New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[proto57]

It is perhaps worth going into this [titanium issue] a bit more.
It is a very specific crystalline compound of titanium that has been used in modern white paint.
This is called 'anastase titanium dioxide'.
Simply titanium by itself is not suspicious.

The anastase dioxide was found in the ink of the Vinland map, and it does not belong there.
This discovery was made by McCrone already in 1973. This became a topic of some controversy, and McCrone are obviously intimately familiar with this issue.

So, when the same McCrone company investigates the Voynich MS in 2009, finds titanium and does not consider it an issue, we can be pretty damn sure that it was NOT anastase titanium dioxide that they found.

But there is more. Even though the anastase was found in the Vinland map already decades ago, it was never convincing proof by itself that the MS was fake. Only small amounts were found, and it could not be shown that these were not the result of some later pollution.
That was changed more recently, when it was found throughout the drawing and writing ink, and could even be linked to a specific source in Norway in 1923.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Hi Rene: You wrote, "So, when the same McCrone company investigates the Voynich MS in 2009, finds titanium and does not consider it an issue, we can be pretty damn sure that it was NOT anastase titanium dioxide that they found."

How do you know this? This seems like an assumption on your part. There can be others, if we think about it. One of these may be to avoid becoming embroiled in a giant controversy, as they did with their famous Vinland Map controversy. Rather than delve into specifics, they just list the compound, and wash their hands of it.

The issue with the Vinland Map titanium was, as you say, that it was in the modern anatase form. The difference is that the compound is mechanically processed, so that rather than rough crystals, they are smooth. Part of the criticism of McCrone was whether or not they interpreted the form of the compound correctly or not. Personally, I think they were correct. I've followed every iota of this argument, even discussing the issue, personally, with both Seaver and Floyd.

So now back to the McCrone report... and note several key things: They do not discuss the form of the "Titanium Compound"; they do not SHOW micro-photographs of the forms; they do not say "which" "Titanium Compound", they do not qualify it with an adjective (common, uncommon, unusual, usual, contemporary, anachronistic, etc.), and they will not answer any valid questions to any of these things... even a "We don't know". Nothing.

So you can assume the reasons they didn't specify these things in the report, as I can guess at them. But in my opinion, I think they wanted to just drop that in our laps... they are honest and capable people, and their reputations rely on it... so they just reported it, in the most simple way, then stepped away from it to let others struggle with the "whys" and "hows".

But I appreciate the input of everyone here, and the seriousness that everyone took my points about Koen's video. I think it shows that there are many unanswered questions, still, and that is really one of my chief points. Like this one, if we really want to know the true nature of the Voynich, these things ought to be cleared up. I've tried at least three times to shake the McCrone tree on this and the other (seeming) peculiarities to that report... peculiar to them, too, as they suggested follow ups were needed. But maybe I should try again.

While I'm here, though, maybe someone knows where the photo-micrographs of those crystals are? I don't like assuming anything, even when the "assumer" is me.

Rich.