+- 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 - rikforto - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 05:38 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
I chose my wording carefully to indicate that I felt this held even if it were a fake and there was no underlying plain text. This differs from many of the examples you give; there is no need to explain what Russian is or why the Protocols are written in it to make sense of the forgery---though I am given to understand there were linguistic lines of evidence to establish it was unlikely the product of any Jewish group. For the VMS, there are looming questions like: who are the hands (are they all Voynich?), why are the languages separable but similar, how was the text actually composed? These don't necessarily have to be resolved to consider the MFH proved on other grounds, but my point remains that so long as they aren't, they are serious loose ends that bear serious consideration.
If pressed on the matter, I do think if it is a meaningful text then it is more likely to be genuine in this case, if only because it's proved a very crafty cipher that was well ahead of even the 20th Century's huge increase in cryptographic tools and know-how, and that's such an incongruous choice if Voynich's goal was to cash in on a newfound Bacon. But I offer that not because I think that clinches the argument so much as I think it shows Stolfi's point that I thought was inadequately addressed when I first jumped into this discussion. Multiple features of the text need to be explained, and this hypothesis does not, as of yet, fully explain them.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 04:12 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So if these ideas derail the small, that means the larger case can't sustain scrutiny either.
Non-sequitur.
Derailing forum discussions from one topic to another has nothing to do with the validity of one theory or another.
I will not continue arguments about forum rules.
I may argue about other points, but not now.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 07:57 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-11-2025, 05:38 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
I chose my wording carefully to indicate that I felt this held even if it were a fake and there was no underlying plain text. This differs from many of the examples you give; there is no need to explain what Russian is or why the Protocols are written in it to make sense of the forgery---though I am given to understand there were linguistic lines of evidence to establish it was unlikely the product of any Jewish group. For the VMS, there are looming questions like: who are the hands (are they all Voynich?), why are the languages separable but similar, how was the text actually composed? These don't necessarily have to be resolved to consider the MFH proved on other grounds, but my point remains that so long as they aren't, they are serious loose ends that bear serious consideration.
If pressed on the matter, I do think if it is a meaningful text then it is more likely to be genuine in this case, if only because it's proved a very crafty cipher that was well ahead of even the 20th Century's huge increase in cryptographic tools and know-how, and that's such an incongruous choice if Voynich's goal was to cash in on a newfound Bacon. But I offer that not because I think that clinches the argument so much as I think it shows Stolfi's point that I thought was inadequately addressed when I first jumped into this discussion. Multiple features of the text need to be explained, and this hypothesis does not, as of yet, fully explain them.
Those are all good points, of course... and so far, so little is known about the nature of the Voynich text that I don't think anyone can answer them. And so I also don't think we can only give educated guesses to what it all means. Really all of us could come up with lists of them. A few of my own opinions on these issues:
- If the Voynich is genuine I could see it being gibberish, unlike most real works. Maybe something 15th century to fool others for reputation or profit
- If it has meaning, real or fake, old or new, I think the type of cipher is different than those that are usually assumed and tested for. I've suggested a type of numerical cipher along the lines of Selenius, and also Biliteral, but high on my personal list would be some form of Steganography... not "stenography". Any of these would hide the underlying text "in plain sight", and not directly relate, as a cipher/code/conlang would, to the observed text. And if one accepts the possibility that it could be modern, effort should be expended on more modern methods. This was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... to not let preconceptions about the VMs age cause one to skip testing newer methods*. I equated that to the old "looking under lampposts" adage:
- I do tend toward the text being meaningless, however, and only there to give an impression of hidden meaning. I feel this way because I don't think any of the test results have yet shown otherwise, convincingly; some of the results seem to point to gibberish; as I said, there is evidence that even gibberish will reflect patterns of meaningful use of language; complex ciphers will mostly disturb the pattern we do see; too much repetition; the ciphers I've suggested, and some others would not convey enough information per page.
- I feel and have long suggested that those who do seriously attempt to decode/decipher/translate Voynichese all pick a section and all stick to it. I have suggested the first two paragraphs of f1r: This, so that results, when compared to each other, will have the same text as a control. Also, I guess that the author would have been more careful at first, so these passages would more likely be devoid of mistakes. And lastly, that this area would most likely contain information global to the manuscript as a whole, and therefore... possibly... be more recognizable and helpful as "cribs"... such as author name, dedicatory name, purpose of the work, and so on. So, if only partially deciphered, may be more helpful than an interior page, which would only have, like "tulip" and "cook" or whatever.
