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

[proto57]

The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

This is clearly a problem for someone suggesting that the MS is a modern fake, so the chosen approach is to discredit this evidence and then claim that there is none. This discrediting is either by saying (without any supporting evidence) that the Marci letter is also a fake.

You feel the 1665/66 Marci letter is genuine, that is of course your opinion. But to claim it is "genuine beyond a reasonable doubt", or that there is no supporting evidence, are ones that I don't feel can be logically asserted. As I point out in my post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


... there are many problems with it that simply don't make sense, and remain unexplained. It is to me another case in which serious issues do not get answered nor resolved, but then later are simply ignored. The fold lines make no sense in any real context; the seal and other markings do not line up for any known purpose; the signature date and other parts of the letters have an uncannily perfect alignment with a similar, genuine letter... with small alterations to change numerals of the date. Here is my discussion of the fold lines, and anyone can see what I mean by this:



How would you explain that this letter's fold lines do not work in any real context, as shown above? I suggest that it is very likely the letter was created on a larger sheet of paper, on which the fold lines and seal placement did make sense, and cut down for this use.

What would be your reasoning for these useless fold lines?

Let's look at the Rohonc codex, which was mentioned  in another thread the other day.

This MS was found in a private library of a count that was donated to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

And that's it. There is no record when it entered the library, where it came from, who owned it before.

Nothing. Now that is a case of bad or missing provenance. And, indeed, this has led to a belief for over a hundred years that the Rohonc codex should be a fake.

Even a potential faker was identified - here also without evidence. He could have done it.

That is a very good comparison, one which I often make. I only disagree with you that the Voynich is not similarly "provenance impaired", the root cause of our disagreement here. But yes, I think it likely that the Rohonc is a forgery, with many of the same problems the Voynich is equipped with.

Rich