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

[asteckley]

Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.

I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.

Hi Andrew,

see this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and then play the video.

Of course, this is now 7 years ago and Rich may want to add if he has changed his opinion on any of these points.

Thanks Rene for referring to that video. I've seen it before, but had forgotten how good it was.

My comment that I've "never seen him say that" was not in relation to any of its content though. It
was in reference to the comment that Rich has ever said or suggested "it must be a modern forgery".
I've just never seen him claim that in this thread, in that video, or anywhere else.
One can excuse the occasional mistake of using the wrong word (like "must" when one means "might"),
but not when it is done over and over again within a discussion where the difference is critical to the topic at hand.

In contrast to that, Rich seems to be pretty precise in always conveying what is fact and what is possible inference-from-fact.
Certainly if he hasn't on some occasion said it precisely, I've never noticed and have never had any problem
understanding what his words are intending to convey.

On the flip side, I've seen both in this thread and in others, logically flawed or outrightly incorrect statements
made pretty frequently. Two cases of that behavior that come to mind are when it is stated as fact that the
C-14 tests prove that the manuscript was written during the 15th century, and that it is
impossible for an illustration to depict (or more shockingly, impossible to resemble) a plant found in America
because the manuscript was created in Europe before 1492.

Given the length of this current thread and the incongruous claims being made about his claims, I
decided this morning that it would be worth the time to sit down
and watch that video again, while carefully listening to it one word at a time (well actually one phrase at a time),
looking for where he said anything that a reasonable person could misconstrue as stating that his ideas
were proof that his theory (or hypothesis) must be true or that the 15th century authentic theory must be false.
The closest thing -- and still a far cry from it -- was at one point where he said he “believes” the marginalia
(on f116v) was probably put there for effect and done in a different style not expecting it to ever be tested.
Beyond that, he has raised questions and pointed out inconsistencies. (And more recently, with this current thread, pointed out
the inconsistencies in how he has been admonished for something that many others are at least as guilty of.)

As I said, I had forgotten how good that presentation was. Everyone should take the time to go back and watch it,
whether they've seen it before or not. And by all means criticize it. But criticize what he actually says
(and not what he might have said if he irrationally believed no one else was right and that his observations were
being declared as "proof").

I would very much like to hear some reasoned arguments that explain why any of the red flags aren't actually red flags.
As far as the actual theories go, the reason I am not convinced of Rich's theory is because I haven't yet seen all
the evidence laid out and weighed in an objective way for and against each candidate theory. And so I'm not yet
convinced of any theory.

The main and strongest evidence I've been aware of for the 15th (or 16th)  century theory had been the letters that
you (Rene) have written about. But frankly my view of the strength of that evidence for connecting them to the
Voynich manuscript went from moderate to weak, now that I see how uncertain the Latin translations actually are.