+- 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 - proto57 - 06-02-2026
If
(06-02-2026, 03:34 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-02-2026, 01:59 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the page itself, there is nothing about it that, in my opinion, evokes a 17th century authorship. Below you can see my own work back in 2013 on the left, which this morning, for this post, I have added an image of the real You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the right. In my 2012 image... if you look closely... I used "layers" in my graphics program to place Salani's image over a very lightened f14v. You can see that many of the elements line up perfectly, as though traced, while there are added elements such as a new leaf, and different roots, and so on. I think it was traced, either on a light table, with an opaque projector, or perhaps a camera lucida:
Do we have the true size of that copied page, so that it can be compared to the VMS? This is the first time i've read about this, and I unfortunately have had a lot of difficulty sourcing a good version of the Salani image and still can't find a version with a true scale.
Anyway, I noticed that in your layered image many aspects of the text and plant do not line up, but upon doing the same thing in my graphics program you can make everything line up almost perfectly (With resizing of course, but I don't know the relative sizes of both).
Knowing the true size would go some way in knowing how it was copied. Sorry if im once again derailing anything
Hey, Egg-man! No, not derailing anything, in my opinion. Discussion of the dating, origins, nature of a page that was possibly copied from the Voynich is certainly relevant. And of course I would accept any evidence the Voynich existed before 1908 (well, 1905) as evidence against Modern Forgery. The trouble is (for 1420 Genuine) that each time something new is found, like this page, it turns out to not be that evidence. But of course I am ready to look carefully at everything, and ready to concede I am wrong. In fact, it would save me time, and I could move onto other ventures, and ride my motorcycle more.
But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Prof. Paolo Bensi, 2013 Wrote:The chronological indications that we can draw from the results of the analyses, in light of our knowledge
of the history of materials, are as follows:
The pink dye, which has the characteristics of a synthetic substance, indicates a dating of the
analyzed layers later than 1856; these compounds are still in use.
The green tones:
- if the presence of Cobalt and Zinc green is assumed, the dating is later
than the 1830s;
- however, the presence of Titanium shifts the dating at least to the First World War,
when titanium white was put on the market;
- if, as seems almost certain based on the analyses, Cobalt titanate was used
(with Nickel as a possible accessory element), we know that the pigment was
patented in 1933.
Logwood ink, alone or with iron, indicates a date at least later than 1525:
this material was used until the Second World War, then went out of production.
It should be added that the analyses did not detect materials of the type expected in miniatures and
watercolor drawings prior to the eighteenth century, such as tannic inks with iron and/or copper, verdigris,
malachite, copper resinate, cinnabar, minium, orpiment, lead yellows, cochineal lakes.
If we compare ourselves with the investigations carried out by McCrone Associates on the copy of the
Voynich manuscript in New Haven, we see that among the most significant materials identified were:
iron-tannic inks, azurite, organic copper compounds (probable copper resinate), atacamite
(copper chlorides), lead oxide yellows or oranges; in this case, these are pigments of an
ancient type, not detected in the parchment under examination.
Summing up these indications, we can affirm, to complement the results and hypotheses of
Professor Baraldi, that the chromatic layers of the drawing under examination date back to the twentieth century, most
probably to the years between 1918-20 and the 1940s.
Certainly, the analyses themselves do not allow us to say that the entire painting was done in the 20th century, leaving the doubt that a 20th-century repainting occurred on an older base (not earlier than 1525, however), but apart from the ultramarine, and the particles of yellow ochre and calcium carbonate, present in all eras, no material has been found that can be defined as ancient, therefore the hypothesis of repainting appears highly improbable.
OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts. But as is always recommended, "Go back to the source". When we read the source... in this case the actual, scientific tests, we learn that this Fabrini Folio is most likely from between WWI and WWII, or just after the latter. So, mid 20th century, and no chance at all this was by Baresch/Marci/Kinner whatever. Actually, WWII did surprise me somewhat, because I thought it was more modern than that. And also, it should put to rest all the speculation on the Ninjas, back in 2016: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I didn't read through that entire thread, maybe I even chimed in back at the time, maybe someone finally put this to rest with the actual 2013 Bensi results, IDK. But since the issue of age is settled, it is not a Baresch copy, it is not relevant to the age of the Voynich as it post dates teh 1912 announcement, so to me, "case closed". Still a curiosity, no doubt, but it does not affect any of us, with any Voynich theory.
