The Voynich Ninja

(08-02-2026, 03:38 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."“The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery.”

That is clearly, at first, an honest observation and scholarly opinion... i.e. "foldouts are very unusual for the time period" (1420), which of course is a big problem for the Voynich, as it is an admitted, and gross, anachronism. But quickly that "wound" heals itself, with the... actually incorrect... assertion that this unusual feature is a sign of authenticity! What?

Their claim (I believe) is that it is unlikely that someone would find this many large sheets of surviving, unused medieval parchment in the twentieth century, and because of that it's unlikely to be a modern forgery. I don't think they are claiming that "its unusual to find foldouts in 15th century manuscripts, therefore its likely genuine". They may be doing what i did in this thread a few posts ago by conflating "not a modern forgery" and "genuine 15th century". 

To add my two cents on that matter, it seems unusual to me that a modern forger would go through considerable effort to create such foldouts for their forgery if those very foldouts are not usually found in genuine manuscripts. If this IS a forgery, the forger clearly knew many niche pieces of information to make it seem genuine (swallowtail merlons in images, month names, old numbers in folio notation all indicating a certain time period). Someone knowledgeable enough to know these details must also have known that it's VERY unusual to find such foldouts (would the forger have been likely to have ever seen an example?). 

Whether or not other examples of foldouts would/will be found is a question of how things survive to the modern day. If there is something about foldouts (perhaps the size/fragility) that makes it far less likely for them to survive, it would logically follow that it is far less likely to find them now. 

However, it wouldn't logically follow that because we do not find many now that they were as rare in the 15th century. So it IS reasonable to state that they may have been uncommon AND they are unlikely to survive so we will not find many in the present day, and may have to look longer to find examples.

(08-02-2026, 04:36 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-02-2026, 07:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And for old timers, too. Many may have dismissed Modern Forgery long ago, but usually not because they read the best arguments for it, but more because they retreated from the discussion, and have ignored it, assuming it is impossible without even knowing.

As for me, I became convinced that it is a genuine 1400-ish article for several reasons, but they are not worth repeating here because they follow from my own origin theory that many Voynichologists strongly reject.  

Here, again, is one argument that they could accept. As I said before, I think that Wilfrid would be morally capable of forging the book.  As you say, he could plausibly have obtained the necessary materials, including inks, parchment, and strings from 13th or 15 century, and binding materials from the 19th.   

But I don't think he would have the artistic ability to forge the entire book himself.  he would have to rely on an expert forger.  That would expose him to a much higher level of risk than merely sticking Marci's letter on the wrong book or writing a barely-legible name on f1r.  

If someone proved that the letter was not attached to the book when he bought it, he could claim that unfortunately it had been removed by the Jesuits before the sale, and he only got it a few years later, but could not reveal that detail because reasons.  

If someone proved that the scribble on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was not Jacobus's signature and was not 16th century, he could claim that it must have been written by some librarian at the Jesuits, and he did not know that.

But if the book was proven to be a recent forgery, he would be in big trouble. He could not claim that the Jesuits had forged it, or added a forged book to the PUG stash after 1900. If he had managed to sell the book to a Rich Banker, he would be facing jail. 

On the third hand, what you told recently about the other "lost books" that he managed to "find" may mean that he had already passed that risk threshold.  Maybe he indeed was a front for a forger, but through an intermediary.

I recently saw a video about a famous gallery in the US that had to close after it was revealed that they had sold dozens of forged paintings, supposedly by modern American "masters" like Pollock.  The gallery had bought them from a woman who claimed to be handling the estate of a Mexican magnate who had amassed a large collection of such paintings.  The actual forger was a Chinese painter who had immigrated to the US (and quickly fled back to China when the scheme blew up).  He managed to get the right materials, and imitated the styles so well that many experts who examined the paintings had declared them genuine. The gallery owners had never dealt with him and did not definitely know that the paintings were forged; they were just too happy to believe the woman's story, for the obvious reason.

So I think it is quite possible that Wilfrid was acting as an indirect front for forgers, like that gallery. Were it not for my other reasons, I would now consider modern forgery a real possibility...

All the best, --stolfi

Jorge- I know I sound like a broken record, but I really think many people here would enjoy the stories from the history of forgery. You relate yet another one which I had not heard of... I'll look that up.

