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

[proto57]

What I mean by the botched job is the colouring of the plants with paint. Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v.
Is that how you would do it as a counterfeiter? 

About the photocopy where you took the photo. The Tepenece lettering is neither better nor worse than it is today. If you look closely, you can also see the cloud of plaster in some places. What now? Bad photocopy, bad chemist or bad photographer.
No matter what, it looks exactly the same as it does today.

But what is nice to see on the photocopy is that the lid had a leather cover. Wrapping. The edge is clearly visible.


By the way.
How do you keep a stack of whole sheets of parchment for 500 years, at a time when the material was scarce and often needed, when supplies were constantly coming in, and that without mixing it with parchment from other centuries?

Why are the pages with pictures more worn than the pages with only text? (recipe section). Is this intentional, or is it simply because pictures are more interesting than text alone, and so have been used more over the years?

This has nothing to do with forgery, it's just the ravages of time.
That's my opinion now. All things considered, there is no other option.

But here is the problem, Aga, with all your observations... or mine, too, at this level, because I don't dispute many of the claims you make, as they could be correct. It is just that we don't know. And, it goes, again, exactly to the theme of this thread.

The way I see it is this: It is your hypothetical genuine 15th century scribe, vs. my hypothetical 20th century scribe. And they each of us can suppose "what they would do or not do" endlessly, and even find real world comparisons for each effect we all see.

For instance, you write, "Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v. Is that how you would do it as a counterfeiter?" But don't you see, I could make the claim, "Once conscientiously like example F8v. And then botched again, as in f95v. Is that how you would do it as a genuine artist?" I mean, I could counter your opinion, easily, with my own, and vice versa, for each of these points, for ANY point, at this level. In this case I can simply say that "A genuine artist would be more consistent, as it is their genuine, learned talent, which does not change, while a forger is copying that style, they don't really possess that talent, and that is why we see this inconsistency".

Do you see my point here? That just like the case of playing the experts like violins, picking this one, and discarding that one, using one opinion of one expert and discarding the rest, one can likewise use almost any feature of the Voynich, and cast it in a way that supports their viewpoint. I'm not saying many of my observations are "better", or as Rene was claiming, saying that anyone should only "listen to me". My point is that these things, at this level of evidence, can be connected to any situation in the real world, with actual examples, to make a case... while the exact opposite case can also be made.

So the net result is that anyone can make the Voynich anything they think it is, think it should be, and think it is not, by these sorts of arguments. So they don't help us learn what the Voynich is.

Now my purpose in pointing this out, about your observations, is NOT to argue for mine. Well, unavoidably, maybe a bit: I would, I do and can make the point why I believe what I think is the correct interpretation, but have done that at length, and in doing so, have striven to avoid the pitfalls of endlessly going 'round and 'round with no landmarks in sight. I think that can be done, and it is done through an overarching context which sort of "tunes" the violin. I feel "Context is King" here, and believe I have found that context, which is my foundation, my landmark, my litmus test (to throw a bunch of metaphors at you), which brings all these observations of all of us into focus (Ok, one more metaphor).

And I don't mean as "context" the broad, unfocused general ones of "It's real" and "It's fake", but more specific ones of why it was made, when it was made, who made it, where it was made, and by what means it was made. I feel I have a context for that which then helps resolve many of these smaller questions, such as your ones, here. So that is the way I look at it, and when I hear any genuine arguments, I look to see "what is the context" for this argument? In this case, the claim a genuine artist would create both good and bad coloring qualities. OK, but why, and how does this fit with the rest of the Voynich, and in what context?

Anyway, that is my feedback on this point. Rich.