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

[Mark Knowles]

Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.

I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.

I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.

If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue...  I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.

I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.

That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.

Rich.

Your presentation is very misleading. You don't think their datings are correct, as many of them make it quite clear that they don't think the manuscript is a modern forgery. You can pretend that they agree with you, but they don't. As just one example, how can the Voynich be written by Roger Bacon and at the same time be a modern forgery? It can't.

In addition with the same data in many cases they come to different conclusions from one another, and so they are mutually contradictory and therefore it is impossible for even all their analysis to be consistent with your theory or anyone else's.

You seem to be trying to co-opt, mostly dead, people who can't talk back to your theory despite the fact that they have made it clear that they don't endorse your theory.