+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Rich SantaColoma's comments to Lisa Fagin Davis (/thread-3138.html)
[split] Rich SantaColoma's comments to Lisa Fagin Davis - proto57 - 23-03-2020
Hello, Ms. Davis: I read with interest your Washington Post article, and have followed your theories about the Voynich Manuscript for some time. I found your critique of Mr. Cheshire's offering one of the best, in fact... although I also rate Koen's biting commentary pretty highly, and one of the more amusing. We all share in common that unfortunate experience, and I've no doubt there will be others in short order. But about your article:
"By beginning with their own preconceptions of what they want the Voynich to be, their conclusions take them further from the truth."
The preconceptions are not usually "what they want the Voynich to be" at first, but do morph into that, either through general intransigence, or by painting themselves into a reputational corner. One thing to realize, and remember (although most don't even realize it), is that the most common preconception is that the work is old and genuine. That is a heavily promoted "starting point", so people can't be blamed. It is the base premise of almost 100% of every article (even yours) and book, even many of the claimed translations. With that as such a powerfully projected preconception, it is not the fault of many that they accept it as factual, without ever really questioning "why?" they think this.
That is, people do not, as they should, start with the blank slate of "What is it?", but rather, "What genuine early 15th century European cipher manuscript is it?". And then all ensuing investigation begins as a self-fulfilling quest, a circular investigation. And this tendency to not question is strongly supported because all encouragement and support are within that paradigm. Anything outside of it, and anomalies and inconsistencies within it, are usually not even considered, certainly not satisfactorily explained, and often ignored. That is what paradigms do to protect themselves when challenged (T. Kuhn). And at the same time, anyone, or anything, that supports the paradigm is encouraged, heralded, and even nursed along.
"... I’ve been increasingly called upon by the media in recent years to comment on various theories."
That is exciting, to be asked to do this. It is part of a powerful dichotomy, driven by the paradigm, both to only look at 1420 Genuine European; and reject modern and fake, or all other possibles. And it is easy to do, too, with so many poor "translations" being offered. But it is my contention that if one does not really care about having "a seat at the table", and is likewise somewhat immune to the powers of rejection, if they can be truly introspective, they will be freed to see it as what it probably is: A particularly bad forgery, made in modern times, a laughable mockery of the genuine history of herbal literature.
"Recent chemical analyses, however, concluded that the oak gall ink and the mineral and botanical pigments are consistent with medieval recipes, and Carbon-14 analysis has dated the parchment to between 1404 and 1438. That rules out Roger Bacon (who was already dead), da Vinci (who hadn’t been born), and the peoples of post-contact Mesoamerica."
The ink is "consistent" with inks of the age of the parchment, but the ink is not dated. It could have been prepared and applied at any time up until 1912. And in fact, in the McCrone report there are questions, such as the presence of copper and zinc, and a "titanium compound", and also a gum binder that was not in the McCrone database. There are other points within that report which have not been answered or addressed. The lack of scrutiny can be explained by the preconception I've outlined: "It must be old, and it must be genuine, therefore those things which might offer alternatives must be unimportant."
This claim about the inks dating the manuscript is often used to support "old", but it is only one of dozens of such "projections as truth" which are either still undecided, unknown, arguable, or outright incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I regularly receive Voynich “solutions” by email with requests for feedback. That feedback and my public comments are not always accepted in the constructively critical spirit in which they are given. I recently received an ugly and threatening direct message...".
Yes so have I, when critiquing these various theories and "translations". I actually commiserated with you back when we both... we all, probably, here... came up with very similar opinions on a certain recent theory, and suffered the wrath for doing so. Ironically, I get it from all sides, when critiquing these failures, and when discussing my own theory! So I know both sides of the sword, believe me. The critics, except for you and a few others, are often as hostile as the proposers of bad theories.
But that is the paradigm, again, protecting itself. It has a personality of its own, in defending itself against all opposing views... good, bad... none indifferent, though, in this field it seems.
