+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Panel Session] Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 (/thread-2138.html)
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - ReneZ - 29-10-2017
Doranchak,
I'm not as optimistic as JKP.
I have had opportunity to discuss all of this with Rich over a number of years, but I stopped that and have no intention to restart it, let alone repeat it.
The study of fakes is in itself highly interesting. There are a number of more-or-less famous cases, and one can find quite a lot of information about these in the net:
- the Archaic Mark (search terms "Barabe" and "Quandt" will help)
- The Vinland map
- Galilei's "Siderius Nuncius" ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )
From these, it should be clear that the decision whether a book is genuine or not is not made on the basis of raising suspicions, but by dedicated and detailed investigations of the original.
Rich's list of "red flags" are a list of "suspicions" and essentially all of them are points that are completely normal also for genuine books. They should be followed up in detail to see which of the two options applies. And for many of them this has been done.
Rich makes the inexplicable (because completely opposite to the truth) statement that Yale/Beinecke are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS.
I hardly know any MS that has been subject to so many tests.
None of these tests have demonstrated anything suspicious. They were done among others by the same people who exposed the Archaic Mark mentioned above.
Comparing the illustrations with other books leads different people to conclude that:
- it is post-1900
- it is 16th Century meso-american
- it is Asian
- it is Greco-Egyptian
- etc.
These comparisons cannot be relied upon.
If anyone is seriously interested in this topic, I have some links, but one has to realise that it requires a lot of reading and digging quite deeply.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - Helmut Winkler - 29-10-2017
I just wasted half an hour on the video and there's nothing he hasn't told us in the last few years without responding to the justified criticism.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - doranchak - 29-10-2017
(29-10-2017, 05:54 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Doranchak
I expect you know that Nick Pelling, a researcher and cryptologist who has studied the VMS for almost twenty years, providing much original commentary and so on, has also been interested in the zodiac ciphers.
His posts at ciphermysteries.com should give you a fairly solid ground from which to advance any new ideas you may have. Nick not only provides his own thoughts, but links to the work of earlier researchers, or those whose opinions agree with or differ from his own.
Hope the talk goes well.
Thanks Diane. Yes, I know Nick and comment on his blog from time to time. He has some interesting ideas about the Zodiac ciphers. I also follow the ongoing debates in the comments about issues surrounding Voynich research and theories. They are very similar to the debates arising from the Zodiac case in which people get locked in with certain suspects and can't understand why others won't accept their suspects.
The talk went well - I am hoping to finish and upload the video some time today. I hope to see more Voynich-related talks at this symposium. Richard's was the only one. In 2015 there weren't any, except for a mention by Klaus Schmeh in his talk about encrypted books. A while back, Kevin Knight at USC did a talk called "What we know about the Voynich Manuscript" which I really enjoyed because it was a great summary of factual statistical information derived from the VMS text. I'd like to see more talks like that. There is so much text to work from, I'm sure there are a lot more observations that would be interesting to talk about.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - doranchak - 29-10-2017
Thanks, JKP and Rene, for your insights. It did seem as though many of Richard's points were highly speculative, and that he would need to keep digging for a "smoking gun" to get beyond the shadow of a doubt on his hypothesis. But I very quickly get lost in the numerous historical details surrounding the manuscript; I tend instead to fixate on the math and computer science angles to the VMS.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - proto57 - 30-10-2017
(29-10-2017, 08:44 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Rich makes the inexplicable (because completely opposite to the truth) statement that Yale/Beinecke are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS."
David has informed me that I am welcome on the Ninjas, and I am grateful for the offer. From time to time I do rebut the claims of Rene and others on the voynich.net mailing list, when they misstate my theories or my intent in some way, on various other forums. And for the bulk of Rene's claims, above, I've done the same... but rather than re-post my entire set of corrections here, I'll limit my response to the above, quoted claim:
Rene, this is entirely incorrect. I have never even suggested that the Yale nor Beinecke "are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS". On the contrary, I am very grateful to the Beinecke for allowing such tests, and furthermore, allowing me, and others, access to every shred of documentation in the Voynich archives there. I was also, last fall, present at the official lecture on the release of the Yale book, by Mr. Clemens et. al., on the campus. I had a great chat with him, the staff, and various Voynich enthusiasts afterward, at the "wine and cheese" party in the Beinecke itself.
I have a great relationship with the Beinecke, and Yale as a whole (I do other research there from time to time), so I obviously needed to correct your statement, lest they read it, and believe it.
Perhaps your statement is an honest error on your part... although I listened to the presentation again, and can't see how it was misunderstood by you... but I'll assume it was some sort of error.
It further concerns me because it is not the first time you have made such claims... a couple of years ago, you similarly said I am involved in "conspiracy theories" relating to the Beinecke. I mention that, now, too, because it was as untrue then as it is, now, and I would again ask you to discontinue making such erroneous claims about me, and my opinion of the Beinecke Library.
Whether or not you apologize, and correct your statement or not, I am grateful to David for allowing my correction on this forum. Rich.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - ReneZ - 30-10-2017
Hi Rich,
I read that line in the presentation that was linked here a few messages earlier.
