Thanks for the "heads-up", Lisa. Of course I was in a panic when I saw your post, because I worried that the author's ideas might parallel my own, or worse, rely heavily on my original research as published in my blog.
He does credit me, briefly, as early as 2012 promoting my theories... although it was not until about a year later that I completely embraced modern forgery as the likeliest outcome.
The hypotheses in the book, however, as to motivation for creation only tangentially touches on my own, and rarely overlaps with it. He does have some original ideas, though, which I don't entirely agree are plausible. And he heavily ties the idea of a forgery with Voynich's connections to the world of espionage. While the author does an admirable job in describing the world of cipher, spying, and even, forgery, I don't think he makes an adequate connection to the Voynich.
He does seem to use some of my original work, as I've published it (clear in cases when it appears no where else, and he does not cite the original sources), but he may have come to some of these conclusions on his own, too. But as he is relatively new to the field, he also missed a lot of forgery red meat... many details, which, if he knew of, he certainly would have included in his book.
But I consider this publication a shot over my bow... or, for a more modern phrase I'll coin on the spot, "that bullet nicked my ear". I really have to get to work, and finish my own damned book!
For those interested, who have bought Mr. Williams's book, they can read a brief overview of my own, somewhat differing hypothesis, here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rich.
He does credit me, briefly, as early as 2012 promoting my theories... although it was not until about a year later that I completely embraced modern forgery as the likeliest outcome.
The hypotheses in the book, however, as to motivation for creation only tangentially touches on my own, and rarely overlaps with it. He does have some original ideas, though, which I don't entirely agree are plausible. And he heavily ties the idea of a forgery with Voynich's connections to the world of espionage. While the author does an admirable job in describing the world of cipher, spying, and even, forgery, I don't think he makes an adequate connection to the Voynich.
He does seem to use some of my original work, as I've published it (clear in cases when it appears no where else, and he does not cite the original sources), but he may have come to some of these conclusions on his own, too. But as he is relatively new to the field, he also missed a lot of forgery red meat... many details, which, if he knew of, he certainly would have included in his book.
But I consider this publication a shot over my bow... or, for a more modern phrase I'll coin on the spot, "that bullet nicked my ear". I really have to get to work, and finish my own damned book!
For those interested, who have bought Mr. Williams's book, they can read a brief overview of my own, somewhat differing hypothesis, here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rich.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)