The Voynich Ninja

(12-01-2026, 10:34 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-01-2026, 09:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My cartoon has absolutely nothing to do with why I think Wilfrid drew the armadillo the way he did. For that, I would say it was simply his loose interpretation of how his imagined 17th century artist might draw one, based on his understanding of what a real one looked like, perhaps, combined with how the Gesner armadillo was drawn. That's it.

How does the cosmos and the rain under the creature fit in this theory?

In my theory? If that is what you mean, then my feeling is that it goes like this: Basically, Voynich (or his forger), threw in a whole lot of everything, from several hundred years of scientific, astrological, astronomical, botanical (sort of), a little alchemical, and so on, iconography, using images of optical devices, sort of kind of zodiac constellations, a bit of the anatomical (probably from Gray's), some sort of kind of constellations like the Pleiades, a nebula-like thing to imply great astronomical abilities, microscopic cells and diatoms, and plants invented from some real plant parts combined with fantastical ones, oh and magic circles, and skrying and shewstones... and I could go on for pages.

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

He used a hodgepodge of influences from dozens of books and pamphlets and real items... changed most of them just a bit so they would not "quite be" that item, all to give a "Kinda-sorta looks like an interesting and colorful old book that will captivate and mystify the masses and rich collectors alike". Sort of like the fake "snake man", the "Cardiff Giant" type thing... and so on...

So back to your question, "How does the cosmos and the rain under the creature fit in this theory?". Perfectly. It's just there, because he thought it looked kinda cool and old and "grimore-like". And the whole book does look kinda cool and grimore-like, and also, makes absolutely zero sense because You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. It was meant to mystify, to stun you, fool you, and remain a mystery. And, it is a giant mess, which is taken far too seriously, much more seriously than it deserves. And taking whatever symbolism the cosmos and the rain... if that is even what they were taken from, in the first place, is I think too deep a question. This is an alphabet soup thrown together in a pot.

IMHO.

(09-01-2026, 10:09 AM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did not even know Latin can use diacritics (but in rare cases) and it's one of those things I'll check out sooner of later.

Marci's published book Philosophia Vetus Restituta (ed. 1662, 1676) has the same "â" meaning from/by. Most Latin books of the 17th century did not use the circumflex accent at all.

Did anyone transcribe or translate Philosophia Vetus Restituta? Would it be worth doing? (600 pages...) I know Marci was influenced by the alchemist Barschius. His name appears twice in the book. There might be some oblique reference to the VMS in it, even though I don't expect anything obvious.

The OCR by Google is not too bad, some f/s need to be fixed of course.

p. 280:

Quote:Cùm enim ante annos 40. familiaritatem iniissem cum M. Georgio Barschio rerum chymicarum peritissimo, de quibus colloquia inter nos erant; cœpi acriter obsistere iis, quæ ab illo mihi tum nova & Philosophiæ meæ minùs consentanea dicebantur.

Google translation:

Quote:For when, 40 years ago, I had become acquainted with M. Georgius Barschius, a great expert in chemical matters, about which we had conversations, I began to sharply oppose those things which were then said to me by him as new and less in keeping with my philosophy.

Nice find! I ran the whole section about Baresch through Gemini, it adds a bit about his life:

Quote:For when, 40 years ago, I entered into friendship with Mr. Georgius Barschius, a man most skilled in chemical matters, about which we had conversations; I began to sharply oppose those things which were then told to me by him as new and less consistent with my philosophy. But he, being more versed in the works of nature than in sophistries of that kind, replied that I would feel differently once experience of these things was added. He was thereafter a "faithful Achates" [a loyal friend] for just as many years, a man of upright life, which he led as a bachelor until his 70th year; and dying, he left me as the heir to his collections and his chemical library.

