+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis (/thread-5008.html)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Mark Knowles - 23-11-2025
(23-11-2025, 12:49 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(23-11-2025, 12:25 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What would prove the manuscript to be genuine?
In my personal opinion (and of course others might have different ideas about this), to know the Voynich Manuscript is genuine and 15th century:
1) An undeniable reference to the Voynich, which existed sometime long before 1912. This would be a catalog listing, or description in a letter, and so on, which cannot be mistaken for anything but the Voynich. I feel it would have to include the most "dramatic" and identifying features of the Voynich, pretty much how we describe it today: Nude women in baths, zodiac, name of Tepencz on the first page, copied characters like the gallows, and so on. We would know it when we saw it, I think.
2) One or more of the missing pages of the Voynich, which is found in a place which was provably out of reach for Voynich in his lifetime. Perhaps in the binding of some book, for instance. Many ancient books used scraps from other, discarded books. If a page or part of a page testable as being from the Voynich was found in such a "time capsule", I would be satisfied the Voynich is genuine and old... as old as the source it was found in, at least (an ancient strip of a vellum Latin document fell out of the binding of my 1647 Erasamus Bible, as it is in bad shape):
3) Another work which is obviously of the same content of the Voynich, which would show that it is not unique, and part of a genuine... discipline? Group? Of course this would have to be "old enough". This would be weaker proof, but I think such a work, sufficiently similar to the Voynich, would show it could be from a real discipline, with "sister works".
4) A successful translation which clearly reflects the reason for its creation, the content, etc., in such a way that shows it is convincingly genuine. I can't predict what that might be comprised of, but I think it possible that there could be some plain text which would be sufficiently convincing.
I think there are a couple of other things that would work, maybe, but at the moment I forget what they might be. What do you think would prove it old, and real?
Rich
Those criteria make it unlikely you will ever accept it is genuine.
1) "which cannot be mistaken for anything but the Voynich". This gives you a lot of room to deny it. Firstly there is likeky to be no comprehensive description surviving and even if there were you could easily claim it wasn't sufficient or that Voynich might have been aware of it and was influenced by it.
2) "which was provably out of reach for Voynich in his lifetime" It is was probable that none of the missing pages survive and I suspect that very few documents were provably out of reach to Voynich which could certainly give you enough wriggle room to claim he may have seen it or a reference to it.
3) They is no reason to believe that the Voynich was part of a collection of texts and so to expect that it was is a mistake. Even if it was you could claim that Voynich saw one of the sister works and that it was what he based his forgery on.
4) Your criteria for textual content is so vague that you could easily deny the Voynich text fitted them.
-
Clearly, the overwhelming probability from what we currently know is that the manuscript is geninue. However, I really find it very hard to conceive of any plausible evidence that could exist that will change your mind. And as in the case of your dodecahedron theory I don't find your arguments persuasive.
I also think if I asked you to prove that the manuscript was not written by an alien you couldn't by your criteria. However, clearly, the probability of such an eventuality is extremely small.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Mark Knowles - 23-11-2025
(23-11-2025, 12:17 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- Mark Knowles: It's about separating the date of the parchment / vellum from the date of the contents written onto it. We know the physical material the contents are written on, is genuine from the early 15th century. But that does not automatically apply to the contents written onto it.
To claim that Voynich obtained all that quanity of unused vellum from the early 15th century cut into the range of sizes he required is unlikely and from his knowledge unnecessary to make a convincing forgery prior to the invention of carbon dating.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Mark Knowles - 23-11-2025
(23-11-2025, 12:17 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- Mark Knowles: It's about separating the date of the parchment / vellum from the date of the contents written onto it. We know the physical material the contents are written on, is genuine from the early 15th century. But that does not automatically apply to the contents written onto it.
