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

[proto57]

The events related to the creation of the MS are now 600 years ago. We know essentially nothing about the where, and who was involved. Finding any evidence about that is extremely difficult both due to the long time that has passed since, and the fact that there is no initial lead to narrow down the search.

Events related to the presence of the MS in Prague roughly span a time of 350-400 years ago. That is already a bit closer to us. In addition, many more records were kept, people used to exchange correspondence, and we have a relatively precise place to start looking. This is much more promising, and it has led to quite a bit of good evidence. In addition, there is a large amount of additional information surrounding the events and the people involved, that allow for different speculative reconstructions, so any further discoveries may extend our knowledge here. The key information in the archives of the Geizkofler family in Ludwigsburg, Germany, was only found in 2019 or so. It was found by going there and leafing through record books, because it is not online.

Now events related to the sale of the MS to Wilfrid are just over 100 years ago, and here we are in a very comfortable situation of finding out what happened, at least relatively speaking. I have been looking into this from before the year 2000, and this was triggered primarily by my wondering whether the pair of items (MS and Marci letter) could have been a fake by Voynich. The other thing that spurred me on was the remark by Mgr. Ruysschaert that he had 'seen something'.
This has been on-going for 25 years now, and everything I present on my web site related to these events is the result of this research. It would not have gotten to the point where it is now without the help from professional researchers in this field.

The single most critical item (which already appears as a short remark in ELV's letter, but is now known in great detail) is that Voynich did not just acquire the Voynich MS, but this was just one of a selection of 30+ valuable illuminated manuscripts.
This changes the perspective completely.

That Voynich faked it remains a story based entirely on a large compilation of "he could have done this" and "he could have done that". No evidence.

For example: he could have carried a contraption into the hidden library of the Jesuits and started copying signatures from one of their letters onto a blank piece of old paper, without the Jesuits objecting. (*)

I don't need to provide evidence that he could not have (but I already made it clear further above how likely it is). We are back at one of my earliest comments in this thread, namely that nobody will get convicted just on the basis that he 'could have commited the crime', with zero evidence.

I am not trying to convince you, Rich, but anyone who is seriously interested in this question has a whole lot of homework (=reading) to do.

- - - -

Note (*): fortunately, we now know that this whole thing is superflous, as the hypothetical faker could create an entire letter using many new words in the original scribe's handwriting, just by eyeballing the original.

But Rene, you have, again, completely avoided the key point here... you still do not show the proof which supports your contention that it is a known fact that the Letters of the Carteggio were "under lock and seal", or in any way impossible for Voynich to have known about the contents of; and/or had access to.

And as I pointed out in my post, this has been going on something like 15 years or so... you claim Voynich could not have seen the letters, stated as fact. I counter with the simply question, "How do you know this?", and you deflect into other issues... how I am speculating, or something else.

Yes, I am speculating. But so are you. It is purely speculation on your part that the Letters of the Carteggio were locked up from view... now you say from "non-Jesuits until after 1930". Your continuing to state this as known, settled fact goes against your frequent admonitions to me and other to not claim opinion and speculation AS fact... and while I am clear my scenarios are speculative, you break your own rule here... and elsewhere.

Considering that we know that both of us are speculating, I offer that my speculative scenarios are based on the reality of the situation and people and their known associations and behaviors during the time in question, while yours seems to counter those realities. As I wrote previously,

"... it is important to relate the true situation with the Jesuits, and Strickland, and the Villa Mondragone: It was an active college, and even a summer residence for various Jesuits. It was also a tourist attraction. And Strickland, who eventually ran the place, had attended there, his brothers had, also, and I believe he even taught there. Strickland was of course friends with Voynich, and Voynich even says he was the one who facilitated the sale... or like that, not in front of me.

"Point being, rather than not having access to the letters, it is perfectly plausible, under the actual known circumstances, for the information about missing Baresh Manuscript, with the stars and unknown script and all that... to have been passed along to Voynich, maybe through Strickland. Maybe from a research work by a Jesuit. Perhaps directly from Strickland's interest in the letters."

Under these conditions, which are factual, combined with Voynich's known, accepted ability and talent at finding rare books all over Europe, it is not at all implausible, let alone impossible (which you constantly tell us to believe, with no proof of this), that Voynich was told given the information in those letters, and that he could have eventually seen them, himself. Not entirely necessary he had full access, even, but there is nothing barring this possible.

Events related to the presence of the MS in Prague roughly span a time of 350-400 years ago. That is already a bit closer to us. In addition, many more records were kept, people used to exchange correspondence, and we have a relatively precise place to start looking. This is much more promising, and it has led to quite a bit of good evidence.

But Rene, with respect, it has led to exactly "zero" evidence so far. Nothing you wrote, above, either addresses my long time request you back up your own speculations with any proof the Letters were "under lock and seal", but also, you substitute this implication that the provenance has already been found, and/or is just around the corner.

You insist that we accept your vision of the Voynich as the "default", in an earlier post. Yet you only offer, still, speculations guises as factual. It is not your facts against my speculations, it is both our speculations based on the same facts, despite the image you try to present. In the case of our speculations about how or if Voynich could have learned of, and seen the Letters, my speculations fit what we know; while yours still do not.

It is like this for most of the defense of the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal: The application of varying, hypocritical standards to accept or reject evidence as needed, and claiming speculative unknowns as fact; while forgery works with consistent standards, and what we really know, and plausibly works within them.

Edited to add:

I don't need to provide evidence that he could not have (but I already made it clear further above how likely it is).

Actually, in this case, you do: for you have stated it as fact, many times, that the Letters were "under lock and seal", that is, to counter mine, and the speculations of others, with that absolute. Then, in these conversions, you revert to the claim you are saying it is "likely", that is, not proven fact (which of course, it is not).

But in effect, you have used this version, and I will accept it as your answer: "Lock and seal" IS purely speculative on your your part, you do not know this was the case, at all, and so it is possible that Voynich learned of the contents of the Letters, and may have seen them. You consider it unlikely, I consider it plausible he did, and that is the only difference between our positions.