29-11-2017, 01:06 AM
The forgery hypothesis by Rich SantaColoma presents some valuable information and interesting ideas, but is probably mistaken in suggesting that the creation of the VMs is modern. The general perception of the VMs is that it was ostensibly created in the time period indicated by the Carbon-14 parchment tests or shortly afterwards. However the myriad difficulties stemming from subsequent uncertainties in the evaluation of content have been highly resistant to any substantive resolution, with only a very limited number of potential exceptions. Mr. SantaColoma has collected these difficulties from the VMs and compared them to the various traits found in forgeries and give examples of numerous correspondences. And as a result of these similarities, he has proposed that the VMs is a modern artifact created by or under the auspices of Wilfrid M. Voynich.
While the number of difficulties in the VMs clearly demonstrate the problematic nature of content interpretation in the standard paradigm, there is also some content that posses difficulties for the forgery paradigm. If it can be shown that the VMs contains material, such as the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. cosmos, which comes from a historical source, why is that source not acknowledged? If the purpose of the forgery is to create a connection to Roger Bacon, why was material placed in the text that would support that connection being ignored? How was a forgery created by persons who did not know the content of the material used to create the forgery?
So the ‘genuine and valid’ paradigm still predominates, but has these difficulties with interpretation. The ‘forgery’ paradigm offers some explanation for the problems, but it results in the elimination of any possibility that the VMs is genuine – and it probably lacks in written content as well. And if this is correct, it marks the end of VMs investigation. Is there no other alternative, some different paradigm?
Consider the ‘puzzle’ paradigm. The puzzle is established by the creation of a false façade. The VMs is a product of ideas and imagination, not the artifact of an unknown culture, though that is how it was made to appear. The VMs is not a normal expository text that is intended to inform the reader; that is the façade. The VMs is an inquisitory text, that asks the reader questions. It poses problems of interpretation. As such, it shares many of the qualities of a forgery, but it was created by a person who knew the historical and traditional details of certain medieval situations and put those details into the VMs in a clever and subtle way. Interpretational difficulties, such as ambiguity, which are anathema to clear exposition and the bane of forgery, are welcome in puzzle construction, the bread and butter, one might say. And the optical illusion of VMs White Aries is an undeniable example of intentional ambiguity, while the papelonny pun is an incontrovertible confirmation. The construction of the VMs cosmos is an intentional ambiguity created by a ‘necessary’ physical separation. Something was necessary to create ambiguity where there would otherwise be none.
It is the nature of the VMs to present puzzles where the problem of interpretation is based on the existence of ambiguity. It is also in the nature of puzzles to provide clues. The clue in the VMs cosmos is the nebuly line. But when there is no name for it, how can it be understood? It is the simplest and clearest form of a cloud band, and it confirms the three-part correspondence with the Oresme version. While the essential difference between the designs used in the cloud band is that one is plain (VMs) and one is fancy (Oresme). Not to mention the fancy version of a scallop-shell cloud band found in the VMs Central Rosette, which is a close match to the pattern in the Oresme image.
The clues to White Aries are numerous. Even in the most subjective interpretation, once the radial illusion is removed, paired, blue-striped, armorial insignia and a red galero exist in combination in only one historical situation. And the interpretation of an ambiguous illustration can only be resolved if the reader has knowledge of that specific situation and can recognize the presence of the figures in their proper hierarchical locations, along with other objective confirmations based on placement, not appearance. These confirmations are used to resolve the ambiguity that is the basis of the puzzle’s construction. It is the nature of a puzzle to provide clues that lead to answers. And in that sense, the answer will not be found by a lucky, single stroke, but rather at the end of a labyrinth with many chances to go wrong, some of which the author put in the VMs ambiguously on purpose, in order to create this puzzle, in order to divert the investigators, in order to hide the answers.
While the number of difficulties in the VMs clearly demonstrate the problematic nature of content interpretation in the standard paradigm, there is also some content that posses difficulties for the forgery paradigm. If it can be shown that the VMs contains material, such as the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. cosmos, which comes from a historical source, why is that source not acknowledged? If the purpose of the forgery is to create a connection to Roger Bacon, why was material placed in the text that would support that connection being ignored? How was a forgery created by persons who did not know the content of the material used to create the forgery?
So the ‘genuine and valid’ paradigm still predominates, but has these difficulties with interpretation. The ‘forgery’ paradigm offers some explanation for the problems, but it results in the elimination of any possibility that the VMs is genuine – and it probably lacks in written content as well. And if this is correct, it marks the end of VMs investigation. Is there no other alternative, some different paradigm?
Consider the ‘puzzle’ paradigm. The puzzle is established by the creation of a false façade. The VMs is a product of ideas and imagination, not the artifact of an unknown culture, though that is how it was made to appear. The VMs is not a normal expository text that is intended to inform the reader; that is the façade. The VMs is an inquisitory text, that asks the reader questions. It poses problems of interpretation. As such, it shares many of the qualities of a forgery, but it was created by a person who knew the historical and traditional details of certain medieval situations and put those details into the VMs in a clever and subtle way. Interpretational difficulties, such as ambiguity, which are anathema to clear exposition and the bane of forgery, are welcome in puzzle construction, the bread and butter, one might say. And the optical illusion of VMs White Aries is an undeniable example of intentional ambiguity, while the papelonny pun is an incontrovertible confirmation. The construction of the VMs cosmos is an intentional ambiguity created by a ‘necessary’ physical separation. Something was necessary to create ambiguity where there would otherwise be none.
It is the nature of the VMs to present puzzles where the problem of interpretation is based on the existence of ambiguity. It is also in the nature of puzzles to provide clues. The clue in the VMs cosmos is the nebuly line. But when there is no name for it, how can it be understood? It is the simplest and clearest form of a cloud band, and it confirms the three-part correspondence with the Oresme version. While the essential difference between the designs used in the cloud band is that one is plain (VMs) and one is fancy (Oresme). Not to mention the fancy version of a scallop-shell cloud band found in the VMs Central Rosette, which is a close match to the pattern in the Oresme image.
The clues to White Aries are numerous. Even in the most subjective interpretation, once the radial illusion is removed, paired, blue-striped, armorial insignia and a red galero exist in combination in only one historical situation. And the interpretation of an ambiguous illustration can only be resolved if the reader has knowledge of that specific situation and can recognize the presence of the figures in their proper hierarchical locations, along with other objective confirmations based on placement, not appearance. These confirmations are used to resolve the ambiguity that is the basis of the puzzle’s construction. It is the nature of a puzzle to provide clues that lead to answers. And in that sense, the answer will not be found by a lucky, single stroke, but rather at the end of a labyrinth with many chances to go wrong, some of which the author put in the VMs ambiguously on purpose, in order to create this puzzle, in order to divert the investigators, in order to hide the answers.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)