+- 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 - ReneZ - 31-10-2025
The situation with the watermark and its relevance for the genuine/fake question of the Marci letter is really straightforward.
Let's look at an extreme, hypothetical situation.
In this situation, the watermarks of all Marci's letters would be known and would all be the same, and genuine 17th century. Now the watermark of the Beinecke letter would be different, yet also genuine 17th century.
What would be the conclusion?
It would be: "Aha, he used different paper for this letter".
Now let's look at another hypothetical situation.
In this case, we know the watermarks of many or all of Marci's letters, and there are several (genuine) different ones.
This shows he used different types of paper. That the Beinecke letter is also different is completely normal.
In reality, we do not know the watermarks of any of his other letters, with the exception of perhaps one that was drawn out in this thread.
So, in reality, there is absolutely nothing to be concluded from the watermark.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 09:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The situation with the watermark and its relevance for the genuine/fake question of the Marci letter is really straightforward.
Let's look at an extreme, hypothetical situation.
In this situation, the watermarks of all Marci's letters would be known and would all be the same, and genuine 17th century. Now the watermark of the Beinecke letter would be different, yet also genuine 17th century.
What would be the conclusion?
It would be: "Aha, he used different paper for this letter".
Now let's look at another hypothetical situation.
In this case, we know the watermarks of many or all of Marci's letters, and there are several (genuine) different ones.
This shows he used different types of paper. That the Beinecke letter is also different is completely normal.
In reality, we do not know the watermarks of any of his other letters, with the exception of perhaps one that was drawn out in this thread.
So, in reality, there is absolutely nothing to be concluded from the watermark.
That would be flawed reasoning. In both of your scenarios, you have declared the letter genuine a priori.
The relevant scenario is that we have many Marci letters known to be genuine and they all contain the same watermark, but it's different than that on the Beinecke letter. That would make the Beinecke letter suspiciously different and increase the probability that is is not actually Marci's.
That would be EVIDENCE against authenticity. And like most evidence (and like ALL evidence related to the provenance of the VMS), it would be probabilistic. Its strength or weight would depend on factors like HOW MANY Marci letters do we have and how certain are we of their authenticities. But they would still comprise a statistical sample from which we infer the properties of the whole -- just like is done with all statistical sampling.
As Rich stated, if we find none of the others examples of the same watermark in the other (known genuine) papers of Marci, it would be evidence that that letter MAY BE inauthentic.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Kaybo - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 03:25 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is it possible Wilfrid Voynich et al created the VMS circa 1910 , well sure it is but you need a few assumptions.
Now each of these assumptions can be explained individually and can be assigned a probability, then multiply the probabilities.
1. Could Wilf get his hands on 242 pages , 60+bifolios of medieval parchment ?
+ some bigger bits for the foldouts
--Probably, he was a dealer in ancient MSS, he knew of and visited places that would have old stuff
--He would need a lot of it
-- 52% No 48% Yes
2. Could Wilf have known some peepz with the relevant practical skills to create the VMS ?
--Probably
--20% No 80% Yes
3. Did Wilf have the necessary practical skills to create the VMS ?
--Wilf was qualified in Chemistry, so making the ink should not have been a problem for him
--The paint would be harder to make than Iron gall ink but Wilf could do it
--Book binding requires specialist tools and specialist skills,
Wilf would be familiar with the process, but any evidence, like the tools and such
--33% No 66% Yes
4. Did Wilf have any knowledge about ancient books, MSS's ?
--Yep he sure did
--O% No 100% Yes
5. What was Wilfs motive in creating the VMS ?
--Money?, Ego? Funding for his Russian buddies?
--Unknown
6. How did Wilf create the script ?
--Wilf was apparently proficient in several languages ( so thats a plus point )
--Unknown
Result:
0.48 * 0.8 * 0.66 * 1 = 0.25344 Oops ive produced a 1 in 4 chance its a modern forgery (not my intention at all )
Anyway there are probably many more hoops an MFH theorist would have to jump through.
Conclusion:
the Modern Forgery Hypothesis(MFH) aka Wilfriddidit is not proven, it is not disproven, it is a sound and logical theory.
The many arguments against it, blank 15thC parchment, the bindings, bookworm holes, marginalia, etc can all be individually explained.
However these arguments, these hoops that the MFH theorist has to jump through, each one reduces the probability of the reality of the MFH.
