17-11-2017, 05:36 PM
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.
"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.