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

Voynich may or may not have been aware of owning or selling any forgeries, except for the Columbus miniature, as we can't prove this. All my arguments speculative in that area. But that being said, it is interesting to know the behavior and practice of the book dealers of Voynich's time, as related by Millicent Sowerby: In her biography she relates that any time a buyer suspected a book they bought was fake, or not as described in some way (condition, wrong edition, whatever), the dealer would not argue, not question, they would simply apologize, take the book back, and give a full refund.

Which is nice, really, but the effect of that behavior is that the instances of forged books being sold was then undocumented. There was no fight over it... no public argument or court case, nothing... just a smile and a refund. So we have NO idea how often this actually happened.

One story I love is one Edgar Allen Poe wrote about in the 19th century. He was very concerned when he learned of a technique which forgers did use, and the results of which he did see, for forging incunabula! This is never discussed today, even in the age of the internet. The process... I don't remember the name... involved soaking the pages of a genuine book in acid... I think, sulfuric acid?... which would not damage the ink nor the paper, but only soak into the paper, and not into the ink. Then this wetted sheet was pressed against a smooth zinc plate, and the acid would eat away the zinc, but not where the ink was. The result was a zinc printing plate that was an exact facsimile of the original. Using period paper, and period ink formulas, it would produce forgeries that were indistinguishable from the original in almost every way. It is believed that some number of such forgeries still exist in many collections, today.

One "tell" of such forgeries was that original typeface is not even. All the type letters press unequally in the surface. Hoffman, when he used a similar method to forge his "Oath of a Freeman", meticulously filed down a selection of the resulting type on his plate (which he had made by a different method, by an outside entity) so that if the depth of pressing was observed, it would look authentic. The recent (last 20 years?) forged Galileo Sidereus Nuncius  was similarly created with a fake plastic plate, digitally mastered from the original book. I think one of the reasons it was disclosed (by Wilding) was that it was ironically too good! That is, the forgery also had repeated flaws in one copy of the original, that other copies should not have. Or like that.

Anyway, a topic I love, so I'm rambling a bit. The lesson I learned is "never assume"... Don't assume something is real, because many are not, and never assume that any dealer never sold forgeries, because most actually did... whether they knew it or not. Never assume anything is impossible to forge, or forge perfectly, because everything is possible to forge. And never assume that all forgeries are found out, because logically this is not true: If any forgery is undetected, it is undetected still, and not counted among disclosures. We don't know how many forgeries are out there. Many people who have studied forgeries realize that it is actually, probably, a very high percentage. Right under the nose of the best experts in the world.

I met and spent some time with the artist Sanborn, who created of course the famous Kryptos sculpture (thanks to my friend Elonka, who invented myself and other friends to a filmed event at his studio before Covid). In his studio were many replicas of MesoAmerican statuary he was carving, as part of a project which was intended to bring to attention the phenomenon of forgery in the world. Afterwards I sent him a copy of "Faking Ancient MesoAmerica" as he had not heard of it. It is one of my favorite books on forgery: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

My favorite quote from that book,

Quote:"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dimsissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."- Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, "Faking Mesoamerica"

(08-02-2026, 04:46 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-02-2026, 03:38 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."“The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery.”

That is clearly, at first, an honest observation and scholarly opinion... i.e. "foldouts are very unusual for the time period" (1420), which of course is a big problem for the Voynich, as it is an admitted, and gross, anachronism. But quickly that "wound" heals itself, with the... actually incorrect... assertion that this unusual feature is a sign of authenticity! What?

Their claim (I believe) is that it is unlikely that someone would find this many large sheets of surviving, unused medieval parchment in the twentieth century, and because of that it's unlikely to be a modern forgery. I don't think they are claiming that "its unusual to find foldouts in 15th century manuscripts, therefore its likely genuine". They may be doing what i did in this thread a few posts ago by conflating "not a modern forgery" and "genuine 15th century". 

To add my two cents on that matter, it seems unusual to me that a modern forger would go through considerable effort to create such foldouts for their forgery if those very foldouts are not usually found in genuine manuscripts. If this IS a forgery, the forger clearly knew many niche pieces of information to make it seem genuine (swallowtail merlons in images, month names, old numbers in folio notation all indicating a certain time period). Someone knowledgeable enough to know these details must also have known that it's VERY unusual to find such foldouts (would the forger have been likely to have ever seen an example?). 

