The Voynich Ninja

(14-10-2025, 01:27 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree, Jorge - it would be great to find another Marci letter with the same watermark, but if one doesn't survive, there won't be any conclusions to be drawn. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's worth remembering as well as that the letter at the Beinecke was written by Marci's secretary, so that might impact the paper stock that was being used.

Well the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, while commonly used, and also, technically correct, also has serious problems and limitations. It is even considered a "fallacious" argument. This, especially in the case of the Voynich, in which case the limitations are painfully apparent, because, so far, despite thousands of eyes on every aspect of the entire number of existing "other" Medieval works, construction and materials, there are zero acceptable comparisons to the time of the C14 dating of the calfskin, nor any contemporary (to the C14) examples for many of the things noted about it.

Point being, as what point do we have to accept that "absence of evidence" is, indeed, evidence that this thing is unique, with no evidence to back it up as 1420-ish, like the calfskin? Does "zero", or near zero, count for evidence? I think so.

- There is zero provenance: Well, unless one accepts the counter-evidence of the descriptions in the letters of the Carteggio, the supposed 1903 catalog reference, or that Wildman (sp?) reference. These all range from poor and incomplete, to actually working against them referring to the Voynich we know.

- There are zero contemporary examples for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Yes, I know, Lisa, you made the "absence of evidence" argument here, in pointing out, rightly, that only about 10% of all Medieval manuscripts still exist, so we don't know if one of those other 90% which are now lost did have similar foldouts. But the problem with that is that there is a principle in science, "sampling", which does afford a level of evidence that is acceptable. When, for instance, soil is "sampled", with only a smattering of samples, those results are extrapolated to the entire area, and considered as proof of the condition of the other many tons of soil. In fact, this is what was done in the case of the Voynich, in which only 5 samples were radiocarbon tested, and these results accepted as evidence of the age of the manuscript's calfskin (even, erroneously, as the date of the manuscript itself). And 5 samples from over 100 bifolos is only 5%. Yet we would not say that the "absence" of the "evidence" of sampling from those other leaves proves nothing.

So that 10% of remaining manuscripts is, likewise, a pretty good cross reference to the state of all Medieval manuscripts. So I would and do argue that the absence of any similar examples from them, for the foldouts, for the stitching, or any number of other construction methods and materials, of any of this 10%, is certainly "evidence of absence".

- Also, materials. For instance, two samples of the Voynich ink contain titanium... a question as to why has been frequently posed by me, and others, and has always been ignored. But interestingly, in the case of the Vineland Map, it is of great interest, and considered evidence of forgery. Yes, there seems to be a great deal more Ti in the Vineland map, and arguable over a greater area, both in and outside the ink (although this is heavily disputed). You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., used to show how RARE the finding of Titanium is in Medieval manuscripts. He tested or used the tests of 120 samples from 50 manuscripts, and only found titanium in the ink of one or two of them (unclear if it was two samples from one manuscript, or from two):

[attachment=11847]

And, by the way, if that [those?] manuscripts include the Voynich, we have NO examples. Zero (I've written Hark three times, over several months, to find out, and he has not answered me so far). So in this case we see this use of "absence of evidence" very clearly being used as evidence, that the Vinland map is fake and modern. Conversely, no one would argue, as is done for the Voynich, that Mr. Hark's argument is flawed, because "we still have not tested the other of the 10%, and do not have the 90% to test, therefore we do not know if titanium was in these other samples. Yes, technically correct, but no, we have the test run, the sampling, and yes it is "evidence of absence".

- Virtually Zero contemporary (to the C14) examples for style, content, animals, plants... crosshatching, dress, zodiac iconography, "jars", and on and on.

So my question would be, again, just how much "absence of evidence" do we need before it becomes "evidence"? My answer you know, that this virtual abject dearth of such evidence is very loud evidence, in itself. And how much longer can we continue to argue that the supporting evidence is out there, we just have not found it yet?

