30-03-2020, 05:03 PM
Hi Aga: To answer your points:
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."
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.
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.
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.
Ha!
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.
(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.