However, there is always room for doubt. How do we know that the physical material the contents are written on, is genuine from the early 15th century? Maybe, the carbon dating test was performed incorrectly or maybe the samples were contaminated or maybe we were all lied to about its dating, so as to conceal the fact that Voynich faked it. For the doubters there is always scope for doubt. I, myself, have never seen the Voynich, so I could doubt its even existence. However, in the real world the question should not be one of possibility, but rather probability. Whilst there is a possibility the manuscript is a fake, the probability that it is, is very small.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 23-11-2025
(23-11-2025, 04:41 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Those criteria make it unlikely you will ever accept it is genuine.
1) "which cannot be mistaken for anything but the Voynich". This gives you a lot of room to deny it. Firstly there is likeky to be no comprehensive description surviving and even if there were you could easily claim it wasn't sufficient or that Voynich might have been aware of it and was influenced by it.
It surprises me that you also feel "... there is likely to be no comprehensive description surviving...", which of course means that you don't feel the descriptions in the Carteggio, the 1903 catalog entry, and the "Wildmann" references are sufficiently comprehensive. And also, that you don't feel it likely that a sufficiently "comprehensive description" will turn up.
So we do agree sometimes. But I think I was very clear what I would consider proper evidence, and why that level has not been reached. You are welcome to not believe me, I can't do anything about that, I can only tell you what my standards are.
Quote:2) "which was provably out of reach for Voynich in his lifetime" It is was probable that none of the missing pages survive and I suspect that very few documents were provably out of reach to Voynich which could certainly give you enough wriggle room to give he may have seen it or a reference to it.
Why do you assume I would WANT "wiggle room"? I don't care if this turns out to be genuine. Not at all. It matters not at all to me what it is, and I have demonstrated this by having my opinion changed several times already. Each time, I didn't mind at all, and I wouldn't again.
Quote:3) They is no reason to believe that the Voynich was part of a collection of texts and so to expect that it was is a mistake. Even if it was you could claim that Voynich saw one of the sister works and that it was what he based his forgery on.
Again you are deciding that my reaction would be different than what I have told you it would be. But in any case, you missed the point I was making in finding any of this evidence, should it exist: That any such evidence be in a place which it would have been impossible for Voynich to have seen it. In fact, the last "wall" to my believing Modern Forgery the most likely possibility was the incorrect assertion that the letters of the Carteggio were "Under lock and seal". I did believe that, for a time, and it held back my theory.
But when I realized that was not at all true, it made me realize all my other suspicions were now plausible problems. But if some other, and obvious, evidence was found, and out of reach of Voynich, of course I would accept it, as I once did accept "Under lock and seal". I'd look to see if he could have seen it, of course... and I would hope you would, too... but if not, then it would be proof the Voynich was real.
Quote:4) Your criteria for textual content is so vague that you could easily deny the Voynich text fitted them.
Clearly, the overwhelming probability from what we currently know is that the manuscript is geninue. However, I really find it very hard to conceive of any plausible evidence that could exist that will can your mind. And as in the case of your dodecahedron theory I don't find your arguments persuasive.
I have no problem with that at all. We have vastly different standards of proof... everyone does. Mine may be much harsher than yours, fine. And I don't claim my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to be the correct one... there are several others I consider very plausible also. But whether you or I consider mine or anyone else's ideas the correct one is not up to us: They are what they are, and we can't change that.
And that might sound like an obvious point, but I often get the idea that many have a sense that if they can convince others that something is true, then it will be true; and if we convince them it is false, then it will be false. I think that is the root of the mistaken idea that "Consensus is Science": That if enough of the right people believe something, then it is that something.
I reject that illusion, and warn myself against it constantly. This is the reason I have used the internet screen name "proto57" for over 20 years... the "proto" is for Protagoras (the 57 is my birth year). Anyway, Protagoras was a humanist, and his famous saying was, "Man is the measure of all things- what is, that it is; what is not, that it is not".