I would also point out that the only way one can claim that any remaining evidence properly supports to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher hypothesis is to winnow out all of the great number of examples of evidence pointing to modern and fake: The striking examples in illustration to animals, plants, devices, styles, techniques, materials, construction methods, many noted by experts of the past, and even, by experts of today... acclaimed botanists, medievalists, paleographers, and even some from Yale's own expert staff!

That is, in order to claim "absence of evidence" for post-Columbian, and even, post 1900, is to not address that high number of instances of evidence pointing to these. So, as a result, we have, I argue, "Absence of evidence of 1420 Genuine, and a plethora of evidence of modern and illegitimate manufacture, and the only way to argue the former is to ignore the evidence for both".

And one more thing, topically pertaining to this watermark issue: I've seen the argument used here, in this case, (I even predicted that the proposed "scribe" would be so used in this manner, along with using them to "explain away" the many problems with the Marci letter) That, (paraphrasing), "Marci had other paper we will never see, and anyway the scribe wrote that 1665/66 letter, and we don't know how much paper the scribe had... heck we don't even know who that scribe was", and so on and so forth...

This, until we saw all the paper, by all these people, and could... technically... STILL argue "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Well it would still be technically correct, because always, that one piece of "three tasseled hat" watermark might have been on that one sheet of paper...

But I strongly disagree... if we don't find one in the Carteggio, or in any of the imaginary scribe's papers, or never learn who that scribe was to begin with... It is still, to me, and scientifically acceptable practice, to accept that this is evidence that other contemporary paper was used for this letter, and used to fake it. And, I would add, such evidence would be far from alone, as the content, style, fold lines, seal placement, and faulty Latin cannot not be ignored, and are part of the bigger picture here.

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

(29-10-2025, 05:43 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For instance, two samples of the Voynich ink contain titanium...

I suppose you mean samples 17 and 20.  But the titanium signal is weak. 

Titanium is a common contaminant of iron minerals.   Its presence in sample 17 does not imply forgery.  The Vinland Map was exposed as forgery because its ink contained not just titanium, but a titanium white -- a specific synthetic mineral of titanium that only became available in the last 200 years or so.

The (weak) signal of titanium on sample 20 is more intriguing, since that sample is from the "iron-free iron-gall ink" of a Latin letter "a" in the washed part of f1r. But that page has gone though so much that this analysis is not very significant.

By the way, the McCrone report is, how shall I say, unsatisfactory in many ways. 

All the best, --stolfi

(30-10-2025, 07:26 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(29-10-2025, 05:43 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For instance, two samples of the Voynich ink contain titanium...

I suppose you mean samples 17 and 20.  But the titanium signal is weak. 

Titanium is a common contaminant of iron minerals.   Its presence in sample 17 does not imply forgery.  The Vinland Map was exposed as forgery because its ink contained not just titanium, but a titanium white -- a specific synthetic mineral of titanium that only became available in the last 200 years or so.

The (weak) signal of titanium on sample 20 is more intriguing, since that sample is from the "iron-free iron-gall ink" of a Latin letter "a" in the washed part of f1r. But that page has gone though so much that this analysis is not very significant.

By the way, the McCrone report is, how shall I say, unsatisfactory in many ways. 

All the best, --stolfi

Hi Jorge: Yes the Titanium found in the Vinland Map is (said to be) a modern, processed form of anatase, but it was even more modern than you say, and newer than (about) 1917. The process to form the observed crystals was invented a few years earlier.

But as to 'Titanium is a common contaminant of iron minerals", I don't think so, at least not as found in Medieval inks, and not in the levels found in the Voynich, although small. If you look at the Richard Hark graph, you will see that he found measurable Titanium in only one or two samples, of 120 samples, from 50 Medieval manuscripts. That is very rare. But it is also possible that those samples ARE the Voynich, which would mean that except for our favorite manuscript, none was found in the 120 manuscript sampling.

But of course the amount and type of Titanium in the forged Vinland Map and the suspected Voynich is very different, as you point out. I was only using that example to point out the use, by Hark of Yale, of "absence of evidence" AS actual evidence, which is proper and scientific. That is what he was doing here: My point was really about the watermarks (and so, "on topic"!), by demonstrating that, if we find no other examples of the same "three tasseled hat" watermark in the other (known genuine) papers of Marci, even though we cannot see every scrape of paper of his, nor the imagined "scribe" (previously used to explain observed problems with the 1665/66 letter), it is still evidence that that letter maybe inauthentic.