Edit: as usual in Voynich research, this is "old news" and Rene already has the reference: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I forgot about this translation of a few excerpts:

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

Quote:When, 40 years ago, I made the acquaintance of Mr Georgius Barschius, a man of great experience in chemical matters, which we often discussed, I bitterly resisted the things he would say, which were then new to me and not so concordant with my philosophy. He was more versed in the works of nature than in sophistry of that kind and replied that I would feel differently when I had had experience of these things. In short order he became my faithful friend for all those years. He was a man of upright life, which he lived out as a bachelor until his seventieth year. When he was dying he made me the inheritor of his collections and chemical library.

There are two problems with your theory of modern forgery, I don't know if this has already been discussed.

1. As we know, forgers tend to pay very close attention to how originals behave. Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc. This was especially true for texts that were obviously not written by someone skilled in high-end handwriting.
A ‘modern’ forger would have copied something like this to give the whole thing a sense of originality. These corrections are missing from the VMS, and potential buyers would also notice this.
In short: since Voynich was familiar with old texts, the few clear corrections ironically argue against a forgery, not for it.

2. If one follows Jorge Stolfi's retracer theory, which has now been proven in countless examples, the question arises as to how a modern forger could have managed to make the writing so faint that it is barely recognisable, only to then paint over it again and make mistakes in the process?
This is more than illogical.
But above all, why would they do it? Bleach out writing only to trace it again? Extremely unlikely. Faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer.
Of course, one could say that he accidentally bleached it too much and then hastily painted over it. But if the retracer (in this case, the forger) could recognise the writing, i.e. trace it (which is evident), it would still have been a much better selling point as faded text than as illegible text. So that argument doesn't hold water either.

The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against a ‘modern’ forgery.

(15-01-2026, 10:55 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are two problems with your theory of modern forgery, I don't know if this has already been discussed.

I think you've listed four or so, and I do think these rebuttals to my theory might have appeared in various forms already... but of course I will answer you, from my perspective:

Quote:1. As we know, forgers tend to pay very close attention to how originals behave. Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc. This was especially true for texts that were obviously not written by someone skilled in high-end handwriting.
A ‘modern’ forger would have copied something like this to give the whole thing a sense of originality. These corrections are missing from the VMS, and potential buyers would also notice this.
In short: since Voynich was familiar with old texts, the few clear corrections ironically argue against a forgery, not for it.

Well there are many points in that, but I'll try to answer them as succinctly as I can:

I. There is an assumption on your part, "what a forger would do", or, "what the forger should have done", and they didn't, therefore, "Its not a forgery". But if you were You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., you probably would not assume these things "would have been done", because you would realize that many forgeries are perfect, with no corrects, and many forgeries are imperfect, with many corrections. And every possible level in between. And yes, they might try to mimic a particular style of a particular person, era or purpose, including or excluding errors they found. But the Voynich has no similar examples, so none were copied. As a 100% unique item, then, if forged, the forger would know "anything goes".

II. That being said, there actually are errors in the Voynich, places were we see characters added, and a section were characters are missing and new ones written in, and so on. Not many, but some. And no I don't agree that they would be evidence of forgery, any more than your claim that lack of corrections is evidence of genuine.

III. We don't actually know if there are errors, or how many. For all we know, 20%, or 50%, or whatever numbers, are uncorrected errors anyway. We can't read it, so we don't know. For instance, think the Zodiac Ciphers: Before they were deciphered, there would have been no way to realize there are many spelling and grammar errors, and even errors in the Zodiac's own cipher!

IV. Also, your claim here is a case of one side of an anti-forgery argument that is argued from both sides: That is, it is argued, as you did, that "lack of corrected errors implies genuine", while others have argued that the few corrections we see mean it is genuine, because "why would a forger have or correct errors? It must be a meaningful text, for which corrections mattered". This is common in rebuttals to my theory... arguing both sides of an argument, contrary and hypocritical to each other, while leap-frogging over the middle. The "middle" in this case is, I would posit, "The text, while mostly (seemingly) error-free and uncorrected, has some, but in any case, without being able to read it, we can't know if the text is fake or real".