That was not saying that man could make things what they are, it was only a reminder that their perception of things was not reality, not the truth... only a man-made illusion, which may or may not be true. I can't, you can't, no one can "make" the Voynich or the Roman Dodecahedron anything they aren't, we can only try to figure out what they really are. Again, I know that may sound obvious and simplistic to many... but from thousands of such discussions over the years, I have long come to believe that many don't actually realize this, or think about it, and are under some illusion they are deciding what the Voynich actually is.
Nope. Not at all. So I don't care what the Voynich is, because I understand that I am not deciding what it is, I cannot make it something it is not. I can't, and no one can. Whatever it is, it is, and that is not up to me or you.
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 23-11-2025
(23-11-2025, 04:45 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To claim that Voynich obtained all that quanity of unused vellum from the early 15th century cut into the range of sizes he required is unlikely and from his knowledge unnecessary to make a convincing forgery prior to the invention of carbon dating.
This is a logical fallacy, and easily explained as such by giving a hypothetical: Say the Voynich was not approximately 6"x9", but, for instance, 8"x11". Would it be correct to say, as you did, that this was the "range of sizes he required"? Of course not, it was the "range of sizes" he either had at hand, or chose to make.
An allegory would be watching an ape throw paint at a wall, then analyzing the results and presuming the ape must have had great genius, because there would be no other explanation for the forms that resulted. No, those forms were the result of pure happenstance.
Likewise, the resulting size of the leaves and bifolia of the Voynich can be explained by chance. It is a mistake to assume that he must have wanted the size it turned out to be, and then claim it unlikely he just happened to come across that necessary, and desired size. That is illogical. The size of the Voynich can have been entirely dictated by the parchment which was on hand.
That being said (and for those who have seen this, I apologize), I think it entirely possible that Voynich didn't find the size we see... quarto, or octavo (close to both, a big octavo, or smaller quarto), but rather cut the leaves down from full folio size sheets. The reason I believe this plausible are:
1) It would explain the foldouts, as those all fit in the size of full folio sheets, and even each have fold lines falling on folio-sized bifolios.
2) The quire numbers are not centered, as is usual (Clemens, "Medieval Manuscript Studies"), but rather off-set. If one cut down folio sized bifolios which were pre-numbered (as was sometimes the case), the quire numbers would no longer be centered on the leaves.
3) Dana Scott, and others, have reported several of the edges are much brighter, and looked more recently cut than the other edges
4) Scars and other markings seem to line up across leaves, as though they came from larger sheet. Pelling explains this as those leaves coming from the same hide; I posit it could, in addition to his idea, mean they were cut from larger sheets.
Anyway, no luck was necessary, only for Voynich to have found a pile of old vellum, of any size, of any age, and then create a fake manuscript from that. Which is what I think he did. I don't think he or anyone had a plan they were trying to follow, I mean, and then got "lucky" in finding "just the right" age and size materials to pull it off.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rich.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-01-2026
In the comments below my blog post of September, 2015, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", Thomas Ernst has posted a series of comments carefully explaining why the Latin of that letter (the one Voynich claimed to have found in the Voynich, of course) is problematic in ways that would never appear in a genuine letter of the (supposed) time, by the (supposed) authors.
Of course others have, and for many years prior, considered the Latin of that letter very poor. Even Philip Neal added an addendum to his own translation, calling the Latin "vexing". As I wrote in my post on the subject,
Quote:"I would suggest the logistical problems with this Latin phrasing are a result of a modern forger who was not proficient enough to create a trouble-free version."