As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404. But here is the thing: Since we know it is post WWI, it could have been made several ways:
- If the same size, then on a light table from a printed out copy of f14v.
- If a different size, then using an "opaque projector". Those devices allow tracing any opaque by projecting it on a wall. I owned one for decades, mine was made in the 1930's.
- If a different size, then maybe by someone with access to the film strips which the Voynich's had prepared. They could have been projected in a "film strip projector". I own one made in the 1920's (I used to be a dealer in cameras and photographic equipment, and still have hundreds of items of all types). But this would have involved access to those film strips.
- If a different size, then the Camera Lucida, invented in 1807. I own one of these, mine made in the 1960's. I've never published it, and will, but I have an old article or blog post I've written about this device, in which I ask, "The Camera Lucida: Secret Tool of the Forger?". I did many experiments with it, and there are certain "tells" to illustrations made with it... such as darker areas of the original being hard to see, and therefore hard to copy. Another "tell" is that they can and often do distort on the vertical plane, as the original might be propped up, but leaning. This elongates the copy. But not usually on the horizontal, as a user would tend to have the original at least roughly parallel with the device. Here is mine in action. It can be used for copying 2d illustrations/photographs:
The thing is, one French manufacturer of the Camera Lucida sold over 5,000 examples in the early 20th century! They used to be very well known. And they fold up into a neat little case, so they could fit in a coat pocket and be carried into libraries and collections very easily.
I suspect the "Columbus Miniature" forgery, sold by Voynich to the British Library, was made this way. It is known this was copied from a called "America", by DeBry (sp?) or like that... when I copied the DeBry source engraving with my Camera Lucida, it showed some characteristics to the forged Columbus which I think may implicate that device in its creation. Likewise, the source map... an 18th century engraving of the Bianco World map was shown to be the source of the Vinland forgery (by John Floyd), and I think the Camera Lucida may have been used there...
... so that is my first suspect in this Fabrini Folio copy, but really of course I can't know. Sorry my answer got so long... but all these things relate, I think, to the nature of the Voynich story, in one way or the other.
TL/DR: The Fabrini Folio copy of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is to me an obvious post-WWI copy, probably a fan made art piece, of some talent, and made either with a light table, an opaque projector, or a camera lucida.
Just for jollies, semi-off topic, above is my drawing of a cicada made with my 1960's Camera Lucida. If you are interested in art, they are indispensable... even today!... for miniatures, landscapes, portraits... to hash out your proportions of any drawing.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - eggyk - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404.
Thanks for having a look! I also ran into many links that had 404'd. Salani did make a video where the page is in frame; perhaps I could work out its size by looking calculating against the other objects in the picture
(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts.
Salani refers to the 18th/19th century in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Salani also posted the ink results on the forum, with the graphs and everything:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If anyone wants the original picture of the copy:
It certainly seems that the colouring was done after voynich unveiled the manuscript. Salani does say:
(15-09-2017, 10:32 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that the ink used for the text and the shape of the plant is camping ink with iron added to stabilize the color and the oxidation of that ink is completly natural and is, at least,100 years old.
If that's correct -we only have his word on this- it would push youngest dating of the black ink to just before the unveiling. I suppose there's not really any way of checking.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 06:26 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404.
Thanks for having a look! I also ran into many links that had 404'd. Salani did make a video where the page is in frame; perhaps I could work out its size by looking calculating against the other objects in the picture
(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts.
Salani refers to the 18th/19th century in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(06-02-2026, 05:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Salani also posted the ink results on the forum, with the graphs and everything:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If anyone wants the original picture of the copy: It certainly seems that the colouring was done after voynich unveiled the manuscript. Salani does say:(15-09-2017, 10:32 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that the ink used for the text and the shape of the plant is camping ink with iron added to stabilize the color and the oxidation of that ink is completly natural and is, at least,100 years old.
If that's correct -we only have his word on this- it would push youngest dating of the black ink to just before the unveiling. I suppose there's not really any way of checking.
