+- 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 - voynichbombe - 31-10-2017
Maybe the notion is due to M.E.D'Imperio stating "(...) Because of it's great financial value it's owners were understandably reluctant to allow unlimited access to it or reproduction of it (...) It is possible that the disastrous outcome of Newbold's researches and the disappointment occasioned by their failure may have resulted in an atmosphere of caution and of greater restriction on the part of the owners in providing access to the manuscript in subsequent years." (chapter 6, 39 pp.).
This statement is of course not very firm. Anyways it was "copies only" after 1931.
The "test" Voynich did himself is certainly of interest but should probably get discussed in a separate thread.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - voynichbombe - 31-10-2017
P.s.: @Proto57, great to have you "on board", Rich!
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - ReneZ - 31-10-2017
The most reliable report of Voynich's exhibitions of his books and manuscripts is a paper in the Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago. It's from 1915, so in principle out of copyright, but it is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , so I doubt that it is possible to just post it here in the library.
It is possible to have free access to JSTOR articles with some reasonable limitations ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ).
EDIT: the first link allows a free download of the article.
The most important thing to know is that Voynich acquired not just the Voynich MS from the Jesuits, but it was one of roughly 30 manuscripts. Many of them were displayed in the same way in these exhibitions.
There are also some newspaper reports from the other events, which are clearly less reliable, but you may find a summary You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
Access to the manuscript was certainly restricted after Voynich's death. Many people hoping to decipher the text tried in vain to get copies from E.L.V. This did not change when Kraus became the owner. The MS seems to have spent most of its time in safety deposite vaults.
This also had a good side effect, namely for radio-carbon dating.
This dating was made difficult for the Vinland map, as it was strongly affected by the radio-active fall-out from WW II detonations. The Voynich MS did not have this problem.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - proto57 - 17-11-2017
Rene wrote:
"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."
Thank you for the retraction. And thank you, Asmask, for correctly defining my point in the presentation.
To point out, it is not one of the stronger points on the list... it is true Voynich did show the ms. to people, but as for testing, no. I disagree of course that his claimed attempt to "reveal" the "signature" alleviates any suspicions, but rather the time line of visibility of that signature, and his claims, is actually very damning to its authenticity and Voynich's word at the same time. It is a pathetic cover story, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. With more time, I would have elaborated that point on my list: It is the NATURE of forgeries which elicits certain behaviors in people, for one thing. Experts question themselves and each other, collectors and dealers tend to treat them differently, either subconsciously or purposefully, either knowing or suspecting that they may be forgeries. Basically, they have flaws, and then, those around them treat them differently, perhaps not ever conscientiously grasping why.
I've read of countless cases of this phenomenon... and the Voynich Ms. is no different. So when the (I am sure they are) innocent Nill and Ethel were trying desperately to "protect" (define?) the identity of the Voynich, they very certainly limited the exposure of it. The letters and notes are full of such actions... who could see the "Bacon Cipher", and under what circumstances, and what had those people said of it, in the past? It is what happens to and with forgeries, and rarely with genuine works.
Another point: The above point, chosen for rebuttal, is one that is remotely contestable... most others on that list, and in the other facets of my argument, are, and get ignored. Their are many arguments which, alone, condemn the Voynich as a forgery, but remain unaddressed, or improperly and incompletely addressed at best. I believe one or two of them are enough to make a firm case... and yet are left to stand around like elephants in the room.
And then new "facts" get added, also without explanation, or reasoning as to how they came to be... now Singer was not in Frankfort before 1911? And don't get me started on the new "1903 catalog reference", which is already in print as factual, when it is anything but vaporous, and essentially, useless.
Which brings me to the main problem with all these discussions: One has to first trust and believe in the basic paradigm that the Voynich is "most likely" a 15th century, probably genuine, European cipher herbal/botanical/astrological/baleological (sp?) work. So in a group which has as a baseline an acceptance OF this paradigm, my arguments... which have already dismissed it as unworthy on almost every point, to mine, and many other's, satisfaction... becomes a case of needing to reiterate each point's weakness, first, before moving on to the supporting arguments for my theories.
