02-02-2026, 09:16 PM
Well that has been a huge flurry of interesting activity... many questions, points, counter points. I'll try to answer Rene's here, succinctly, but I will probably fail, as I tend toward the verbose. But as always, I mean to answer them all... I don't feel any need to skip over and points made, and never want to. If I miss anything let me know...
Yes but again, Rene, no one disputes any of this, and granted you have done much admirable work on all of this. BUT it remains, still, that there is ZERO known connection between these other books, and these other sales of Voynich's, and the Voynich Manuscript. None of this other activity is evidence of that the Voynich was among these other books, and actually, the lack of any of the documentation you carefully relate only decreases the possibility it was among them.
I know you are also giving this as the "reason he lied" about a supposedly genuine Voynich. But this, again, we do not know. It is equally plausible that he intended to "insert the Voynich" into this stream of genuine provenance, and as such, it would be attached to any reasoning that was associated with those other works. But this is speculation on your part, entirely. There is still zero evidence the Voynich was among any of these other books. None. That is the point you are not addressing, because factually, it cannot be addressed. It is a problem.
One of the excuses of this lack is that it is "normal" to not find provenance, as many books have no provenance. But it is not really entirely normal in this special case... you want the book to have been among these books, which mostly DO have provenance to varying degrees; but then excuse it as normal the Voynich does not. You agree it has no label, as many of the others had. I, too, saw that neat pile of Beckx Ex Libris labels, and the written description labels, which Voynich had removed from many books. To me, it is damning. It is a red flag that the Voynich has no label, no real provenance, no mention anywhere, and not on any lists of the sales of these other books.
There is nothing connecting the Voynich with any other sale, and won't be connected, no matter how carefully you detail those other sales. It is 100% an orphan. You say that is "normal" to have no provenance, yet at the same time insist there is this invisible connection to those other books. Obviously you also realize the Voynich's complete lack of any reference older than 1912 IS a problem, as you are trying hard to convince us the Voynich was among those other sales. If it didn't matter, you would not care.
Well the way I see it, there are different types of evidence, which, while associated, have different implications, and so, different uses and value. Some overlap. But generally:
1) Lack of evidence for authenticity:
The Voynich has no provenance, as it is mentioned nowhere in history with a credible description. It is not on any list, even though supposedly among those works which to some extent DO have provenance. It is not in several places it "should" be, such as any list of books Kircher owned (if sent to him, as the Carteggio mentions say it was). It has no contemporary (to the claimed date of creation) other manuscript, not in script, style, content. It is a complete and utter unique orphan, only appearing to history when Wilfrid told us it appeared, in 1911/12.
Yes I know we are told "provenance does not matter" (while everyone is furiously searching for it, and claiming the barest mention of other books as possibly being it!). But no, I object, provenance does matter, both in general, but specifically for the Voynich. Why? Because we are told, over and over, exactly where it was and exactly who owned it. I mean, if it were found in a random attic somewhere, yes, we might say it is like other manuscripts and just another stray. But think of it: On the one hand, we are told EXACTLY where it was, and that place and ownership was among many other well catalogued (for the most part), well labeled books. This makes the Voynich's lack of provenance stand out all the more starkly. If real, in this claimed circumstance, it SHOULD have some provenance, yet, still has none.
There is no valid provenance, and the given provenance works against it. There is no other contemporary manuscript to compare it to. There is no evidence this is genuine, none.
"Genuine 1420" also has no context. As a real item, there is not any cohesive whole definition which explains it, especially for the early 15th century. There were no compendiums like it. If it appeared anything like other herbals of the time, it would have context, and this might be seen as evidence of genuineness. But, it is a what? An herbal/astrological/medicinal/celestial/cipher manuscript? So this goes both ways... it is evidence of forgery, as it is anachronistic, but also fails to provide evidence in the form of comparative, similar definition.