Anyway, I really appreciate your willingness to have this discussion. And I think... hope... you understand that, despite some negative projections of my attitude and intent, I in no way am trying to change anyone's mind, and only find that open minded discussions like this are really helpful, as they get myself and others to think about these problems in ways that may not occur in isolation.
Rich
* A great book demonstrating the importance of keeping an open mind is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Andrew Robinson. Ventris was of the opinion that Linear B must be Phoenician, but he kept and open mind to the ideas of the late Alice Kober that it could be Attic Greek. If he was stubborn, and only looked to his own beliefs, he never would have solved it. He was also of the mind that open and free discussion was important... long before the internet, of course... so he had a mailing list to share ideas with other researchers. Personally I see his methods and attitude as a very important ones to solving any mystery, especially this one.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 07:57 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If pressed on the matter, I do think if it is a meaningful text then it is more likely to be genuine in this case, if only because it's proved a very crafty cipher that was well ahead of even the 20th Century's huge increase in cryptographic tools and know-how, and that's such an incongruous choice if Voynich's goal was to cash in on a newfound Bacon.
I didn't actually address this point in my last response: "... if Voynich's goal was to cash in on a newfound Bacon."
I apologize if this is repetitive, but to that point, I doubt this was created as a Bacon work to begin with. So if I am correct here, with Voynich already being committed to the text, he may not have no longer desired it to BE deciphered, once he shifted to pushing Bacon as author. And poor Newbold got caught up in all this, eventually tarnishing his posthumous reputation with his awful description suggestions. In that case, Voynich would breathe a sigh of relief at having Newbold direct and obscure the real underlying meaning for him, in a rather dramatic and public way.
And Newbold had quite a monetary incentive, as he was promised a great deal of money if "Bacon stuck", and then led to a sale of the work. Before I reported on this, it was assumed and reported that Voynich didn't offer to pay him anything, that his findings were therefore unbiased and pristine. But I photographed this note in the Voynich archives, which tells us differently:
That may be the only place you will see that note, as I don't think I've shared it, and I don't think anyone else has. I think it is Anne Nill's shorthand, and it describes an offer to Newbold of 10% of a sale up to $100,000, and 50% of anything over that. This would have amounted to over $170,000 in today's dollars.
So, in short, if Voynich succeeded in cashing in on his "new found" Bacon attribution, it very much... IMHO... have served him, and was serving him, to not have the Voynich deciphered... assuming it could be deciphered. But I still do not agree that meaning favors genuine, in this or any other case. Hopefully though, if it has meaning it is deciphered at some point, and that may offer us the answer.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 01:27 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-11-2025, 04:12 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So if these ideas derail the small, that means the larger case can't sustain scrutiny either.
Non-sequitur.
Derailing forum discussions from one topic to another has nothing to do with the validity of one theory or another.
I will not continue arguments about forum rules.
I may argue about other points, but not now.
Well again, we will have to "agree to disagree" on these points, as we often have in our long association. I believe we two represent an almost perfect dichotomy in all things Voynich, and this may never change. But I have every right to disagree that the rules are beneficial to anyone, and that they are obviously unequally applied in my case, and that I actually never have, in my opinion, even broken those rule... while doing my best to obey them, as outlined by Tavie, Koen, and yourself. There is not much more that I can do about it, after that.
And also, as always... our differences aside... I respect your opinions and the right to hold them, and that you may, in any way, think it reflects on my personal hope we can remain friends. That is, I completely separate our strong intellectual differences on all things Voynich; while still considering you a friend. I worry, from some of your responses, that you do not share that hope.
But I am patient, and persistent, if nothing else.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
Hi, Jorge: I'm not certain we have met in person, but I would enjoy a face-to-face discussion on all these issues someday.
You use the word "hallucinations" for alternate opinions on the identity of some images. I would personally prefer "pareidolia", as it can explain the phenomenon you are describing, but without the need for the observer to be in a poor mental state of some kind. But I understand your objections, and agree that different people will see these things differently, from different vantages and backgrounds. And there are so many dozens of such illustrations, and probably hundreds of opinions on each one, so it could be virtually impossible to cover all the facets of this issue.
Nonetheless I will attempt to briefly give my reasoning for the particular identifications you object to:
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi 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 has many illustrations for which the best comparisons are to items anachronistic to it, including post-Columbian plantsThe 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.
