Helmut Winkler > 30-05-2022, 09:50 AM
proto57 > 30-05-2022, 02:44 PM
proto57 > 30-05-2022, 03:36 PM
(29-05-2022, 04:05 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure if I've weighed in on this before, but the actual physical evidence of the manuscript itself makes a modern forgery staggeringly unlikely. It's one thing to argue that Voynich could have found some old parchment and mixed ink and pigments using fifteenth-century techniques. Sure, that's possible, albeit remotely so.
Quote:But then to also argue that he developed multiple ways of writing Voynichese so that the manuscript would appear to have been written by several different scribes; drilled wormholes that pass through the writing; added waterstains and other damage that overlay the writing and UNDERlay the later foliation; crafted the evidence of multiple bindings; added the provenance evidence in the manuscript (such as the effaced inscription on f. 1r); laid on the layers of early-modern annotations and additions (such as the foliation) in multiple - and correct - types of script that stretch over hundreds of years; etc. etc.
Quote:It is truly unimaginable that he could have done so in a way that would continue to appear authentic after decades of scrutiny. There are so many physical features of a medieval codex beyond the writing on the substrate, that it is truly unimaginable to contemplate a successful forgery of an entire manuscript.
bi3mw > 30-05-2022, 03:58 PM
(30-05-2022, 03:36 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would say... and have often written... that there are some unfortunate parallels to the other famous holding by Yale, the Vineland Map. It has had a tumultuous history, with much disagreement in the expert and amateur communities. It has been held up, to me in fact, as a good example of why I was wrong, because the Vineland map was real. I argued the two are not linked in the sense that if one was fake, or real, the other was the same. I don't think that. But there are parallels, and valuable lessons in them: Chief is, even a fake, even a bad fake, can be seen and argued, in good faith, by many experts, for many years, as real.
That is the parallel to the Voynich I see now, as the Vineland map is now a known an accepted fake even by Yale. I think, with time, Yale will also come to accept the Voynich as a hoax. It will only take a full understanding, at least discussion, of the real problems with it. That is still is not done to the extend it demands.
davidjackson > 30-05-2022, 08:10 PM
kckluge > 30-05-2022, 09:55 PM
ReneZ > 31-05-2022, 05:08 AM
(30-05-2022, 02:44 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I had no idea until now that there were those who didn't accept that the Voynich was the work being discussed in these letters,
ReneZ > 31-05-2022, 05:17 AM
(29-05-2022, 04:05 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's one thing to argue that Voynich could have found some old parchment and mixed ink and pigments using fifteenth-century techniques. Sure, that's possible, albeit remotely so.
Helmut Winkler > 31-05-2022, 08:46 AM
(30-05-2022, 08:10 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-05-2022, 09:50 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What worries me is that Kircher speaks explicitly of the past
... multas huius farrinae scripturas variis occasionibus me dissolvisse memini, ...
And why does that worry you?
LisaFaginDavis > 31-05-2022, 12:16 PM
(30-05-2022, 09:55 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Lisa, assuming that you are privy to details of the McCrone analysis beyond the summary made public, are you able to comment on:
* Barbara Bennett's claim in _Fortean Times_ that "...McCrone Associates tested the ink and determined...that it had been applied to 'fresh' vellum: i.e. before a patina had built up, meaning within months of the vellum being made if not mere weeks afterwards..." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
* Rich's reading of the public report as implying that the the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia sampled was contemporary with the main text and drawing ("...Barabe also concluded that certain quire and page numbers were different than the main text inks, telling us that if the f166v (sic) ink were different, we would have been so informed. In effect, the conclusion tells us that the marginalia was applied 'contemporaneously' with the main text ink!....the ink of the main text and the 'pox leber' marginalia are the same, according to the well-respected scholarship of McCrone." -- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Hopefully NDAs regarding further details don't prevent clarification on these points.