09-04-2020, 03:40 PM
Hi René:
You wrote, on the locked thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"There is clearly very strong, documented, historical evidence that the Marci letter found together with the Voynich MS has to be genuine. This evidence is almost entirely ignored, and the part that is represented at your blog is represented incorrectly."
Well that was the purpose of that thread, and this continuation: What is that evidence? I don't ignore anything, but I've not seen the proof you give that this is genuine, nor your countering of my list of problems with the letter as seen on my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You've hinted at one or two, but you will not address the list of them, as seen there. But in the linked comment, you do give a partial point on the improper folding (without addressing the problems with folding, such as why it does not fold like a normal, contemporary letter/envelope, as seen in all other examples):
"If the Marci letter was a fake, written by Voynich, he would have written it on a plain and unfolded piece of paper."
Why? Why would he have done so? Forgers use old materials, and in this case, I contend the old paper used was folded when forged on. That is, that the fold lines existed when Voynich, or someone, reused that paper to create a fake letter.
Can you explain your contention that Voynich would have had to use a "plain and unfolded piece of paper"? I don't understand.
"So both a real Marci letter and a fake Marci letter would have started their life flat and unfolded."
First, no, as above, the forged letter would have started on previously folded paper, the genuine Marci letters, on flat, new (at the time) paper.
"So why would it be impossible for the real letter to end up folded as it is, while it would be possible for the fake letter?"
You have that backwards: Real letters DO fold properly. See my blog post, and video. That is the point of those folds... they create their own envelope, from the letter, with the address on the outside, and the seal lining up.
The 1665/66 Marci letter, on the other hand, does not properly fold along the fold lines into anything conceivable. Unless you can come up with an applicable, logical and reasonable reason those fold lines do not allow a normal folding, as in genuine, then this issue is unresolved, and I will continue to assume it is not addressable, explainable, except as reuse of old materials for the purpose of forgery.
You wrote, on the locked thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"There is clearly very strong, documented, historical evidence that the Marci letter found together with the Voynich MS has to be genuine. This evidence is almost entirely ignored, and the part that is represented at your blog is represented incorrectly."
Well that was the purpose of that thread, and this continuation: What is that evidence? I don't ignore anything, but I've not seen the proof you give that this is genuine, nor your countering of my list of problems with the letter as seen on my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You've hinted at one or two, but you will not address the list of them, as seen there. But in the linked comment, you do give a partial point on the improper folding (without addressing the problems with folding, such as why it does not fold like a normal, contemporary letter/envelope, as seen in all other examples):
"If the Marci letter was a fake, written by Voynich, he would have written it on a plain and unfolded piece of paper."
Why? Why would he have done so? Forgers use old materials, and in this case, I contend the old paper used was folded when forged on. That is, that the fold lines existed when Voynich, or someone, reused that paper to create a fake letter.
Can you explain your contention that Voynich would have had to use a "plain and unfolded piece of paper"? I don't understand.
"So both a real Marci letter and a fake Marci letter would have started their life flat and unfolded."
First, no, as above, the forged letter would have started on previously folded paper, the genuine Marci letters, on flat, new (at the time) paper.
"So why would it be impossible for the real letter to end up folded as it is, while it would be possible for the fake letter?"
You have that backwards: Real letters DO fold properly. See my blog post, and video. That is the point of those folds... they create their own envelope, from the letter, with the address on the outside, and the seal lining up.
The 1665/66 Marci letter, on the other hand, does not properly fold along the fold lines into anything conceivable. Unless you can come up with an applicable, logical and reasonable reason those fold lines do not allow a normal folding, as in genuine, then this issue is unresolved, and I will continue to assume it is not addressable, explainable, except as reuse of old materials for the purpose of forgery.