+- 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 - asteckley - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 12:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... it looks like you're trying to pull a fast one here. The origin of the Voynich MS is not being derailed. What is being derailed are the posts of other forum members who intend to write about their own subjects and this gets dragged into other directions. While this will frequently happen to some extent, I applaud the efforts to limit this.
This is not at all specific to the 'Voynich faked it' theory. The rules that were put in place were triggered by other theories that kept derailing discussions.
In the particular case that launched all this, however, the rule you applaud was NOT being violated at all. And the rule being claimed was not the one you are referring. It was clear that a morphed rule was being applied anyway though, because of the particular theory that was perceived to be threatening a derailment (of, in effect, the putative origin theory of the Voynich MS). This was all described elsewhere ... in the now severed thread.
And I believe (though I can't speak for him) that that is why Rich referred to the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal" not being able to withstand criticism -- because that appears to be the motivation for the misapplication of the, otherwise, laudable rule.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 01:09 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What evidence supports forgery?
If we have a definitive bullet-point list conversations can be more directed and productive.
Most of that evidence is well outlined in Rich's blog series, along with his detailed arguments. A simple bullet-point list might be useful in some situations (I have actually made a somewhat similar request), but if that were done in THIS forum, it would likely NOT promote more productive conversation. (I base that simply on the way I have seen biased and flawed arguments against it put forth here numerous times in the past.) It would probably be much better for people to actually read his arguments in full, rather than think they know what they are criticizing because they read simplified summary bullet points.
I do not, by the way, subscribe fully to Rich's modern forgery theory. But I can recognize when evidence is present, when it has been logically presented, and when it therefore warrants serious consideration. And I recognize when evidence is accepted too uncritically as it is often done with the standard 15th century origin scenario.
Added: I did not see Rich's most recent comment above when I wrote this. He already has given, effectively, a bullet summary with the red-flag list and he has referenced his blogs as well.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 01:11 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And I believe (though I can't speak for him) that that is why Rich referred to the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal" not being able to withstand criticism -- because that appears to be the motivation for the misapplication of the, otherwise, laudable rule.
I could, but will not continue this direction :-)
There are relevant things to say about the arguments related to the Marci letter being a fake or not, but it is not clear to me that there is great interest in this from the general readership here.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 01-11-2025
(31-10-2025, 08:39 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't know the levels of titanium found in the Voynich
The annexes to the McCrone report give the estimated composition of the material in each sample that was hit by the probing electron beam. I don't now the size of the area that was sub-sampled that way, but presumably is was very small, much smaller than the sample itself. For sample 17, specifically, they probed 4 spots on the sample. Only two of the probes showed titanium -- at a few percent in weight, together with iron and other metals. I posted more details You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Quote:We don't know the crystal form of the Titanium Compound in the Voynich. I had hoped the "photomicrographs" would be of a sufficient magnification to determine the form, as the crystals of the Vinland Map were
I believe that the X-ray diffraction (XRD) instrument, which identifies crystalline structures, has a much lower resolution than the X-ray fluorescence instrument (EDS) which is a side effect of the scanning electron microscope. The report does not include the XRD spectrum for sample 17, presumably because it got no clear signal. Presumably because any crystals in the sample would be too small and/or too few and/or mixed with many other crystals. That is, the grains in sample 17 that contained titanium were neither imaged nor identified.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - rikforto - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 12:21 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- It You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", which was Voynich's favorite book
I would point out that recapitulating your entire argument is not really responsive to specific criticisms of it, but you have answered it in the extracted quote, at least if I understand you correctly. You believe that his choices were influenced by this particular book. Note, this was not claimed in the post I was responding to, which specifically dismisses the need for this line of argumentation. Again, if I understand your position, you at least implicitly agree that Voynich's choices call out for an explanation since you provide one, and I appreciate that confirmation from the theory's progenitor.