Well it is true that many plants, and/or parts of plants, are still considered as attempting to illustrate real plants. Likewise, many are clearly fanciful, or in great error. This leaves open the ability for anyone to claim identities for many of them, and for others to dismiss them. That will not change. It is an almost purely speculative problem, of course.
That being said, I do agree with many of the attempts at identification, and many of those are of New World plants. The work of Jules Janick is really well done, and he is a respected and able botanist. There are several other experts who also believe many of the plants are New World, starting with, of course, Hugh O'Neil. And I would also say that I, in no way, agree with ALL the New World plant identifications. I find maybe 10% to 20% of them convincing enough to rise to a strong case for New World origins or influence.
But here is the thing: ONLY one of them has to be correctly identified as New World for the Voynich to be post-Columbian. Just one. All of the dozens of identifications must be rejected on the grounds often given, such as pure fantasy plants, or cases of pareidolia, and so on. Those are answers that stretch credibility to me. But I've also found that while people claim pareidolia and so on for plants that counter 1420 Genuine, they are often, nonetheless willing to accept those plants and plant parts that support it.
And a last point: In my case, in my hypothesis, there is context to both New and Old World plants being in there, as New World plants were of great interest to Old Europe, and Rudolf II, and other collectors and scientists, including Kircher. Especially the sunflower. If, as I posit, one were to make a fake to look as though it came from that Court, and with association with Horcicky (who signed it), it very much would include exactly what has been suggested by Janick et al.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:animals, devices, styles, possible microscopic cells and diatomsThose 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.
I am not alone in thinking their are strong similarities to microscopic, and even, microscopes (as you know, an idea I introduced in 2007), even if they believe the Voynich is circa 1420. I believe the "cells" idea even appears in D'Imperio (?). And of course, different people, and you and I, will have vastly different interpretations for all these illustrations. And the perfectly enigmatic nature of the Voynich disallows any firm identification. And it is too long a subject to cover adequately, here.
But there are a few points I can make here: First of all, it would have to be highly coincidental that several of the best identifications, by myself and others, "happen to be" in only four pre-1910 books on microscopy. Anyone can see those books, and those comparisons, here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
One of my favorite is from the 19th century "The Microscope And Its Revelations, by William B. Carpenter", the diatom found off the coast of Japan in the 19th century, and needing 512x magnification to see its details:
In this case, the "spokes", center, diameters of features, all line up almost perfectly. To me, this defies a claim of pareidolia, or "hallucinations", especially when considered the many other similarly good comparisons I've listed in my linked blog post. And it has context, too, if one accepts... as many do... the many features of the cylinders in the Voynich which are almost perfect matches to microscopes: The recessed tops and their color (early microscopes had green and blue tinted glass lenses), the knurled ridges (for focusing), the parallel multi-diameter sections (sliding sections for focus), the similar color and decoration, possibly representing the common leather cover and tooling of microscopes, and the legs on some (many early microscopes did have legs to raise the objective lens, and were even sometimes formed as "delphini", similar to the Voynich cylinder legs), and more. Here is just one example of many:
The actual microscope I show here was in the Museo Galileo, only about a quarter mile from Voynich's Florence shop when he was there. One example, but again there are many others, which can be found on my blog, in various posts over the years. And the presence of these, as microscopes, fits well within the overall context of my hypothesis, as they were in the Court of Rudolf II, owned and invented by both Kepler (1611 Dioptrice), and Drebbel while they were there, and plausibly known of by Horcicky while HE was in the Court... a man, of course, whose name appears on the first page of the Voynich. Context matters, and for all these comparisons to fit within that context to be imagined strains credibility. They fit with each other, with many opinions about the content and purpose of the Voynich (as a botanical compendium), their placement in the ms., and so on. And again, each and every one of them would have to be wrong, and explained away... to the last one... in order for the Voynich to be pre-1611, and more likely, a modern forgery meant to include this content.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Possible... I mean human bodies have not changed in probably a million or so years, and we have always been curious enough to poke around "in there". But despite extensive research by myself and another very good researcher (who strongly believed the Voynich is 1420 genuine) could not find satisfactory examples of such anatomical detail as many suppose is represented in the Voynich, until Gray. And the layout of the Gray images, and the selection, is surprisingly similar. But I agree it is not a strong point of this argument, and needs much further work to really know its implications. I don't live or die on it, but think that... again in context... it is weak but supportive evidence of modern content.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:women with stars on stringsWhat is wrong with those?
