02-04-2020, 09:57 PM
Well thank you again for your response, but I have to again point out that you do not address my list, whatever you think its value, or lack of one. You give as a reason not to, for one thing,
"What I meant is that all your arguments are non-sequiturs. The observations do not logically lead to the conclusion, or even that the letter being a fake is more likely.
"All of them have completely natural possible explanations. It is only if one is convinced that the item is a fake, that one would see an argument for it in these points."
OK then, if that is true, explain why they are fallacies, non-sequiturs, and so on. You say they are, but do not address them. And that is the key point I am making... you do not address many of the problems with the letter, nor with the Voynich, but claim the arguments are incorrect, then refuse to say why. Tell me, tell us, what the "natural possible explanations" are.
And no, this is a frequent false claim, that I or anyone who realizes the letter or the ms. are probably fake, that we are driven because that is what we thought it was to begin with. I, like almost anyone else, started with the very strong foundation this was real. So I consider a claim this is circular reasoning to be unfounded, and deflection.
"Now since the item cannot be a fake, the right conclusion from each of them it the alternative one."
Then René, again, what is your "alternative one" for the items on the list? Why not take a moment, and explain?
"As a general clarification, we simply do not know where it was found by Voynich, when, under which conditions, what happened with it from 1665 to, say, 1969."
And thank you so much for that. We do not know... but if you really meant 1969, of course that would be about 1915 or so, when Voynich first said he found the letter (Chicago Exp.?).*
"Who knows, it may have been contained inside the cover, under the paste-downs.
Who knows how many times it has been re-folded since 1665 ???""
I think, perhaps, your "re-folded" comment above is in response to my observation that the fold lines on the letter are incorrect. They do not allow for the folding of this letter as the other letters in the Carteggio. But it cannot be dismissed by alternative folds, or additional folds, because none of the fold lines allow that piece of paper to fold into a self-contained envelope. That is a problem, that is a point. So if that is the reason you mention it, then I suggest it is not an adequate explanation for this problem. I would say, though, print out the letter, as I did, and try doing it.
"One cannot conclude anything from these unknowns."
First of all, thank you for at least admitting they are unknowns. They are unknown, in that they are factual observations, with unknown reasons. As for my claiming that the list of problems with the Marci letter are evidence of forgery, I would say that, while we cannot conclude they are, they do very much point toward that probability.
But whether or not you think these are signs of forgery, or incorrect observations, or for whatever reason... I note you still will not address them. With all respect, that is, to me, a sign you cannot. I have been challenged on many aspects of my theories, and as difficult as it is, or as pointless as it may sometimes seemed to me (in some cases), I do my best to address the issues. So I ask, again, will you? Can you?
* not knowing the origins of an item is a red flag to forgery. As you may or may not know, the subject of my 2017 lecture at the NSA symposium was based on the list of historical characteristics of forgeries in art and literature. It includes poor and missing provenance. There are 11 red flags, and the Voynich arguably hits on 10 of them. The Marci letter, I think, 3 or 4:
1) Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions
2) Has poor, contrary and/or missing versions of provenance.
3) Contains anachronistic content
4) Owner/seller lies about provenance
5) Contains incorrect uses of iconography
6) Improper tools, methods, and/or materials used
7) It looks "too new”
8) There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original
9) Copy of illustrations from books and catalogs
10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion
11) Claimed disappearance of original
"What I meant is that all your arguments are non-sequiturs. The observations do not logically lead to the conclusion, or even that the letter being a fake is more likely.
"All of them have completely natural possible explanations. It is only if one is convinced that the item is a fake, that one would see an argument for it in these points."
OK then, if that is true, explain why they are fallacies, non-sequiturs, and so on. You say they are, but do not address them. And that is the key point I am making... you do not address many of the problems with the letter, nor with the Voynich, but claim the arguments are incorrect, then refuse to say why. Tell me, tell us, what the "natural possible explanations" are.
And no, this is a frequent false claim, that I or anyone who realizes the letter or the ms. are probably fake, that we are driven because that is what we thought it was to begin with. I, like almost anyone else, started with the very strong foundation this was real. So I consider a claim this is circular reasoning to be unfounded, and deflection.
"Now since the item cannot be a fake, the right conclusion from each of them it the alternative one."
Then René, again, what is your "alternative one" for the items on the list? Why not take a moment, and explain?
"As a general clarification, we simply do not know where it was found by Voynich, when, under which conditions, what happened with it from 1665 to, say, 1969."
And thank you so much for that. We do not know... but if you really meant 1969, of course that would be about 1915 or so, when Voynich first said he found the letter (Chicago Exp.?).*
"Who knows, it may have been contained inside the cover, under the paste-downs.
Who knows how many times it has been re-folded since 1665 ???""
I think, perhaps, your "re-folded" comment above is in response to my observation that the fold lines on the letter are incorrect. They do not allow for the folding of this letter as the other letters in the Carteggio. But it cannot be dismissed by alternative folds, or additional folds, because none of the fold lines allow that piece of paper to fold into a self-contained envelope. That is a problem, that is a point. So if that is the reason you mention it, then I suggest it is not an adequate explanation for this problem. I would say, though, print out the letter, as I did, and try doing it.
"One cannot conclude anything from these unknowns."
First of all, thank you for at least admitting they are unknowns. They are unknown, in that they are factual observations, with unknown reasons. As for my claiming that the list of problems with the Marci letter are evidence of forgery, I would say that, while we cannot conclude they are, they do very much point toward that probability.
But whether or not you think these are signs of forgery, or incorrect observations, or for whatever reason... I note you still will not address them. With all respect, that is, to me, a sign you cannot. I have been challenged on many aspects of my theories, and as difficult as it is, or as pointless as it may sometimes seemed to me (in some cases), I do my best to address the issues. So I ask, again, will you? Can you?
* not knowing the origins of an item is a red flag to forgery. As you may or may not know, the subject of my 2017 lecture at the NSA symposium was based on the list of historical characteristics of forgeries in art and literature. It includes poor and missing provenance. There are 11 red flags, and the Voynich arguably hits on 10 of them. The Marci letter, I think, 3 or 4:
1) Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions
2) Has poor, contrary and/or missing versions of provenance.
3) Contains anachronistic content
4) Owner/seller lies about provenance
5) Contains incorrect uses of iconography
6) Improper tools, methods, and/or materials used
7) It looks "too new”
8) There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original
9) Copy of illustrations from books and catalogs
10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion
11) Claimed disappearance of original