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

[proto57]

Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio;

Well, yes, he can indeed try to claim any or all of those things, but that does not mean that he is right.

In fact, he does not have a good story, and his bits and pieces are full of contraductions (one of which is already pointed out by Karl). No consistent timeline is possible.

Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details.

Hi Rene: There is no contradiction in my rebuttal to Karl, nor in any of the points in my hypothesis. Although I think there is a possibility that the comments in the letters, referring to "unknown characters", "plants unknown to the Germans", "stars", "chemical symbolism", "arcane book", and so on, did influence the creation of a forgery to fit them, it is not a contradiction on my part to then note that the Voynich was created with many more elements in addition to them.

I do not contradict myself at all, and in fact I agree there is a similarity... a very weak one, but enough to suspect that they may be connected in some way. But anyone interested in my actual points on that, rather than taking your verdict, ought to read my page on this subject: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and active link): https://proto57.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/the-voynich-has-no-provenance/

And you have also made this claim t there is a problem with the timeline of my hypothesis. One time you said Voynich "would have needed a time machine". But you have not explained why you think this is. There is no timeline problem at all: Wilfrid bought the Libreria in 1908, we know that. Sometime in the ensuing two to three years (needing only maybe couple of months in that time), he created, probably with help of one to two others, using blank materials in the vast piles there, the Voynich. He may have shown and early version to Joseph Baer in Frankfort, maybe by 1909/10. Then he falsely announced he had "discovered" the manuscript in 1912.

So far, no problem with the timeline.

He inexplicably "didn't notice" the 1665/66 Marci Letter INSIDE his book until sometime later. And that letter could be real, but I think it may be fake, also. Either way, it does not affect the genuineness of the Voynich. But the letter, also, does not affect the timeline of my hypothesis at all... it refers to events in the 17th century. The finding of the letter, and the content of the letter, also do not contradict my timeline in any way.

You agree that the Voynich's knew and were friends with Joseph Strickland, who was at the Villa Mondragone both as a student and teaching there at various times between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and that supposedly he sold books, including the Voynich, to Wilfrid in 1912. Strickland also studied You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The timing for him to inform Wilfrid of the mentions of the mysterious manuscript in the letters, which he would have fully had the opportunity to do, by 1909 or so, is possible.

So all the timing works fine, with no contradictions at all (whether one believes my theory possible or not). Yet for the second or third time, you have claimed something like now, "No consistent timeline is possible." In the other instances in which you made this claim, and I have both explained why you are not correct in saying this, you did not explain yourself. I hope you do this time... either you would point out an error in the timeline of my hypothesis, for me and all the readers here, or you will realize you are wrong, and finally acknowledge that.

"Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details."

Actually my hypothesis can only seem flawed to anyone who accepts the opinions, stated as though they were absolutes, offered by you and others. I hear them repeated all the time, when they are not true, or unknowns. It is when one realizes that the image of the Voynich as an unassailable genuine and old manuscript is really a "castle built in the air", but with no real foundation under it, that people realize my hypothesis is possible, and even plausible.

I "appeal" to anyone who does not like to have others think for them. True skeptics, who value the "truth of the matter" over attractive fictions. The sort who don't just hear, for instance, "Rich's timeline doesn't fit", then walk away with pretty notions about the manuscript intact. The ones who would want to KNOW why you say this, and if you are right or wrong about it. And anyone who does understand the points of my hypothesis realizes that the claims by you and Karl, here, and the others I've read, are simply incorrect: There are no contradictions, no problem with timeline, no problem with the known facts of the Voynich... the real known facts, not those opinions stated as facts. I don't do that, I don't need to do that.

And as I've pointed out for many years now, while I am ready and willing to explain each and every point I make, and change those points which are in error, it is always a one way street of "drive by comments" criticizing something I've written, but then leaving before explaining why; while those so criticizing never fully explain, or explain properly, or at all, the many hundreds of anomalies and anachronisms the Voynich is sick with.

