not finding the watermark in any of Marci's, or related papers, is evidence of the inauthenticity of the 1665/66 letter. Evidence, not proof of course.
But also, in one's acceptance or rejection of the probability of this or any evidence, it is very important- required, really- to make the calculation
by including the entire picture. The letter has many other problems which must be considered along with any (potential) lack of the use of this paper: The Latin is questionable; the "hand" is different; the year date is a perfect tracing of a known genuine letter, but with the tail of the "5" closed to make it a "6"; the folds make no sense "as" a letter or envelope; the seals don't line up as a letter, or in the Vms; the logic of the letter's claims and rumor don't fit with the proposed purpose, that is, of informing Kircher of pertinent facts; previous, known genuine letters don't mention, but should have, mention these facts; Voynich's curious claim of "not noticing" the letter in his most interesting "ugly duckling", when the letter is obviously important, and much more: https:/proto57.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/the-1665-marci-letter-a-forgery/
My point is that the probability of any evidence should be "calculated" while considering its overall context, and along with the other evidence relating to it, and not in isolation. The former is proper in law and science, the latter creates a false picture entirely. Any picture one desires. And that is what is being done in this case, and which is often done when dismissing the problems with the Voynich, BTW.
The second flawed argument, again, IMO, was used in your scenario, Rene: The idea that, paraphrasing, "even though we do not have evidence exonerating the letter, in the form of another example of the watermark, that does not mean that such an example may not exist or have existed, therefore we cannot ever render an opinion of guilt ("Absence of evidence", etc.)". But as I've noted several times in these discussions, this is incorrect, because at some point, "not finding it"
does become evidence. Not yet in this case, but we will, or should, know it when we see it... when it becomes "probable" to us that not finding it means it may not exist.
To so frequently rely on "evidence not yet found but might exist" to support genuine, in so many instances in this investigation- of the letter and the Voynich- is not only improper, but has become, IMO, in itself another indication that such evidence "probably" won't be found. It's been 113 years now, and every crack and crevice of every surviving collection, library and archive in the world has had a very thorough colonoscopy, and no supporting evidence has turned up. At what point does this failure, itself, become (at least), "evidence"? You have long known my answer to that, of course.
BTW, I think it is wonderful, and proper, and normal for hearing "genuine letter and genuine Voynich" counter-arguments in this forgery thread. I would have not expect nor have it any other way. It would never have normally occurred to me that they should not be here. But I think anyone reading this will understand my pointing this out: Forgery counter arguments are not allowed, and banned, deleted or otherwise censored in genuine argument threads; but genuine, or other alternate arguments ARE allowed in this forgery thread.
not my intention at all )