"As executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the largest organization in the world dedicated to the study of the Middle Ages..."
You are highly respected, and clearly deserve your reputation. Unfortunately, the Voynich being the "Perfect Storm of Obscure", there is a great deal of heated disagreement among a great many other qualified experts as to what the Voynich is, why it was written, when it was written, by whom, and what it contains. And the language... is it a language, a cipher, a code, or gibberish? And what language, if a language? Expert after expert disagree. My point here is, that with this problem, a degree in any of the related disciplines and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The reason is clear: If you have a thousand experts with a thousand theories, only one of them can be correct... which means that nine hundred and ninety-nine experts are wrong.
So it is often claimed that this expert is better than that one, or has the correct experience, or the right discipline, to really know what the Voynich is, and what it is not. But most experts must be wrong because most disagree with each other, and it is impossible to discern which one is correct, or in fact if any are. If they are wrong on A, and we know they must be, then why should anyone assume they are correct on B? But more importantly, one of the most indicative "red flags" of forgery is a high level of disagreement among experts. Genuine items simply do not have anywhere near the level of contentious debate as forgeries, and when they do have disagreement, it is usually explainable in some context. In the Voynich, this expert disagreement is not otherwise explainable, as the item appears to come from several well documented disciplines. It should be "expertly identifiable", but it is not. This one phenomenon screams "forgery!", but there are many others.
"... undercooked solutions presented without context lead readers down a rabbit hole of misinformation, conspiracy theories and the thoroughly unproductive fetishization of a fictional medieval past, turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself."
Well I would counter that the 1420 Genuine Paradigm is "undercooked", because as I pointed out, it has many contrary anomalies which remained unaddressed, and relies on items stated as facts, which are anything but. But yes, I do agree with much of what you say, although I also note that in almost all of the discussions I've had over the years, the other parties do not, or cannot through lack of study, compare the Voynich in the context of the world of historical forgeries.
But yes, of course, no one can "turn" an object into something it is not. The theorists cannot, whether they theorize it is genuine, and 15th century, or a fake modern like me, or anything in between. But I see the 1420 Genuine Paradigm as an attempt to "turn it" into that, because on the contrary, it looks all the world to me like a "caricature" of a genuine Medieval work, of a popular culture impression of what a mysterious ancient grimore would have looked like to the mindset of an early 20th century anybody. It is as though this was all very clumsily cobbled together, from a widely varied, and grossly incompatible raft of sources, mostly improperly copied, as it was poorly understood, and then rudely and crudely assembled in an amateurish sort of "Katsenjammer Kids" cartoon style. It is, in my opinion, already very much a caricature: Not of itself, but rather, of anything remotely real.
I've seen the arguments, from experts and professionals alike. My own ideas as to "what genuine thing it might be" have varied over the years, until I gave them up, one after the other. I could not "turn" the Voynich into those things, and certainly had no interest in trying to do so. And I've arrived here, at Modern Fake, probably by Wilfrid, precisely because of that, and coming to realize that the reason is that what it most looks like, when one clears their heads of the preconceptions you warn against: A really cheap fake, that should have been rejected out of the starting gate in 1912, but which has been long propped up by wishful thinking, beloved romantic notions of ancient mysteries, and an unwillingness to admit to a failure of judgment on the part of probably hundreds of individuals.
"When we approach an ancient object such as the Voynich Manuscript, we tend to bring our preconceptions with us to the table. The more we burden the manuscript with what we want it to be, the more buried the truth becomes."