But another VERY important point about "lack of evidence for authenticity", one which has been increasing cropping up... although it has long been there: It is this constant substitute of actual evidence, for, instead, invisible, wished for, and imaginary evidence. For instance: We are to believe the anachronistic foldouts are normal, because even though there are no other examples contemporary to the VMs calfskin date, such cases may be out there in the the un-found manuscripts. There is no provenance, as above, but for this and that reason it has not been found, but it is out there... or, unnecessary (for some reason). There is no similar manuscript out there, but "we just have not found it". For that matter, there is no translation, but "we know it has meaning", we are told. Well, maybe it will have meaning, which is not proof of genuine to begin with... but the hope for meaning is really to avoid it being nonsense, because most nonsense items are fakes. Almost all of them. But we are to imagine it has meaning, and are told because of this, it is not fake. No, meaning does not mean genuine, gibberish does, and there is no proof this thing has meaning anyway, and even some studies imply it does not, and cannot, have meaning. So evidence of "lack of nonsense" is so far illusory, yet often still used as evidence of genuine...
There are also points used to claim as evidence for authenticity, but they are usually "tailored" to make them seem like that, when they originally, clearly are not. One example is the false claim that, (paraphrasing) "The expert opinions of age matched the eventual dating of the calfskin by C14, and since Wilfrid could not have predicted the advent of C14, it is evidence the Voynich is genuine". But this claim is based on a gross manipulation: No, the expert dating did NOT match the C14 dating, but a factor of about 12 to 2. And it still does not, post C14, as many experts see plants that are far too new for it. So this is evidence for forgery, which only becomes supposedly evidence for authenticity, but only by ignoring the reality of it.
Another would be the "combining" and averaging of the those C14 results, so that the inconvenient truth of a spread of dates of over 60 years could be manipulated into a more palatable range of 1404 to 1438. There are many examples of this, and to some degree or another, in some way or another, most evidence given for genuine does, on critical examination, serve nothing of the kind.
In summary, we are told that evidence the Voynich is real is out there, we have just not found it yet; and while we cannot find it, we are offered imaginary reasons we cannot. No, this does not substitute for evidence of genuine, it is a place holder for things needed to do it, but which do not exist. And most of the remaining, scant evidence for genuine needs to be adjusted to seem as such, instead of its actual, original, common sense importance, as anomalous or anachronistic.
2) Evidence supporting forgery:
As in my list of the "Red Flags of Forgery", I have long noted that of the twelve I compiled from the history of known forgeries, the Voynich, to varying degrees, the Voynich hits on 11 of them! Most forgeries might have been revealed with only three or four... some, only one of these. The list is:
So you claim, as many do, that I "have no evidence that Wilfrid forged this", but that is absolutely not true. You object to my evidence, but I do have evidence. We both offer evidence, and each object to the value of what is offered.
The most important aspect to all the comparisons noted by me, and by many others (whether they think the Voynich is fake or real), is context. I have context, in that all the things noted by me and others fit within a very narrow, suggested purpose. I mean, if I proposed an automobile and a ferret and a clown and a toothbrush in there, I would not have context to explain them all. But the New World plant and animal comparisons, the proposed optical devices (why I was asked to be interviewed by you in the ORF documentary, as you know), the astrological and astronomical imagery, the medicinal, the strange plants, the "glossolalia-like" script, and so on, for a list of probably a hundred or so items, all fit within the context I believe explains it all: As a work meant to appear it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as described by Bolton's book "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", one of Wilfrid's admittedly favorite books, in which, by the way, appears Jacob Horcicky, who's imaginary brother Christian predominantly figures. And of course, by coincidence?... no, by context it is not at all coincidence, it fits... Jacob "signed" it.
And so on down my list, I do have evidence for each and every item, and explain the instances of implications of each of them, and I can link them and their importance to other forgeries: For instance, number 6: The anachronistic foldouts, binding type with paper, and covers. The inks having unexplained binders, metals, compounds. And more.
I won't go down the list, you know my arguments for each. But the point is, it is incorrect to remotely imply I "don't have evidence". You might not like my evidence, that is fine... but it is evidence, and lot of it, and, as I wrote, most importantly, it has a unifying, reasonable, cohesive context.
There are also points which I have formulate after compiling my Red Flag list, which relate to it somewhat.