OH! So it turns out all of Salani''s cards have been on the table for some time, then. And like you say, we may never know the true origins of this copy, or when or why it was made. It is a interesting side-note, though... Rich.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Philipp Harland - 06-02-2026
Good God, this thread is still active? I would've expected it to die down by now.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 06-02-2026
(06-02-2026, 07:18 PM)Philipp Harland Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Good God, this thread is still active? I would've expected it to die down by now.
... "expected", or hoped?
The thing that I've learned, Philpp, is that whether people want to admit it or not, they have a nagging sense that modern forgery is a very real possibility. This is why the interest. Other theories are not considered remotely as possible as this one, so they get much less interest and attention.
Others, may think that there is nothing to Modern Forgery. It sounds like you may feel that way. That with a simple examination of the pros and cons, it will be easily dismissed. So they drop in in order to "get my mind right", like the Sheriff said to Hud.
I used to think so, too, by the way. I believed all the commonly stated counters to it being a modern forgery, but saw some things that concerned me. So I critically examined each one, and one by one they fell. And that also may be part of the interest here... I see many new people who don't know my arguments, or the basis for them, and they say things like, "But don't you know about A, B, or C?". Not realizing that I also looked at A, and B, and C... maybe even in 2009, or 2013, or 2019, whatever. I've done the digging, found the sources, and can give factually based responses... either differing opinions or facts that people didn't know... to these concerns.
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. This forum thread has been great for that... a place for newcomers and old timers like me to see those best arguments, and what the counters to them really are.
That that is also of interest. I think the "dirty little secret" is that many people do actually wonder if the Voynich is real or not, old or not. They want to be convinced it is real, but really are not certain it is. So they want to see the arguments pro and con. It is interesting to them, no matter what they come away thinking about it. And if they go away still thinking the Voynich 1420 and genuine, then at least they will be more informed, and know the arguments against their own theory. Maybe it will help some sharpen their own personal theories better, or come up with new ones.
It is good for me, too, and interesting to me. I've learned a lot from this thread, myself. It has honed my hypothesis by seeing some of the best arguments against it. Basically, it is a win-win for everyone, I think. And I thank Koen for creating it, actually. In the beginning I thought it was a way of isolating the concept of modern forgery, but it has turned out to be a major asset for everyone. For one thing, when I was arguing my theory outside this thread, I had to restrain many points I felt pertainent. The answers I gave, even though pared down, were still unwanted in those other threads. This dedicated thread gives me the opportunity to express completely and honestly how I see Modern Forgery, and that has been another reason it is a help to me and everyone.
But Philipp, probably the best reason of all for this thread, and the interest in it, is that it is totally, 100% voluntary whether or not you read it, or participate, yourself.
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - JoJo_Jost - 08-02-2026
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...
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 08-02-2026
(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.
)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 08-02-2026
(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...
OK, I don't know the particular "phenomenon" you are referring to, but for the sake of this comment I'll accept it. But I'll point out that a great many different psychological and other effects are often used to disparage the arguments of an opponent, and they are of course (similarly) false arguments, because they (purposefully?) deflect from the merits of the points being argued. Maybe some in the Voynich field suffer from Dunning-Kruger? Does that make the actual argument they use invalid? Of course not. I've seen Occam's razor used a million times, for every different Voynich theory under the Sun, on all "sides". And for whatever reason, many wonderful people "on the spectrum" are for some reason "drawn" to the Voynich.. I'm not a psychologist, as you are, but I have some lay theories as to why that is.
But like I said, let me temporarily accept your premise, which was clearly being suggested is the case, in my case, and see how it relates to me, or not, in contrast to the people furiously defending 1420 Genuine European Herbal. Contrast and compare:
1) I have never stated I am "convinced" of my theory. While I strongly believe in it, I always state what is opinion, AS opinion, or part of my hypothesis. On the contrary, the 1420 Genuine Theory is frequently stated as absolute fact, in these very pages, and in books, lectures, and websites, even by several people who post here. For instance, terms such as "we know that" this or that is true or false, or some unknown thing is stated as "impossible", rather than improbable, and so on. One good example is an incorrect claim, written by Zandbergen and Prinke in the introduction of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., boldly claiming that my own modern forgery theory was "disproved" (by name! They name me! How unfair, let alone incorrect). No, it was never "disproved", rather it is their opinion it is incorrect, much as it is my opinion theirs and yours is incorrect.