Whether or not other examples of foldouts would/will be found is a question of how things survive to the modern day. If there is something about foldouts (perhaps the size/fragility) that makes it far less likely for them to survive, it would logically follow that it is far less likely to find them now. 

However, it wouldn't logically follow that because we do not find many now that they were as rare in the 15th century. So it IS reasonable to state that they may have been uncommon AND they are unlikely to survive so we will not find many in the present day, and may have to look longer to find examples.

All good points, Eggyk, but I disagree with you in part. Not all, but I have a different take on some of your points:

- "Their claim (I believe) is that it is unlikely that someone would find this many large sheets of surviving, unused medieval parchment in the twentieth century, and because of that it's unlikely to be a modern forgery. I don't think they are claiming that "its unusual to find foldouts in 15th century manuscripts, therefore its likely genuine".

Yes, you are correct in the first part. That is what they meant. In the first part they are actually admitting, that it is "very unusual" to find them in the 15th century. That is, they are admitting it IS an anachronism, i.e, foldouts should not be found in a 15th century manuscript. And by the way, it is actually unique to find them, there are no other examples like this in ANY 15th c. manuscript. Accordion missals, small, belt carried, yes. But not foldouts in the sense and way they appear in the Voynich. There are no others.

But no, I agree and understand that they are not saying "its unusual to find foldouts in 15th century manuscripts,therefore it is genuine". What the statement does is veer from the "very unusual" for the 15c., deftly morphing a clear problem with 15c. into a claim this implies authenticity! The latter with the incorrect claim it would be hard for a twentieth century forger to find such large sheets. First of all, Voynich himself was surrounded by mountains of materials of all types, estimated to be over 500,000 items:

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

Secondly, blank vellum would have been much more available than people assume, based on my own investigations of this issue:

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

But also, the idea, as Yale claimed, that "... quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery.”, I would say, in this case, "What's size got to do with it?". The large size, and more importantly dimensions, of the foldouts, along with Nick Pellings discovery that several Voynich sheets show evidence they are from the same skins, and other evidence, implies to me the possibility that the ENTIRE Voynich was cut down from a measly three quires of full folio sheets. You can read these reasons in my "Three Quire Theory", here:

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

- "... and may have to look longer to find examples." I agree with you on a strictly technical basis, as when any particular item seems unique, but we have not yet seen all cases in which that item may appear, this does logically leave open the hope that "someday" we will find it. But step back for a moment, and look at the larger picture here: When, in each and every case in which something about the Voynich is unique, it is said that "maybe we will find it", over and over and over... for literally dozens of items: Cylinders like that, styles like that, writing like that, plants like that, animals like that, materials like that, binding like that, foldouts like that, ink like that (despite what is claimed), zero provenance like that, a watermark like that, a letter that folds like that, worm action like that, and so, so much more...

... the cumulative effect should be, must be: The Voynich is not normal for its time, nor for any time. We can't, I mean, base our opinions on negative, missing, evidence, when it is not one or two instances, but in virtually every instance. That is a very powerful message which can't be ignored, yet is. And the Yale case demonstrates this perfectly to me. It is a microcosm of a larger problem."

EDIT TO ADD: And anyway, how much longer do we look, before we understand the lack of this "missing evidence" is a good sign it does not exist? I mean, I read arguments looking for stuff in the 90's, and that "if we find" this or that it will tell us what the Voynich is, and prove it is real. Back when people had to take the train to the museums and collections! Look at D'Imperio in the 70's, same thing... what we need to find. Then, the internet. "Oh now we can find the thing that will prove it is real... just wait until they digatize everything in the Gutenberg Project!" Then, the black and while scans. Then, the color scans. Then listing of more and more collections all over the world, and thousands of other manuscripts... and still, zip, nada, ziltch.

That has been, and geometrically increasingly, been a very important clue in and of itself: The further you dig, the more you see, the absolutely consistent dearth of... anything. So again, "How long" do people look, before one realizes the most probable conclusion, that none of this hoped for evidence is out there in the first place? 

- "... it seems unusual to me that a modern forger would go through considerable effort to create such foldouts for their forgery if those very foldouts are not usually found in genuine manuscripts." Your point here comes under the category, to me, of noting, admitting a problem, as Yale did, with the foldouts, but then theorizing because it is a mistake, a forger would not make such a mistake, therefore it is not a sign of forgery. I see this often, but I disagree: Sometimes forgers make mistakes, I think you would agree. And sometimes, some people note these mistakes, I think you would often agree. Simply, here, I think both Yale and I noted an anachronism, and they explain it with an incorrect assumption about the size and availability of parchment; I explain it by "The forger made a mistake".