Narrowly sticking to my point, this doesn't answer questions about the patterns in the (possibly non-) cipher, which is still a pretty substantial mystery even if I take Bolton as a smoking gun of a forgery. (You probably correctly detect I don't; like a lot of "looks like" theories, I don't see correspondences that are particularly discriminating, and I could just as soon take the looser parallels I do see as suggestive it was the sort of thing Rudolf II would have been interested in purchasing.) I also think in this telling Voynich made a real mess of things in ways that made his ultimate goal of cashing in on a lost Bacon manuscript harder for himself. I'm not completely unsellable on the conclusion it's a forgery, but one reason I have remained skeptical is that it requires me to believe that Voynich vacillated between a very skilled forgery and a very incompetent scam, and I think the neatest way to resolve that is to instead posit he was struggling with the same ineffable text the rest of us are. The former certainly isn't impossible, but proponents of your theory tend to underestimate how much they are relying on Voynich to have been exactly as brilliant or foolish as each line of evidence requires, and it nags at me.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 12:21 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It has many illustrations for which the best comparisons are to items anachronistic to it, including post-Columbian plants
The alleged identifications of almost all the plants, are just hallucinations by people who have decided that the plants must be real and well-drawn. Actually there are only 2-3 plants that can be identified with some certainty, and they occur all over the world.
Quote:animals, devices, styles, possible microscopic cells and diatoms
Those interpretations of the figures either represent things that are compatible with the 1400s date, or things that we cannot identify. The identifications above, again, are hallucinations.
Quote:anatomy as illustrated in Grey's
The anatomical drawings are quite crude. Maybe they were not common in Europe at the time, but probably there are better examples in Arabic or other non-European medical books.
Quote:women with stars on strings
What is wrong with those?
Quote:"pox leber"
Those writings are almost surely later additions.
Quote:It looks very "fresh" and "bright"
Huh? On the contrary, it is in a very sorry state compared to some other manuscripts from the time. Lots of wear, water damage, wormholes, stains...
Again, I think it is extremely unlikely that the VMS is a forgery or hoax, by Voynich or by someone well after 1400. I think that there is strong evidence and arguments against that theory.
On the other hand, I still admit the possibility that Voynich tampered with the evidence about the history of the VMS in the 1600s, such as Marci's letter and Jacobus's signature. I don't think that is likely either, but I don't see any strong evidence against this theory.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - rikforto - 01-11-2025
[quote="Jorge_Stolfi" pid='72467' dateline='1761962145']
The anatomical drawings are quite crude.
/quote]
This is something I think is quite underrated on here from all sides. Whatever the provenance, the drawings are...not the best left to us by whatever period they hail from. I'm somewhat pessimistic about any theory or refutation that hinges on confident identification of the artwork. There's a real risk of building whatever deductions you make from there on sand, and even if one has identified everything correctly, the number of competing identifications makes proving it quite daunting!
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 02:41 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.even if I take Bolton as a smoking gun of a forgery. (You probably correctly detect I don't; like a lot of "looks like" theories, I don't see correspondences that are particularly discriminating, and I could just as soon take the looser parallels I do see as suggestive it was the sort of thing Rudolf II would have been interested in purchasing.)
Bolton's book is more of a distraction. It is a fact that Voynich knew of the book and used it.
However, this is after Voynich came into the possession of the MS and the Marci letter.
Some evidence that Voynich used the book is in Rich's blog post. The notes by Voynich he refers to were transcribed by myself, and are now online (and more complete) in the Beinecke Lux archive, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., footnote 15.
I include below transcriptions (there may be some typos) of a few letters exchanged between Voynich (in the US) and his London staff Herbert Garland. Of course, if Voynich knew all the time who were Tepenec, Marci, etc, he was putting up a show, lying to Garland (and to the director of the Prague archives for that matter) and sending him off on useless errands.
Edit: not sure why this does not appear like a short scrollable window?
Note also that the correspondence with the Prague archives is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Dr. Raphael is a specific problem. He does not appear in Bolton and he does not appear in the Kircher correspondence. Garland also could not discover who he was. This came from the Prague archives. We lack any explanation how Voynich could have faked the Marci letter that includes his name.
