The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

There is some sliding around between disproofs of specific counter-positions, the "1420 position" as a whole, and the proofs of the MFH that should probably be laid out explicitly. There is a striking lack of consensus around what many of the drawings are, even among proponents of the same dating, and that should weigh on how we talk about the large groups under each umbrella.

First, those places where the consensus is poor can't fairly be said to be part of the 1420 position as widely held, so there isn't really a coherent refutation of "the 1420 position" to be had along those lines. This only applies where one is addressing the 1420 hypothesis as a whole, and it is an actual weakness of specific responses I am seeing. On the whole, though, it is perfectly possible to be agnostic about, for example, the drawing on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and still hold the balance of the evidence points towards the early 15th century.

Second, this lack of consensus rebounds on the MFH with a vengeance. Adding post-Columbian identifications to the discordant views merely strengthens the point that this line of evidence is not widely accepted evidence for any position, and that includes Voynich authorship. There is simply no widely held post-Columbian identification right now, and no surprise that this is not convincing to the great many people who do not share it.

Hi Rik: But of course it has been famously and correctly pointed out that "consensus is not science". One person, or none at all, for that matter, could have the correct answer, and that will still be the correct answer. The number of those who believe otherwise, no matter how many that is... it could be all of them, for that matter... can all still be wrong. 

While I agree that identification of a pre-Columbian possibility for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. beast is poor evidence for the 1420 position, it is mostly because this isn't ground anyone is going to "win their case" on. I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing, though I don't have a good sense what the consensus or lack thereof is around it or how productive it would be if that were the main controversy here instead.

Just to make it clear, I have no interest in "winning a case" for Modern Forgery. I argue and discuss it to learn if there area any valid supporting or detracting arguments. Even if I convinced everyone my theory was the correct one, I still would not accept that this proves my case. In fact I have had those who do support my theory, both publicly and privately (look at the comments on my Youtube videos and blog posts if you doubt this), and while I appreciate and thank them for that support, it only adds to my theory to the degree that the individual actually understands the reasoning behind the points I make.

I mean, I don't want anyone swayed by simple emotion, or persuasion by colorful arguments, or by any perceived misrepresentation of the pro and con arguments on my part. That is empty and meaningless to me. So the numbers on either side of my case are also meaningless to me. 

What IS very, very, important to me is the mass of evidence on either side. Unless and until there is a proof of some sort, one way or the other, what each "side" has are almost entirely circumstantial cases. The "circumstantial case" is a valid basis for rendering a judgement, in science, law, philosophy. People have spent their lives in prison, and even been put to death, on circumstantial, indirect evidence. Almost all cases ARE circumstantial, in fact.

And I do see that those who do believe in 1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal also value the importance of arguing a circumstantial case... for instance, you just did this in the post I am quoting, when you state, "I do think the focus on the beast on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. obscures things like research into clothing styles, which is fairly affirmative and concordant with the dating given by the C14 testing...".

You are countering any possible armadillo opinion... singular... with the suggestion that such an opinion is outnumbered, and countered, by "research into clothing styles". But your rebuttal ignores the many "clothing styles", and many other identifications, which counter those. That is the point, for me, in this argument:

I believe there is a vast perponderence of actual indications of anachronism and anomolous content, materials and construction, which far outnumber the evidence from the early 15th century, which, by the way, can exist in a 1910 forgery. So I don't even argue, for instance, the medieval clothing styles, the writing styles, the "nebuly lines" of Richard and Elitska, and a thousand other things. I only include ALL of the other things which 1420 Genuine must dismiss and ignore in order to make their own "circumstantial case".

Which brings me back to the list I am working on: I intend to include everything pointing to the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and even early 20th centuries, which are the basis for me making what I believe is an overwhelming circumstantial case for Modern Forgery. This will help in explaining to those who mistakenly believe there is no such evidence, that, as you say, the clothing styles are "only" 15th century, or the this and this and this are "only" 15th century. No they are not... with equal or even better comparisons, that is far from the case.

Rich