Well of course you actually seen more than your list, above. But yes, these are supporting arguments coming under categories such as "motive and opportunity". It is fair to point these out, it is a part of any attempt to judge the validity of any hypothesis. Furthermore, they are in answer to challenges to that hypothesis... not in all cases supporting arguments FOR forgery, but rebuttals to others. For instance, it used to be claimed, among many things, Voynich could not have gotten the vellum; he could not have known of the descriptions; the signature if authentic; the Marci letter is real, and so on. The things you list are the result of my own work, which has obviated, or addressed to varying degrees, those "complaints" about my theory. Your claiming they are the only work I have done, or meant as supporting forgery, are somewhat inaccurate. But mostly, it is cherry picking from the whole of my work those few things, while ignoring the bulk of it. The list is actually far longer than those few items you picked, and you should know that.
Well, yes... although you meant that "tongue-in-cheek", yes, it is pretty obvious to me that the Barshius and the Voynich Manuscript are two different items. The descriptions simply do not match, and I cannot be gas-lit into believing they do. There is no reasonable explanation why the Voynich we know today would be described in the spare and incomplete terms the Men of the Letters used, and why, if it were the Voynich, they would not have mentioned the nude women, the Zodiac, the Baths, and so much more... let alone leaving off the "signature". Maybe if I were tortured on the rack I would agree, but left to my own common sense, no. They were different books, whatever the Voynich actually turns out to be.
Well this got very long, as I needed to address many different points. And I've probably missed many... but, not my intention, as I wrote. Unlike the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory, I need to leave out nothing, ignore nothing. Yes, you may not like my answers, nor ever accept them, but I will always do my best to answer completely.
Rich
(02-02-2026, 03:21 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-02-2026, 02:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We know a possible motive, which was to prevent the Italian government from knowing of the existence of that pile of books, which they might confiscate. But didn't that motive cease to exist in 1929? Was that the real motive, or just a convenient excuse for the lies?
Voynich was definitely told that he could not tell anyone where he got these books. This collection was hidden, secret, and there are piles and piles of documents and records from before, during and immediately after, that make this clear beyond all doubt... [shortened by me to try and consolidate this comment, as it is very long. But it appears only a few points back, and anyway, I don't disagree with Rene's findings, only with his opinion as to their implications] ... This library should have owned the entire Jesuit library, and she expressed her opinion to me that the Jesuits had been quite dishonest in keeping all these books. But that seems to be it for now.
Yes but again, Rene, no one disputes any of this, and granted you have done much admirable work on all of this. BUT it remains, still, that there is ZERO known connection between these other books, and these other sales of Voynich's, and the Voynich Manuscript. None of this other activity is evidence of that the Voynich was among these other books, and actually, the lack of any of the documentation you carefully relate only decreases the possibility it was among them.
I know you are also giving this as the "reason he lied" about a supposedly genuine Voynich. But this, again, we do not know. It is equally plausible that he intended to "insert the Voynich" into this stream of genuine provenance, and as such, it would be attached to any reasoning that was associated with those other works. But this is speculation on your part, entirely. There is still zero evidence the Voynich was among any of these other books. None. That is the point you are not addressing, because factually, it cannot be addressed. It is a problem.
One of the excuses of this lack is that it is "normal" to not find provenance, as many books have no provenance. But it is not really entirely normal in this special case... you want the book to have been among these books, which mostly DO have provenance to varying degrees; but then excuse it as normal the Voynich does not. You agree it has no label, as many of the others had. I, too, saw that neat pile of Beckx Ex Libris labels, and the written description labels, which Voynich had removed from many books. To me, it is damning. It is a red flag that the Voynich has no label, no real provenance, no mention anywhere, and not on any lists of the sales of these other books.
There is nothing connecting the Voynich with any other sale, and won't be connected, no matter how carefully you detail those other sales. It is 100% an orphan. You say that is "normal" to have no provenance, yet at the same time insist there is this invisible connection to those other books. Obviously you also realize the Voynich's complete lack of any reference older than 1912 IS a problem, as you are trying hard to convince us the Voynich was among those other sales. If it didn't matter, you would not care.
(02-02-2026, 05:13 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's have some evidence that Voynich did anything that is presented as part of him faking it.