I agree with you, except for the idea this is ancient. So I hope you don't mind, in the spirit of free and open discussion, that I rebut the positions you hold, and encourage you to shed all preconceptions, and look at the Voynich Manuscript again. I think that like many, you might begin to come to a different conclusion than you have, perhaps even, mine. If not, that is wonderful, too. I appreciate opposition possibly more than agreement, it is the engine that keeps me engaged.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - LisaFaginDavis - 25-03-2020
(23-03-2020, 02:27 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Thank you so much for these thoughtful and extensive comments. I hope you noticed that I was, and am, very cautious in speaking about the XRF testing on the inks and pigments - I didn't say the inks and pigments ARE medieval, I said they are CONSISTENT with medieval recipes. Certainly those results, and the C14 dating, are not sufficient to absolutely prove that the VMS is not a modern forgery. But there is so much additional physical evidence that needs to be considered. When you consider not only the inks, pigments, and parchment but also the layers of use and provenance and history (missing leaves, Tinapius signature, later foliation, later quiremarks, later annotations, bifolia bound out of order, evidence of multiple bindings, wormholes, waterstains, the Marci letter, and on and on), the idea that the VMS is a modern forgery becomes less and less convincing. It's one thing to convincingly forge ancient writing and illustrations on old parchment, but it's quite another to successfully forge all of the codicological and historical evidence. It's not 100% IMPOSSIBLE, but it is so unlikely as to be ESSENTIALLY impossible.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - Antonio García Jiménez - 26-03-2020
Thank you Lisa
I simply believe that we do not know the mentality of the people of the 15th century. The past can be as mysterious as the future
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - proto57 - 28-03-2020
Hi Lisa:
You write, "Thank you so much for these thoughtful and extensive comments. I hope you noticed that I was, and am, very cautious in speaking about the XRF testing on the inks and pigments - I didn't say the inks and pigments ARE medieval, I said they are CONSISTENT with medieval recipes. Certainly those results, and the C14 dating, are not sufficient to absolutely prove that the VMS is not a modern forgery. But there is so much additional physical evidence that needs to be considered. When you consider not only the inks, pigments, and parchment but also the layers of use and provenance and history (missing leaves, Tinapius signature, later foliation, later quiremarks, later annotations, bifolia bound out of order, evidence of multiple bindings, wormholes, waterstains, the Marci letter, and on and on), the idea that the VMS is a modern forgery becomes less and less convincing. It's one thing to convincingly forge ancient writing and illustrations on old parchment, but it's quite another to successfully forge all of the codicological and historical evidence. It's not 100% IMPOSSIBLE, but it is so unlikely as to be ESSENTIALLY impossible."
I did catch that you were accurate in not specifically stating the inks were known to be from the 15th century. But unfortunately the fact that they are consistent with that era is used, in context, with evidence the Voynich was created then. It is and has become part of the cited list of features, which while not at all a part of the evidence for old, is used with the implication that it is. That is the problem with much supposedly supportive evidence: It is by implication, and the implication does not stand scrutiny.
The fact the inks could be mixed at any time after that (which obviates any value for dating) is not mentioned, nor are the various anomalous problems with the ink, mentioned. This leaves the common mistaken impression, by omission, for anyone not doing their own research, that the ink is evidence of old.... when it may actually is not, and may be quite the opposite.
Another "ink issue" which I failed to mention is that the last page marginalia... long considered by a different hand, and from a later date... turned out to be of the same composition as the main text. This makes little sense, and actually implies the marginalia was applied to project the impression another person, other than the author, was working on the Voynich.
As for the other things you mention, some of them are on my list of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but not all:
"When you consider not only the inks, pigments, and parchment..."
As we both agree, the inks could be made and applied at any time after the parchment was made, even up to the time the manuscript was discovered. Voynich was well aware of ink formulas. He was a chemist, after all. And his friend and fellow traveler, O'Reilly (the spy), was even known to taken a book out of the library, describing Medieval inks. And of course, the McCrone report calls the copper and zinc "unusual", and does not explain the titanium compound. Also, they admit they could not identify the gum binder used, as it was not in their database... and the above mentioned problem that the marginalia inks are the same as the main text. There are, on the contrary to the ink tests supporting old and genuine, actual unanswered, and unmentioned questions relating to them. In fact, when I've tried to get these questions answered, Barabe and McCrone redirect my questions to a noted Voynich expert, and they remain unanswered.
