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

[kckluge]

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.

just a quick reminder -- that's Rich's entire case on this point: the letters in the Carteggio don't refer to certain aspects of the mss. that he thinks they should/ought to have, therefore the mss referred to in the letters isn't the Voynich mss.

"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 cant speak for Rene or anyone else, but the claim that my perception of Rich's claims as flawed does not reflect a deep familiarity and engagement with its details is bull puckey. Rich and I have butted heads on a number of specific claims of his over the years in depth and detail...

[...] 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.

Just a quick reminder -- in the context of this thread, the claims Rich is referring to are that

(1) he claims the Marci letter is a forgery,

(2) he claims the Carteggio letters served as part of the inspiration of Voynich's forgery of the mss, and

(3) he claims the description of the mss in the Carteggio letters isn't a good match for the Voyich mss

None of those three claims is incorrect. As for "no contradictions", I'll get to that below...

...while I am ready and willing to explain each and every point I make, and change those points which are in error,

Opinions may differ on that.

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 irony of following up a complaint about "drive by comments" with a spectacular example of what's referred to as a "Gish gallop" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is palpable.

[...] 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?

Given that your theory claims, "At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim)." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), I can just as reasonably ask why the supposed forger didn't remove all the (supposedly compellingly) post-13th-century items when they changed their mind? If per one of your earlier posts in this thread, "I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To 'erase' most of the more 'Rufolfesque' content, and 'make it' pass as a Roger Bacon" then the forger clearly (if we buy your arguments) didn't do a very good job of it. Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is the quality of the evidence for post-Columbian items in the drawings...

Why is the 16th century term, "Pox Leber" written in that text, when it is written in supposedly early 15th century ink?

Here is a prime sentence that shows the Gish gallop in action. "Pox leber" occurs before the 16th century -- in fact, in a Sept. 6, 2014 post to the mailing list Rich said, "Well that is my point. We have a perfect, fifteenth century example of 'pox leber', in the Hans Sachs work, and we can assume that it may have been used earlier... but we don't know." Yet, now here we are in 2024 and Rich is talking about "the 16th century term, 'Pox Leber'" As for "supposedly early 15th century ink", that is Rich reading a great deal into the use of the word "same" in the McCrone report as meaning something more than same general type of iron gall ink. In fact, the report is very clear that there is variability in the formulation of even the inks which it refers to as the "same." I'm not going to rehash the extended prior discussions of both those points here -- even at this level of detail, it's taken me 6 lines of text and the non-trivial amount of time involved in digging through my collected saved materials to respond at this level of detail. Which is, of course, the entire point of Gish galloping as a tactic...

[...] 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 is someone forging what's supposed to be a 13th century work leaving in drawings that match a 17th century model? Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is your theory. 



Which brings us back to contradictions. As I have pointed out in the past, if your theory and interpretation of the evidence is correct, then we have to believe that Voyich-as-forger rockets back and forth between being cunning at a level that would make a Bond villain blush on some occasions and sloppy in a way that beggars belief on others. That he went to all the trouble to manipulate the pages (reordering the women-in-ponds folios so the drawing that crosses the fold isn't the center bifolio in the quire, etc.) to cunningly imply a fictitious codicological history for the manuscript, but was so careless and sloppy he left illustrations of 17th and 18th century optical devices in it after switching gears and deciding to make it a Bacon mss. One minute he's Danny Ocean, the next he's Blackadder's sidekick Baldrick. 



Which brings us back to falsifiability -- all those problems get swept under the rug with the shrug emoji and that's just they way Voynich did it. Which can explain anything, and so explains nothing.



By the way -- what am I doing wrong that extra blank lines show up in my posts? I don't see it in other posts...