Well now Thomas Ernst has taken a far deeper dive. He came across my blog, and this post, because he had independently, and for a long time, considered that letter a forgery. And, for that matter, he shares my strong believe the Voynich Manuscript is, likewise, a fake. I won't copy the entire contents of Thomas's comments here, but will give one example below. For anyone interested, the blog post is linked in the first sentence of this comment. But here is one segment of one comment:
Quote:2) “â nullo”, “â se descripta “, “à te” ([5, 7], β). Both the circumflex and the grave accent were used, primarily in printed Latin, to distinguish adverbs and prepositions. In Latin – unlike French – the circumflex was a deictic typographical device to distinguish the ablative case from the nominative: “vitâ functus”, “primâ fronte”, “hâc arte” (letter by Wolfgang Trefler as printed 1754 in the HISTORIA REI LITTERARIÆ ORDINIS S. BENEDICTI, I, 492-496), “nonâ die” (Oliver Legipont, ibid.). The grave was used a) to distinguish adverbs, b) to distinguish prepositions: “citrà”, “adolphvm à glavbvrg” (Tithemius, Polygraphia 1550, ed. Glauburg). In the “Marci-letter”, all three “a” designate the preposition “by” or “from”, and not an ablative. Even if the circumflex in “â nullo” were considered a smudgy grave accent, the one in “â se” is not. Only “à te” is correct. Writers and printers of Latin texts were just as precise about diacritics as writers of modern French are because the diacritics carry as much meaning as the words they are attached to. The Marci-letter has two wrong diacritics and one correct one above the same letter within the space of 29 words.
Mr. Ernst's excellent dissection of the Latin wording, phrasing, grammar, and other problems it exhibits, is yet another very damning indication that this letter is not only forged, but badly forged. It adds to my list of problems, and those noted by others... whether or not they are willing to accept that is the most probably conclusion. And added to all these problems, we have the recent finding that the 1665/66 Marci letter is on a different paper than his other letters! It has the "Three Hat" watermark, another letter, in the Carteggio, has a Foolscap mark.
Yes, yes, yes... we are told he could have had many brand papers, and that "scribe", and a hundred other excuses for a hundred other, very serious problems, that other manuscripts, and other letters, simply do not have. But when is "enough is enough", and when will others let this overwhelming torrent of evidence be allowed to speak for itself? I listened, almost 15 years ago... and there has been so much more coming almost every week since then.
"The only way one can argue the Voynich is flawless, is to ignore its many flaws"- proto57
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Koen G - 01-01-2026
I don't have the knowledge to talk about the Latin, but why is a guy possessing paper from different sources a "very serious problem"?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Bluetoes101 - 01-01-2026
It should be noted that the paper is of the correct time that we would expect. This should cast serious doubts on a fake proposal. Though I doubt it will..
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 01-01-2026
(01-01-2026, 06:15 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It should be noted that the paper is of the correct time that we would expect. This should cast serious doubts on a fake proposal. Though I doubt it will..
But -- if i followed this overall discussion correctly -- it isn't that it is on different paper; it is that being on different papers makes it an an exception, standing out from all his other letters.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 01-01-2026
(01-01-2026, 05:44 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the comments below my blog post of September, 2015, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", Thomas Ernst has posted a series of comments carefully explaining why the Latin of that letter (the one Voynich claimed to have found in the Voynich, of course) is problematic in ways that would never appear in a genuine letter of the (supposed) time, by the (supposed) authors. But when is "enough is enough", and when will others let this overwhelming torrent of evidence be allowed to speak for itself?
The problem with this Fake Letter Theory is that the evidence for forgery is far from an "overwhelming torrent". IIRC, the letter was supposedly written by Marci's secretary, at a time when his eyesight was failing and he could no longer write by himself. So the bad Latin can be just failing of this secretary; and the paper would be whatever the secretary had at hand at the moment.
I think that the way Voynich obtained and handled the letter should raise eyebrows higher. For starters, why wasn't the letter filed with all the other letters that Kircher received? Why is there absolutely no mention of it anywhere, until Voynich decided to make it public and claimed that it was attached to the VMS when he bought it? Why wasn't the contents of the letter used when the Jesuits compiled the list of books sold to Voynich?
I do suspect that there are still some hairy bugs to be found under the unturned rocks of this story. But I still don't think that there is enough evidence of the letter being a forgery. And I have another theory about it, as you know...
All the best, --stolfi