This becomes frustrating to you, Rene, and me and others, too.
But I have come to a very different baseline, a different and new paradigm, than most others hold: The Voynich is a very poor modern forgery, which if presented today, with the same evidence given, would seem very amateurish and almost silly. It is only through a small steady accumulation of "beliefs" in it, tacitly and undeservedly accepted as gospel, over a great deal of time, and echoed by fervent supporters, that it has so far survived as a genuine old work.
So rather than continuing to repeat myself, anyone is welcome to read my blog, most importantly the mythologies that support the paradigm, and why they shouldn't be so used (although they form the basis for the majority of people's trust IN that paradigm):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And of course anyone is welcome to have an open discussion at the voynich.net. I'll meanwhile reserve my posts here, as I have, to correcting any misstatements of my hypothesis, ideas or words, as I have, above.
I appreciate the support and friendship of many of David's members, meanwhile, and will read your forum with interest.
Rich.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - ReneZ - 19-11-2017
There's a fundamental problem that makes discussions about the Voynich MS difficult.
This is that it is scattered over many discussion boards and personal blogs.
I understood from the moderator team here that they tend to agree with the good rule of not dragging issues from forum X into forum Y (in this case here). However, in practice this is not really possible to enforce.
Different people read different (combinations of) fora, and the many relative newcomers have only been able to read a fairly recent fraction of the historical discussions.
Most of the points in Rich's contributions in this thread refer to past discussions in other fora. When Rich writes:
Quote:most others on that list, and in the other facets of my argument, are, and get ignored. Their are many arguments which, alone, condemn the Voynich as a forgery, but remain unaddressed, or improperly and incompletely addressed at best. I believe one or two of them are enough to make a firm case... and yet are left to stand around like elephants in the room.
then almost nobody here can properly judge this. All these points have been discussed ad nauseam in the 'mailing list'. To the point that I decided to leave it since there was no point in discussing them further.
I may also refer to Helmut's post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
If, initially, I thought that Rich referred to the Beinecke's reluctance to show the manuscript, then this is because he has already complained about this in the past. Access to the MS has been severely reduced by the Beinecke since 2009.
Other complaints have included that the report of the radio-carbon dating has supposedly not been published.
Of the McCrone report, only a summary has been published, and this report fails to mention the highly suspicious (according to Rich's recent presentation) appearance of some chemicals that supposedly betray a modern fake.
Now, for me, these are the ingredients of a conspiracy theory. Several different parties are collaborating in hiding information. I don't see why I should apologise for pointing it out.
Anyway, this too is old material from another forum.
Back to the first lines of this post.
The scattering of information over several fora, including parallel discussions about the same topics, is one of the main reasons why I am reducing my active participation. I simply don't have the time for it, and it brings very little.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - proto57 - 19-11-2017
You are confusing several issues here, Rene. And you are misstating your original charge against me, and continuing this claim I am a "conspiracy theorist". It is really unfair of you to continue doing this... And I thought you had agreed it was unfair, on a couple of occasions. Why resurrect it now?
"I understood from the moderator team here that they tend to agree with the good rule of not dragging issues from forum X into forum Y (in this case here)."
That sounds like a plea for censorship. I can imagine you do not find it convenient having hard questions following you around the 'net. I've avoided it for the most part, and only came here to set the record straight on my relationship and opinion of the Beinecke. But isolating unanswered questions to "forum X", and then not ever addressing them, or incorrectly answering them, on "forum Y" might be helpful to keeping people in the dark, but it does not help further the investigation.
"Different people read different (combinations of) fora, and the many relative newcomers have only been able to read a fairly recent fraction of the historical discussions."
But you don't want other discussions brought here? Which is it?
"Most of the points in Rich's contributions in this thread refer to past discussions in other fora. When Rich writes:
Quote:most others on that list, and in the other facets of my argument, are, and get ignored. Their are many arguments which, alone, condemn the Voynich as a forgery, but remain unaddressed, or improperly and incompletely addressed at best. I believe one or two of them are enough to make a firm case... and yet are left to stand around like elephants in the room.