The same with the pigments. As for the parchment, it could have come from any time, also, and forgers often use old materials. The fact that the majority of experts chose the wrong time frames for the origins of the manuscript imply that Voynich chose the wrong parchment. Radiocarbon dating had not yet been invented, so how could he? But old vellum/parchment has been long used for forgeries, let alone for very many other uses... and arguably quite available to Mr. Voynich:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"... but also the layers of use and provenance and history"
The Voynich Manuscript has virtually no history at all. There is no reliable reference to it, in any pre-1912 source. The letters of the Kircher Carteggio do not come close to describing the Voynich, and could better represent dozens of other works. Nor does the 1665/66 Marci letter Voynich suspiciously claimed to have found in the book. The argument those sources (let alone the very poor 1903 reference) ARE the Voynich are rife with rationalizations and inconsistencies, too long to go into, here. Suffice it to say that the Voynich does not have any history that would properly place it in the world before about 1912.
"... missing leaves... "
I'd be interested to hear how you think the missing leaves support genuine, over any other possible reasoning. I had not heard this. As for the binding, and rebinding, and so on, if one reads the reports in the recent Yale book, one finds that they actually outline many anomalies that work against an "old" dating (see my link, "Rebuttal to Nofake", below).
"Tinapius signature...".
This is not believed to be a signature, and of course it could have been forged and applied there at any time. And Voynich's word on the subject cannot be trusted in this instance, as many of his statements do not make sense. When I discovered the pre-treatment photograph, it was clear that the signature was actually visible to him. And also, there is the question as to why the men of the Carteggio didn't mention this valuable clue... and more. There are so many problems with this, it is in no way reliable evidence the manuscript is old, or genuine:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Jan Hurych has a wonderful analysis of the "signature", and more: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Edited to add: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"... later foliation, later quiremarks, later annotations, bifolia bound out of order..."
I've heard these as supporting argument to genuine, but each and every one of these things could not only have been easily created at any time, by any persons, but are in some cases (in a longer discussion) arguably supportive of modern, and forgery.
"... evidence of multiple bindings, wormholes, waterstains..."
See "Rebuttal to Nofake". When challenged by Mr. Zandbergen's page, which was a rebuttal to my ideas for the most part, it caused me to re-examine the Yale work, in their book. René had been claiming the above was evidence the Voynich is "centuries old", when, in fact, the reports reflect evidence of modern manipulation, at worst, and unanswered questions, at best. They say so, right in that book. So these things that you list are not evidence of a genuine Voynich at all.
Both wormholes and waterstains, etc., are often faked, and often fool experts. And also, these "wormholes" actually have problems... as listed in my rebuttal, linked below.
"... the Marci letter..."
I note that in these pages, in various comments, the Marci letter continues to be used as supportive of a genuine Voynich Manuscript, and an honest Wilfrid by implication. But that letter and its aspect are quite the opposite, and the questions surrounding it should have called this whole affair into question long ago. So in order to use this as evidence of genuine, and old, one must ignore these problems, or dismiss them on shaky grounds.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Do you think the Marci letter genuine, or do you suspect it may not be? I would be interested if you have been aware of the above problems with it... the Voynich story about it, the Latin problems, the fold problems, the seal placement problems, and more. Or, if you are aware of those things, how you would explain them, in a context of a genuine letter?
"... the idea that the VMS is a modern forgery becomes less and less convincing. It's one thing to convincingly forge ancient writing and illustrations on old parchment, but it's quite another to successfully forge all of the codicological and historical evidence."
Well of course we disagree. I think that, when the evidence is all included, when the "codicological" evidence does not have the tremendous number of anomalous observations by literally hundreds of people, over a hundred years, being either ignored, or dismissed on flimsy grounds, and when it is realized there really is no hard evidence to place the manuscript before 1912, it is a "one two punch" to genuine.
