The Voynich Ninja

(31-10-2025, 12:30 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Correction -- your one point that "There are no anachronistic ingredients used in the ink or pigments." is simply false.  The report includes Titanium Compound which is anachronistic, unless one bends over backwards to explain it away.)

While titanium was certainly uncommon in medieval and early modern pigments, it's not categorically anachronistic. Here's an early 16th-century manuscript from Germany's Upper Rhine region with a carbon-black pigment that contains detectable titanium, attributed to quartz (and its titanium inclusions) being an ingredient: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Notably, the manuscript above uses both iron-gall ink and a carbon-based blackish pigment containing quartz/titanium. As far as I'm aware, nobody is claiming that this manuscript is a modern forgery. 

So as I see it, the presence of titanium in some (2/10) black ink samples within the VMS is not itself a deal-breaker. What would be a deal-breaker would be anatase of the form, crystallinity, and particle size distribution associated with modern titanium white pigments, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And that hasn't been reported for the VMS.

The difficulty I have is with the contents of the illustrations. While much of the VMs remains enigmatic, there are several examples where research has developed some interesting historical information. Investigations of the cosmos, of sleeves and hats, as well as prospective interpretation of the Golden Fleece of Burgundy, all date to the first half of the 15th Century, which matches the most restrictive interpretation of the C-14 results.

Having 15th C. info in a text and claiming 13th C. origins is essentially providing the evidence that the text is a fraud and expecting it to remain undiscovered.

(31-10-2025, 07:24 PM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While titanium was certainly uncommon in medieval and early modern pigments, it's not categorically anachronistic. Here's an early 16th-century manuscript from Germany's Upper Rhine region with a carbon-black pigment that contains detectable titanium, attributed to quartz (and its titanium inclusions) being an ingredient: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Notably, the manuscript above uses both iron-gall ink and a carbon-based blackish pigment containing quartz/titanium. As far as I'm aware, nobody is claiming that this manuscript is a modern forgery. 

So as I see it, the presence of titanium in some (2/10) black ink samples within the VMS is not itself a deal-breaker. What would be a deal-breaker would be anatase of the form, crystallinity, and particle size distribution associated with modern titanium white pigments, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And that hasn't been reported for the VMS.

That's a very helpful find. 
(And agreed-- the presence of anatase would blow up all the proposed theories including the current modern forgery one.)
And Sample 17 does show the elements for quartz. Are they in quantities to support a sufficient amount of quartz to account for the Ti? (I have not checked.)

(31-10-2025, 07:24 PM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While titanium was certainly uncommon in medieval and early modern pigments, it's not categorically anachronistic. Here's an early 16th-century manuscript from Germany's Upper Rhine region with a carbon-black pigment that contains detectable titanium, attributed to quartz (and its titanium inclusions) being an ingredient: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Notably, the manuscript above uses both iron-gall ink and a carbon-based blackish pigment containing quartz/titanium. As far as I'm aware, nobody is claiming that this manuscript is a modern forgery. 

So as I see it, the presence of titanium in some (2/10) black ink samples within the VMS is not itself a deal-breaker. What would be a deal-breaker would be anatase of the form, crystallinity, and particle size distribution associated with modern titanium white pigments, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And that hasn't been reported for the VMS.

Edit to ADD: I read the report you link to more carefully, and noted that the area with the titanium was in the pasted in image of Christ, "This early 16th C. devotional paper manuscript from Germany contains a pasted-in, hand colored image on parchment that presents the face of Christ in an unusual palette of black and dark gray. Quite unlike any of the other pasted-in illustrations in the manuscript, this small parchment icon raises questions about the original materials used and the intended meaning. Technical study revealed that the present dark appearance of Christ’s face and nimbus is a combination of material alteration (of silver leaf, now darkened) and intentional use of black and dark gray pigments to render the face. The main pigment of the face, moreover, has an unusual composition."

They specifically describe this illustration, on a paste down, as "quite unlike any other" in the manuscript, and that its pigments are of "an unusual composition". I'm not sure this would be a great example, as I describe it below, before I read this more carefully... 

Good find, I had not seen that one. And yes, there are rare examples of titanium. I'll post the chart by Yale's Richard Hark again:

[attachment=11913]

In that, we see either one or two (not clear which) examples among the 120 samples Hark used. We don't know what items were used in these tests... those could be the Voynich, or even your example, or a third one. So it is not unheard of, just rare.

