The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Hi Bluetoes! Since you were framing my theory, I of course wanted to explain a few things about how I see it:

Visualise [Rich's Modern Hoax] theory as a pyramid with 10 layers. Like a "the food chain" diagram you'd see in school.
The first layer holds the rest up, it is the most important. It's the one I can't make sense of.
I don't think that is an unfair visualisation, the core principle pollutes how we view the blocks therefore placed upon.

In todays expert opinion, the majority call the VMS a 15th century work.
Much of the research and testing on specific parts, we can have a good idea about, also point to the 15th century.
The (logical) modern hoax then, I think it is fair to say - is a very good fake 15th century manuscript that someone made.

I disagree wholeheartedly, first of all, that it "is a very good fake 15th century manuscript". We are told this, today, but in the first place, before the C14, most experts didn't think this at all. The only way to think it came from the 15th century is to ignore, or reject on various unscientific grounds, the tremendous amount of evidence that has steered many very qualified people to opinions in the 16th and 17th century, mostly. The only thing actually pointing to 15th century at all is the age of the calfskin, which does not date a manuscript.

What happened was... I was there and watched it unfold... what happened was that once that C14 dating hit the table, a huge effort was made to filter out all the evidence and opinion which pointed in a million other directions.

No, whatever it actually is, it is a really bad example of a 15th century work. It looks little like one (along with a little like a few other things), and really if you look critically at even the supporters of that age it is very apologetic just how many anachronisms and anomalies it has. I think it is an awful forgery, crude and actually a bit cartoonish and silly, like a really bad parody of "What an old herbal should look like". IMHO.

However this is not the theory. The theory is that it is a fake 17th century manuscript, later changed to 13th century by removing some parts. What is left behind then should still point to the 17th century for anyone "in the know". 13th for idiots.
I obviously have some concerns about this, but actually it does not matter for why I can't make sense of the base idea.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There still is much content that points to the 17th century, and until the release of the C14 results many agreed. Think of it: That date alone changed everyone's mind, like the smell of a bakery will wreck one's diet... and it did this on a mostly provably incorrect assumption: That "nobody would use" old parchment! That's it. The pictures in the Voynich didn't change, the construction didn't change, the styles didn't change... so why did the history of herbals and art history magically change to fit the 15th century? It didn't, IMO. It is still what it always was: A work filled with content from several centuries, including the 15th, but also from up to the 18th.

Here is an interesting, imaginative scenario, one which... from my experience... I am sure would happen: Say Greg dropped a bombshell, and said to everyone, "Sorry guys, there was a mistake in the interpretation of the data. The calfskin is actually from about 1604-1638, with a 95% accuracy". In about two weeks, all the opinions would re-align with this new dating. But Rich, HOW can you SAY that??? I can, because I watched it happen once already, in real time. In fact, I was not alone... I point it out all the time, but when the C14 first came out, the new wasn't, as it is claimed today, that "That the experts got it right!"... it was the opposite, that "The experts got it wrong!". It took about two to three weeks to re-write the history of the Voynich for it to match the C14.

So I see no reason why it wouldn't happen again. At least it would resurrect the reputation of the great Charles Singer, and some of his other illustrious scholars. So again, "no"... this did not look like a 15th century work to most experts, until they passed out the C14 colored sunglasses.

This is my main concern - What then is the profile of our hoaxer?
A paradox (I think) - the genius idiot.

He was no genius, but far from stupid, also. I would call him very clever and imaginative, with above all a tremendous sense of human nature... like PT Barnum, maybe?... and a poor forger, and a very poor artist. Such a person as I've read about, who would sometime lie, and mock people, and was not really very ethical, and hated the "bourgeois"... and was arrogant and superior, too.

That is the "profile" I have learned, and envisioned. Paraphrasing his own words, in the end, "By mistake, he gave us skunk".

With each new topic discussed the hoaxer becomes a greater genius and idiot.
If the example is very well known to be 20th century, why add it?
If the example is very well known to be 15th century, why add it?

Well that is the conundrum to any forgery: If it is good enough to fool us, then it makes perfect sense to be in there, because it obviously worked. I mean, I would not have used foldouts, left an armadillo in there, made the binding with flax, or drew semi-fantastical microscopes and plants... but, it worked. In fact, I think, this is why it worked... this eclectic inclusion of so many genres, items, from all ages with all styles... made it pretty much unidentifiable as any one thing, and then, this is why were are here. So "that's why" he added and left those things in there, because, as I said above, he was a good enough judge of character to take the risk it would all work. And he was right.

Well he screwed up in one fundamental way: While he created (I believe he created) a generally unassailable "genuine enough" book, which has fooled many, and still does... he was not good enough to make it good enough to convince anyone to spend the fortune on it that he wanted for it.

Text on the internet can seem very "however you perceive it", right? So I'd just like to say I appreciate everyone's work here.
I don't really care if I disagree with things because usually it adds to my knowledge, and I'm thankful for that. Everyone on the "hoax side" provides great research and in the end hopefully all that research will bring us to a point - the believers and non-believers, someone will end up right, but we will all be somewhere progressed.

Yes absolutely, and I totally agree with you. Even if I am wrong about my own theory, I still would not regret one minute of any of it. I've learned so much about so many subjects of such a wide range, both related to my own ideas and to the ideas of others, all of which I probably never would have had I not dove in here with everyone else.