V. There could be a case made... although I don't usually make it, as it is not, to me, a strong one... but one could actually make the case that, as you note or believe there are few corrections, this would favor nonsense writing in the Voynich... that is, errors would not matter to nonsense. And of course, while most forgeries do have meaning; the contrary is also true: Most nonsense items are forgeries! So by your own observation, i.e., few errors, that favors nonsense, therefore your observation actually favors forgery or fake.

VI. All the above being said, you actually undermine your own position at the very beginning, by noting, "Typical for the period were corrections in writings on vellum, with words written next to them, crossings-out, additions, etc.". You are admitting that the Voynich has writing that is NOT "Typical for the period...". That is, if, as you say, "typical writing" of the period exhibits corrections, words filled in, crossing-outs, additions... and the Voynich does not, that means that, by your own criteria here, the Voynich is not "Typical for the period...", i.e, anomalous. As I frequently point out, some of the common signs of forgeries, and the Voynich to a very great degree, reflect many anomalies and anachronisms... that is usually how they are "found out".

Quote:2. If one follows Jorge Stolfi's retracer theory, which has now been proven in countless examples, the question arises as to how a modern forger could have managed to make the writing so faint that it is barely recognisable, only to then paint over it again and make mistakes in the process?
This is more than illogical.
But above all, why would they do it? Bleach out writing only to trace it again? Extremely unlikely. Faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer.

I. I am only partially aware of Jorge's retracer theory (hi, Jorge!), and so I can't personally attest to its accuracy. But for the sake of this discussion, again, how can you assume what a forger would or would not do? Either on purpose, or for effect, or for any number of reasons we can and cannot imagine?

II. You are now describing what you believe are corrections, which you denied are apparent in your first argument. Which is it? A perfect text devoid of any corrections; or a text bleached and retraced, where the author "made mistakes"? Wouldn't the existence of all these, by your own logical argument, mean "A forger replicated corrections and additions and therefore it is a forgery"? At least, doesn't it obviate your first argument, these bleachings and retracings?

III. You assume, again, that "faded writing would be much more interesting to a potential buyer". This, again, assumes you or a better forger would have done "a better job" at this, therefore it is not by a forger. But you cannot argue with success... in that your own interpretation here implies, to you, that it is genuine... so than how would NOT doing this be "a better job"? I mean, it worked, no?

IV. That being said (III), again, there could be a million reasons a real work, or a forged work, might have been traced over (if, as Jorge suggests, it was). Some would overlap. Say, for instance, either a real 15th century author, OR likewise, a 1908-1910 forger, inked the work, and felt the writing too faint. They might, in both cases, trace over it, to make it more legible.

V. And THAT being said (IV), forgers often falsify corrections and errors... as you yourself point out in your first argument, they might, and I agree... so again this retracing may just be that... because...

VI. ... we have examples of forgers doing just this, tracing over their own, forged works: Think the Vinland Map, in which McCrone deduced that the forger traced over most of their own lines, for purposes unknown.

Quote:Of course, one could say that he accidentally bleached it too much and then hastily painted over it. But if the retracer (in this case, the forger) could recognise the writing, i.e. trace it (which is evident), it would still have been a much better selling point as faded text than as illegible text. So that argument doesn't hold water either.

I see you have circled around here, and tried to cover a possible rebuttal to your points with a reason for observing this. Whew that was complicated... what I mean is, you in a sense give a speculative reason a forger may have done this, i.e., "accidental bleaching", and then you give a reason a forger might leave that bleached text alone. Well I don't really think such an argument can be weighted either way... I mean, I feel it logical that a forger, or a genuine author, would likewise desire the text more readable if they felt it was too light to begin with. Your argument that a forger would "leave it alone" and very light as "faded text" would seem more genuine... maybe, but again, this is assuming "what a forger would do, and didn't do, therefore it is not a forgery", and we can't know the decision process on the part of this forgery, if a forger, and again "You can't argue with success". If a forgery, all these choices, if they were choices by a forger, I mean, must have been good ones, because they fooled many so far.

