+- 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, 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.
Since you have, as Rich put it above, chosen to “open the wound” -- and injected an off-topic post in this thread to do so -- a response is appropriate. And I must second everything in his response.
It seems you still haven’t fully recognized that:
- Your actions were inappropriate, as well as offensive and unproductive
- You misunderstood and misapplied the rule Koen outlined and that you think you are referring to
I don’t think anyone doubts that you aim to be consistent, and you may believe you were, but in this instance you were not—you misstepped. You may not feel bias influenced your actions, yet it was apparent to at least two of us independently. Regardless, the outcome is the same.
Everyone else has moved on. You should do the same and simply try to do better going forward.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Koen G - 01-11-2025
Open wounds? Jesus Christ, Rich, did you also moderate a drama forum?
We have no intent to censor you. Your beliefs get a lot of exposure and reactions at Voynich Ninja, and I'm happy about that. But your theory is a personal one, just like Cvetka's Slovenian theory, Antonio's "visual code" theory, Ruby's Greek theory and so forth. These all challenge the currently dominant view that the manuscript is an unsolved medieval mystery.
I don't think the Flat Earth theory would get as much leeway on an astronomy discussion board as fringe theories do here. And it will stay that way.
I won't comment on the Marci Wax thread since I was sick when that was going on and I haven't even caught up with everything yet. I am not going to read that and then judge after the facts. Let's just start with a clean slate again and make an effort to avoid long discussions about your theory in threads that started out about something else. (I know you are often not the 'instigator'
) If there are any further bleeding wounds, please PM me. These kinds of public spats don't reflect well on anyone involved.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:10 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I won't comment on the Marci Wax thread since I was sick when that was going on and I haven't even caught up with everything yet. I am not going to read that and then judge after the facts. Let's just start with a clean slate again and make an effort to avoid long discussions about your theory in threads that started out about something else. (I know you are often not the 'instigator'Koen, with all due respect -- and I do respect you and your management of this forum immensely -- if you have not even read the posts which launched this nonsense -- and say you don't intend to --- then how can you possibly comment on the situation as you have?!
If there are any further bleeding wounds, please PM me. These kinds of public spats don't reflect well on anyone involved.
You have just made accusations based on what you assume was said and done in that initial thread.
There was no "long discussion about [Rich's] theory" in that thread". There was a discussion about the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" phrase that was brought up -(by the thread's author!) in regard to the Marci Wax, and that was being responded to. -- it was as on-topic as one could possibly expect in a forum like this. And in response to it, Tavie decided to shut down the discussion and close the thread. The continuation of the whole thing is really on Tavie, and now you.
And frankly, the practice of "I am going to accuse you publicly, but you have to respond to me privately" is immature.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 01-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:10 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Open wounds? Jesus Christ, Rich, did you also moderate a drama forum?
We have no intent to censor you. Your beliefs get a lot of exposure and reactions at Voynich Ninja, and I'm happy about that. But your theory is a personal one, just like Cvetka's Slovenian theory, Antonio's "visual code" theory, Ruby's Greek theory and so forth. These all challenge the currently dominant view that the manuscript is an unsolved medieval mystery.
I don't think the Flat Earth theory would get as much leeway on an astronomy discussion board as fringe theories do here. And it will stay that way.
I won't comment on the Marci Wax thread since I was sick when that was going on and I haven't even caught up with everything yet. I am not going to read that and then judge after the facts. Let's just start with a clean slate again and make an effort to avoid long discussions about your theory in threads that started out about something else. (I know you are often not the 'instigator'
If there are any further bleeding wounds, please PM me. These kinds of public spats don't reflect well on anyone involved.
Well that's nice... "drama"? And equating my Modern Forgery to the level of "Flat Earth" theories? Why do you feel a need to be so insulting? And by the way, needing to mock another person's strongly held ideas is not only a base tactic, but also a tacit admission they are not confident in their position. I have no need to mock or demean your belief in 1420 Genuine, by any means, and never do. I don't want to! And even if I did, I would know it is not right to do.
I choose to argue with facts and reasoning, because I am confident in my theory.
I've not attacked you, not once. And I'll point out that I am not the one who keeps bringing this up. I have not once, except when you, Rene, or Tavie do. And while doing it, you keep violating the exact same rule you accuse me of: Off topic posts. This is not a "chastise and insult a member thread", is it? It is now, apparently. What else is it you expect me to do, besides not challenge the genuine-centric posts the other threads, and to stay in here with my ideas? What more are you looking for?