"Absence of evidence" can be used, and is properly used, and should be used, in the case of watermarks, exactly as it was used by Richard Hark, and often used in any scientific testing, and law, and many other intellectual endeavors. And those who propose just about any theory of the VMs, all of us, commonly use absence of evidence as evidence. It would be no different in the case of the watermarks... we don't find it where we should, and that tells us something, and that something should not be ignored or worse, dismissed.

(30-10-2025, 01:00 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.if we find no other examples of the same "three tasseled hat" watermark in the other (known genuine) papers of Marci, even though we cannot see every scrape of paper of his, nor the imagined "scribe" (previously used to explain observed problems with the 1665/66 letter), it is still evidence that that letter maybe inauthentic.

Patently incorrect.

~  The Modern Forgery Hypothesis  ~

The Modern Forgery Hypothesis is a hypothesis by Richard SantaColoma,  full details can be found on this blog, proto57 The 1910 Voynich theory
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

~Summary:

Quote:this is easily the simplest theory of all:
Voynich found a stack of old calfskin, and penned a varied and enigmatic herbal of questionable quality and origin,
  using his wide ranging knowledge of literature as a rough source.
He had the materials, the access to knowledge, the ability and the motivation to do so.[1]

~Details:
- Voynich Manuscript was created circa 1908-1910

- Created by or at the request of Wilfrid Voynich

- Voynich told various contradictory stories about where he got the VMS from

- Multiple varied and diverse expert opinion as to origin, content, meaning, and era.
- anachronistic content.
- poor and/or missing and/or contradictory provenance.

~Additional:
- Sometime later, the 1666 Marci to Kircher letter was forged.

[1] You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Disclaimer: 
I made this thread because there was not an existing one, so related posts about this theory now have a home. (everything in this post can be found on the referenced blog)

What is the argument against the C14 dating? I mean, if you would fake it around 1910, why would you fake it the way that it tricks the C14 method?

The Modern Forgery Hypothesis (MFH) takes the 4 (C14)dated folios to be real historical centuries old parchment.
See:
The Voynich Ninja > Voynich Research > Physical material > Release of the Radiocarbon Report & Link
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

proto57 The Long-Awaited Voynich Radiocarbon Report
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In depth examination of Voynich C14 results here:
voynich.nu The Radio-Carbon Dating of the Voynich MS
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

There are several major issues with the modern forgery hypothesis:

- C-14 dating strongly suggests the parchment dates to the early 15th century, and most parchment created in the early 15th century was used in the early 15th century.
- As convincingly demonstrated by Koen and Marco in this very forum, the marginalia handwriting is diagnostic of the early 15th century, specifically of documents created in a region approximately centered on Fulda, Germany.
- Some of the illustrations, notably the crossbow-wielding human Sagittarius, are also consistent with some Germanic depictions from the late medieval period.
- There are no anachronistic ingredients used in the ink or pigments.
- …And with all of this in hand, Wilfrid Voynich went around claiming the VMS was a 13th-century English document created by a specifically well-documented individual, Roger Bacon.

It strains credulity that Voynich completed a forgery in which all available material evidence converges on the early 15th century and Germanic Alpine region, even though he repeatedly and publicly attributed the book to a well-documented man living in 13th-century England.

(30-10-2025, 09:18 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Modern Forgery Hypothesis: "Voynich found a stack of old calfskin, and penned a varied and enigmatic herbal of questionable quality and origin, using his wide ranging knowledge of literature as a rough source.He had the materials, the access to knowledge, the ability and the motivation to do so.[1]

In that form, the theory is highly unlikely, to say the least.  

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, ...

The Vinland Map forger would not have spent his resources and time forging a map of an un-identifiable coastline that could be anywhere in Europe or just a fantasy place.  It would have sold for hundreds of dollars rather than hundreds of millions.