"... then almost nobody here can properly judge this. All these points have been discussed ad nauseam in the 'mailing list'."
It does apply to many issues, which do not get discussed here... as you and a couple of others are considered somewhat "authorities" on the subject, and you do not bring them up. I've seen many such cases. I do read this, and all forums I can... and have seen this often. Questions are asked by "newcomers", and some who are even familiar with Voynich research to a greater extent, and you of course give your opinion, and even cite your opinion as fact. And you leave out much information, which is found elsewhere.
But that is not the point of my "elephants in the room" statement, in this thread: I was referring to your focus on one item on my "Red Flags of Forgery" list in my presentation, which was not fully explained by me, and therefore somewhat vulnerable to criticism. The other "elephants" are the other items. You do not, here or elsewhere, ever address these or many other serious problems with the Voynich adequately, some not at all, and some others by repeating unproven or outright incorrect information. You only continually claim to have done so.
On the contrary, I address every shred of every point on the Voynich, and of your theory about the Voynich, so that a person can form their own opinion.
"To the point that I decided to leave it since there was no point in discussing them further."
There is every point in doing so. I've seen people here hungry for answers, or at least, alternative theories on points being discussed... even naming me, and others, personally, hoping for input.
"I may also refer to Helmut's post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "
I respect Helmut's opinion, but also respectfully, he is incorrect. I have have not discussed all the points in my presentation, or the basic concept of the lecture, previously: "What characteristics does a forgery exhibit, in what ways does the Voynich possibly share those forgery features?"
"If, initially, I thought that Rich referred to the Beinecke's reluctance to show the manuscript..."
You are re-writing history here, this was not your claim. It was about the testing, not the "showing". You had written (and already retracted), this statement,
"Rich makes the inexplicable (because completely opposite to the truth) statement that Yale/Beinecke are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS."
That was about testing, forensics... not simple access. But now you add,
"... then this is because he has already complained about this in the past. Access to the MS has been severely reduced by the Beinecke since 2009."
I'm not sure I "complained" about access (since you have now made a new claim, you force me back here to re-defend myself) as much or more than anyone else, nor even to the extent you do, above. And if I have noted they don't let people maul the thing quite so much, I've certainly been the first to understand why that would make sense... and have even, actually, said so. And as I've also pointed out, I've been graciously allowed to see every scrap in the Beinecke Voynich collections, in every box and envelope. I've never asked to see the actual Voynich, as I don't want to add my germs to it, needlessly. But I have also seen it, twice, when at the Folger, at your presentation there, and then at the Beinecke when they had it out, at the presentation of the Yale (and your) book there.
So I'm not sure where this new charge of yours, against me, comes from, but I need to point out is is tiresome, and inexplicable, that you continually seem to feel a need to do this.
"Other complaints have included that the report of the radio-carbon dating has supposedly not been published."
Aha! But it has not been published! It is not "supposedly". The producers have a copy of the report, of course Hodgins (sp?) does (he prepared it), the Beinecke does (they offered to share a copy with me, if the producers wrote them and gave permission), and you do. "We"... the public at large, certainly does not.
This is an area of fervent interest to many. A well known writer on the Voynich, and on cryptography history, in fact, asked me "Why has the radiocarbon report never been released?". He didn't ask because I mentioned it in my presentation, nor because he knew it was an issue close to my heart... he just wanted to know if I knew. He, like very many others, are fully aware it has not been released. And my fellow presenter was under the mistaken impression it had been released, and ironically, cited your chapter in the Yale book!
This is a big deal. We only have other's (including yours) opinion on the data in that report. We are not given the procedure and data in order to make our own judgement. Hodgins, at the 2012 Frascati Voynich 100 Conference, tantalizingly gave a good example of this, in one of his slides... which I luckily "thought fast" enough to take a picture of:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If it were not for that slide, even that data would be unknown to us. And by the way, lest you invent another complaint on my part, I do accept the C14 dating, in general: That the material of the Voynich's leaves comes from the 15th century. The issues I am concerned about, rather, go to the assumption used to combine the separate dating of those leaves... as much as 60 years apart, into one, neat, date. Could it be worse than 60 years? And what data was kept, what rejected, if any? And so on... We don't know, because the report has not been released...
