28-04-2024, 03:03 PM
Hi Andrew,
well, that was a clear case, and not the first or only one here, of talking at cross-purposes. I had interpreted your comment as indicating that you had never seen Rich argue that a great variety of opinions is an indication that something could be a fraud. That is why I pointed to the video.
It is one of several points that Kurz is making.
Well, what is a 'red flag'? It should be understood as an indication that something could be wrong.
It is not evidence of a fraud.
All these points can occur for genuine manuscripts as well as for fakes.
So what do they tell us?
If an object raises such red flags, then the object should be studied more closely.
Now that has been done, not by amateurs but by (real) experts in each of the respective fields. First in 2009, and again in 2014.
Nothing was found.
The manuscript passed all tests with flying colours.
I used to have a web page addressing these red flags one by one but I took it down again.
Interestingly, decades ago, the situation was quite different.
There was just the MS and the Marci letter. Nothing else. The two items existed in a complete vacuum.
This is where Kurz would really come into play.
I was seriously wondering whether the two could be a fake.
I had quite an interesting story, which I may have told here before.
This is one of the things that set me off on the historical research. After all, these events are much more recent, so it will be much easier to find information about it.
Little by little, the evidence turned up and we got a more and more complete picture.
Thanks for the reminder about the translations, by the way. I will eventually look at that, but so far I have not seen anything that changes the picture in any way.
well, that was a clear case, and not the first or only one here, of talking at cross-purposes. I had interpreted your comment as indicating that you had never seen Rich argue that a great variety of opinions is an indication that something could be a fraud. That is why I pointed to the video.
It is one of several points that Kurz is making.
(28-04-2024, 12:09 AM)asteckley wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
Well, what is a 'red flag'? It should be understood as an indication that something could be wrong.
It is not evidence of a fraud.
All these points can occur for genuine manuscripts as well as for fakes.
So what do they tell us?
If an object raises such red flags, then the object should be studied more closely.
Now that has been done, not by amateurs but by (real) experts in each of the respective fields. First in 2009, and again in 2014.
Nothing was found.
The manuscript passed all tests with flying colours.
I used to have a web page addressing these red flags one by one but I took it down again.
Interestingly, decades ago, the situation was quite different.
There was just the MS and the Marci letter. Nothing else. The two items existed in a complete vacuum.
This is where Kurz would really come into play.
I was seriously wondering whether the two could be a fake.
I had quite an interesting story, which I may have told here before.
This is one of the things that set me off on the historical research. After all, these events are much more recent, so it will be much easier to find information about it.
Little by little, the evidence turned up and we got a more and more complete picture.
Thanks for the reminder about the translations, by the way. I will eventually look at that, but so far I have not seen anything that changes the picture in any way.