I need a better way to phrase that point, it is hard to relate. Maybe, "You argue a forger would have done a 'better job' on specific features, therefore it is not a forgery; yet you claim these very features are genuine, so then they must have been done well, to fool you".

Or further, "Since you admit these features were not done well, if a forger... and I agree... then isn't that actually evidence of forgery?" I think that is the logical conclusion here. 

Quote:The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against a ‘modern’ forgery.

Well again, your conclusion here admits peculiarities, yet it is argued that both the presence and absence of said problems is evidence against forgery. But most forgeries are "peculiar", and most genuine articles are not "peculiar". I would say that, on the contrary, "The peculiarities of the writing speak quite clearly against this being a genuine 15th century manuscript", because such observed anomalies, anachronisms, inconsistencies are very much signs that a work is a forgery, and not that it is genuine". Again, by fully studying the history of forgeries, and hundreds of examples, I think that the reality is very much the opposite of what you claim here.

[attachment=13448]

(12-01-2026, 11:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He used a hodgepodge of influences from dozens of books and pamphlets and real items... changed most of them just a bit so they would not "quite be" that item, all to give a "Kinda-sorta looks like an interesting and colorful old book that will captivate and mystify the masses and rich collectors alike". Sort of like the fake "snake man", the "Cardiff Giant" type thing... and so on...

As you can see with my attempt to disprove the armadillo theory, it's really hard to prove a negative.  Regardless of how unlikely it is, there's still a sliver of room to say, well maybe the forger happened to do it exactly like that with the proposed intent.

You can take this as far as you like - I could claim that a star that is close to a line is meant to be a streetlight.  Nobody can prove me wrong.  Nobody can disprove my suspicion of the intent behind any of the amorphous illustrations.

Any good theory should have an invalidation point.  With deciphering the text, a high number of untranslatable words invalidates a theory.  The C14 dating invalidates dates earlier than the 15th century for the manuscript.

If it's a forgery, it was a monumental effort.  Buy an old bookstore to get old vellum.  Get lucky the old blank vellum is actually from the 15th century.  Come up with a recipe for iron gall ink that would stand up to future chemical analysis.  With all of the structure of the language, the internal complexity and huge numbers of ties to documents of the period, and not just common ones, but obscure hard to find correlations.  Then to process the document to create wear with layers upon layers of details. Somehow make hundreds of thoughtful additions like the faint substitution decryption attempt giving the impression of a document that's been used across centuries.  The Tepenecz signature. Then forging and matching signatures of the letters and matching the handwriting of the scribes on the Marci letters and the rest of the provenance. Get lucky so it stands up to multispectral imaging.

But none of this can disprove a suspicion no matter how unlikely it is.  What would invalidate your theory?

(15-01-2026, 11:08 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But none of this can disprove a suspicion no matter how unlikely it is.  What would invalidate your theory?

A theory like MFT can be always be proven wrong by the weight of evidence in favor of a counter-theory of authenticity. There is some evidence for a genuine 15th century origin, but it is just far from enough to be called proof.

And it appears that is not my isolated opinion, given the extensive and ongoing discussions around the MFT (as seen even in this thread).

Funny – you accuse my argument of doing exactly what you often do in your own arguments: you use assumptions. With one small difference: you are convinced of your assumptions/arguments, but not of mine, of course.

But conviction is not truth, it is only a conviction, and therefore something highly individual. Well, that is a fact that many people confuse nowadays...

Almost everything about the VMS is assumptions – it is sophistry on your part, but rhetorical manoeuvring does not get us anywhere either.