Quote: Letter 2 transcription
{Voynich letter head with the Sessa logo}
14th Feb.1920 [suspicion that the year should be 1921, see below]
2 sheets attached [in pencil] [these would be _202729 and _202742]
Dear Mr. Voynich,
As I gather from your letter that you are in urgent need of materials about Tepenecz, I am sending the results of inquiries up to date to catch today’s mail. In case your lecture is before I can send further details (if any) you will, no doubt, like to have what there is.
In the first place, you will be interested to know that such a person as “Jacobus Tepenecz” existed, though perhaps you already knew that. Also he fits in with the Rudolph circle. The contradictions in the details I have found require clearing up. Perhaps you can consult a copy of the 4 vol. continuation of Born in America. This obviously is an important reference and it is unfortunate that I cannot see it here. I have not had time yet to try botanical biogs.and bibls. I suppose the statement in Bolton that he was Director of the Botanical Gardens is based on something. I cannot be sure that Jungmanna did not simply copy Balbinus about the theological book and I have yet to find out from whom he got the idea of Tepenez being a Jesuit. I have looked in Backer under the various forms of the name, but cannot see him there. I don’t know whether you know Bolton’s book, but though untrustworthy from a scientific point of view, it may be useful to you in other ways.
There is no time to write more. So with best wishes and kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Herbert Garland.
Letter 3 transcription
{Voynich letter head with the Sessa logo}
22 Feb.1920 [suspicion that the year should be 1921, see below]
Dear Mr. Voynich,
Herewith are some more particulars about Jacub Horcicky y Tepenec. I ont think I shall be able to get anything more here.
I find that the popular book mentioned in my last letter is more of less “written up“ from a work by Josef Svatek. Naturally I am hampered by not knowing Bohemian, but I consulted the only book in the B.M. by Svatek on the subject and skimmed don likely pages for names and succeeded in extracting the enclosed passage. So far as I can see he gives no authorities and it looks as though he may be quoting from Jungmann. His book is perhaps known to you. If not I imagine you ought to see it as it is two vols. of essays mainly about Rudolph.
On the botanical side I have consulted a friend (without of course giving the actual object of my inquiry), a learned botanist, who spends his time mostly pondering about Kew. I enclose his letter, which confirms my impression, gained at the B.M., that there is no likely book here on the subject.
It may also interest you to know that a new work based on Jugmann is apparently in course of preparation, the first part being published (dealing with incunabula) in 1910. I suppose the war has suspended operations. It was being prepared by Dr. Zdenek V. Tobolka, Scriptor C.K.Verenjne a Universitit ni Knihovny v Praze. The work was published by: Prazem, Nakladen Ceske Akademie Cirare Frantiska Josefa pro Vedy, Slovesnort a Uzmeni.
A fantastic idea has struck me. Boton says that when Dee and Kelly went to Prague they first stayed at an inn the “Golden Ball”, whose landlord “Zdenko was one of the greatest gossips in Bohemia” (I don’t know where he gets this as I could not see the name Zdenko in Svatch’s article on Dee and Kelly). In the extract I sent from Balbinus there is a mention of a “Zdenkoni cancellario regis” in the dedication of the Confessionem Catholicam. I don’t know whether the name was a common one at that time, or whether one of the same family had got up in the world, was a friend of Horcicky’s and had given him the Bacon which was stolen from Dee on his arrival!
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Herbert Garland.
A Mr. Savage has just called to enquire how you are as he had not seen you lately at the Café Royal.