Well the way I see it, there are different types of evidence, which, while associated, have different implications, and so, different uses and value. Some overlap. But generally:
1) Lack of evidence for authenticity:
The Voynich has no provenance, as it is mentioned nowhere in history with a credible description. It is not on any list, even though supposedly among those works which to some extent DO have provenance. It is not in several places it "should" be, such as any list of books Kircher owned (if sent to him, as the Carteggio mentions say it was). It has no contemporary (to the claimed date of creation) other manuscript, not in script, style, content. It is a complete and utter unique orphan, only appearing to history when Wilfrid told us it appeared, in 1911/12.
Yes I know we are told "provenance does not matter" (while everyone is furiously searching for it, and claiming the barest mention of other books as possibly being it!). But no, I object, provenance does matter, both in general, but specifically for the Voynich. Why? Because we are told, over and over, exactly where it was and exactly who owned it. I mean, if it were found in a random attic somewhere, yes, we might say it is like other manuscripts and just another stray. But think of it: On the one hand, we are told EXACTLY where it was, and that place and ownership was among many other well catalogued (for the most part), well labeled books. This makes the Voynich's lack of provenance stand out all the more starkly. If real, in this claimed circumstance, it SHOULD have some provenance, yet, still has none.
There is no valid provenance, and the given provenance works against it. There is no other contemporary manuscript to compare it to. There is no evidence this is genuine, none.
"Genuine 1420" also has no context. As a real item, there is not any cohesive whole definition which explains it, especially for the early 15th century. There were no compendiums like it. If it appeared anything like other herbals of the time, it would have context, and this might be seen as evidence of genuineness. But, it is a what? An herbal/astrological/medicinal/celestial/cipher manuscript? So this goes both ways... it is evidence of forgery, as it is anachronistic, but also fails to provide evidence in the form of comparative, similar definition.
But another VERY important point about "lack of evidence for authenticity", one which has been increasing cropping up... although it has long been there: It is this constant substitute of actual evidence, for, instead, invisible, wished for, and imaginary evidence. For instance: We are to believe the anachronistic foldouts are normal, because even though there are no other examples contemporary to the VMs calfskin date, such cases may be out there in the the un-found manuscripts. There is no provenance, as above, but for this and that reason it has not been found, but it is out there... or, unnecessary (for some reason). There is no similar manuscript out there, but "we just have not found it". For that matter, there is no translation, but "we know it has meaning", we are told. Well, maybe it will have meaning, which is not proof of genuine to begin with... but the hope for meaning is really to avoid it being nonsense, because most nonsense items are fakes. Almost all of them. But we are to imagine it has meaning, and are told because of this, it is not fake. No, meaning does not mean genuine, gibberish does, and there is no proof this thing has meaning anyway, and even some studies imply it does not, and cannot, have meaning. So evidence of "lack of nonsense" is so far illusory, yet often still used as evidence of genuine...
There are also points used to claim as evidence for authenticity, but they are usually "tailored" to make them seem like that, when they originally, clearly are not. One example is the false claim that, (paraphrasing) "The expert opinions of age matched the eventual dating of the calfskin by C14, and since Wilfrid could not have predicted the advent of C14, it is evidence the Voynich is genuine". But this claim is based on a gross manipulation: No, the expert dating did NOT match the C14 dating, but a factor of about 12 to 2. And it still does not, post C14, as many experts see plants that are far too new for it. So this is evidence for forgery, which only becomes supposedly evidence for authenticity, but only by ignoring the reality of it.
Another would be the "combining" and averaging of the those C14 results, so that the inconvenient truth of a spread of dates of over 60 years could be manipulated into a more palatable range of 1404 to 1438. There are many examples of this, and to some degree or another, in some way or another, most evidence given for genuine does, on critical examination, serve nothing of the kind.
In summary, we are told that evidence the Voynich is real is out there, we have just not found it yet; and while we cannot find it, we are offered imaginary reasons we cannot. No, this does not substitute for evidence of genuine, it is a place holder for things needed to do it, but which do not exist. And most of the remaining, scant evidence for genuine needs to be adjusted to seem as such, instead of its actual, original, common sense importance, as anomalous or anachronistic.
