I can't tell you how simply wonderful this all is to me. First of all, the talk by Mr. Touwaide is yet another indication of just how seriously the idea of the Voynich as a modern fake should be, and in his talk is, taken. Also, his reference my ideas in particular was very gratifying. Modern forgery was pretty much on the back burner for far too long, and now it is, as it should be... by all the laws of common sense and logic... be seriously considered.
Increasingly, that is the case. This is because anyone who examines the manuscript with a true open mind, and critically examines it with no pre-conceptions, will eventually see that modern forgery is not only possible, but the most likely explanation for it. Many people are beginning to realize this, despite the protests. No, it is not a fad, or an exciting new idea... just simple, common sense.
But then, in this thread, I also see another reason why research into the Voynich is stuck in a vicious cycle of "It must be real, not fake, but we don't know what it is. But it must be real, not fake." Demonstrated here is a lack of understanding, or purposeful ignoring of, the true anomalies and anachronisms that the Voynich is sick with; combined with a unfounded dismissals of any opinion, expert or amateur, which point this out.
The thread starts out that Touwaide is a respected professor, and everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear what he has to say about the (genuine) Voynich. And then MarcoP gives a very good analysis of what Touwaide had to say about it, and how he clearly takes my modern forgery theory very seriously, and WHAM! The poor guy is thrown right under the bus! A generalization of how the comments proceeded after that can be broken down thusly:
1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious consideration of Modern Forgery (i.e., JKP, "I hate writing responses like this. I had high hopes for learning something from Touwaide. I am disappointed. He might be an expert in his respective field, but his understanding of the VMS seems to me to be superficial." Or,
2) Touwaid wasn't really saying it could be a modern forgery at all! He was saying this that and the other thing, instead... that it is a puzzle, or a game, or could be an old this or that... but he didn't say it could be a modern forgery, don't worry.
In this thread, therefore, I see a microcosm of the problem as a whole... that to anyone who believes, first, the Voynich must be a genuine 15th century manuscript, any information, observations, opinions, facts for that matter, to the contrary, and anyone who espouses them, cannot be correct. Why? Because the Voynich must be a genuine 15th century manuscript. And that line of "reasoning" is used over and over and over again, in many forms, couched as genuine, factual reasoning, but it boils down to simply that: It must be genuine and old, therefore, it is.
There are literally hundreds of examples of this, of all types, this is not a unique phenomenon. But this incident reflects more specifically the use and perceived value of expert opinions as a whole. So for one, closer, example, look what happened to the more than a dozen experts who, pre-carbon 14, were all over the map on dating and origin and meaning of the Voynich: All the "wrong ones" were dismissed, except for those rare experts.... all of two, as I recall... who happened to have an opinion which matched the dating of the parchment. The rest? Summarily dismissed, like poor Mr. Touwaide just was. And so, as a result, and as is reflected here in various comments, is the misconception that all experts agree the Voynich is real and old. It is simple: All you need to do to reinforce this erroneous perception is to keep eliminating those experts who might tell you it may not be real and/or old.
And so it is with all the problems with the Voynich, and all the evidence which shows that it is most likely just a poor fake from the early 20th century. These are not argued against successfully, but dismissed based on one filter alone: Does the evidence/opinion/fact fit with 1420 European Cipher Herbal or not? If it does, it stays; if it does not, it is rejected. Don't get me wrong, you know I've been here for all the arguments, seen all the complaints, and even responded to the Opus Magnus, the consolidation of all anti-forgery arguments, René's "no fake" page ( You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. ). But none of the complaints do hold up, and no, genuine is essentially an unsupported argument. The only remaining argument used, in my observations and opinion based on that, is one: The Voynich it real and old because it must be real and old. Therefore, like any expert, any evidence to the contrary MUST be wrong.
So I am highly charged and gratified that this is all so clearly demonstrated here, by these reactions to Touwaide's thoughtful consideration of the obvious possibility, and even, probability, of forgery. It is both a reinforcement of my ideas, and at the same time, a model of one of the chief reasons the Voynich is still not solved.
Rather than address the very many individual comments in this thread, which either dismiss on no grounds, or worse, ignore, both the serious problems with the Voynich, and at the same time, heavily rely on various misconceptions about what is known and accepted as factual about it, I'll link two of my pages which cover all of these points, and more, below. I believe that every complaint about Modern Forgery is addressed in these links. But if anyone has any reason to believe I've missed something, you know I am always ready and eager and prepared to answer any questions, or field any rebuttals.
My 1910 Voynich Theory which Mr. Touwaide referenced: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Why many of the perceived "foundations" to genuine (many used here in these comments, to rebut forgery) are anything but: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
How the Voynich Manuscript exhibits an overwhelming number of characteristics of forgery (adapted from my 2017 talk at the NSA Historical Cipher Symposium): You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
All the best, Rich.
*****************************************************************