And yes, Tavie's actions are the exact definition of censorship: My posts were removed from the ongoing conversation they applied to, and put somewhere else. That is just plain wrong on every level, and as amply pointed out, violates your own rules about topicality, ignores the posts using the information on the watermarks as evidence of genuine (which has a right to be there, as mine did), and so on. But still you bring it up in here... all of you did, so far... is it that you want me to change my mind, and tell you its OK and proper to do this?
"But your theory is a personal one...".
What is the point of that? Are you suggesting that the number of people who believe in a theory is an indication of its level of correctness? Consensus is not science. But it is not true that it has no adherents, it has a great many, inside and outside the general Voynich community. Some post under pseudonyms, as they see what happens for challenging the Paradigm. And also, in my experience, many people who share your paradigm are not aware of the many problems with the Voynich, the anachronisms and anomalies. They are led down the Primrose Path under the mistaken assumption that it is a proven genuine 15th century manuscript. Rene and Rafal, one or both, actually wrote that in the introduction to the Skinner Voynich book... that forgery was "disproven". That is not true, of course.
And your own YT video, countering my theory: It left out all of the counter facts to genuine, and misstated and edited the points OF my theory... which again resulted in a biased and skewed impression of my own work, and the problems with the Voynich. You even deleted at least one of my responses under the video, which challenged points you made in it! My theory does not need to leave out any of the points used to support genuine, while genuine relies on censoring counter points.
"These kinds of public spats don't reflect well on anyone involved."
No, they don't, I agree. But I remind you that 1) I didn't start it, it was your moderator, Tavie, who censored me, and deleted my posts from an appropriate thread, and moved them to another they didn't belong in, 2) I only complained about that, once, then dutifully obeyed, followed the rules, and went to the place she sent me, and 3) remained SILENT about it... no "spat", not a peep from me, until 4) you all keep coming in here, and riling things up, and 5) I ONLY respond to these intrusions, then go silent, again, as I will, again... until?
There were no "spats" in here, and would not be, but you keep starting them up again. Why? I'm "behaving", can't you guys leave well enough alone?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Bluetoes101 - 01-11-2025
This is not true. It's clearly off-topic and unwanted theory insertion.
Can we just move on?
(this is the first mention of topic - by Rich)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 11:59 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is not true. It's clearly off-topic and unwanted theory insertion.
Can we just move on?
(this is the first mention of topic - by Rich)
That's it, that's what you got from this whole situation? Yes, I confess... the discussion was partly about...
- the importance and implications of finding this watermark and identifying it.
- because watermarks are evidence used to determine age, geographic origins, and, sorry, authenticity
- and so, yes, I pointed out that this watermark might, in some cases, be used to help determine authenticity, based on whether or not other Marci paper used it
- As Lisa did, in using the "Absence of Evidence it not evidence of absence argument", which in this case was saying that even if a known Marci example was not found, the letter could still be real... yet, I would never even consider that Lisa's point be censored, or moved, for suggesting reasons the watermark find might always imply genuine.
[EDIT TO ADD] - And anyway, note my wording in your clip, "if the the Marci letter "found" in the Voynich is real": My point was NOT that the watermark meant fake or real, only properly pointing out that it would help to make that determination, which is true. I also mentioned that IF the tres cappelli watermark was found on any other Marci letters, it would be a sign the letter was genuine. Point being, I was not even... "promoting"? Advocating?... for my theory on the basis of this find, I was discussing the possible future implications of the evidence.
Anyway, you are also complaining, and incorrectly, about breaking the rules, while you are actually doing the same, by arguing this issue in the Modern Forgery Hypothesis thread. It's not the "Did Rich break the rules or not" thread. And all THAT being said, I think this covers it best: "Really? Are you serious?" You have actually only pointed out how lame, if not ludicrous, this whole complaint against me is. That ANY mention of ANY feature of the Voynich or the letter can NEVER be mentioned in the context of possible forgery.
Again, "Really?" You want to go with THAT?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Bluetoes101 - 02-11-2025
That's it, that's what you got from this whole situation? Yes, I confess... the discussion was partly about...
ok
- the importance and implications of finding this watermark and identifying it.
agreed
- because watermarks are evidence used to determine age, geographic origins, and, sorry, authenticity
No, you inserted that unprompted to insert your ideas to the thread.
