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.
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.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)