17-08-2016, 04:01 PM
As a general comment, of course nobody is infallible.
It is also quite normal for experts in any field to have their own particular opinions, which may well differ from other experts.
These usually don't concern the basics. In the 1990's, when Jim Reeds reported on the feedback that Sergio Toresella gave about the Voynich MS, he also referred to two other top specialists, namely his wife Karen, and John Riddle. He indicated that they all have a different take on some subjects.
Now it is one thing to imagine that a personal preference causes one expert or the other to be wrong on some aspect. Or that he may have missed some new information.
It is quite another thing to imagine that they are completely wrong on something completely basic (for them).
For outsiders (e.g. amateurs) it is often not even possible to comprehend which vast amount of information they are lacking, compared to the experts. It's not just that they went to college for 4-5 years. They usually took a PhD and have years of additional professional experience.
Taking the case of Dr Ewa S-S. When she says that Taurus eating from a manger is very unusual, it could be conceivable that in the mean time some MSs have been found with precisely such illustrations, that she was not aware of. It is not conceivable that she is mistaken about the fundamental observation that the general cycle fits in a European tradition.
Now going back to Friedman, one should probably distinguish between three cases.
There is the work from the various study groups, and this has been described by Jim Reeds in a Cryptologia paper, which should answer quite a number of the questions of Anton.
There is also his own analysis, and also that of his wife Elizebeth, who was essentially as gifted as he was.
I would not be surprised if these two analyses were done in quite a different way, and without any formal reports.
But maybe such reports still exist. I don't have them.
It is also quite normal for experts in any field to have their own particular opinions, which may well differ from other experts.
These usually don't concern the basics. In the 1990's, when Jim Reeds reported on the feedback that Sergio Toresella gave about the Voynich MS, he also referred to two other top specialists, namely his wife Karen, and John Riddle. He indicated that they all have a different take on some subjects.
Now it is one thing to imagine that a personal preference causes one expert or the other to be wrong on some aspect. Or that he may have missed some new information.
It is quite another thing to imagine that they are completely wrong on something completely basic (for them).
For outsiders (e.g. amateurs) it is often not even possible to comprehend which vast amount of information they are lacking, compared to the experts. It's not just that they went to college for 4-5 years. They usually took a PhD and have years of additional professional experience.
Taking the case of Dr Ewa S-S. When she says that Taurus eating from a manger is very unusual, it could be conceivable that in the mean time some MSs have been found with precisely such illustrations, that she was not aware of. It is not conceivable that she is mistaken about the fundamental observation that the general cycle fits in a European tradition.
Now going back to Friedman, one should probably distinguish between three cases.
There is the work from the various study groups, and this has been described by Jim Reeds in a Cryptologia paper, which should answer quite a number of the questions of Anton.
There is also his own analysis, and also that of his wife Elizebeth, who was essentially as gifted as he was.
I would not be surprised if these two analyses were done in quite a different way, and without any formal reports.
But maybe such reports still exist. I don't have them.