The page with the "red flags" point 8:
"8. There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original"
Rene
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - davidjackson - 30-10-2017
Hello Rich and welcome to the forums. I haven't had time to go over your presentation in detail yet, sadly, but will as soon as possible.
As a speaker at the conference, was there much Voynich related content apart from your own presentation?
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - asmask - 31-10-2017
(29-10-2017, 08:44 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich makes the inexplicable (because completely opposite to the truth) statement that Yale/Beinecke are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS.
Hi, I haven't really been following this discussion very long, but this isn't correct.
(30-10-2017, 07:10 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I read that line in the presentation that was linked here a few messages earlier.
The page with the "red flags" point 8:
"8. There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original"
These "red flags" refer to characteristics of works with respect to their reputation as forgeries or genuine works in general, not with specific regard to the VM. On the same slide you're talking about, Rich lists eleven points that may indicate forgery status and states that the VM is characteristic of ten of them. While "8. There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original" is one of the points that Rich argues as indicating the VM is a forgery, he never says, "this point is in especial regard to the VM's time at Yale/Beinecke," or anything of that sort.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the video timestamped where he discusses that particular point. Both the slide and Rich's commentary discuss the VM during the time it was in the hands of Voynich himself and how Voynich only allegedly only showed the MS in-person to those who were "favorable" to the Bacon train-of-thought. Notice, Yale/Beinecke is not mentioned during this part.
Yes, the claim itself is "inexplicable," and "completely opposite to the truth" (to use your own words), and defies what may be considered common-knowledge to those who follow the VM to any considerable degree, but Rich didn't actually make that claim. I could see how you'd suppose he was making that claim, but only if you told me that you watched exactly only the first seven minutes, and not the rest. And if that were the case, why would you post about it?
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - ReneZ - 31-10-2017
Well, it is gratifying to have the inexplicable explained satisfactorily, and I am happy to see, as I had begun to suspect after Rich's reaction, that the point wasn't against the Beinecke library but against Voynich.
My mistake.
However, that still doesn't make it any more correct.
I really doubt that it would be normal for antiquarian book dealers to subject their books to (forensic?) tests, but Voynich did one himself, to visualise the Tepenec signature.
More importantly, he did show this MS around quite a lot.
Singer reports seeing the MS in the hands of the book dealer Baer of Frankfurt, which may have been in 1912 or even 1911. (Singer only traveled to Frankfurt in the years 1911-1914, and one of the Baer brothers started a shop in London in 1911).
Millicent Sowerby, who was working in Voynich's shop in London from end 1912 to 1914 (from memory) reports how visitors would come to this shop to admire his recent acquisitions, especially the famous Roger Bacon cipher.
After Voynich moved to the US in 1914, he started a road tour, showing the most important items of his collection. The Roger Bacon cipher MS was one of the stars in these events. The first were in Princeton University and in New York city. The best known (and best documented) event was at the Art institute in Chicago (Oct. 1915), followed by the University of Michigan (early Nov.), the University of Illinois (mid Nov.), the Albright Art Gallery in Buffalo (mid Dec.) and other museums.
He repeated this later (1917 I believe).
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - asmask - 31-10-2017
(31-10-2017, 07:14 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More importantly, he did show this MS around quite a lot.
Singer reports seeing the MS in the hands of the book dealer Baer of Frankfurt, which may have been in 1912 or even 1911. (Singer only traveled to Frankfurt in the years 1911-1914, and one of the Baer brothers started a shop in London in 1911).
Millicent Sowerby, who was working in Voynich's shop in London from end 1912 to 1914 (from memory) reports how visitors would come to this shop to admire his recent acquisitions, especially the famous Roger Bacon cipher.
After Voynich moved to the US in 1914, he started a road tour, showing the most important items of his collection. The Roger Bacon cipher MS was one of the stars in these events. The first were in Princeton University and in New York city. The best known (and best documented) event was at the Art institute in Chicago (Oct. 1915), followed by the University of Michigan (early Nov.), the University of Illinois (mid Nov.), the Albright Art Gallery in Buffalo (mid Dec.) and other museums.
He repeated this later (1917 I believe).
This is a much more interesting line of discussion. (Maybe Rich will retort here?)
I have heard casually, over the years, both this claim and the claims that Rich make in his video. The "he showed it off" and "he only showed certain people" arguments would seem to depend heavily on context. Admittedly, I don't know enough to side strongly either way; some extra-conversational resources may lend a lot here, and perhaps some of it is more readily available than what I am currently aware of.
For those of us who are less educated on the history of the VM, here some questions I think are pertinent to unraveling this matter (at least in part):
- How was the VM displayed in Voynich's shop, and to what extent was it subject to the scrutiny of the shop-goers?
- What documentation exists to support that the VM/"Bacon cipher" was a prevalent item in Voynich's roadshows?
- To what extent where the spectators of these venues allowed to examine the VM?
- Exactly which scholarly figures were permitted to examine closely the VM, and is there any reason to suppose they had bias strongly in favor of Voynich's claims as to the provenance/origins of the MS?
- For that matter, were there dissenting claims as to the VM's provenance/origins, and if so, who made such claims, and how prevalent were such claims?