In the case of the Vms "titanium compound":

- We don't know which compound of titanium it is, and that could very important to know. There are several varieties of Ti, and each would have specific implications
- We don't know the levels of titanium found in the Voynich
- We don't know the crystal form of the Titanium Compound in the Voynich. I had hoped the "photomicrographs" would be of a sufficient magnification to determine the form, as the crystals of the Vinland Map were
- We don't know how the titanium got into the ink of either manuscript

So the amount, type, form of the two samples are not known, and could be very important to answering the question as to what it means that it was found. But it is exceedingly rare to find it at all, and that alone means something: Because it is not the lone indication of an anomaly or possible anachronism, but one of a stunning list of such problems in material, construction, provenance, content of the Voynich. The rarity of the titanium compound does not stand alone.

Put another way, we have here a problematic manuscript, with many questions surrounding it... which then also "happens" to have some level of very rare occurrence of Titanium Compound in the ink? The manuscript you cite is a perfect example of the opposite... a work with no questions (as I understand it), and presumably with provenance, proper materials, content and otherwise proper ink. I would not question it, and accept the titanium is NOT a problem.

(31-10-2025, 12:39 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-10-2025, 12:17 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For one thing, it fails at the same spot where all "ancient hoax" theories fail: why would Voynich create that manuscript?  Which contains no "bait" that would make it attractive to book collectors?  Like alchemical symbols, recognizable famous names, an "LCF" signature below the illustrations, ...

Unfortunately, that is the common and weak argument of "*I*. wouldn't have done it that way, therefore it can't be a forgery".  
There is lots of evidence for the modern forgery theory and lots against. It is the cumulative weight that matters. But all the evidence still needs to be evaluated and explained in and of itself.

This is a plain strawman; Stolfi does not say it fails because he would do it differently, but instead he points to the absolutely baffling set of choices the supposed forger made and point out your theory doesn't really account for them. This becomes more acute, as pointed out elsewhere, when you consider the disparity between the evidence for an early 15th century dating and Voynich's identification that it was an earlier document.

Even if we found otherwise incontrovertible proof of a forgery tomorrow, the nature of the forgery would still demand an explanation because it is quite anomalous

(edited because I mixed up who was saying what)

(31-10-2025, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

You may do that, but I was talking about the watermark. By itself it adds nothing.
If you are already suspicious about the letter, you may find every other aspect suspicious.

Still, the situation with the watermark of the Beinecke letter is completely staightforward. It is one that was used in the 17th century.

(31-10-2025, 11:21 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-10-2025, 12:39 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(31-10-2025, 12:17 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For one thing, it fails at the same spot where all "ancient hoax" theories fail: why would Voynich create that manuscript?  Which contains no "bait" that would make it attractive to book collectors?  Like alchemical symbols, recognizable famous names, an "LCF" signature below the illustrations, ...

Unfortunately, that is the common and weak argument of "*I*. wouldn't have done it that way, therefore it can't be a forgery".  
There is lots of evidence for the modern forgery theory and lots against. It is the cumulative weight that matters. But all the evidence still needs to be evaluated and explained in and of itself.

This is a plain strawman; Stolfi does not say it fails because he would do it differently, but instead he points to the absolutely baffling set of choices the supposed forger made and point out your theory doesn't really account for them. This becomes more acute, as pointed out elsewhere, when you consider the disparity between the evidence for an early 15th century dating and Voynich's identification that it was an earlier document.

Even if we found otherwise incontrovertible proof of a forgery tomorrow, the nature of the forgery would still demand an explanation because it is quite anomalous

(edited because I mixed up who was saying what)

Hi Rikforto: Just to make it clear, it is not user asteckley's theory, it is mine, Richard SantaColoma. Asteckly is only discussing the pros and cons of the various points made, and to my knowledge does not claim to support mine nor any particular theory. But I also don't want to speak for him, that is about what I understand about it. 

As for "... but instead he points to the absolutely baffling set of choices the supposed forger made and point out your theory doesn't really account for them."

I'd be curious what you feel is not accounted for? When people say things like this, I often find they don't fully understand my theory and what it is I claim about it. For instance... out of hundreds, but to demonstrate, I have been asked "Why would Voynich have it a primarily botanical work, when Roger Bacon was not primarily a botanist?" That person does not realize I do not at all believe it WAS made as a Roger Bacon work. In other words, many complaints about my theory are not based on my theory at all.

