• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories
• Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  ReneZ > 31-08-2020, 05:47 AM

  (30-08-2020, 07:07 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, for example, saying that one has studied the Voynich for more than 20 years and produced no theory is not an indication or brilliance, but rather one of failure.

  
  Mark, I was not speaking in general, I was speaking about myself, and since you have no idea what I have written between 1995 and 2015, you are expressing opinions about things of which you have no knowledge.
  
  Also, you have not read what I have written a littlt bit earlier in this thread.
  
  It stops here, because this is a boring and annoying discussion.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  ReneZ > 31-08-2020, 09:10 AM

  (25-08-2020, 07:11 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not only documents. Foliation, pagination, marginalia, binding... whatever.

  
  It is a useful piece of historical information that most of the manuscripts from the collection that included the Voynich MS pre-1912 are now stored in the Vatican library.
  
  It is particularly interesting that many of them have been digitised and can be seen on-line.
  
  This allows one to see for oneself that almost all of these manuscripts share a common cover, similar to that of the Voynich MS. This proves that the cover is not the one it had when it was in Prague. It was replaced by the Jesuits.
  
  Just a few days ago, I found a second example where one can see parts of the binding through the cover.
  Both examples have a binding that is similar to that in the Voynich MS (before the repairs by Kraus).
  This increases the probability that the Jesuits did not only replace the cover, they also redid some of the stitching.
  
  This is not certain, and not yet a mature conclusion.
  
  If it is true, then the MS would have been completely rebound in Rome, and some of the missing pages may have been removed at this point. This is not ground-breaking news, but adds a new perspective.
  
  I might add that an original document related to the Voynich MS, that was considered lost, was re-discovered last year, also in Rome. This is also not ground-breaking, because photographic copies of it exist. However, it shows that such discoveries are still made even today.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  Ruby Novacna > 31-08-2020, 10:43 AM

  (31-08-2020, 09:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.document related to the Voynich MS, that was considered lost, was re-discovered last year, also in Rome

  I had to skip this moment again. What is this document, Rene, the pages of the manuscript or a letter that mentions it?

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  ReneZ > 31-08-2020, 10:57 AM

  I'm sorry, I cannot say.
  
  I mentioned it as an illustration of the fact that these things still happen.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  ReneZ > 05-09-2020, 06:13 AM

  When it comes to Voynich theories, it is also worth pointing out that they very rarely come from people who are actively discussing in the Voynich fora, and they quite frequently come from academics.
  
  The most recent solution from Rainer Hannig is a good example. This is still being handled as 'the solution' in may German media.
  
  Gerard Cheshire is another example, and so is the pair 'Hauer and Kondrak'.
  
  Much longer ago there was Gordon Rugg.
  
  These are just from the top of my mind.
  
  All these solutions came 'out of the blue', from people that nobody had on the radar, so to speak.
  
  The is a *lot* happening outside the fora, and this involves a lot of academics.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  Koen G > 05-09-2020, 09:16 AM

  This really highlights the bizarre relationship between academics and the VM and amateur researchers. Being involved in a dedicated community and especially being aware of the most relevant topics discussed provides a multidisciplinary safety net that others lack.
  
  Of course this only applies when academics come out of the blue with a Solution, not when they offer opinions only related to their area of specialization. But I'm surprised by how many we have of the former.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  MichelleL11 > 05-09-2020, 02:25 PM

  (05-09-2020, 09:16 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course this only applies when academics come out of the blue with a Solution, not when they offer opinions only related to their area of specialization. But I'm surprised by how many we have of the former.

  
  I agree.  It almost seems like the VM and academic treatment for “solutions” got off on the wrong foot with Newbold and has continued down that path as being fair game for unsupported speculation all the way through these recent “solution claim” publications.
  
  Other difficult/unsolved problems in other academic  fields l’ve been involved in don’t seem to have this issue - it’s like the writers’ inner editors (or maybe external, too, like reviewers) that stop these kinds of claims are missing.  It makes for a horrible waste of time when trying to understand the status of the field.
  
  I just don’t know the solution other than to ask publications to raise the bar on publication on the topic and keep our own critical level as high as we can (without veering into flame wars, of course).