Let's get to the facts:

As far as I know, there are approximately 170,000 characters written in the Voynich text. Tracing even a fraction of these glyphs is an incredibly laborious procedure that requires a high degree of concentration, patience and time. Your argument that one can see it this way or that way is illogical for the following reason. Why would a modern forger go to such incredible lengths? And what would he hope to achieve by increasing the potential purchase price? Most people don't even notice that. This is where the argument becomes difficult.

I can imagine how you will argue again, but doing so in the same way really doesn't make it any better.

(15-01-2026, 11:08 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-01-2026, 11:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He used a hodgepodge of influences from dozens of books and pamphlets and real items... changed most of them just a bit so they would not "quite be" that item, all to give a "Kinda-sorta looks like an interesting and colorful old book that will captivate and mystify the masses and rich collectors alike". Sort of like the fake "snake man", the "Cardiff Giant" type thing... and so on...

As you can see with my attempt to disprove the armadillo theory, it's really hard to prove a negative.  Regardless of how unlikely it is, there's still a sliver of room to say, well maybe the forger happened to do it exactly like that with the proposed intent.

You can take this as far as you like - I could claim that a star that is close to a line is meant to be a streetlight.  Nobody can prove me wrong.  Nobody can disprove my suspicion of the intent behind any of the amorphous illustrations.

Well there is another factor that helps make distinctions between two, or a hundred, possible interpretations: Context. As the (morphed) expression states, "Context is King". So it is not just that, taking your imaginary example of a star being seen as a lamp post, it would be "Which identification, in the context of a particular hypothesis, would fit that hypothesis?". It would not fit mine. It would not fit yours, either. We both would reject it.

So it is not only "Which proposed identity has the most number of proposed points of comparison?", but also, added to that... as a litmus test, "Which context does the comparison best fit?".

So let's look at the armadillo again, in relation to the overall context it best fits: But first, (I propose) it hits on the most points of comparison to an armadillo. Then, that it happens to match the Gesner armadillo best. But then, "Why an armadillo?" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)... that is, is there a reason, a context, that would either allow, or better, favor by explaining, an armadillo's presence in my hypothesis? It does, because like much of the flora, fauna and items of the New World, including many plants like the sunflower, and kayaks and canoes, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., clothing, weapons, tools, really anything of interest. Even John Dee's shrewstone was an polished American obsidian disk. Collections in Europe were full of Native American, New World artifacts. Artists of the time, like the Breugels and others painted sunflowers into their paintings. Kircher experimented with them. And so on, for literally thousands of items and plants and animals.

THAT is my context: Every good comparison seen in the Voynich fits the context of my hypothesis, in that it would be expected to be included in a work meant to document the items and actions seen in a center of proto-scientific activity, and collections, in the early 17th century; and more specifically in the skewed historical vision (version?) of Carrington Bolton in his popular book, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Short list of these comparisons and references would be: The armadillo, sunflower, capsicum pepper (but Tucker and Janick have dozens more), microscopic images, microscopes, stars and constellations (astronomy), the zodiac, magic wheels, cipher, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon and his "New Atlantis" (others before me, and me, had seen many similarties in content between the Voynich and that work), Drebbel is mentioned (long before I read "Follies..." I had theorized he was the possible author, due to many parallels between him and the work), Astrology (zodiac), characters reminiscent of transcribed Native American, (possible) skrying, Kircher, Jewish Iconography, alchemy, Horcicky (he even "signed" the thing!... and, is in "Follies..."), pharma and medicinal iconography... the list is seeming endless. Almost every style, plant, animal, character, object which has been suggested (whether then accepted or rejected... usually rejected soley on the basis of the C14 dating... nonetheless, seen at one point as a good comparison) appears somewhere, or is directly related to, "Follies...".

