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

[proto57]

1) You've assumed, on your own, that I was claiming to have found the relationship and orientation of the individual words to be the same distance as the originals. It never occurred to me that this would assumed, or that anyone would think it necessary that this be the case to realize these seem to be perfect tracings. No, the individual words are not the original spacing from each other... if these were traced, the words were copied separately, with small differences.

No, I have detailed some of the differences that should be visible in the overlays, distance between individual letters not words, letters should be different too in these areas, not "perfect tracings" as you claim. Your "overlays" are well visible (lighter areas) and they are not overlays. The light background matches the 19 August letter but the ink does not.

This is all nonsense. If one looks at the images it is quite clear that they are not overlays. Yes, there is some degree of similarity, but that is certainly to be expected. I think this is indicative of Rich's whole approach of seeing things that just aren't there.

Rich is a sweet man, but I fear he is out of his depth with this one.

Hey! Did you just infantilize me??? Just kidding of course (based on the fact we all do talk this way, and it is harmless)... I can be sweet, but can't vouch for my Straw Man version- he's a "piece of work". I hope I never meet him.

Anyway, of course this issue, like many others, is a matter of subjective interpretation. I don't say you both, and others, could not be correct in thinking the differences are enough to negate my speculation that they are copied in some way. I think they are. Of course it is not necessary, one way or the other, it is just a brick in the wall I see as reasons this letter is probably a forgery.

One point of this I did not mention again, let alone emphasize, it the curious fact that the "5", which does, IMO, seem to be copied, also seems to have been modified with a little line to close the loop and turn it into a "6". Of course one might posit that the writer simply wrote the wrong year, and needed to fix the error. But also, such errors are usually made in early January each year, and mostly disappear by February and certainly March. So I would say it looks as though the author of the letter realized that, due to the content, it ought to appear to come from a year later. This would make sense for various logistical reasons relating to the content.

There You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., apart from possible copying of these elements, which are part of the much larger, whole argument I make. If anything, the overlay or not issue is the low hanging fruit. As often happens, and this is understandable, the more damning problems are not addressed, while the ones one may think most vulnerable, or most open to personal speculation and there for dismissive within reasonable differences in interpretation, are. As a perfect example of this, Rene dismisses the folding problem as not a problem, but ordinary... while I point out that the fold lines are impossible. That is an absolute, not open to speculative variations of interpretation. 2,000 letters in the Carteggio... and believe me, I looked at each and every one of them over many hours, spanning days... the fold lines all make sense in one of the two contexts, that is, as an envelope, or to be included in an envelope. The 1665/66 Marci letter, the one letter which is separately owned by Voynich, just happens to have impossible, unworkable and nonsensical fold lines? That is high hanging fruit, and gets ignored.

Anyway, I appreciate and respect your objections, and also take them under consideration.

Rich.