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

[kckluge]

Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"


There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.


A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.


[...]

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; and that the manuscript does not match the description of the manuscript referenced in the letters to Kircher (despite supposedly inspiring the forgery in the first place).




Note that the C-14 dating could have falsified the authenticity of the manuscript had the vellum clearly post-dated the Marci letter. It didn't. There would have been no hand-waving that away.

Wow Karl! You really came in swinging there! And gloves off, too!




1) Yes I believe the Marci letter is probably a forgery for several reasons: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.




But whether or not it is real or not, it does not affect whether the Voynich is real or not. So no I haven't "played that card" in the sense you seem to mean.

The problem, of course, if that *if* the Marci letter is a forgery, then the forger *had* to have specific knowledge of the prior correspondence with Kircher about whatever mss was being discussed (because the Marci letter references that prior correspondence). Rich has no actual evidence of such knowledge, and the burden of proof is on him to provide it (as neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative). At best he can make vague plausibility arguments that are just that -- plausibility arguments, not evidence.



"2) As for the letters of the Carteggio, it was long claimed that the letters were "under lock and seal", with no evidence they were. They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits, and I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched. They were seen, considered important, and were referenced. [...]" (Sorry, I clearly haven't figured out how to do replies in the middle of quotes...)



Note the proof by vigorous assertion. "They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits..." -- as evinced by what, exactly? "...I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched" -- what you don't "buy" isn't evidence of anything. "They were seen, considered important, and were referenced." -- By whom, by whom, and where and when, exactly (and don't forget, you and I had a lengthy exchange about this on the mailing list...)? Who in the19th or early 20th century directly references and quotes material in the Carteggio?




"3) The guy in charge, Strickland, was a long time friend of both Ethel and Wilfrid. And he sold items to Wilfrid. So the idea that Wilfrid only saw and knew about what Strickland offered him? He was known for having his feelers out all around Europe. It is not inconceivable at all that the mentions of an intractable book, with unknown characters and script, and "plants unknown to the Germans", and some stars, was not passed on to Wilfrid."




The "it's not inconceivable" as Rich's best argument speaks for itself.



"4) No, the mentions are not a good match, not at all....But looking at the evidence critically, I think we can see it probably was not the Voynich they were talking about: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."




Rich's argument (as stated briefly in a following post of his) is the following: "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." That is the sum and totality of Rich's case on this point -- that because the letters in the Carteggio don't specifically mention aspects of the mss. that *he* would have mentioned or that *he thinks* the writer(s) would/should have mentioned, that that is evidence that the letters aren't referring to the mss. in front of us.

Karl