Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[proto57]

Fakes exist, but the fact that they exist is not sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich MS is one. For exactly the same reason one could argue that the Mona Lisa is a fake.

But that is an invention on your part, a complete straw man creation, because I did not, and do not, say "... the fact that [fakes] exist [is] sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich is one". Re-stating my actual arguments into something easily rebuttable is no argument at all. But it causes me to spin my wheels, and forces me to point this out... as all such false arguments about what I really believe, and what I really am saying. So it is effective in that regard, but is not helpful to anyone who wants to see a real debate on this subject.

The actual point I am making is that when you learn about all the cases and characteristics of art and historical forgeries (as in the bibliography I posted in a link earlier in this thread), you learn that the Voynich more of those characteristics than any other known forgery, or any object considered real. I often say the Voynich is a "textbook case" of forgery. This subject has been the core of two of my talks on the Voynich. To varying degrees, these are what I call the Red Flags of Forgery (and "no" these are far from the only elements in my hypothesis):

1)  Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions
2)  Has poor, contrary and/or missing 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 to create it
7)  It looks "too new”
8)  There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, the original
9)  Copy of illustrations from books, catalogs, and real objects
10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion

So "no" one could not say the Mona Lisa is a forgery on any grounds, certainly not with any argument I make for the Voynich, as it actually has no characteristics of a forgery (that I have ever heard of).

Just one example: worm holes could have been faked. Indeed, this is possible but that is not the question (see above).
All the details that Wladimir found in the binding could have been faked in 1912.
But was it really?
The answer from the experts is clear.

I would second your opinion that the "answer from the experts is clear". As I've pointed out... and thanks to my need to rebutt your "nofake" page my eyes were opened to the very large extent of this phenomenon... the last comprehensive publication on this subject actually reveals how many anomalous and anachronistic characteristics the Voynich exhibits. I outline many of them here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Over and over the experts point out problems with the Voynich in that book. Why? Because they are experts, and are not going to hide the problems. It is just how one reads it... they must be glossed over by anyone who thinks the Voynich might be real.

It is the same for the ink tests. Most people here probably believe that McCrone determined that the ink of the Voynich was proper for the 15th century. But the report never says that. The report gives the cold hard facts about the composition of the inks, but does not give that judgement. That the ink fits the 15th century type inks (and of course you or I can mix those up today, anyway) is the opinion of others based on report. But even that report states various odd things, that nobody will answer: The unusual copper and zinc (why are they unusual? For "the time", or in those quantities, or at all?). The "titanium compound": Why? What type? As a white? And the binder: McCrone says the binder in the Voynich ink is not in their database. They do not know what it is. No, these things do not mean it is a fake, I am not saying this. What I am saying is that others read these things and say "See, the experts say everything is sunshine and bunnies". But the experts do not say that... they all point out, the linguists, the scientists, the binding experts, the ink tests, even the C14 tests, and so much more... they point out, they report, anomoly after anomoly, things that don't fit, that they can't explain... and readers and listeners ignore those problems (well I don't, many don't), and say...

"The experts give it a pass with flying colours". But they didn't. You did.

Also, such an eminent and unprecedented fake, without any codicological flaw, of a genuine 15th century manuscript would never be sold as a 17th century herbal from Jacobus de Tepenec.
Jacobus who???
And on parchment...

Jacobus de Tepenec was actually made quite famous under his birth name of Jacob Horciciky, and one of the stars of what I believe was the primer for the Voynich Manuscript: 1904's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., by Bolton. He and his (probably ficticious) brother Christian Horcicky were in that book, as herbalists, botanists, and physicians. That being said, didn't Voynich push Roger Bacon as the author by the time it was announced? You point out one of the probable reasons for the possible change of authorship... name is everything.

I have one page dealing with the modern fake theory:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That should be enough. Rich has complained that I took down the second one, but this theory is already getting far too much attention. There are so many other more interesting ones that barely get any attention.
And I don't want to write more than necessary about what is NOT.

And I think I've sufficiently addressed, and defused, all of your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But I do have the second page, and will rebut that also, when I have a chance. I think that is fair because you have referred to that missing page as though it is unassailable. It is also fair because it was directed at me, and my ideas. I have the right to respond, even though you removed it.

I've often noted that you would prefer that we discuss other alternate theories, rather than my modern forgery. But you never actually address the true points of my theory, but use alternates to my points and argue those instead, as you did again, above.

Rich

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.