Letter 4 transcription
Cipher MS – Re history of {pencilled in by A Nill}
February 25, 1921
Mr. Herbert Garland,
175 Piccadilly,
London, W., England
Dear Mr. Garland,
I most sincerely thank you and congratulate you upon the information you found about Tepenecz. Without your help I should have been unable here to discover that Sinapius was Tepenecz. I had all the details about Sinapius as I have the details of everyone connected with the court of Rudolph. In fact I even have the names of the lovers of his daughter, but I never connected Sinapius with Tepenecz. At the time when I wrote you about this I also wrote to Prague about Tepenecz and about a certain Dr. Raphael who is mentioned in the letter attached to my Bacon MS. Now, as you have succeeded about Tepenecz perhaps you will be successful with Dr. Raphael. I know only that he was Dr. Raphael, perhaps Rev. Dr. Raphael and that he taught the Bohemian language to King Ferdinand III. This means that he was in the same set so you ought to consult Balbinus and Jungmanna. At first I assumed that he was a Jew and ransacked the Jewish sources so please don’t waste you time on that. Now I think he may have been Rev. Dr. Raphael, which would make him easier to trace.
Yes, I know Bolton by heart. I am so glad you succeeded about this as the personality of Tepenecz fits like a glove into my story and in addition this is actual documentary evidence that my MS. was at the court of Rudolph.
As my lecture on the MS. will be on the 20th of April there is plenty of time to get all this additional information, although you quite understand that the sooner I get it the better.
I shall also ask you for the following information:
Mardochaeus de Delle – he was a jester poet at the Court of Emperor Rudolph, and wrote funny stories about Dee, Kelly and Sinapius. Perhaps you could consult all his publications, if not in the Br. Mus. then in other libraries, and who can tell perhaps somewhere he speaks about the Bacon cipher MS.
Jacopo di Strada, from Mantua – Perhaps you can find out something about or by this man. His name was changed by patent of Rudolph into Von Rossberg. His daughter lived with the Emperor and was the mother of three of Rudolph’s children. He died in 1585, just at the time when my MS. came to Prague, while he was Director of Rudolph’s Museum. His son, Octavius, upon the death of his father, becamse the director of the Museum and he was followed in his turn by a famous crook, Dionysius Miseroni. Perhaps something relating to the MS. is mentioned in connection with these people.
The French archeologist, Jules Caesar Boulinger, made a valuation of the gold and other articles in the museum. Perhaps he speaks somewhere about my MS.
As I told you in London that there existed in Rome twelve volumes in MS. of Kircher’s correspondence. These volumes are lost but it appears that in the 18th century one volume of his correspondence was published. I can’t get the book here and who can tell perhaps it contains correspondence with Marcus Marci or about the mysterious personage who bequeathed the MS. to Marcus Marci, and who says himself that he corresponded with Kircher about it. You understand what I want – look through this volume of correspondence for any reference or hint about my MS.
Also please look through the Histories of Rudolph II by Joseph Svatek to see what he says about the discussions between Rudolph and Dee about Bacon.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 12:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(31-10-2025, 04:10 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Rich, it looks like you're trying to pull a fast one here. The origin of the Voynich MS is not being derailed. What is being derailed are the posts of other forum members who intend to write about their own subjects and this gets dragged into other directions. While this will frequently happen to some extent, I applaud the efforts to limit this.
This is not at all specific to the 'Voynich faked it' theory. The rules that were put in place were triggered by other theories that kept derailing discussions.
Rene! Welcome to Forgery Prison! I hope you wiped your feet before entering. Ha!
No "fast one" Rene... I wasn't using any trickery, and my point is intact, and I stand by it.
And like it or not, forgery possibles are enmeshed with almost every feature of the Voynich. So trying as you are to distinguish between Koen's use of "derailment" as relating only to individual threads, rather than in the greater sense of derailing the popular narrative of "the origin of the Voynich" (which, by the way, you are wrong... I didn't actually mean), I feel that is a distinction without a difference. Whether individual discussions or the Voynich as a whole, the issue of possible forgery applies to all of it, it is the same problem. So if these ideas derail the small, that means the larger case can't sustain scrutiny either. And it can't. Whether or not the Voynich is real (which, by now, I do doubt), or a forgery, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. And that is my point... it clearly can't, if any discussion can be upset by bringing it up.