But the "modern forgery" theory also presumes that the forger in ~1910 had the ability to fake details that would resist 100 years of intense scrutiny and evolving forensic science.  Even the concept of "digital image" would have been utterly unimaginable to him.

What I think is possible is that Voynich twisted, frankensteinized, or outright forged evidence about the history of the VMS in the 1600s, in order to support his claim that the book we have was a Roger Bacon original.  

Marci's letter is quite probably genuine, like the letters by Baresh to Kircher; but I think it is possible that they did not refer to the VMS, but to some other book that Marci sent to Kircher.  In this variant of the theory, Voynich got Marci's letter but not the book it was originally attached to.  (Or he got the book, but saw that it was worthless.)  

So, the theory goes, he would have attached the letter to the VMS, which he got from who knows where.  Because he thought that some millionaire out there could accept it as strong evidence that this bizarre book was a Bacon original.  

Jacobus' signature on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may well be legit.  But note that it does not imply or suggest that the book was ever owned by Rudolf, or was the book that Raphael mentions in the letter; it is only loosely consistent with both claims.  

Yet I think it is still possible (just possible, not likely) that Voynich managed to get a copy of Jacobus's ex libris from one of his books, and forged his signature on the VMS (with the "N. 19"), photographed it, and then all but washed it out with chemicals to make any forensic verification impossible.  Because Jacobus as the owner before Baresh would provide an explanation for how the book could have gone from Rudolf's library to Baresh's bookshelf.

All the best, --stolfi

(30-10-2025, 11:43 PM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are several major issues with the modern forgery hypothesis:

- C-14 dating strongly suggests the parchment dates to the early 15th century, and most parchment created in the early 15th century was used in the early 15th century.
- As convincingly demonstrated by Koen and Marco in this very forum, the marginalia handwriting is diagnostic of the early 15th century, specifically of documents created in a region approximately centered on Fulda, Germany.
- Some of the illustrations, notably the crossbow-wielding human Sagittarius, are also consistent with some Germanic depictions from the late medieval period.
- There are no anachronistic ingredients used in the ink or pigments.
- …And with all of this in hand, Wilfrid Voynich went around claiming the VMS was a 13th-century English document created by a specifically well-documented individual, Roger Bacon.

It strains credulity that Voynich completed a forgery in which all available material evidence converges on the early 15th century and Germanic Alpine region, even though he repeatedly and publicly attributed the book to a well-documented man living in 13th-century England.

There are some specific pieces of evidence against the modern forgery theory -- but none of your points are members of that set.
The C-14 dating as even the critics of that modern forgery theory understand and admit, are an indication of the age of the calfskin parchment. ( I have adopted calling it parchment rather than vellum because as someone pointed out -- I think it was Lisa Fagin-Davis, but my memory might be wrong -- vellum is a term usually used for animal skin parchment of a particularly high quality, which the VMS parchment is not.). The fact is, quantities of old parchment have been found and are indication that such quantities may remain in storage for long periods.  The discovery or acquisition of such a cache could indeed be part of the inspiration for a forger to produce a forgery.

And the remainder of your points are really moot, because the whole point of a forgery or fake is to reproduce features that would simulate that kind of authenticity. So, OF COURSE, one may find many of those features in what turns out to be a forgery.  [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.)

A stronger argument against the modern forgery theory would be evidence of something that the forger (at whatever time he existed) could not or would not have foreseen as being important to include.  In that respect, something that is ONLY detectable by the application of modern microscopic or spectral analysis, for example. That is something that was not available and not plausibly foreseeable by a potential forger prior to the mid-20th century or so.

The presence of a third column in the marginalia of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which was only recently revealed is, in my opinion, perhaps the biggest challenge to the defense of a modern forgery theory.

On the other hand, there are a number of other pieces of evidence that SantaColoma has discussed in his blogs that cannot be simply dismissed. (Certainly not dismissed as readily as many members of this forum like to do.  The latest tactic seems to be to shut down any thread in which that evidence threatens to enter the discussion, using the justification of  "one theory per thread", whatever the hell that means.)