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

[proto57]

From reading this thread and the posts in Mark's,  I sometimes get the impression under this theory that Voynich was an incredible forger to have attended to so many details, while also an absolutely dreadful forger (e.g. the art).  Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

Hi, Tavie: The idea that Voynich would have to have been an incredible forger does not come from me. I in no way think this is at all necessary. There are so many problems with the Voynich that a better forger would probably not have made. That list is very long, and so I won't list them here. And yes most people think the art sucks, even when they think it real and old. Reasons are given to excuse this poor art, but it is poor. Some have thought it "childlike", in fact Edith Sherwood's theory is based on it being by a young Leonardo. And so on.

Anyway, the theory is certainly falsifiable. As asteckley mentioned, a clear, indisputable reference to the Voynich having existed at some date before it was "discovered" in 1912 would do it, and the further back said reference went, the more convincing. But it has long been noted that the Voynich was invisible to history until the 17th century, and the references used to claim it was being discussed, in the "Carteggio" of Kircher, not only do not come close to describing it, but actually You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. being discussed for various reasons. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (sp?) find by Guzy, likewise, the same.

So the Voynich really has no acceptable provenance, but if any ever turns up, that would do it.

A translation my also resolve the issue, one way or the other, depending on what that translation states. If a forgery, there would be "tells" that would give it away... if flawless perhaps it would be evidence of real.

And perhaps if any of the missing pages are found in a place that they could not have been, unless they were put there in some past age, that might do it. Another thing that would prove genuine is if any element of the ink or paint could be dated. There has been a suggestion, I think by Rene... or I heard it from him... that the faded yellow ink might be organic, and therefore datable by C14. But the quantity may be far too small.

The other way, to falsify genuine the genuine/old theory, has several possibilities: Translation, again, but showing modern content of some sort... really any content past about 1500 might convince many, but if, say, 1600 or later, it would be proof it is a fraud. Of course any historical errors in the text might do it, too, depending on the nature of those. Also, some "confession"... a letter by Wilfrid, or some other person (Winifrid?) giving a reliable account of it being fake (I was offered the opportunity to see a confession letter by Voynich, admitting he created the thing, but I didn't trust them... I think they were grifters and publicity seekers... when I called their bluff, they disappeared into the woodwork).

There are a half dozen other ways I have thought of to prove this, and I am working on a couple, but don't want to "tip my hand" yet.

I'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff, too.

Rich.