- (you continued with) "... If this IS a forgery, the forger clearly knew many niche pieces of information to make it seem genuine (swallowtail merlons in images, month names, old numbers in folio notation all indicating a certain time period). Someone knowledgeable enough to know these details must also have known that it's VERY unusual to find such foldouts (would the forger have been likely to have ever seen an example?)."

I don't, first of all, agree that all of your cases are signs of "getting it right", but more importantly, you leave out the great many cases of anomalous and anachronistic content in making your point. I mean, it is far from just the foldouts that is a problem. As I always say, to support 1420 genuine one must ignore much evidence, while Modern Forgery considers it all.

(08-02-2026, 05:15 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You relate yet another one which I had not heard of...

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

(I watched the Netflix documentary.  The best part was seeing how many "experts" had been fooled by that painter working on his garage in NY. And the best of the best was finding out that a painting by Rothko  ... no I'd better not spoil that bit ...)

All the best, --stolfi

(08-02-2026, 02:24 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-02-2026, 10:53 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is a typical and well-documented phenomenon in psychology that the more people have to defend their beliefs, the more convinced they become of them...

Well, naturally! It is a phenomenon that hardly needs documenting. When an idea elicits continual criticism without revealing an actual flaw, and it becomes apparent by the repetition that no new argument against the idea is being found, then it raise one's confidence that the idea has merit.  (A more interesting phenomenon is how people react to any evidence that threatens their beliefs. )

I agree, asteckly, and that is a point I left out of my rebuttal. But it is true that, in past cases, valid points were made in rebuttal to my differing and changing theories, ones that I listened to. They, along with my own research, caused me to change my mind on many things.

But as I moved into Modern Forgery, this stopped happening. I don't personally think any good arguments against the points in my hypothesis (well some "good" points, which I have admitted, and do not ignore, but are working on) have arisen, for one; and also, as I critically examined the given evidence for genuine, likewise, I was unconvinced of its value. So, yes, I am... temporarily or permanently, I don't know yet... stalled here. So yes, with Drebbel and New Atlantis "homage", and a hundred smaller points, the criticism dissuaded me, but with Modern Forgery, the lack of convincing arguments against my findings and opinions does "raise my confidence in it".

Rich

(08-02-2026, 03:56 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your arguments are equally rhetorical and overwhelms your opponent with sheer volume, a technique that was already used in political speeches in Caesar's time   (and, I assume, even by the Greeks). But no offence intended. It was meant more as a humorous objection  : you argue that your conviction has become even stronger through your work, and I simply found that to be an untenable argument.

But I disagree with almost all of the other arguments as well, and you have not yet convinced me otherwise with all your responses, but that doesn't mean anything. We may find out soon. As more and more books and manuscripts are digitised, it is no longer necessary to travel to libraries to find sources. Add to that AI, which is getting better and better, and in another 10 years it will be able to solve even more complex problems, maybe in another 20 years. I would be delighted if I could live to see it, but we'll see.

But Jojo, you have completely misstated my claims entirely, and substituted the exact opposite of what I said, with, "...you argue that your conviction has become even stronger through your work, and I simply found that to be an untenable argument."

I do not "argue that". I would remove "conviction" and replace it with "my opinions have become stronger". I've already demonstrated to you that my ideas are not presented as "convictions", so repeating that wording, here, is ignoring my case... I did NOT "argue that [my] conviction has become stronger".

It is fine if you disagree with my ideas, or my claims of innocence to your yours, about me... but please don't say I said things I didn't write.

As for, "As more and more books and manuscripts are digitised, it is no longer necessary to travel to libraries to find sources. Add to that AI, which is getting better and better, and in another 10 years it will be able to solve even more complex problems, maybe in another 20 years. I would be delighted if I could live to see it, but we'll see."

As I just pointed out to Egg, and you actually describe, above, I would ask, "How much longer before you consider the inability to find any of the hoped for supporting evidence of the Voynich, that you would consider the lack thereof evidence in and of itself?". You are hoping it will happen in your lifetime.