2) Evidence supporting forgery:
As in my list of the "Red Flags of Forgery", I have long noted that of the twelve I compiled from the history of known forgeries, the Voynich, to varying degrees, the Voynich hits on 11 of them! Most forgeries might have been revealed with only three or four... some, only one of these. The list is:
So you claim, as many do, that I "have no evidence that Wilfrid forged this", but that is absolutely not true. You object to my evidence, but I do have evidence. We both offer evidence, and each object to the value of what is offered.
The most important aspect to all the comparisons noted by me, and by many others (whether they think the Voynich is fake or real), is context. I have context, in that all the things noted by me and others fit within a very narrow, suggested purpose. I mean, if I proposed an automobile and a ferret and a clown and a toothbrush in there, I would not have context to explain them all. But the New World plant and animal comparisons, the proposed optical devices (why I was asked to be interviewed by you in the ORF documentary, as you know), the astrological and astronomical imagery, the medicinal, the strange plants, the "glossolalia-like" script, and so on, for a list of probably a hundred or so items, all fit within the context I believe explains it all: As a work meant to appear it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as described by Bolton's book "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", one of Wilfrid's admittedly favorite books, in which, by the way, appears Jacob Horcicky, who's imaginary brother Christian predominantly figures. And of course, by coincidence?... no, by context it is not at all coincidence, it fits... Jacob "signed" it.
And so on down my list, I do have evidence for each and every item, and explain the instances of implications of each of them, and I can link them and their importance to other forgeries: For instance, number 6: The anachronistic foldouts, binding type with paper, and covers. The inks having unexplained binders, metals, compounds. And more.
I won't go down the list, you know my arguments for each. But the point is, it is incorrect to remotely imply I "don't have evidence". You might not like my evidence, that is fine... but it is evidence, and lot of it, and, as I wrote, most importantly, it has a unifying, reasonable, cohesive context.
There are also points which I have formulate after compiling my Red Flag list, which relate to it somewhat.
(02-02-2026, 06:44 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have only seen:
- "he could have acquired old parchment...."
- "he could have seen the Barschius letter"
- "he could have seen a genuine Tepenec signature"
- "he could have copied the handwriting of Marci's scribe"
This is not what I would call evidence of Voynich actually doing any of these things.
Anyway, the sort of 'evidence' you are looking for simply does not exist for the majority of old manuscripts around the world. There is no need for it to prove that any book is genuinely old.
Well of course you actually seen more than your list, above. But yes, these are supporting arguments coming under categories such as "motive and opportunity". It is fair to point these out, it is a part of any attempt to judge the validity of any hypothesis. Furthermore, they are in answer to challenges to that hypothesis... not in all cases supporting arguments FOR forgery, but rebuttals to others. For instance, it used to be claimed, among many things, Voynich could not have gotten the vellum; he could not have known of the descriptions; the signature if authentic; the Marci letter is real, and so on. The things you list are the result of my own work, which has obviated, or addressed to varying degrees, those "complaints" about my theory. Your claiming they are the only work I have done, or meant as supporting forgery, are somewhat inaccurate. But mostly, it is cherry picking from the whole of my work those few things, while ignoring the bulk of it. The list is actually far longer than those few items you picked, and you should know that.
Quote:Finally, this has to be bit of a tongue-in-cheek request.
Any such evidence will simply get the 'Barschius letter treatment', namely:
"That refers to the original book that Barschius owned, and which is now lost. The Voynich MS is a different book, which is a modern fake."
Well, yes... although you meant that "tongue-in-cheek", yes, it is pretty obvious to me that the Barshius and the Voynich Manuscript are two different items. The descriptions simply do not match, and I cannot be gas-lit into believing they do. There is no reasonable explanation why the Voynich we know today would be described in the spare and incomplete terms the Men of the Letters used, and why, if it were the Voynich, they would not have mentioned the nude women, the Zodiac, the Baths, and so much more... let alone leaving off the "signature". Maybe if I were tortured on the rack I would agree, but left to my own common sense, no. They were different books, whatever the Voynich actually turns out to be.
Well this got very long, as I needed to address many different points. And I've probably missed many... but, not my intention, as I wrote. Unlike the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory, I need to leave out nothing, ignore nothing. Yes, you may not like my answers, nor ever accept them, but I will always do my best to answer completely.
Rich