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  Koen G > 05-09-2020, 07:00 PM

  It might be telling that the most recent counterexample is Lisa Fagin Davis: she focuses on one aspect at a time and is cautious when expressing opinions about matters outside of her area of expertise. Her contribution was useful and generally welcomed. But she has a long history with the MS; in fact, one of her tasks when she worked at the Beinecke was to handle Voynich correspondence.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  Mark Knowles > 05-09-2020, 07:38 PM

  When it comes to:
  
  Rainer Hannig, my understanding is that he is an Egyptologist and so I imagine that his background is relevant to his "Hebrew" language theory. I don't know how eminent an Egyptologist he is, what achievements he has in this profession or how highly regarded he is. Whilst, although I haven't studied it, his theory appears to be flawed, it is reasonable to assume that he is an intelligent person.
  
  Gerard Cheshire's, academic credentials have no relation to the subjects associated with the Voynich manuscript. He works in something like Behavioural Ecology, if I remember correctly. He is research assistant, so a more junior academic.
  
  [font=Roboto, HelveticaNeue, Arial, sans-serif]Tucker and Janick are academics[/font]
  
  [font=Roboto, HelveticaNeue, Arial, sans-serif]Gordon Rugg is a reputable academic, though I am not sure how closely he field of expertise actually is the subject of the Voynich.[/font]
  
  Stephen Bax is of course another example of an academic with a relevant background.
  
  
  Now I am not saying that academics are the be all and end all, there have been many academics going back to Newbold who have come to erroneous conclusions. Even the most able academics throughout history have got things wrong. However I do think it can serve as a very useful indicator of the seriousness of the researcher depending on the level and relevance of those academic credentials.
  
  I should say that when it comes to the Voynich I consider myself an amateur as I don't think my academic credentials, such as they are, really qualify me to call myself anything else. I don't have a problem with that many amateurs have made significant research contributions. I personally do however take academic opinion very seriously in my research when it relates to specific areas of expertise.

• RE: Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

  proto57 > 06-05-2021, 12:16 AM

  (24-08-2020, 11:12 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich Santacoloma is strongly convinced that the Voynich MS is a modern fake by Voynich. He has been challenged for more than 6 years by now, without any visible effect. This is the one case on which I spent more time discussing than any other, well before the Voynich Ninja forum existed, and I have decided that that has been enough.

  
  My ears were ringing! A few points:
  
  "He has been challenged for more than 6 years by now, without any visible effect."
  
  This is true... well maybe more like 8 years, as relates to my Modern Forgery theory. But why hasn't there been "any visible effect"? You mean, I presume, the effect is that I should give up these ideas.
  
  So is it me, or is it that has not been possible for you or others to explain away my concerns, or rebut my ideas? The answer is apparent: because before Modern Forgery, I listened... as I do now... to all challenges, and in the past there was very much a "visible effect" on my ideas. I listened to the critics, and where I found those criticisms valid I've abandoned or changed my ideas. The two biggest were accepting that Cornelius Drebbel didn't author the Voynich, and I don't believe it is an artifact of the fictional New Atlantis. There were many lesser ideas which came and went, and my critics... you included, Rene... were part of the process.
  
  So the proof is in the pudding: I've demonstrated I do listen, I do learn, and when merited, I change my mind on things. I still do, and still would. I have not changed.
  
  But with Modern Forgery, no one has been able to logically, reasonably, evidentially, explain why these ideas are wrong. The modern forgery characteristics, the anomalies and anachronisms, are either dismissed with lesser alternatives, ignored completely, points selectively addressed, or misinterpreted or misstated, or any number of methods of argument which don't actually explain why my ideas are incorrect. This is why I'm at this point, this is why there is "no visible effect"... because I not have been provided... unlike other times... a good reason to consider the Voynich anything but a rather amateurish fake from about 1910.
  
  There has been ample opportunity, but you leave the discussion just when it matters. You do occasionally fire a shot over my theory's bow from a distance, as you did in your OP, but you then decide to move on rather than actually engage. I contend it is because your theory... and object with all your might, 15th century genuine European IS a theory, NOT fact... cannot withstand the scrutiny. I would love to be convinced why I am wrong, and why your theory, or some other, is correct. I would welcome an actual discussion, which never actually comes. Instead you simply claim I am wrong, and that i don't listen to your judgement (which is demonstrably untrue, you know I always listen to, and engage my critics), and then you profess you have had enough, and leave.
  
  But if you ever want to have an actual debate... in person would be most welcome to me... with a neutral moderator, and set rules? I would love that more than anything. Or perhaps something can be arraigned online... like a Zoom or Webex thing? I think that would be fun, and interesting to others, no? And, educational.
  
  All the best,
  Rich
  
  https://proto57.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/the-modern-forgery-hypothesis/
• Next Oldest Next Newest