And hey I'm behaving myself in here, not spreading insurrection to the outside Ninja world, as per Tavie's orders! But come back to check on me once in awhile if you like. Bring us a couple of coffees next time! And get me a window and a television, if you talk to the warden.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 02:41 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-11-2025, 12:21 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- It You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", which was Voynich's favorite bookNarrowly sticking to my point, this doesn't answer questions about the patterns in the (possibly non-) cipher, which is still a pretty substantial mystery
As for the patterns detected in the writing of the Voynich, by many and varied tests, yes some have detected "language-like" patterns. But two things about that: If there is meaning in the Voynich, it is not a sign of genuine, as most forgeries actually have meaning... think of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, the Howard Hughes will, the Oath of a Freeman, the Diary of Hitler... and on and on. Yet I've seen several people in lectures, and in writing, incorrectly equating meaning=genuine in the Voynich. Why I don't know, it really doesn't follow. But I think the major incentives to look for meaning in Voynichese are to 1) help solving it, but more importantly, 2) because while most forgeries have meaning, no meaning would be a very strong indicator of forgery. I mean, I know of no genuine documents or books written with no meaning, unless for purely artistic purposes. Well it could be an old fake, to fool others, too. But most likely, gibberish=forgery.
The second point to that is that there is some evidence that gibberish... random human output... will reflect the language structure of the producer. Helene Smith and her "Martian speak" are a good example of this. There were others.
(01-11-2025, 02:41 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... even if I take Bolton as a smoking gun of a forgery. (You probably correctly detect I don't; like a lot of "looks like" theories, I don't see correspondences that are particularly discriminating, and I could just as soon take the looser parallels I do see as suggestive it was the sort of thing Rudolf II would have been interested in purchasing.)
Well the thing is, it is not a direct equation. A person who was presented with the Voynich for the first time, and had not analyzed any of the content with any research, and then reading Bolton, might say "I don't get it". But it is when one looks at all the research into the Voynich and its supposed backstory, and the resulting suggestions of what all that means, that the comparisons come into sharp focus. This is far too large a subject for a thread comment, but in Follies are mentioned John Dee and Edward Kelley, Scrying, glossolalia, Francis Bacon and the New Atlantis, New World plants, Jewish traditions and persons, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, medicines and apothecary, animals of the New World, alchemy, herbals and botany, the Zodiac, astronomy and astrology, medicine and biology... these off the top of my head, there are many more. Also, the magic wheel of Dee, and his shewstone are illustrated in the book... very similar to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. wheel in the Voynich, in which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
But we also have a great coincidence here, as I wrote in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., "I believe Wilfrid’s original intent was to make the Voynich look as though it was a work from the hand of the (probably invented) Christian Hořčický, a character who Bolton places as the owner of the (also imaginary?) “The City Pharmacy” in the Capitol of Bohemia. Perhaps Wilfrid’s intention was that it looked to have been owned or written by him, or written and/or owned by his son, Jakub Hořčický. The latter is real, and was actually the chief botanist and physician to Rudolf II. In any case, the Voynich manuscript practically leaps from the pages of the faulty but imaginative Bolton work, and specifically seems to be related to the work of these two men in relation to the Court. As icing inked on the proverbial cake, Jakob Hořčický actually “signed” the Voynich, as Jacobus de Tepencz.
"And both Hořčický’s figure largely in “Follies”, for their skills as a botanist and pharmacist. As an example, on page 150, “Jacob’s knowledge of botany was of great assistance to Christian Horcicky in the collection and identification of medicinal plants, both indigenous and exotic…”"
Anyway, there is still more to that story, other coincidental (or not) connections between Bolton, Wilfrid and the Voynich, but that is too long already.
(01-11-2025, 02:41 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also think in this telling Voynich made a real mess of things in ways that made his ultimate goal of cashing in on a lost Bacon manuscript harder for himself. I'm not completely unsellable on the conclusion it's a forgery, but one reason I have remained skeptical is that it requires me to believe that Voynich vacillated between a very skilled forgery and a very incompetent scam, and I think the neatest way to resolve that is to instead posit he was struggling with the same ineffable text the rest of us are. The former certainly isn't impossible, but proponents of your theory tend to underestimate how much they are relying on Voynich to have been exactly as brilliant or foolish as each line of evidence requires, and it nags at me.
