The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Bluetoes101]

Hi Rich, 

Hope all is well. 

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.

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.

I actually fully agree that a lot of opinions on the date of the manuscript would move to whatever date, in the hypothetical scenario of a new dating of the materials. This is because many of the dates come from ways of dating a work that would not pass any sort of actual scientific rigor. If we can have "vibes coding" in the dictionary now, I'm going to coin "vibes dating", much of what was done was "vibes dating". 

The dating of a work like the VMS should be based on handwriting style and artistic techniques (obviously excluding examining physical materials/properties and such) - however given the quality of the "art" I'd say that would not be as reliable as the writing. If any of the dates provided by experts was based on this criteria and they arrived at a date much different than "15th century - or near" then I'd like to see them.  

Just as a very easy example, if you (or others reading) scroll around on here, pick out the era which best matches the writing in the VMS 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. This is why my opinion would not change other than thinking it must be a copy of a 15th century work made by someone who has practised the style to imitate it well.

This actually leads on quite well to my troubles with the nature of our hoaxer, as by hypothetically imagining the material to be 17th century its not too far of a leap to imagine the aim of creating a 17th century work and ending up with the VMS, and it quite well displays why I can't get my head around the nature of our hoaxer, and also why I call him the "genius idiot". 

The writing, I hope we can agree, does not belong to the 17th century. To achieve the style shown in the VMS someone would have to be practised in the style to imitate it. Does a rare book dealer who practised a style to imitate 17th century writing accidently learn 15th century, then selected 15th century velum to write on, make sense?     

I do not doubt the possibility of a modern hoax, forgery or fake. But to my eyes they aimed to make a 15th century work, both with the writing style and materials used. This then makes it problematic for the goal to have been either a Jacobus de Tepenec, or Roger Bacon, which would in turn make Wilfrid Voynich a troublesome candidate. In order for him to be considered he would have to be my "genius idiot", he painstakingly created a very convincing fake, of completely the wrong thing. 


I chopped off a lot of quotes just so this didn't become too lengthy - Don't want it to come across that I dismissed anything you said.