New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[proto57]

I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that the titanium found in a sample of the Voynich MS ink by McCrone has any chance of being the suspicious anastase crystals. This would have been a major find. McCrone knew it and Yale/Beinecke knew it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware)

This would mean that McCrone were either highly incompetent (not realising it) or dishonest (knowing it but hiding it).

The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation.
The McCrone conclusion is evidence.
The idea that they might have been incompetent or lied is speculation.

But Rene, I didn't say I believe the titanium which McCrone was or was not the anatase form. What I am saying is that you don't know, I don't know, and they won't answer the question of what titanium compound it is that they found, what its form is, pictures of it, and so on. They did not, and so far will not, answer this very important question, nor several others which they raised.

No, I don't assume anything at all about it. I can't, I don't have enough information about it. Nobody does. I never assume anything, I am a skeptic. And also, many times in my life, and many times in the case of the Voynich, things have been implied is fact, or outright stated as fact, and when I dig into the reality of that, it turns out the information given, and accepted, is false or unknown. Many of these things are STILL stated as fact, when they are not.

So yes, I stand by my desire to have the questions about the "titanium compound" answered. Until we know, we don't know. Don't you want to know, instead of having to guess?

"This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware"

That is entirely irrelevant, and beside the point. Where the anatase was found in the Vinland Map has no bearing on where it might be found in any other documents. So the lack of any similar yellow stain lines in the Voynich has no bearing on this issue.

"The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation."

As I've stated, Koen's video is well produced, and well presented. But there is a great deal of speculation in it, and much cherry picking of facts and opinions to form an image of one narrow view. Yes it has evidence in it, but also has removed much contrary evidence in the subjects covered. For one, very important thing, it removes the mass of excellent expert pre-C14 opinion, and gives demonstrably incorrect grounds for doing so (bad copies of the Voynich)... and does not offer any credible ones. Also, it misstates my hypothesis, and leaves out factual data and test results, and ignores a mass of contrary opinions on many points.

Among these, it elevates Haupt beyond the level of the experts who it ignores. It picks a small sampling of stylistic comparisons, which fit the chosen 1420, and ignores all those which do not. And much more. The whole video is tailored to fit the desired conclusion, and not to truly reflect any reality about the issued (partially) presented.

As such, the video is an opinion piece, and not a factual demonstration of a valid disproof of Modern Forgery... not my hypothesis, nor the concept in its general. Which even, in that regard, would normally be fine... because there are a great many similarly opinion based, speculative videos about the Voynich on the internet. I don't bother with them, as a habit.

But the difference HERE is, this video projects itself as a direct rebuttal to my 1910 Modern Forgery Hypothesis. This is the main thrust of it, as my theory is named, and I am named, in it. For that reason alone it very much becomes my business. It is incomplete by design, it is speculative, and its conclusion that I am wrong, and Koen is right, is based on a many false or incomplete premises, and therefore it is both misleading to the viewers, and at the same time, unfair to me and my hard fought, original work and ideas.

I have a right to object to this, and a right to make my case. And you know that I have, and will continue to do so.

Rich.