- and so, yes, I pointed out that this watermark might, in some cases, be used to help determine authenticity, based on whether or not other Marci paper used it
Above.
- As Lisa did, in using the "Absence of Evidence it not evidence of absence argument", which in this case was saying that even if a known Marci example was not found, the letter could still be real... yet, I would never even consider that Lisa's point be censored, or moved, for suggesting reasons the watermark find might always imply genuine.
This statement was made after your post. Yes, obviously.
I don't have any compliant against you. I think some posts in here are condescending and rude to Tavie, that makes me a bit uncomfortable and I thought they were unneeded. While I don't find your theory obviously appealing to me I've been taking time to read it and will continue to.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 12:22 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-11-2025, 11:59 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is not true. It's clearly off-topic and unwanted theory insertion.That's it, that's what you got from this whole situation?
...
...
Again, "Really?" You want to go with THAT?
LOL... once again, rational minds agree -- I had the same response when I saw what Bluetoes' wrote.
The operative word in his post is "unwanted". Unfortunately, I don't think he and others like that are able to even see the hypocrisy. If one were to apply his desperate standard for what is to be considered "off topic" to all the posts in this forum, it would result in hundreds of thousands of truncated unintelligible threads. (Currently there are only about 3,400.)
(I've noticed similar instances of irrational bias on this forum ever since I joined it a few years ago. But there are also some good minds and lots of interesting and objective discussion so it's worth ignoring.)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - rikforto - 02-11-2025
(01-11-2025, 03:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I apologize if this is repetitive, but to that point, I doubt this was created as a Bacon work to begin with.
And I have noted that this hypothesis relies on degrees of freedom in Voynich's actions when it hits a snag like this one. Perhaps---and not even implausibly!---he changed tact in the middle of his scam. I would very much like some evidence for that which is not deduced from the conclusion it is meant to support before I give it any more weight than any of a number of other conjectures on this forum. And even if that is established, I will repeat that the question of his thinking behind the (pseudo?) cipher is a genuine puzzle and a loose end that would speak to his shifting motivations and potentially open a new line of evidence for modern origins if it could be answered. Why this hoax? is to my mind a very live question even if you establish through other means it was a hoax. I was hoping my original interlocutor would take that more seriously when I jumped into this thread.
You can continue to cite other lines of evidence and reasoning to establish plausibility, but I've been quite clear that I see your telling of Voynich's actions as speculative rather than implausible. If you cannot directly address the gaps in what we actually know about Voynich's motivations, and such a thing is admittedly difficult to do, then I would go back to my original point and say that I think the oddity of Voynich's supposed actions under the hoax theory should be taken seriously and this will be my last communication with you on that point. If you have been withholding direct evidence for how and why Voynich made this forgery, I'll be happy to consider it. Given that you already spoke to the great many uncertainties in the text, I think you should agree that this gap exists and recognize why many of us take it seriously when evaluating conjectures about Voynich's supposed motivations.
Finally, I notice that you have been very vocal and combative on this thread about the bounds of discourse and how people should engage, and I have found that very frustrating next to your attempts to refocus my point towards tangential lines of evidence I have not weighed in on and have indicated an unwillingness to expand the scope of our conversation towards. I don't want to debate the semantics of derailing exactly as that conversation would have been on the right thread by being here, but I have had to do a fair amount of work to keep this discussion from becoming a broad-ranging debate of every point you've ever made, all the while having limited success getting you to address my particular concern head on. Questions of how and where the moderators should intervene aside, I will ask you to consider why this kind of rapidly expanding and drifting scope might be frustrating for people trying to follow a specific point that does not readily fit your ideas about how best to approach the document.
Best of luck fleshing out this hypothesis going forward, I hope you'll give the gap I've identified some serious consideration on its own merits as it may prove fertile ground for finding new lines of inquiry around it.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 01:59 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... I notice that you have been very vocal and combative on this thread about the bounds of discourse and how people should engageSo -- you see how this works Rich?
You dared to make a reference that was relevant to a thread's ongoing discussion and which was no more "off-topic" than hundreds of other references, BUT it alluded to an idea that was deemed to be taboo. So that thread was shut down and you were banished to this thread ... dedicated to your theory... but where people are apparently free to go off-topic in order to criticize YOU and dwell further on your perceived misbehavior and to go on about how the discourse is to be bounded. And if you have the audacity to then respond and defend yourself, well hell -- you are just being "vocal and combative"!
How dare you!