I mean, I can and must point out the massive amount of timeline violation, hypocrisy and contradictions one needs to believe the story that the Voynich is genuine: The "signature" which would have been visible in the 17th century, but was not mentioned in the Letters. The nude woman, baths, tubes, zodiac and more, not mentioned in the letters. The use of foldouts hundreds of years before they appeared on the literary scene. The pages being made of calfskin as much as 60 or more years apart. The last page marginalia being written in different style and hand, but in the ink of the main text. A manuscript, indecipherable, but supposedly made in a time of dirt-simple ciphers. Why does the Voynich have no acceptable provenance from the early 15th century to 1912? Why does it appear nowhere, in any record or reference? Why did Voynich lie about the provenance by giving at least three distinct versions of it? And then the last on, to Ethel, of the Mondragone, but only after Strickland died? Why do several experts identify plants, animals, script and more, as post-Columbus, i.e., "New World", in a supposedly 15th century document? How does it happen that most people agree the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal looks much like a curled armadillo, while all believers in 1420 say it is something else? Why is the 16th century term, "Pox Leber" written in that text, when it is written in supposedly early 15th century ink? Why did Voynich not see the 1665/66 Marci letter in the Voynich until years after he found it? Why do the folding lines and location of seals on the 1665/66 Marci letter not make any sense, as they do in other letters? How is the signature and date a perfectly aligned overlay with the Marci signature and date found on another letter in the Carteggio (but with an additional "tail" to turn the "0" into a "6")? Why is the Voynich missing a descriptive Beckz label, when most of his other purchases had one? Why was the cover replaced in the Voynich with a poor cover in the 17th century? Why does the Voynich binding have modern materials in it? Why does the Voynich ink have "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", and an unidentifiable binder? Why did so many eminent experts in art history, the history of the herbal and medicinal manuscripts, paleography, book cataloguing, linguistics, cipher and more, all believe different eras and geographies for the origin of the Voynich, ranging at least 300 years, and only one of their opinions match the eventual C14? Why does the Voynich have seemingly clean cut, and brighter edges, on many of its leaves? Why do the colors look so bright and fresh for an early 15th century manuscript? How did Voynich "know" De "Topencz" was Bohemian, when writing to Prague, if he had no idea who he was... and could not even spell his name? Why did Voynich happen to have a list of 19 or so people listed in Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II, in the order they appear in that book, when so many elements of the Voynich arguably match that book, which is also "signed" by a person mentioned in it? How does the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "wheel" line up perfectly, in proportions and features, with a diatom only discovered in the 19th century, and which needs a 500x microscope to see? Why are the "women tethered with stars" concept only seen in the Voynich until first found elsewhere in illustrations by Eilhu Vedder for an 1884/5 edition the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam? How is it that Charles Singer lectured on the Voynich, saying he saw it as early as 1905/08 at Joseph Baer's in Frankfort, when Wilfrid claims he first found it in 1912? Why would the Jesuits allow the purchase of the 1665/66 Marci letter be sold? Why did Kircher never mention the Voynich (if he truly saw it, as claimed), and why is it not listed in any of his records, if sent to him, as claimed? Why did Voynich claim he could not read the De Tepencz signature, when I found, in the unpublished (before me) photograph of the "pre-treatment" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. image, that it was visible? Why does the talent and quality of the Voynich images vary so greatly? Why do the illustrations of the nested and flying birds on f86r, seeming representing the four elements, happen to match the same representation's in Maier's Altalantia Fugeuns, from 1617? Why do all good comparisons in the Voynich always happen to either be in books published by 1909, or in places which Voynich is known or believed to have visited, and never vice-versa? Why are all anachronistic and anomalous comparisons, if they are paroidelia or coincidence, never of objects which existed after 1910? Why is there the illustration of the "Tower in a Hole", a nonsensical, fantastical image, in a supposedly genuine and meaningful manuscript? Why does it have no context in any known discipline, geography or time, but shares with dozens, like no other genuine work does?

The point in copying that (limited) selection is this: You and others drop comments claiming my use of contradiction, or violations of timeline, or misuse of facts, in my hypothesis. And I explain why this is not the case. And yet there are hundreds, probably thousands of anachronisms, contradictions, "timeline" violations, omissions of facts, manipulations of data, ignoring of expert observations and opinions, and on and on, all either answered implausibly, ignored entirely, or summarily dismissed, all to buttress up an image of the Voynich as a genuine item.

Why is that?

Rich.