Quote:From Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II, ps. 146-147, "The little explored New World across the Atlantic had begun to contribute its valuable remedies, notably china root, cosa, sarsaparilla and tobacco...", and, "On the shelves stood gallipots of earthenware containing lard, marrow, goose-fat and other greasy substances; in boxes of horn, china, zinc and even of silver (for costly materials), were ointments, salves, unguents, balsams, confortatives and extracts of the more solid kind. Besides these the shelves were crowded with boxes of plasters, clysters, ataplasms, liniments, electuaries, and favorite remedies, such as "oppodeldoch" and "panchymagog."

"In glass bottles, grouped on another row of shelves, were the strong acids, oil of vitriol, spirit of salt, and aqua fortis; spirits of wine, turpentine oil, petroleum, mercury, essential oils, besides elixirs and "aquae" without end, of which the most popular were "aqua benedicta" and "aqua mirabilis." The apothecary- kept on hand also quantities of tinctures, essences, quintessences and ready made pills...", and on and on...

And the above quotes are a drop in the bucket, and also, by the way, describing the collections of Bolton's seemingly ficticious "Christian Horcicky", supposed brother of Jacobus Horcicky, who supposedly "signed" the Voynich! But just that one, short description describes New World plants, endless jars and samples, medicines, even pills, cures, and clysters... even clysters have been suggested for the Voynich, not my idea, but I write about it: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So the above is merely a small sampling of the describing the content which falls within the context of my hypothesis, and which therefore supports it. I could fill pages of such content, relating to "Follies...". This is why I call that book the "Primer of the Voynich": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is not alone, though, there are a smattering of related sources which seem to contain content along the lines of the microscopic... four chief books on microscopes and microscopy, which I list and describe this similar content: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. And these books, and Bolton, also fall within the overall context of a proto-scientific, herbal and medicinal 17th century manuscript.

So, I feel my hypothesis has a solid, explanatory context for virtually every feature seen in the Voynich manuscript. But what I often note is that, while those who believe the Voynich is a genuine 1420 European Cipher Herbal, that general description, and all the animals, plants and styles often come far from fitting in that context. First of all, the Voynich is not like other 15th century European herbals.. the animals, real or mythical, often do not fit that context. Or, if they do, they are of a second or third level down from the best comparisons... which, as I've pointed out, are usually, and admittedly chosen based on the C14 dating. It is a constant struggle for 1420 Genuine to find a context, because there is no all encompassing context that would explain more than a few items, and often needs to use wildly disparate standards to accept and reject good comparisons.

And this is virtually universal, in fact: Take the recent suggestion that I could not explain the imagery beneath the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal. True, I cannot. But I can explain the armadillo... however, 1420 genuine also cannot explain the imagery below the animal in any "1420 herbal" context, nor the animal itself! Why a pangolin, catablas, topcan (sp?), sheep. Only the dragon... which the animal looks nothing like... remotely comes close to associating or appearing in real herbals. It is like this for item after items: They fit the context of my hypothesis perfectly; they struggle even find a contextual hypothesis for 1420 Genuine.

One more: You mention the "stars near lines". Maybe they are not stars?

[attachment=13481]

TL/DR: Context is king, and my Modern Forgery Hypothesis has a context which explains virtually every item, style, character seen in the Voynich; while the context of a 1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal struggles to include all but a few of them in any satisfactory way.

Quote:Any good theory should have an invalidation point.  With deciphering the text, a high number of untranslatable words invalidates a theory.  The C14 dating invalidates dates earlier than the 15th century for the manuscript.

Actually, a "high number of untranslatable words" supports forgery, as most nonsensical products ARE forgeries. But maybe I misunderstood your point.

Quote:If it's a forgery, it was a monumental effort.  Buy an old bookstore to get old vellum.

That is a straw-man, as I don't believe he bought the bookstore "to get old vellum". Rather, I believe he bought it for the realized and potential treasures in the 500,000 plus items inside. Once he had the place, I theorize, he found the necessary old blank parchment, and "got a twinkle in his eye", and "went for it".