If you search Rene's site for terms such as "we know that", and the like, you will see this effect quite often. I'm not picking on you, in particular, Rene, but you are the premiere Voynich information source, and your site is a deservedly a "go to" as it is inarguably the best source with the most detailed information. But it is impossible to know what is fact, and what is opinion, when it is rife with statements like this, "That this collection of mansucripts has been rebound is briefly mentioned in the catalogue of Vat.Lat. 11414-11709, written in 1959 by Mgr. J. Ruysschaert (5), where we read that this was done by the Jesuits of the Collegium Romanum. From all this we know that the present cover of the Voynich MS was added (presumably replacing an earlier one) by the Roman Jesuits, i.e. after the MS was received by Kircher." (Italics mine of course).
No, we don't "know" that cover was added... that is Rene's opinion. This is a very important distinction, and occurs dozens of times in these pages alone. I could literally fill a book with such absolute claims, in which speculative opinion is incorrectly and yet boldly stated as fact.
Another case of this would be the assertion and enforcement of the premise that 1420 Genuine European Herbal is, or should be, a "baseline", or "foundational" understanding of the nature of the Voynich. That was argued, again, on the Ninja's, for instance, and that baseline belief guides the structure of the topics here. And that is fine for people to believe that 1420 is the starting point, but it is a clear sign that they are, as Rene is, as you seem to be, "convinced" that the Voynich is, indeed, 1420 Genuine. I am not, I do not do that. For every idea I have in my blog, and on my forum, I meticulously separate what we know for certain, and what is the opinion of myself and others. If, for the sake of brevity I do not, in some particular argument I am making, make it clear, I try to rectify this.
Two more cases of this would be the mutation of the very thin evidence that both the 1903 catalog entry, and this "Wildmann" story have anything to do with the Voynich, into firm assertions that they absolutely do. Sometimes the very same people who first state they "may be" the Voynich later say they "are mentions" of the Voynich. No, I do not do that, I wouldn't. It would be unfair to my readers. It would be unfair to you. Maybe if I was "convinced" of something they imply, but I am not.
So the base premise of your claim does not even apply to me, but rather, demonstrably to the bulk of those who are "convinced" the Voynich is 1420 and genuine. Wouldn't that then mean, for these people, who do argue as strongly and often as I do, that they are the ones, who suffer from this "well-documented phenomenon in psychology [in which] the more people have to defend their beliefs, the more convinced they become of them"?
2) You may not have been around enough to know this, but I am one of the very few... if not the ONLY Voynich researcher who has change my fundamental opinions about the Voynich not one, but two times! Starting in 2007, I proposed the hypothesis that it was Cornelius Drebbel's notebook, based on the similarity of the cylinders to 17th century microscopes, and the often projected "understanding" that the Voynich was in the Court of Rudolf II. Drebbel was the chief alchemist and botanist to Rudolf in the early 17th century. This fledgling theory resulted in my article in the (now defunct, it seems) Renaissance Magazine titled, "The Voynich Manuscript: Drebbel's Lost Notebook?". Note the question mark. Over time, after many discussions on the Voynich Net Mailing list, and in various forums, and after discussions with experts on Drebbel... Hubert Van Onna became a friend, who came to the USA for a lecture tour, and spent a day with me, and disagreed with me on this... I mean, I dug DEEP into Drebbel, his inventions, the microscope...
... and because of all this, I changed my mind on my entire hypothesis. I gave it up. I felt it was not reasonable, any longer, that this was written by Drebbel.
I then looked into the possibility that this was some sort of "homage", some 17th century "fan fiction", meant to reflect the content of Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis. This, because so much content of the Voynich does reflect the fictional and real arts and sciences imagined by Francis Bacon in his seminal Utopian fiction. And I was "there" about a year or so, again discussing this hypothesis vigorously, until I gradually came to believe my hypothesis was not sufficiently founded to merit continuing pursuing it. In fact one of the problems with both theories was the constant, and correct complaint that many of the microscopes I saw comparisons to were far too new for Drebbel or F. Bacon. Yes, they are... my critics helped me realize that the Voynich was probably newer than that, while they saw the same features I did, and discarded them (if you want to apply "phenomenons", look up "Purple Cow Syndrome").
