13-08-2020, 05:35 AM
(13-08-2020, 12:11 AM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the real truth, unpopular as it is to say to some, but as I often repeat there is nobody who can be said to be clearly an expert on the manuscript. Yes, some people know quite a lot about the manuscript in terms of details such as its history with regards to Emperor Rudolf etc. I say this as there is no one individual who if all their unproven ideas turned out to be wrong would subsequently be regarded as an expert! Anyone who claims that they only present facts is in my opinion being disingenuous as I have seen everybody present their own hypotheses or theories.
There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript
"truth" (first sentence) and "facts" (fourth sentence) are among the most mis-used words in Voynich writings. If one writes carefully, one finds that one should more often use word like "observations" and "interpretations".
The last sentence "There is so little of real substance that is known about the Voynich manuscript" is wrong, but this is exactly the thought by people who prefer not to read earlier work (or really have no time).
It is by propagating this misinformation that people may be led to believe there is no need to inform oneself.
Essentially all incorrect publications that attracted some fame (and the many that remained obscure) are demonstrably ignoring and violating different bodies of knowledge about the MS.
This is true for the modern fake theory, Janick and Tucker, Hauer and Kondrak, Cheshire, and many others that I am now too lazy to mention.