"Of the McCrone report, only a summary has been published, and this report fails to mention the highly suspicious (according to Rich's recent presentation) appearance of some chemicals that supposedly betray a modern fake."
First of all, I thought the McCrone paper WAS the report, not a "summary". Is there a report there, too, that has not been released?
True McCrone does not "betray" the Voynich as fake, and I never claimed they do. You are again misstating my words and intent. But they do mention those chemicals, and even call the "copper and zinc" "unusual", and only muse they may be due to use of a brass inkwell. I wrote them, asking whether that is because it is "unusual" for brass inkwells to leach into ink; or because it is "unusual" for the C14 era. My points are that they are unanswered questions; and used in my hypothesis, forgeries are often discovered by noting both unusual features and unanswered questions.
"Now, for me, these are the ingredients of a conspiracy theory. Several different parties are collaborating in hiding information."
And as Regan famously retorted, "There you go again!". The report has not been released... you have not answered many questions, there are many errors and assumptions and opinions stated as facts, in your contributions to books, and on your site, and on various "fora". But why this charge that my noting this is a "conspiracy" theory? But of course incorrectly claiming I am a "Conspiracy Theorist" is meant to impugn me with a distasteful label. It is yet another insult, and I really don't appreciate your continuing to use it.
"I don't see why I should apologise for pointing it out."
That is up to you, of course. I'll leave it to others to judge what lack of an apology, or giving one, and days later, retracting it, means.
"Anyway, this too is old material from another forum."
Ummm... no it is not, entirely. Scroll back and see.
"Back to the first lines of this post.
The scattering of information over several fora, including parallel discussions about the same topics, is one of the main reasons why I am reducing my active participation. I simply don't have the time for it, and it brings very little."
And I've heard this before, it is a repeating cycle: You get frustrated that you are called to explain your bold claims, that you are asked to back them up with reasoned argument. You then unfairly attack the questioner, or "shoot the messenger", on baseless grounds, rather than answer, and only incorrectly claim, instead, that the questions have all been answered elsewhere. Then you retreat.
It is how paradigms You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and not unexpected. No "conspiracy" necessary, nor implied by me. And I have no intent nor desire to come here, or follow you wherever you go, correcting your numerous claims and misstatements about the Voynich, or anything. But each and every time you do unfairly insult me, or misstate my aims, my words, my ideas, I certainly will defend myself. If you stop doing that, you will be free on "fora Y" to continue to make any claims about the Voynich, unchallenged, as is your wont.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - VViews - 19-11-2017
Hello proto57,
I don't want to take a side in this debate, but just wanted to address your first point.
ReneZ is correct in stating that there has been an effort to not have past conflicts dragged onto this forum. It is not a forum rule but reflects the fact that the likelihood of such conflicts yielding anything productive here is very low, and also that these things tend to rapidly devolve into personal attacks due to years of accumulated resentment.
He is also correct to note that this is difficult to do in reality. Understandably, there will always be references to the Voynich discussions that took place elsewhere, and also the effects of past conflicts strain relations between the posters that were involved.
So, don't worry about censorship here, and please do post freely. Just try to be mindful about the effects of posts: will they further the discussion?
As someone who has not been part of the mailing list since the early 2000's, it is really off-putting when I see posters here ranting about things that happened back there. Sometimes, posts can be so laden with resentful references to the past that the actual research or questions contained in the post are drowned out (I don't mean this specifically for you).
It seems to me your post boils down to one thing, which should be a fairly straightforward question to answer:
- Is the McCrone report containing the radiocarbon results available in its entirety, and if so, can someone please post a link to it? If not, is there any way we, the forum members, can find a way to make it available?
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - Helmut Winkler - 19-11-2017
proto57,
I fled from the mailing list to escape this useless discussions, but to no avail
I'll say it now for the last time, there's no good reason to assume that the ms. is a modern fake.