But I rightly point out here, that once again, in order to argue against my theory, you must create straw men for my theory, and not argue the actual elements of my hypothesis. Here, to falsely claim my contention was that he bought the Libreria to get the vellum to make the Voynich... which of course would be ridiculous. But your doing so actually adds validity to my hypothesis, because you didn't argue that.

Quote:Get lucky the old blank vellum is actually from the 15th century.

Well this is a common fallacy, that the C14 dating of the parchment matches the content. It does not. It is a case in which the realities of the situation are either ignored or misstated. No, he actually picked vellum that was too old for the content he intended to apply to it, and we have the experts telling us so:

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

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

... and if you, too, "Listened to the Experts", as Koen and others have advised me to do (and I agree), then you would of course not have this argument. It is a debunked argument, whether or not you choose to accept it. Even if the Voynich is real, and old, it clearly is not 15th century old, and used old, blank vellum.

Quote:Come up with a recipe for iron gall ink that would stand up to future chemical analysis.

But did it stand up? Ignored in claims such as yours are the "unusual copper and zinc" found, the unidentified binder (not Gum Arabic, nor any binder in the 1,000 plus in the "library" of McCrone, and the unexplained and unidentified "Titanium Compound". Furthermore, their are cases of a forger's inks having less problems than the above. One I've already pointed out are the perfect copies of 17th century inks by the forger Hoffmann, who forged the Oath of a Freeman... which, by the way, fooled McCrone, who certified it was genuine.

And also, the Voynich's friend, the famous "Ace of Spies" Sidney Rosenblum (sp?), also a chemist, took out a book on Medieval Ink formulas while they were pals. No, contrary to your claims, the ink of the Voynich has several unanswered questions; inks of forgers can and have been made better; and Voynich or anyone of his time... especially chemists, which Sidney and Wilfred were... had the knowledge and access to appropriate ink formulas.

Quote:With all of the structure of the language, the internal complexity and huge numbers of ties to documents of the period, and not just common ones, but obscure hard to find correlations.

Not sure exactly what you are referring to... but all studies of the Voynich script, while showing underlaying indications of language structure, also imply the opposite. This, depending on "how you look at them". Also, there are many indications that random written human output also would show such structure. So I'm not sure what you mean by "hard to find correlations", sorry, but that is how I would answer you on that.

Quote:Then to process the document to create wear with layers upon layers of details. Somehow make hundreds of thoughtful additions like the faint substitution decryption attempt giving the impression of a document that's been used across centuries.

Standard practice for virtually all forgeries. That being said, it has been noted the Voynich, despite its wear, and "magic wormholes", is somewhat bright and colorful "for its age". So again, many claim, as you do here with your list of validations, things that are simply not supported by the actual facts and observations. As far back as 2009 I started to realize this, with my first post, "Nagging Sense of Newness". I cite several such observations, which run counter to your claims: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:The Tepenecz signature.

The Tepenecz "signature" has many problems, not the least of which is that the "Men of the Letters"... Baresch, Marci, Kinner and Kircher... would have been able to see it, yet never mentioned this all important clue... possibly the most important clue to the origins of their "Baresch Manuscript".

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

Quote:Then forging and matching signatures of the letters and matching the handwriting of the scribes on the Marci letters and the rest of the provenance. Get lucky so it stands up to multispectral imaging.

You are (purposefully?) conflating my hypothesis with the claims of others. I only believe that the 1665/66 Marci letter was forged, for the ample reasons I have long gone over. However, for the new viewers who might come across these pages, my reasoning is here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And I am not sure why you think the multispectral imaging offered evidence slanted toward genuine? 

Quote:But none of this can disprove a suspicion no matter how unlikely it is.  What would invalidate your theory?