Another researcher pointed out on their blog... no longer extant... that the only place they could find any illustration of woman holding strings connected with stars was in an illustration by Elihu Vedder in an illustrated 1885 copy of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. It is of the Seven Sisters, i.e., The Pleiades. I found a comment by a person on the blog very telling, and one that illustrated a common explanation for such good comparisons, when they worked against 1420 Genuine. He wrote (paraphrasing, it is long gone), "This is very similar, I agree, and this shows that Vedder must have seen the Voynich". He then mused on the different ways the artist may have seen the Voynich, and the included "women with strings on stars", in order to be influenced to create his illustration. There are other examples of this line of reasoning, and I've heard that Tolkien might have seen the Voynich, too, to explain their comparisons, and so on. But in my opinion, it would be better to look at all these comparsions, and the one theory which would explain their inclusion, and, often, in an overall context.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:"pox leber"
Those writings are almost surely later additions.
But of course this is an often used rationale for modern evidence in the Voynich that runs contrary to 1420. However, in this case, McCrone found that the ink of the last page marginalia is actually the same ink of the main text, so it was not added later. Now interestingly this is a case of opinion adjusting to data, as before McCrone it was said what you reflected: This marginalia was in a different hand, by a different author, at a later date. Then one day I noticed that this opinion had quietly changed, but with no explanation. I wondered "what was up", so I went back and re-read McCrone, and then I knew why it changed. Anyway, one can either reject the ink findings in this case, and hold that that marginalia is later; or explain why the author of the Voynich wrote in a different hand, or maybe how there was another person there, using his/her inkwell. Or whatever, I've heard many takes on this. For anyone interested, they can read my opinions on this issue in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. From that post:
"A list of some of the various arguments I met with, used against this uncomfortable conclusion:
- It’s not “pox leber”
- It is “pox leber”, but the phrase may have existed early enough for the C14 range
- I’m reading the ink report of McCrone wrong
- McCrone must have information they did not reveal, which will show the ink is not the same
- I’m reading it right, but ink always looks similar enough to be deemed the same
- “So what?” if the Voynich author also penned the f166v marginalia? They just decided to use a different style and characters
- Nobody ever said the marginalia was added later, anyway, and don’t look…"
There are many examples of the "It is too new, so it was added; and if it could not have been added, it is not what you think it is", a disclaimer that always turns to C14 as the deciding factor. The whole field of Voynich research is rife with this line of reasoning, in order to make the square peg of what we see fit with the round hole that is the 1420 Genuine European Cipher herbal. One place with many of similar observations and disclaimers, some by Yale itself, can be found in my rebuttal to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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...
True for overall condition... but many, including me, have long noted how bright the colors are (I should have been more specific, sorry). That list is long... but in addition the the surprisingly bright colors, Dana Scott noted that there are some edges of the paper that are very bright, almost white, as though they had been trimmed in more recent times.
(01-11-2025, 02:55 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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
Well all I can say is I appreciate you interest, and even your strong disagreement with my ideas. I find it refreshing and interesting. And to make it clear, I highly respect your opinions, even while I do disagree with them.
All the best, Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - tavie - 01-11-2025
Evening, everyone.
Let me clarify something since it is important people understand how we apply this rule.
1. It may get little attention in most cases - which is usually a good thing since we don't want to create more disruption - but the rule has been enforced multiple times over the last year or two by Koen, and in the last few months also by me. The rule is our way of finding a balance: it helps keep the original thread on topic while still allowing people to continue sharing their theories and debate them.
2. We aim to be consistent. We don't want this to be a rule that is seen as applying to some people and not others. If you think we've not intervened when we should have, you can report the post to bring it to our attention. It may be that we missed the post in question. It may instead be that we disagreed: we thought it was neither a clear-cut issue, nor related to a topic that is likely to overshadow the original subject with a lot of replies.
3. With particular reference to the above point, had someone responded to the watermark thread saying "This is a known 17th century watermark, that's even more evidence that it's not a modern hoax", I would have taken the same action as I did in this case: asked people to take that particular argument to the modern hoax thread, and - if it continued - moved the posts both for and against modern hoax. This has nothing to do with my thoughts on the modern hoax theory and a lot to do with how it is a topic that always generates a lot of replies, likely to overshadow the original subject.