Every new argument makes this theory less and less likely.
And of course as a theory it is prosaic and boring.
The Voynich manuscript as an authentic 15th century book,
its mysterious, its romantic, its author unknown, its story could involve
Renaissance celebs, Historical players, Kings, Alchemy, the Occult, Cryptographers.
In short:
An authentic old VMS is a portal to a different world whereas MFH is just boring and on the balance of probability, Unlikely.
If you want to do a fake, why you would use the same material as around 1400. Why create original ink? Its around 1910, nothing of that could be analysed at that time.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 12:26 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That would be flawed reasoning. In both of your scenarios, you have declared the letter genuine a priori.
I did not assume anything about the letter, only about the date range of the watermarks.
Still, even if I did, it would be the right starting point.
99.999% of all historical documents are genuine. (Yes, I invented that number but this is the idea. The truth is probably higher).
This means that this is the default, and the alternative proposals needs strong evidence.
The watermark says nothing about whether the letter is genuine or not. It does not allow to decide either way.
It could have been different, in case it appeared to be much later, but this did not turn out to be the case.
The same is with the C-14 dating: it could have shown very damning evidence, but it did not.
Also the chemical tests of McCrone: it could have shown very damning evidence, but it did not.
(The latter is one of the more common ways how modern fakes are detected).
On a side note, I find the suggestion that the Marci letter should be a fake far more challenging than that the Voynich MS should be a fake.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Koen G - 31-10-2025
Hey guys, I've been feeling ill the last couple of days and didn't have the energy to follow these developments. Getting better now though.
Tavi has been trying to keep threads on-topic, which is something I support completely. However, I also understand that in the case of Rich's theory, this can be a bit more difficult than usual. The "modern forgery" theory touches on so many things and it is well-known (at least the general idea of it), so it may be brought up by others. In that case, it would be unreasonable to ask Rich to respond in a dedicated thread.
However, it is also one of these subjects that tend to derail threads. Since they are so polarizing, they quickly generate a flood of responses that take the place of the original subject.
Going forward, I will just ask you to use your common sense. If discussion about the modern forgery theory takes over a thread, please have the courtesy to continue it here.
Thanks.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 12:26 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(31-10-2025, 09:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The situation with the watermark and its relevance for the genuine/fake question of the Marci letter is really straightforward.
Let's look at an extreme, hypothetical situation.
In this situation, the watermarks of all Marci's letters would be known and would all be the same, and genuine 17th century. Now the watermark of the Beinecke letter would be different, yet also genuine 17th century.
What would be the conclusion?
It would be: "Aha, he used different paper for this letter".
Now let's look at another hypothetical situation.
In this case, we know the watermarks of many or all of Marci's letters, and there are several (genuine) different ones.
This shows he used different types of paper. That the Beinecke letter is also different is completely normal.
In reality, we do not know the watermarks of any of his other letters, with the exception of perhaps one that was drawn out in this thread.
So, in reality, there is absolutely nothing to be concluded from the watermark.
That would be flawed reasoning. In both of your scenarios, you have declared the letter genuine a priori.
The relevant scenario is that we have many Marci letters known to be genuine and they all contain the same watermark, but it's different than that on the Beinecke letter. That would make the Beinecke letter suspiciously different and increase the probability that is is not actually Marci's.
That would be EVIDENCE against authenticity. And like most evidence (and like ALL evidence related to the provenance of the VMS), it would be probabilistic. Its strength or weight would depend on factors like HOW MANY Marci letters do we have and how certain are we of their authenticities. But they would still comprise a statistical sample from which we infer the properties of the whole -- just like is done with all statistical sampling.
As Rich stated, if we find none of the others examples of the same watermark in the other (known genuine) papers of Marci, it would be evidence that that letter MAY BE inauthentic.
The consideration of probability as brought up by asteckley here is the core issue, I think. Almost all investigations, forensic or criminal, are circumstantial, and rely on the probability determining the relative importance of evidence. So the two extremes that you describe, Rene, actually do tell us something, and (potentially) not finding the watermark in any of Marci's, or related papers, is evidence of the inauthenticity of the 1665/66 letter. Evidence, not proof of course.
