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

[proto57]

The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.

It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.

Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.

The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.

I agree. I think it only adds evidence that something may be amiss. (One of those little red flags that is too weak to mean anything, but has the potential to become significant in retrospect.)

But Rene, your description bears zero relationship to my observations about why these folds are a problem. I can only assume you have not watched the video, or don't understand what I am describing here.

Here is the text from my blog, describing the problems with the folds:

The Folding: There were two basic ways a letter was prepared for delivery in the times before manufactured envelopes became available: One, the letter itself was folded into an envelope, with the writing to the inside and the address on the outside. Then this was usually secured with a “wax” seal, impressed while hot with the emblem of the sender. Another way was to fold the letter, but then place it in a dedicated envelope made from another sheet of paper or vellum, which was then addressed and sealed. The second way seems to have usually been used when the letter had writing on both sides, or one had multiple sheets. I have seen images of all the letters of the Kircher Carteggio, and the fold lines and seals make sense for one of these two uses. There are small variations in the size of the sections folded, or whether or not a flap is made for the seal, and so on, but they still make sense.

The 1665 Voynich/Marci letter seems different, and odd, in this area. So I printed out the 1666 Marci letter, and tried to fold it on its apparent fold lines. There are ways to fold it, but they do not make sense. It is as though the letter was trimmed down from a larger source, that was previously folded, with new fold lines added. The fact that the Beinecke lists the letter as being blank on the reverse (hence no address) does imply this was meant to be included in another sheet, folded as an envelope… but then, why are there seals on it? It has been suggested that the seals were used to attach this letter inside the cover, or some pages, of the Voynich… but this is also not a usual practice, and then, since the cover is considered newer than the book, and newer than the letter for that matter, why do the seals and their marks line up as though they were part of the letter itself, when folded?

I think these anomalies suggest that the 1666 Marci letter was created from another source sheet, which was possibly trimmed down. This source may have had seals on it for some purpose, perhaps as an unmarked envelope. Perhaps an original address was trimmed off, or erased. This source had some folds, but others may have been added to create what we see today… an odd format with seals and folds that cannot be made sense of. Related to this is the known fact that Voynich had access to a tremendous amount of blank paper from the end-sheets of books, and possibly other sources. In fact it is related both by James McBey, the famous etching artist, and Millicent Sowerby, a Voynich staff member and biographer, that Voynich sold ancient, blank paper to McBey.

EDITED TO ADD: For emphasis... 2,000 letters in the Kircher Carteggio, all the folding lines work; Voynich's supposedly sister letter to that collection, the fold lines cannot work.

And of course, again, anyone can see my demonstration using two sided copies of the Marci letter, in this video: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hopefully you will actually learn the actual problems with the letter's folds and seal placement, and stop simply contending, essentionally, "its unusual, lots of things are unusual, so what?". Well yes lots of things are, but in what way they are different is the point here. This letter does not fold into an envelope. Therefore there is no way it WAS an envelope, as all other letters are. It must have been made from a larger scrap of paper, in which the lines made sense.

But after several times of trying to compel you to address what is really going on here, I fear that my point will continue to be ignored. But honestly, that is "par for the course", as I have always found those things unanswerable by the Paradigm simply go unanswered. That is an answer in itself, by the way.

Anyway, I've shortenend the points on my blog post, and put them below, as they represent other unanswered questions and anomalies in the 1665/66 Marci letter, in addition to the impossible fold lines. These are shortened, and, again, for anyone interested in what I actually say, rather than the easily dismiss-able Straw Man version of them presented in their stead, they can read for themselves: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Short version of all anomalies I and others see in the Marci letter:

1) Voynich claimed he paid little attention to it- an absurd claim considering how important the ms. was to him. More likely is this claim was to cover for why he had not mentioned it earlier, when he had actually forged it, or had it forged for him.

2) He was allowed to purchase it from the Jesuits- Very unlikely, as any correspondance to or from Kircher would have been treasured by them.

3) Marci held back this information in the earlier letters?- Again, makes no sense, because, "why would Marci wait to mention until his last, dying years, and only in his last request to Kircher, the important clues contained in that letter? Voynich’s 1665 Marci letter first mentions the rumor of Rudolf II buying it from a bearer, or otherwise paying that bearer, 600 ducats. And it mentions the guess that Roger Bacon wrote it! But confoundedly, Baresch, Kinner and a younger Marci fail to mention any of this to Kircher, for decades."

4) The Latin is "vexing" in this letter, in ways it is not in the others. Why is it poorer, more confusing?

5) The folds do not line up in any context. I covered this in my video, and copied the text from my blog, above.

6) "The “Signature” & Date: It has long been known that the “signature” of Marcus Marci is not by him, as it seems to be different on his other, earlier letters. This has been explained by the fact that Marci was very old, and ill at this point, and some scribe wrote and signed the letter for him. But interesting to me is the almost pantographic ability of this scribe… because in the Kircher Carteggio is one, later, Marci letter, dated September 10, 1665, seemingly by this same scribe… but if so, why are the signatures an exact overlay?"



(and yes those ARE perfect overlays you see there: the lighter areas are a reduced opacity layer of copies of the other signature, date, etc.. It is as though they were traced, or a pantograph was used, or perhaps a camera lucida)

7) Adding a new one to me, noted by others: Why didn't Marci refer to Barshius by name?