True, none of "this can"... as in the supposed evidence you and other offer, except maybe in this sense: In order to counter my evidence, as I used in my hypothesis, and continue to push the Voynich as genuine 1420, you are obligated to misstate my hypotheses (straw man), leave out evidence (ink problems, expert opinions, dozens of other things), make unfounded claims (lucky, too hard to do, aged look, etc..), cherry pick evidence you feel supportive, and then total all that up, and proclaim my theory "unlikely". Well, yes, your imagined and non-existant version of my hypothesis... held by no one I know... would be "unlikely". My actual theory? People never actually argue it accurately.

As for what would invalidate my theory... i.e, I think your point is, "Is my hypothesis falsifiable", as per Popp? Anyway, I have to get on with my day, so this will be off the top of my head... I have listed these points several times, but it is quicker to try and remember all of them:

1) If one of the missing pages of the Voynich were found in a place which was 100% indisputably inaccessible to Voynich, or anyone else, for a sufficient time before the announcement OF the Voynich in 1912. Not unfounded claims like "Lock and Seal", which I have debunked.

2) If an indisputable reference to the Voynich we see today is found in any source, such as a letter, manuscript, catalog list, and also predates by sufficient margin the 1912 announcement. This is also understood by promoters of "1420 Genuine" of course, but so far the given provenance not only does not suffice to describe the Voynich, but in many ways works against it being the Voynich. Only the poor references in the Letters, the 1903 catalog entry, and the Wildmann mention... these are less than nothing, of course. But if such a hoped for reference, clearly the Voynich, was found, then Modern Forgery has been disproven.

3) If some method is devised which could date the ink of the Voynich, with absolute certainty, to the 15th century, that would also do it.

4) If any manuscript, letter, art, whatever, was found which clearly originates from the same person or group of people, with the same art, style, ink formulas... whatever that all is, we would know it when we saw it... originates from the 15th through 16th centuries, it would not prove the Voynich absolutely genuine, but certainly, virtually, do so. Enough to satisfy me.

5) A translation which, by its nature and content, shows the Voynich genuine and old. I honestly cannot imagine what that might be, but again, I think, "we would know if we saw it". Of course most old content can be copied at any time since, but perhaps there could be content which would transcend this problem, such as a reference to some incident or knowledge not known in modern times, but provably true and correct?

I think those are all, but I might be forgetting something. Meanwhile, what would prove the Voynich a forgery? Well I believe I have already demonstrated an overwhelming circumstantial case... many forgeries have already been revealed on far less evidence than I outline... for that matter, there are people on death row with far less evidence! But, it is circumstantial, and that is a different sort of "proof". For indisputable proof, maybe:

1) If translated, the content shows modern information, and possibly errors only a forger would make. For instance, I speculate that if the Voynich has meaning, it will describe activities and people in the Court of Rudolf II, but with the errors of Bolton. If so, this would prove to many the Voynich fake... although perhaps some would argue my old theories that it is an early 17th century notebook from the Court. Again, we whatever it is, we would know it when we saw it.

2) Locate the source of the parchment of the Voynich, through DNA or other means. And if it is seen to be from a source that it could not be, if real, that would be proof.

3) Find someone's description of creating the Voynich in modern times... someone who worked on it, or helped with it in some way... supplied the vellum, mixed the inks, whatever...

4) Find those damned missing pages! Well, and they have, as I also speculate, illustrations which would clearly be too modern for the 15th century. Of course I believe such imagery is already there, in the remaining pages, and reject the arguments against that. But, nonetheless, many still accept those arguments. So, such content would have to be indisputable, and I think, it would... or will?... be indisputable.

5) Further tests on the inks which reveal modern origins. Even McCrone suggested such tests for unidentified ingredients in the ink, in their original report. These have never been done. But if, like the modern anatase found in the Vinland Map (not that, of course, but a similar concept), there is a substance found which is modern, then that would be proof.

I think that is it... but I'll add later if I think of anything. I would ask what would prove genuine, to you, but I think it clear you already think it has risen... if not to "proof", then, perhaps, "undeniable"?

Rich

[attachment=13489]