Well that so far fruitless quest has been going on for 114 years as I write this, and through the age of hands on scholarship, photographic images, the early internet, the digital age with the scanning of vast numbers of medieval manuscripts, not to mention the application of the very first computers, which broke the Enigma code and arguable won WWII for the allies... and yes, as you point out, the advent of A.I....

Doesn't this complete, 100% ability to find anything so far, reflected in your worry that you will have left your mortal coil before it is found, worth anything? That is pretty strong evidence to me, but how much more, and when, would you think might be important? And at one point would you, too, begin to suspect that what is looked for, is probably, simply, not out there?

Rich

I acknowledge one thing, and I want to write this to you, so that I am not misunderstood: I am well aware that it is much more difficult for you to conclusively prove a forgery than it is for someone who cracks the code and provides a clear solution. It is more difficult to deny this because it cannot be proven on the basis of the text, but only approached on the basis of the circumstances.

A difficult position, without question.

(08-02-2026, 06:10 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-02-2026, 05:15 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You relate yet another one which I had not heard of...

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

(I watched the Netflix documentary.  The best part was seeing how many "experts" had been fooled by that painter working on his garage in NY. And the best of the best was finding out that a painting by Rothko  ... no I'd better not spoil that bit ...)

All the best, --stolfi

Thanks, Jorge, I will definitely watch that! I also have a copy of the movie, "The Last Vermeer", with Guy Pierce... but I haven't watched it yet. That is the story of Han van Meegeren, who was accused of selling valuable artwork to the Nazis. So, he had to prove he actually sold them paintings he FORGED. The sentence for that was far less than for the former!

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

I appreciate your response, and to be clear i'm coming at this from a fresh perspective, not anti-your theory or pro any other. I'm sure i'm rehashing plenty of points that have been discussed before, but at this point that applies to almost everything. There's always a chance that something has been missed. 

(08-02-2026, 05:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.First of all, Voynich himself was surrounded by mountains of materials of all types, estimated to be over 500,000 items:

I agree that if someone has access to 500,000 items that it's not exactly crazy that they would indeed have access to a few large pieces of parchment. 

(08-02-2026, 05:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the cumulative effect should be, must be: The Voynich is not normal for its time, nor for any time. We can't, I mean, base our opinions on negative, missing, evidence, when it is not one or two instances, but in virtually every instance.

 In the 1000s of documents in the libraries in the world, are there not other examples of completely unique documents? Two questions that are worth asking ourselves may be:

1) How many truly unique -or almost unique- works existed in say, the 15th century? Tens, hundreds, thousands?
2) What is the approximate survival rate of a given work from the 15th century? 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000?

I'm not asking for a specific/technical answer -unless you have one ready of course- but instead to gauge how reasonable these things are. If there were only 100 such works that existed, and the rate of survival for a work is 1/1000, statistically we wouldn't even expect to find another. In such a case, it's entirely reasonable to take the stance that we may never find another, or that we may hope to find another eventually. 

In addition to this, I suppose I don't agree that the foldouts being unique constitutes an anachronism. Again, if there were only 100 examples of anyone ever doing this type of foldout, and the rate of survival is 1/1000, we may never find another example of it, and that wouldn't be unexpected or suspicious at all. 

If the opposite is true and the amount of unique works is in the 1000s, and survival rate is 1/100, I would be far more open to it being considered anachronistic as we should have expected to find another by now. 

(08-02-2026, 05:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't, first of all, agree that all of your cases are signs of "getting it right", but more importantly, you leave out the great many cases of anomalous and anachronistic content in making your point.

What i mean is that in order to do any of the things that i mentioned, the forger would clearly require some knowledge of old manuscripts, which would include the fact that none of them include foldouts. Effort was put to put things in that are many centuries old. I personally find the quire numbering interesting; the only reason you would use those forms would be if you had seen them, yet they are not extremely common. 

Of course there are many other reasons to include such foldouts in a forgery, such as to induce a sense of mystery. To me that's more likely than a mistake.

After lurking for a long time I finally made an account a week ago or so.

The part I think that makes this theory different than the normal quack theories like Turkish, Chinese, Slovakian, etc is it doesn't require huge leaps of logic or guess work personal text interpretation...

It's not claiming to read every word on every page and unlocking the mysteries of the universe, or that the book was written by Satan (yes I saw that posted in an old theory thread ?)... Etc

In my own mind, I rank this at #2 behind the genuine theory at #1.

Just my 2 cents.

-Nick