But my overall point to all this is, again, this: The baseline for the investigation should not be, as it almost always seems to be, "What old genuine thing is this?", but rather, "What thing is this?". For anyone who seems to be based in the former, it can never be seen clearly; for anyone I've found who begins, or arrives, at the latter, they often realize this is probably not real, and probably not old at all.
My rebuttal to "nofake", which covers more ground: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you for the discussion... and stay safe in our presently infected world.
Rich.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - Aga Tentakulus - 28-03-2020
Wormholes can be faked. Yes, you're right. It's been done. But it's not about the holes themselves, but about the order in which they appear.
Before and after processing.
Bindings can be faked. Sure who you find a suitable thread. If you know old textiles, how sensitive they are to movement. What do you think happens with a single thread ?
Cleaned parchment, you can take it to the cleaners, it will never be like new again. I've seen parchments cleaned three times and described four times. All the writings are still legible.
Then if it gets wet you have to stretch it again, otherwise you can throw it away right away.
How do you explain the German text on f66 ? Obviously it is written with the same ink as the rest of the page. It is not just German, it is a dialect.
Which brings me to your possibility of America and Armadillo.
Apart from the fact that you believe in an armadillo, which it is not.
Just think logically. Now a German speaking guy goes to America and shows me photos from home.
My first thought: Run ! Run but fast.
I could go on writing for hours, but I don't want to take Lisa's work from her.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - ReneZ - 29-03-2020
It occurs to me that this is not really on the topic of the Cologne course anymore, so perhaps this could be moved to its correct thread.
It also occurs to me that there are two different aspects:
- is the Voynich MS a genuine 15th century manuscript, or a later fake
- is it a fake produced by Wilfrid Voynich in the manner described by Rich?
I understand that Lisa addressed the first (more general) bullet.
The side question about the Marci letter could be a separate topic. I might respond to that one, but I'll think about it, and check if the information isn't already here in one thread or another. This letter is most certainly genuine beyond all possible doubt.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - nickpelling - 29-03-2020
I'd add that the quire numbers are genuinely 15th century beyond all reasonable doubt, and this severely limits the number of specific (i.e. non-handwave-y) hoax theories that the evidence can support.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - proto57 - 30-03-2020
Hi Aga: To answer your points:
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wormholes can be faked. Yes, you're right. It's been done. But it's not about the holes themselves, but about the order in which they appear.
Before and after processing.
Bindings can be faked. Sure who you find a suitable thread. If you know old textiles, how sensitive they are to movement. What do you think happens with a single thread ?
On those points, first of all, the Yale investigations, as published in their own book, admit that the biding might be an imitation. So whatever one might think is or is not the case, if we agree with the scientific, professional assessment of Yale's experts, we have to accept that the Voynich binding may not be old. Then, in many ways, they point out many anomalies which are are unexplained, and/or need further investigation, or are admittedly signs of later creation. On the binding, "Yale" wrote:
"... and is either original or an imitation of that used in the early Gothic period".
Relating to the binding, and holes found, I quoted and wrote in "rebuttal":
"The essay describes random holes, that do not seem "indicate a different arrangement of folios", but "may have been stabbed by mistake while setting up the text for sewing; others may be merely evidence of insect damage"."
In this, Yale admits they cannot distinguish between accidental stabbings by a tool, and insect holes.
They then write, "There are wormholes on the very few first and last folios. They don't extend into the MS because these insects did not feed on parchment. The holes cut through writing and drawing elements, showing that they appeared after the MS was written."
Again, you can see my list of the points Yale's book made about the binding, and ink, and so on... and my breakdown of them, and why they actually show there is reason to believe the Voynich's authenticity and age are anything but a sure bet:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As I wrote in "rebuttal", "This demonstrates the frequent misuse of forgery evidence, being spun to instead imply genuine. This because a clue often used to determine the authenticity of a document is the "lining up" of wormholes between sheets. But here, wormholes don't do this. So they are both being used to imply genuine, with, "there are wormholes", and "through writing and drawing elements"; but then the evidence they are not genuine, i.e., they don't line up, is explained away, with "these insects did not feed on parchment". So these particular ones did just the PERFECT amount of feeding: They ate through JUST enough parchment to prove it is old, then stopped... proving the parchment is old again."