And back to your regularly scheduled programming.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 03:42 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
So let me see whether I got this right... The letters indicate that Voynich in 1920 was very interested in a certain "Tepenecz" but did not know yet that he was Sinapius, which he knew as a member of Rudolf's court.
So, is this a hint that he had already been able to read Tepencz's signature on f1r, but did not know who he was? And therefore that the signature is legit?
Do we know the date when he took that photograph of f1r, before smearing it with chemicals?
He still could have become interested in "Tepenecz" for some other reason, connected or not to the VMS. Then forged his signature only after learning that he was Sinapius. But admittedly this makes the theory quite a bit less likely.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 07:08 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Evening, everyone.
Let me clarify something since it is important people understand how we apply this rule.
1. It may get little attention in most cases - which is usually a good thing since we don't want to create more disruption - but the rule has been enforced multiple times over the last year or two by Koen, and in the last few months also by me. The rule is our way of finding a balance: it helps keep the original thread on topic while still allowing people to continue sharing their theories and debate them.
2. We aim to be consistent. We don't want this to be a rule that is seen as applying to some people and not others. If you think we've not intervened when we should have, you can report the post to bring it to our attention. It may be that we missed the post in question. It may instead be that we disagreed: we thought it was neither a clear-cut issue, nor related to a topic that is likely to overshadow the original subject with a lot of replies.
3. With particular reference to the above point, had someone responded to the watermark thread saying "This is a known 17th century watermark, that's even more evidence that it's not a modern hoax", I would have taken the same action as I did in this case: asked people to take that particular argument to the modern hoax thread, and - if it continued - moved the posts both for and against modern hoax. This has nothing to do with my thoughts on the modern hoax theory and a lot to do with how it is a topic that always generates a lot of replies, likely to overshadow the original subject.
And back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Tavie, with all due respect, the content you are referring to, the other content relating to it, the stated nature of the claimed "offenses" by me, and the punishment doled out... all do not match your explanation, above. You are re-writing history here. And by doing so, you have created "more disruption". I was and had put this behind me, and was happily obeying your dictates. It was done.
But since you have now decided to open the wound, I will point out that you have not applied your rules with consistence. In every thread, and even in the very thread I was censored from and removed from, by you, the discussion spreads out into a great many ideas, and alternate theories, and the implications in the discussions to all of them. That is not considered "derailing" the discussion. And yet, ONLY the discussion of Modern Forgery was considered, by you, as breaking the rules. And also ironically, I was ONLY addressing previous statements which were meant to affirm the authenticity of the letter! My comments were absolutely on target, on topic, and addressing an ongoing topic of discussion: How can the finding of this watermark be used to determine the genuine nature of the 1665/66 Marci letter. Those points remain, my counter point to them, removed. That is clearly biased. Anyone reading that thread will have NO IDEA of all the implications of the finding of that watermark, EXCEPT that they "support a genuine and old verdict for the 1665/66 Marci letter".
And anyone who reads that thread will have a skewed and biased understanding of that letter. That is the end result of your actions, which will now mislead researchers who are innocently trying to learn the truth about the Voynich and the letter. And THAT is clearly the point of your actions, whether you realize it, or never will. You also don't realize it, but most of what you know is not correct, or incomplete (in this very thread alone there are several instances in which it is clear that posters didn't know certain facts), I guarantee it... and this precisely because of the type of actions you took, for the Voynich can ONLY appear to be flawless if the many problems with it are ignored.
Read Thomas Kuhn, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., if you have not. You are a part of the currently accepted Paradigm, and knowingly or not, are working against challenges to that paradigm. And the mechanizations within paradigms are complex, and not always pretty, and also, not always scientific. And that book is almost a prophetic description of the entire structure of Voynich research, from the Beinecke's aquisition, to the books written, the hiearchy of the players involved, including you and I. Every action, every policy, every person, in the Voynich "world" is in that book, written long before we were born.
And even though I have dutifully and respectfully followed your uneven application of the rules, removed myself to this "Modern Forgery" thread (my little cell, it's cozy!), and except when Koen, and Rene, had commented on it, I still remained silent. What more can I do, than follow your rules? Now you seem to want me to agree that you have acted properly? I'm sorry, but they are patently, demonstrably, incorrect. Isn't following rules enough, or do you also insist I admonish you of culpability for doing what you did?