I agree, real or fake, Wilfrid really did make a mess of things, and pretty much made it very hard to sell the work. Bacon was a bad choice. But as for this, "... it requires me to believe that Voynich vacillated between a very skilled forgery and a very incompetent scam".
I respect your opinion on the "skilled" part, but I never felt that way about it. I think it is actually a very poor forgery, clumsy and unskilled. The idea that skill was involved... and I have discussed this with many people, maybe the thought process for you is the same... that "If a forgery is must be a skilled product, because it fooled so many". And not really skilled in the sense of an able artist?
Anyway, I think it is a bad forgery, that is how I see it... and the reasons it has fooled people so well, for so long, are varied. A few, off the top of my head for now... and it is getting late, and I am tired! But I think it continues to fool (if it is fooling, that is, and not genuine) because:
- The original, 1910's and 1920's assessments, and the word of Voynich, which, at the time of discovery had weight. Today, we need much more, but we carry the baggage of the weight of those original assessments, when if we were presented with the work today for the first time, we would laugh at it as a bad and obvious fake. That is, we tend to see it first through the eyes of generations that told us it was real, and a great mystery, and not really with fresh eyes, as we should.
- People are just in love with it, and feel that it would lose its appeal to them if it turned out to be a fake. They want it to be real. This is why I often get such a visceral, emotional response to my ideas, I think, when other ideas, no matter how wild, get a grin and a yawn. I've been blocked on facebook, lied about, banned from speaking, threatened with a beating, insulted... and censored (!!!). Not complaining really (well a bit, I'm not a robot), but I think the idea of forgery is very offensive to many. I actually know one researcher who came to believe I was correct, and they became very upset because of it, no longer liked the Voynich, and withdrew from the field entirely.
- Some wrongly attach their personal and professional reputations to a Genuine verdict, and think that they would lose that if they were wrong. Then they think it will affect their "real life" reputation, that they will be judged for misjudging it. I have real reason to believe this is the case in some instances, but that is all I will say about that. Me, I really don't care what it is... genuine, old, fake, new, made by a crazy person, a drug addict, a genius doctor in 1420. I don't care, I just want to know the answer. Maybe because I have the freedom of no reputation to begin with! As Janice Joplin famously pointed out... "Freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose'.
- People don't want to lose their "seat at the table". While I've been invited to be interviewed in half a dozen documentaries, spanning two of my previous theories, this sort of attention dried up as I became associated with my forgery theory. I had lectured at several events until my newer ideas halted that trend, too. That's understandable to some extent, but the the point is, genuine sells, forgery does not. People are drawn to the ancient mystery aspect; and repelled by the cheap modern fake one. It would be naive to deny that for many, they will tend to want to be accepted into the popular cliches, and will unknowingly then tend to eschew those tenets that the group disdains. Obviously this does not apply to most people... but I've seen it, and it is definitely a factor for some. So this effect also tends to work against free discussion of forgery, for if people can't hear a talk about it they won't even know of it.
- Once projected as genuine and old, the type of testing and investigation that might counter that vision tends to not be done. Why test for forgery, if you "know" it is real? Yet there are many tests and investigations that could still be done, in that direction, but nobody would ever do them. So genuine becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that way. And even existing test results are "processed" in a genuine direction, because they "know" it is real.
So in answer to your point, yes I agree Voynich made a mess his presentation of it, but that I feel it was both an incompetent forgery and an incompetent scam, in a very gullible age. And we inherited that scenario, and have trouble breaking free of it. But to that point, and my bullet list, above... a great quote by the authors of "Faking MesoAmerica", which I think is hugely appropriate to the Voynich field, and a powerful driving force to preserving its desired image of integrity, even at the cost of science and open discussion:
Quote:"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dismissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."- Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, "Faking Mesoamerica"