If you are interested in understanding it better, you could read my bare bones statement about it, here:

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

The other pages of my blog give my reasoning and research which attempts to address all aspects of the above, and really everything known about the Voynich. My hypothesis for why it was made, how it was made, where the materials came from, what the sources and influences for the content were, and more. My point being, after knowing what my thoughts on all the elements of the Voynich, and its story, are, let me know why you think I am incorrect. And if you think I've missed some feature or knowledge about the Voynich or its back story, it may either be working on that facet (there is much "on the back burner"), or I've missed it, and I would love to know that, also.

And all that being said, relating to my "anti-genuine" ideas, in which I do believe I account for all that is known about it.. whether or not one thinks my arguments valid... that being said, if we look at the 1420 Genuine European Cipher theory (for it is a theory, just as mine is), I would argue very much could that for all the very many anomalies and anachronisms,"... point out your theory doesn't really account for them." Short list:

- The Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and the given provenance even works against it
- It has many illustrations for which the best comparisons are to items anachronistic to it,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., animals, devices, styles, possible microscopic cells and diatoms, anatomy as illustrated in Grey's, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., women with stars on strings, and many dozen more.
- It has problems with the inks, with unexplained "unusual copper and zinc", titanium compound, unidentified binders, and more
- It has anachronistic features of construction,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., problems with the binding method and materials, the 17th century cover, and more
- It has no contemporary, or for that matter, non-contemporary close example, for the style and content of the plants, people, writing and characters, as a compendium covering the topics it does... there is nothing like it, nothing to compare it to
- It You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", which was Voynich's favorite book
- Any good comparisons are always found either 1) in print by 1910, or if not in print, 2) in a place Voynich is known to have visited
- It looks very "fresh" and "bright"
- The C14 testing results do NOT match the overwhelming expert opinion as to the date of the book, as determined before those results
- Voynich lied about the origins of the book
- It elicits a wide range of expert and amateur opinions, while genuine items usually do not, at least to this extent
- The owner offered money for expert opinion
- Voynich made claims for it that he knew were incorrect, such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

There is more, and more detail and many examples for most of that list. I'm working on putting together a master list. The list is roughly equivalent to my "Forgery Red Flags", which I compiled when reading a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Here is the list of those Red Flags from my PowerPoint presentation at the NSA Cipher conference in DC in 2017 (or 19?):

- [attachment=11922]

But the point to all that is this: When people consider the Voynich absolutely genuine, all questions and challenges answered for, adequately and scientifically, it is usually because they are unaware of the great many serious and unexplained problems it actually has. I've tried to get these points addressed, and gotten many answers... but none, for most of them, remotely satisfactory. I'll move wherever the answers lie, and I've moved from other theories, twice, when good answers told me I am wrong. But that has not happened, for a while.

(31-10-2025, 04:10 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How "derailed" exactly? If your 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal, cannot withstand counter points or criticism without being "derailed" by them, then it is clearly a weak theory.

Rich, it looks like you're trying to pull a fast one here. The origin of the Voynich MS is not being derailed. What is being derailed are the posts of other forum members who intend to write about their own subjects and this gets dragged into other directions. While this will frequently happen to some extent, I applaud the efforts to limit this. 

This is not at all specific to the 'Voynich faked it' theory. The rules that were put in place were triggered by other theories that kept derailing discussions.

(31-10-2025, 11:21 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a plain strawman; Stolfi does not say it fails because he would do it differently, but instead he points to the absolutely baffling set of choices the supposed forger made and point out your theory doesn't really account for them. (edited because I mixed up who was saying what)

Umm no... Obviously, he did not literally state “I would have done it differently”. The point is that his reasoning effectively relies on that same premise (which is quite different from a strawman argument). His claim about the “baffling choices” of a supposed forger assumes those choices are implausible because they don’t match what he considers logical or expected behavior. He is not alone -- others have put forth a similar argument against the forger hypothesis.

However, that line of reasoning isn’t based on objective evidence—it’s based on personal assumptions about what a forger “should” do. In reality, forgers often deliberately include unexpected or contradictory features precisely to make an artifact seem authentic, or to anticipate and manipulate skepticism. They may intentionally aim for such a strategic double-bluff: the less the object looks like a forgery, the more convincing it becomes.

So while it’s important to evaluate every piece of evidence carefully, dismissing the forgery hypothesis because the artifact doesn’t match one’s own expectations of a forger’s methods is one of the weakest arguments we can make.

What evidence supports forgery?

If we have a definitive bullet-point list conversations can be more directed and productive.