The Voynich Ninja

But the VM looks nothing like Bacon writing...

(15-06-2026, 04:44 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-06-2026, 04:13 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-06-2026, 11:55 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but my understanding has always been that no plausible evidence was ever offered, by Wilfrid or anyone else, to connect the manuscript to Roger Bacon.

Whether or not his arguments were plausible is of course a different question. He managed to convince a lot of people.

The idea that this is not a Bacon MS really only gained traction after Voynich's death.

People supporting him (and Newbold) included You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So you are saying that those people expressed concurrence with Wilfrid's claim that Bacon was the author?  
(Where?)

I don't know if it can be of any help, but here's a scan I made from the original copy I have of the Scientific American article from May 28, 1921, about Roger Bacon's encrypted manuscript, which, after W.M. Voynich's death, took his name.
[attachment=16045][attachment=16046][attachment=16047][attachment=16048][attachment=16049]

(15-06-2026, 04:13 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.People supporting him (and Newbold) included You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

From their Wikipedia pages, I would think that neither Gilson nor Thompson were experts on Roger Bacon.  Abut Carton, did he get to examine the manuscript or a photocopy before giving his endorsement (if he ever did)?

But even if some Bacon experts were positive, there must have been others who said "no"; and Wilfrid must have chosen to ignore them...

All the best, --stolfi

(15-06-2026, 04:44 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you are saying that those people expressed concurrence with Wilfrid's claim that Bacon was the author?  
(Where?)

Yes, in their writings. Google's AI answer is quite clear on this for Carton and Gilson.

I am sure that D'Imperio mentions this as well (a more reliable source).

As regards Thompson, he was supporting Voynich's research in Dee and Bacon, and there is correspondence between him and Voynich in the Beinecke library, where Thompson indicates that he has found the most likely place from where Dee got the Bacon cipher MS (the library of St.Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury). This even included one MS of which trace has been lost, and which was at least largely in cipher.

Now we can be sure with hindsight that that will not have been the Voynich MS, but he certainly was interested and committed.

When Thompson wrote Wilfrid's obituary, in 1931, he expresses his doubts about the Bacon authorship, possibly influenced by Manly. Now Manly is the first one to strongly challenge the Bacon origin, and this is after Voynich's death.

On the topic of this thread, I would be quite disappointed if the Voynich MS text turned out to say things like: "mallier allor kranz vellome" and "anchiton oladabas six marix morix".
The risk is real....