You've got a long list of people somewhere who have given their opinion where to put the ms.in time, among all this people there is only one, Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt whom I would acknowledge as an expert and who said first half of the 15th century, which is also my own opinion, the C14 dating by an reputable institution being a welcome affirmation.
And I will not discuss the modern fake theory again, it is just a waste of valuable time I would rather use to find something out about the ms.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - -JKP- - 19-11-2017
I would consider the possibility that the VMS might be a 16th-century forgery intended to look like a 15th -century or late-14th-century manuscript.
But a modern forgery? The person would have to have centuries-old materials, centuries-old knowledge, a year of free-time, AND would have be completely bonkers to include so many hundreds of minute and unnecessary details. Forgeries are created for some kind of gain (usually monetary). Those specific kinds of details not only are not profitable, because they are time-consuming, they aren't even the kind of thing that would pop into the head of a forger.
Take, for example, the tiny notches on the blue fan-wheel in the cosmo section. Not a detail found in other manuscripts and not the least bit necessary for a forgery to seem genuine, and definitely not the kind of detail that would appear necessary or even within the imagination of most forgers to include.
Or the great quantity of similar small-plant roots. You could cut the number of plants in that section by 40% and still pass it off as a genuine plant section. A forger wouldn't draw the root of the aquatic lily-like plant with every detail of the leaf scars or scales. That just wasn't done in the 15th century, and thus would be an unnecessary waste of time... unless it was by someone who knew and loved plants who really WANTED to record these fine points.
Maybe someone added blarney-text to drawings that were already there. It's posssible. I don't think it's what happened, but it's possible. Are the drawings forgeries? I think it's unlikely. Why would a forger choose the more rare depictions of Sagittarius and Scorpio? Wouldn't that attract suspicion, if you consider that it doesn't increase the value of the manuscript? Why would they drawn 30% more nymphs than would be needed to get the idea across? Why the anatomically incorrect animals? Why laboriously draw so many nymphs around the zodiac animals when half as many would do (or when sheer patterns would do since that's how it was frequently done in the middle ages)?
The VMS shows many signs of being a labor of love. Forgeries generally are not.
RE: Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017 - proto57 - 19-11-2017
(19-11-2017, 04:20 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello proto57,
I don't want to take a side in this debate, but just wanted to address your first point.
ReneZ is correct in stating that there has been an effort to not have past conflicts dragged onto this forum. It is not a forum rule but reflects the fact that the likelihood of such conflicts yielding anything productive here is very low, and also that these things tend to rapidly devolve into personal attacks due to years of accumulated resentment.
He is also correct to note that this is difficult to do in reality. Understandably, there will always be references to the Voynich discussions that took place elsewhere, and also the effects of past conflicts strain relations between the posters that were involved.
So, don't worry about censorship here, and please do post freely. Just try to be mindful about the effects of posts: will they further the discussion?
As someone who has not been part of the mailing list since the early 2000's, it is really off-putting when I see posters here ranting about things that happened back there. Sometimes, posts can be so laden with resentful references to the past that the actual research or questions contained in the post are drowned out (I don't mean this specifically for you).
It seems to me your post boils down to one thing, which should be a fairly straightforward question to answer:
- Is the McCrone report containing the radiocarbon results available in its entirety, and if so, can someone please post a link to it? If not, is there any way we, the forum members, can find a way to make it available?
Well I would point out that I didn't bring past conflicts here... Rene did, in leveling his old charges against me, on this forum, which I needed to address. As I pointed out, it is the only reason I came here in the first place. When he is not doing that, no conflict. It is simple to avoid.... simply be truthful about my word. I'm not wanting conflict anywhere, only correction.
As for the McCrone report with the radiocarbon results... you mean the University of Arizona Report on the radiocarbon of course... McCrone was responsible only for the ink report. But yes, I am with you entirely on this... I have worked behind the scenes for some time to try and get it released, and came pretty close on one occasion. Rene would be our best bet to see it, at this point... perhaps he will oblige, or explain why not.