(22-11-2025, 02:18 PM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You haven't read what I said carefully. I said "I would have entertained the possibility that it might be a fake prior to the carbon dating". I used the word "might". I didn't say that I personally thought it was a fake. I said prior to the carbon dating the likelihood that it was a fake seemed significantly greater to me than it does now. That was for the simple reason that unusual historical documents sometimes turn out to be fake, so that could be a possibility in this case. The carbon dating, however, swings the pendulum firmly into the "not a fake" category.
I see, thanks for clarifying. We are back to "zero" then! Because of course probably everyone would have had the possibility of fake in the back of their mind, and even, expressed it at the level had, as you relate to us. But my point was that I know of no person who genuinely believed the Voynich was fake, who then later... for whatever reason... changed their mind to 1420 genuine. So far I've only seen it go in the opposite direction, from genuine to fake, or genuine to the possibility of fake.
As for the carbon dating "swinging the pendulum firmly into the 'not a fake' category", this is only if one disregards the common usage of old materials by forgers; the fact that the content of the Voynich didn't match the C14 dating (And as you know, also, when that dating was first revealed, it was a shock to the community, exactly for that reason); the reality of the supplies of old, unused vellum; Voynich's plausible access to much old material after 1908; and more, all of which make the dating of the parchment not having the effect you project. What I mean is, while some now use the C14 dating as evidence the Voynich is "that old", that was not always the case... and this can only be asserted if one discounts the overwhelming expert opinion to the contrary... which they need to do. So of course you or anyone else can believe the C14 points to genuine, but I would, and do, argue that it did not have the effect you claim, putting the Vms "firmly into to 'not a fake' category'.
Quote: Scientific dating techniques tend to be much more reliable and rigourous as they are based in hard physical science than the various speculations of people who considers themselves "experts" on the subject.
I absolutely agree the C14 testing is very reliable and rigorous. It would be incorrect to assume that my bases for thinking the Voynich a modern fake also must mean that I discount or argue with that dating, which seems to be the implication of what you wrote there. No, I trust the dating, as far as it shows us the parchment is from (approximately) the late 14th through mid 15th centuries
Quote:When specialists first looked at the site of Gobekli Tepe they suggested it might be Byzantine or from another modern era, but when carbon dating was applied it gave a date of around 9,500 BC. Now, you might suggest that Gobekli Tepe was a fake archaeological site as there was no clear consensus as to it's dating from experts. I would say that dating is difficult and the specialists got it wrong.
Please stop telling me all those things I supposedly "might suggest" are fake, and projecting "why" I would think this. That is a gross misrepresentation of my thought process, and the patterns of forming, and evidence I use in my opinions, which I meticulously explain to you and others. I would not and have not suggested any particular thing is a fake solely based on "no clear consensus as to dating from experts". That is another Straw Man, a false argument, i.e., "Rich would say this that and the other thing are fake, because of x,y, and z". This is a false method of attempting to discredit my opinions about the Voynich, by implicating that my standards are poor, unscientific, and indiscriminate.
I will, and do, explain what I think is fake, and not, and the reasons for coming to these opinions. In the case you use here, Gobekli Tepe, it never even would have occurred to me that it was fake, and like others, been fascinated by the discoveries there, and also the ever increasing fine tuning of the dates it was built and used. I would use your example, and many others, in fact, differently than you do, in explaining why the represent "science done right", which as I have also explained, I do not feel is the case with the Voynich.
Rich