New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[proto57]

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you both what I try to do, and what I see in others, when trying to determine the value of their input... for my own use, my own purposes. If I don't see consistent standards applied, or a uniform context to explain their opinions, then I value it less. It is less useful to me, I mean. I believe that the overall style, ability, accuracy, and yes, features, of the cat and the ram are not easily dismiss-able, and plausibly suggest the two artists may be the same. And I come to that opinion through a consistent application of a standard: That the Voynich artist was a very poor artist, and that they were both purposefully and unavoidably inaccurate in representations of items they often used as influences and suggestions, items which they then altered in form to some degree, so that inarguable identification would always be elusive, thus insulating themselves from identification and possible detection. And they did this under an overall context which explains these observations: They were a forger with poor artistic skills, and lacking in a care or understanding of human and animal anatomy and botany.

Why is it important to you to prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake? Why not just walk away?

As others have pointed out, and I agree, while we all have different opinions about what the Voynich might be, isn't it interesting and valuable to discuss it? I can tell that even those who strongly disagree with me... for a long time, and even in this very thread... have come to think of new things in new ways. No, not changed their minds... that is not the point, nor actually even the goal in discussing it (for me), but explore all possibilities, and the problems and merits of them.

As for why it is "important to [me] prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake?" First of all, I am trying to figure out what the Voynich is, fake or not. As I have demonstrated over and over, during the last almost 20 years, that I am one of the very few people who is willing to change my mind. My opinions and my hypotheses have been fundamentally altered in two large ways, and a great many smaller ones. So I'm not trying to "prove" it is a fake, I am testing my hypothesis that it may be a fake. I do this through research and discussion.

As for "Why not walk away?", well why would I? I would not suggest that of anyone else, first of all. I am interested in, and admire their dedication, and intelligence, even when I think they are wrong. I listen to them, and their reasoning about why they fell the ways they do... that is actually the most interesting part to me.

And lastly, don't you want to know for certain? I mean, those with a myriad of theories mostly realize... as I do... that they have no proof. No one does. You don't know what the Voynich actually is, any more than I do. So you would rather not know, for sure, if it is real? Would you rather not be confronted with that possibility? Also, if you are sure I am wrong, why not make your case? Explain to my why I am wrong. Then, as I do, I will argue my points to you... sometimes, on some points, I will agree with you.

We will both learn. Whatever you think the Voynich might be, I guarantee I have something to add to the discussion. Not so sound arrogant, but I have been in this field a long time now, and done much research in areas not studied by others, and much in person, in archives, museums and libraries. I mean, even if I am wrong, I think I can, and have, added valuable information and insights... as many others do, too. I, and they, should not "walk away". I want to hear it all, discuss it all.

Why don't you? That's a serious question... why don't you want to hear alternate arguments to your own viewpoint? It is proper, scientific, valuable and productive to have discussions with people of all understandings and experience, even those we don't agree with. Why don't you want that?

With respect, Rich.