So, again to your assertion I suffer from this phenomenon, quite the opposite. Yes, I argue vigorously, and passionately, but you have mistaken that for a type of self-convincing fervor. It is the opposite. I test the components of my hypotheses insistently, strongly, but that is my means of testing them. When they seem incorrect, as strongly as I defend them, I will admit it, give them up, and move on to where the evidence takes me.
3) On the contrary, and as I have often pointed out, in order to defend the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Theory, the facts have to be bent to fit it, or ignored, or misstated, rather than doing science the proper way, and letting the evidence define the truth. I've pointed this out a great many times, because it needs to happen, it does happen, and in real time. As an example... and I was around long enough to see this unfold many, many times... before the 2009 Radiocarbon dating, the vast majority of other dating theories were nowhere near 1420! So for a brief time after the release of the 1404-1438 range, it was understood, and properly reported, that that dating showed many theories wrong, that even "the experts got it wrong". But rather than this now revealed discrepancy between the expert opinion and the dating results being used properly, and an explanation sought, the Genuine field... this "baseline"... morphed the reality of expert opinion, and quickly, and all these years since, into the false claim that "The Experts Got it Right". Well, they did "in a way", I believe, but not in the way that was palatable to those who were "convinced" the Voynich was genuine.
And you see this "phenomenon" each and every day, practically. It bends the findings and facts, sometimes in almost humorous, convoluted ways, in order to "fit" this preconception of 1420 Genuine. Look at what just happened with the watermark of the Marci letter, added to the already long list of damning characteristics of the letter, practically screaming out "I'M FAKE!"... the watermark does not match the other Marci Letter paper? Easy, it he had lots of paper. The Latin of the Letter is bad? Well you told me this imaginary scribe wrote the letter to "explain" this. So, the scribe had a different watermark, easy. But why would the scribe write in Marci's bad Latin? Crickets.
This pervasive, constant effect, needed to shore up a supposedly strong and "baseline" hypothesis... 1420 Genuine... is a necessary part of the process, and an adverse affect of people who are "convinced" of something they will defend at any costs. I could literally cite over a hundred cases of this, I am certain. Heck, I probably have by now! But I'll give just one more, which I find practically as definitive of this effect of "adjusting the facts to fit the preconception of 1420 Genuine", and that appears in the very book Yale published on the Voynich in 2017 (16? I forget). This is a gem:
"“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? And this has since been realized, by those supporting 1420, I think, because there is a new answer given, today, when I ask (I think I am the only person who does ask, by the way), "Since only 10% of all medieval manuscripts have survived, other examples of foldouts probably exist among them, therefore we cannot say that the foldouts are unusual [anymore?]".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Well of course that is another rationalization, and unscientific, as much of science, and philosophy, and criminal law for that matter, relies on, and trusts, the principle of "sampling". I mean, if testing soil, one does not truck the entire acre of soil into the lab, they take many "samples" across the property... far less than 10% in fact... to determine the nature of all of it.
Well, OK, since you asked, one more: Most are not aware, but the neat and clean "1404-1438" date range was "created" by averaging the actual date range of the individual samples of calfskin, admittedly based on the "assumption" that the Voynich is genuine, and made within ten years or so. That is logically, "We are 'convinced' the Voynich is genuine and old, therefore we will manipulate these dating results to fit genuine and old". By the way, I am not saying the 60 + date range of the samples... from 1365 to 1497... "means" the Voynich is a fake. But what it does mean is what it says, and a great number of opinions would and should arise from this... it is valuable information, which people have a right to know, in order to come to their own opinions, form their own hypotheses.
So in conclusion, your assertion that I suffer from this "phenomenon", as it was clearly directed at me, is provably false. I do not present my ideas in a way that belies me being "convinced" of my ideas, such as wrongly stating my opinions as fact; I have provably shown that, even though I argue strongly, I have been, and are again completely ready to change my mind, and reformulate new hypotheses, and on the contrary, the very effect you wrongly describe for me, is amply demonstrated by the majority of people who are "convinced" the Voynich "must be" a 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - JoJo_Jost - 08-02-2026
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.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 08-02-2026
(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