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. The letter has many other problems which must be considered along with any (potential) lack of the use of this paper: The Latin is questionable; the "hand" is different; the year date is a perfect tracing of a known genuine letter, but with the tail of the "5" closed to make it a "6"; the folds make no sense "as" a letter or envelope; the seals don't line up as a letter, or in the Vms; the logic of the letter's claims and rumor don't fit with the proposed purpose, that is, of informing Kircher of pertinent facts; previous, known genuine letters don't mention, but should have, mention these facts; Voynich's curious claim of "not noticing" the letter in his most interesting "ugly duckling", when the letter is obviously important, and much more: https:/proto57.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/the-1665-marci-letter-a-forgery/
My point is that the probability of any evidence should be "calculated" while considering its overall context, and along with the other evidence relating to it, and not in isolation. The former is proper in law and science, the latter creates a false picture entirely. Any picture one desires. And that is what is being done in this case, and which is often done when dismissing the problems with the Voynich, BTW.
The second flawed argument, again, IMO, was used in your scenario, Rene: The idea that, paraphrasing, "even though we do not have evidence exonerating the letter, in the form of another example of the watermark, that does not mean that such an example may not exist or have existed, therefore we cannot ever render an opinion of guilt ("Absence of evidence", etc.)". But as I've noted several times in these discussions, this is incorrect, because at some point, "not finding it" does become evidence. Not yet in this case, but we will, or should, know it when we see it... when it becomes "probable" to us that not finding it means it may not exist.
To so frequently rely on "evidence not yet found but might exist" to support genuine, in so many instances in this investigation- of the letter and the Voynich- is not only improper, but has become, IMO, in itself another indication that such evidence "probably" won't be found. It's been 113 years now, and every crack and crevice of every surviving collection, library and archive in the world has had a very thorough colonoscopy, and no supporting evidence has turned up. At what point does this failure, itself, become (at least), "evidence"? You have long known my answer to that, of course.
BTW, I think it is wonderful, and proper, and normal for hearing "genuine letter and genuine Voynich" counter-arguments in this forgery thread. I would have not expect nor have it any other way. It would never have normally occurred to me that they should not be here. But I think anyone reading this will understand my pointing this out: Forgery counter arguments are not allowed, and banned, deleted or otherwise censored in genuine argument threads; but genuine, or other alternate arguments ARE allowed in this forgery thread.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Koen G - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I think anyone reading this will understand my pointing this out: Forgery counter arguments are not allowed, and banned, deleted or otherwise censored in genuine argument threads; but genuine, or other alternate arguments ARE allowed in this forgery thread.
Other threads will henceforth hopefully not be derailed too much by discussions about your theory. Those discussions, with arguments for and against, can be held here.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 31-10-2025
I found this on the Internet. It must be true.
(Sorry Rene -- I couldn't resist. All in good fun
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 03:31 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(31-10-2025, 03:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I think anyone reading this will understand my pointing this out: Forgery counter arguments are not allowed, and banned, deleted or otherwise censored in genuine argument threads; but genuine, or other alternate arguments ARE allowed in this forgery thread.
Other threads will henceforth hopefully not be derailed too much by discussions about your theory. Those discussions, with arguments for and against, can be held here.
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. Any good theory can withstand debate by countering challenges to it. I do that, why can't you?
Rather than simply trying to eliminate rebuttal, why not explain why the points I present are wrong? A strong theory could do that. But I note that 1420 is constantly retreating from scrutiny, and censoring debate, and ignoring valid counterpoints without addressing them- and this is just one more example.
I don't consider Rene's, or the other's counterpoints, here on this thread, "derailing" this discussion. They ARE the discussion! I welcome it, and always have. I never do, nor feel a need to, stifle alternate views to my own. Open debate is the fuel for progress in science, and censorship is the death of it. It becomes religion, and ceases to be science, if dissent is not allowed.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 31-10-2025
(31-10-2025, 01:31 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, I also understand that in the case of Rich's theory, this can be a bit more difficult than usual. The "modern forgery" theory touches on so many things and it is well-known (at least the general idea of it), so it may be brought up by others. In that case, it would be unreasonable to ask Rich to respond in a dedicated thread.
Sorry you have been sick, first of all.
But thank you for creating some level of leeway for me and my ideas, because what you say is true... if someone mentions, pro or con, it would be unfair and unreasonable to muzzle my ability to at least respond to those points.
Rich