"Furthermore, I am unclear on just how the determination was made they appeared "after the MS was written" to begin with, as wormholes are commonly faked anyway, and difficult to judge the authenticity of. Fake wormholes have fooled many experts. Furthermore, elsewhere in Yale, as described above, the stray holes are indistinguishable to the examiner between poked with a tool, and insect holes."
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Cleaned parchment, you can take it to the cleaners, it will never be like new again. I've seen parchments cleaned three times and described four times. All the writings are still legible.
Then if it gets wet you have to stretch it again, otherwise you can throw it away right away.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, here, I'm sorry. As for me, I don't personally believe the parchment was ever cleaned, execept, I suppose, in the process of manufacture.
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do you explain the German text on f66 ? Obviously it is written with the same ink as the rest of the page. It is not just German, it is a dialect.
I don't understand the implication of it being German... I suppose you are thinking of "mus" and so on? In any case, I'll accept that. I don't know that the ink here is the same as the text, as I don't know if that marginalia's ink was tested by McCrone, but maybe I missed that. In any case, in this case, German or not, same ink or not, I don't understand the implications.
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which brings me to your possibility of America and Armadillo.
Apart from the fact that you believe in an armadillo, which it is not.
Just to be clear, I do think it is an armadillo, but I don't think is was made in the Americas... if that is what you mean. I believe it was made about 1908/1910, in Europe, and probably in Florence from Voynich's vast stocks there.
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just think logically. Now a German speaking guy goes to America and shows me photos from home.
My first thought: Run ! Run but fast.
Ha!
(28-03-2020, 08:18 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I could go on writing for hours, but I don't want to take Lisa's work from her.
One of the best ways to shine light on any mystery, is to allow open discussion. This is about Lisa's work... and yours, and mine, and everyone else here. What one should worry about are attempts to limit the conversation, or move it into the shadows. If Lisa, or others, have any reasons to believe these points are wrong, I think it will be of great interest to others... not least of all, me.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - proto57 - 30-03-2020
(29-03-2020, 09:27 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'd add that the quire numbers are genuinely 15th century beyond all reasonable doubt, and this severely limits the number of specific (i.e. non-handwave-y) hoax theories that the evidence can support.
Well I think you know that I accept that the quire numbers may be authentic. But whether they are or not, does not affect any hoax theory that I know of, one way or the other.
On the placement of them, however, if authentic: The usual location of quire numbers, according to Clemen's book "Introduction to Manuscript Studies" is at the center bottom of a leaf. On the Voynich, they are off to the side. I believe this could be evidence... in addition to your own observation that various markings imply the bi-folios came from the same sources... that larger quires were cut down to make the smaller Voynich.
Another clue is, of course, the foldouts... which Yale admits are anachronistic... and I think may imply full size quires were the source to begin with.
RE: Course in Cologne focusing on VMS - proto57 - 30-03-2020
(29-03-2020, 10:17 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The side question about the Marci letter could be a separate topic. I might respond to that one, but I'll think about it, and check if the information isn't already here in one thread or another. This letter is most certainly genuine beyond all possible doubt.
Well that letter, whether real or not, does not affect the genuineness of the Voynich directly. Even if the Voynich turns out to be real, and old, the letter could have still been faked to add and improve provenance.
If the letter is faked, then at best it adds to the case of dishonesty against Wilfrid, so maybe in that sense it does undermine faith in his "discovery" of the Voynich.
I would be interested in your addressing each of my points about the letter, though... I am not sure they have been satisfactorily explained, by you, or others. You are correct, though, going into that detail is a separate topic... so I'll start a thread, to give you a chance to address these things.
All the best, Rich.