The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Whatever judgement you might make about the various theories on balance, I think the majority of replies to you and Rich have been thoughtful, on topic, and making ample use of the full array of facts and findings we have at our disposal. I am disappointed, given that I was one of the people who spoke with you two, that you feel I "lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or" am "so ridgedly committed to prior belief", but I stand by my contributions. I'd sensed this was case, which is why I withdrew from the conversation, but hopefully you can find a forum where the vast majority of people do not fall below your exacting and evidently unimpeachable logical prowess.

Well of course no one, including you, should take the overall impression by asteckley, or me, or anyone, as representing the situation with 100% accuracy. I can't speak for him, but I suspect he would agree that there HAVE been some valuable and interesting feedback, and I would cite you as offering some of of this, along with others.

But it is true that the mass of it is the "same old, same old". I find myself shaking the tree by challenging those who disagree with me, and often being disappointed in the type of arguments that are provided in response: Straw Men, Cherry Picking, misrepresentation of my ideas, demonization by false association (mockery) with discredited theories such as Flat Earth, Aliens, and so on; ad hominins; deflection; Sophistry; Argument by Ignorance; Argument by Authority; and many others right out of the list of fallacious argumentation.

But there is another common type of rebuttal to my ideas, which is of course innocent: Lack of knowledge about what I am actually claiming, and on what basis I make those claims. So I may seem repetetive... I am... for instance in needing to explain, over and over, that I in no way believe this was created as "a Roger Bacon", or that I argue with the C14 results at all. There are dozens of such misconceptions repeated here alone, and I consider them, while in error, a valuable part of the conversation for me.

And while all this is going on, I look for and wait for the "golden nugget"... some idea I have not thought of, that makes sense to me, that will either be helpful in my bettering my hypothesis, by adding an idea, or removing something, or giving up on it in its entirety, because a good case was made against it. I welcome all of it... and expect all of it... and if I have to weed through a lot of chaff to find that wheat, that is just par for the course.

As I've said before, this is the way I like to do things... I strongly believe in open discussion of all ideas... and such converstations have been extremely valuable to me over the years, and caused me to give up on two major (Drebbel and New Atlantis) theories, and dozens of minor points to those, and my current one. This is, I believe, how one hones their ideas... by testing them, over and over and over.

In fact, I would challenge you to find any other Voynich researcher who has engaged their intellectual opponents more fully, and often, as I have over the last 18 years, and also, as a result, has explored more possibilities with my level of seriousness. While I am nowhere near the intellectual and scholarly ability that Michael Ventris was, I have admired his approach immensely, and have emulated it whenever I think appropriate and possible.

But don't make the mistake that any of my complaints, or those listed by others... which I agree with... are targeting any particular person, or specific response. I've been enjoying this now long conversation greatly, and find it very valuable for a long list of reasons. If you or several others felt compelled to leave, it would be a loss, I mean.