As said, I have moderated a half dozen forums, on all subjects, gaming, research, 3D modeling, submarines, iceboating... and the Voynich Mailing List and now, forum. Some of them probably before you were even born! I am 68 years old. And in any of these cases, I have not demanded that viewpoints alternate to any discussion be banned, censored, deleted, or moved. Not once. You are the first and only case I have seen so far. My rules for mailing list and forum posts has always and only been to abstain from threats, insults and obscenities. I only had to ban two people in decades of forum and list moderation, for direct threats and racist insults to other members... NOT for alternative viewpoints, even those strongly opposed to my own. As the introduction to the venerable and long lived Voynich mailing list and forum states,
Quote:"This is the headquarters site for VMs-list, the primary mailing list for scholars attempting to read the enigmatic Voynich Manuscript. The list was started in 1991 by Jim Gillogly (then of the RAND Corporation) and Jim Reeds (then of Bell Labs), and it moved here to voynich.net in December 2002. It is managed by the Mailman program, which allows you to subscribe and unsubscribe yourself. You can find complete instruction at that link. Send mail to the list administrator, Rich SantaColoma, if you need help with the directions.
"In April of 2020, the administrator began the Official Voynich Net Forum. It is my hope that the forum will continue the unique tradition of being an outlet for all ideas about the manuscript, so that researchers of all backgrounds, with their varied perspectives, will feel free to discuss both their mainstream, but also sometimes unconventional, and even controversial, ideas. I have long believed that this investigation cannot move forward without such an approach, and so perhaps extending this philosophy to a forum format will induce an even greater flow of free ideas."
You are welcome, of course, to run this forum however you like. And as always I will follow your rules, however I feel those rules detrimental to the free flow of ideas, and counter to open discussion as it is. I obeyed, and stayed here as of late, in order to address rebuttals to my own theories and ideas, due to the interest of others, and also to my belief that people have a right to know all aspects of any problem. I've watched people devote years to this problem, and several die during the pursuit. I deeply believe they have to right to a full picture of the thing they have devoted themselves to, and should not have the picture clouded for them, do to the preconceptions and biases of others. So, I stayed for a bit, to at least fill in missing information, and give my opinion on those, so they can make up their own minds with a full picture.
But the one thing I will not do is give you a pass for the way you have unfairly applied your rules, and how you have treated me. You actually owe me an apology, and should return those posts you moved, back to their appropriate thread. I am sure you will do neither, however, and I won't bring it up again... unless you choose to.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 07:46 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-11-2025, 03:42 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
So let me see whether I got this right... The letters indicate that Voynich in 1920 was very interested in a certain "Tepenecz" but did not know yet that he was Sinapius, which he knew as a member of Rudolf's court.
So, is this a hint that he had already been able to read Tepencz's signature on f1r, but did not know who he was? And therefore that the signature is legit?
Do we know the date when he took that photograph of f1r, before smearing it with chemicals?
He still could have become interested in "Tepenecz" for some other reason, connected or not to the VMS. Then forged his signature only after learning that he was Sinapius. But admittedly this makes the theory quite a bit less likely.
All the best, --stolfi
I agree with your points, Jorge... and in probably a very different way, they caused me to speculate on a few things:
First of all, you may or may not know this, but I photographed a photostat of f1r, prepared by Wilfred, which was made BEFORE the chemical treatment. While this was done hand held by me, in the Beinecke reading room, with window light, it was even more clear in person that the "signature" was quite obvious, and fairly readable to Voynich: So he did know of it, and what it said. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And here is a link to my full sized copy:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I want to go back with my copy camera stand, and make a proper, clearer copy. Anyway, I believe he very much did know the name, and the history, and the implications of all that, when he wrote to Prague. It is my opinion, but I believe he was "fishing" for official feedback, which he could then... and actually, did... use to "affirm" his desired information. It is a form of insulation. He had used this method before. In one case, using an expert in cartography to answer a question about the "Lost Chart of Magellan" he owned, and said expert opinion he then quoted in his catalog advertisement for the map!
Anyway, I wrote the post about the implication of his Prague letter, and what I feel was the very disingenuous nature, and purpose of it, in this post, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I do believe this is all very fishy, and really doesn't directly relate to issues of Voynich authenticity... except, maybe, to the descriptions in the Carteggio, as it begs the question, "If Voynich could see it, why didn't the men of the Letters see it, and so, tell Kircher about it?". At least, though, Rob pointed out, and I agree, Voynich clouded many issues like this, making it difficult to sort through the chaff to the wheat.