• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
• New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 20-04-2024, 01:19 AM

  Rich, thanks for starting this thread and persisting through it.
  Despite having to read past some responses that kluge together
  misrepresentations of your positions, it has still been very interesting to
  read about some of your research and observations that I had not seen before
  -- or perhaps just forgotten about having read them individually and at different times.
  In either case, it has prompted me to
  spend more time going through your earlier blogs and posts.
  
  I can't say that I'm yet convinced of your modern forgery theory, but
  it certainly deserves a more sober evaluation that actually weighs the evidence for and against,
  This forum is good for exchanging information, news, and resources,
  and for the initial discussion and feedback regarding new or nascent ideas.
  But it is clearly not very good for an objective and comprehensive discussion that is
  free of the partisan and logically flawed potshots.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  Aga Tentakulus > 20-04-2024, 01:54 AM

  OK, I understand.
  There is a book about VM and the Morse alphabet.
  What do you want to tell me?

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  kckluge > 20-04-2024, 02:33 AM

  (19-04-2024, 06:35 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (19-04-2024, 12:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (18-04-2024, 08:11 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 
  
  
  
  In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio;

  
  
  
  
  Well, yes, he can indeed try to claim any or all of those things, but that does not mean that he is right.
  
  
  
  
  In fact, he does not have a good story, and his bits and pieces are full of contraductions (one of which is already pointed out by Karl). No consistent timeline is possible.
  
  
  
  
  Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details.

  
  
  
  
  Hi Rene: There is no contradiction in my rebuttal to Karl, nor in any of the points in my hypothesis. Although I think there is a possibility that the comments in the letters, referring to "unknown characters", "plants unknown to the Germans", "stars", "chemical symbolism", "arcane book", and so on, did influence the creation of a forgery to fit them, it is not a contradiction on my part to then note that the Voynich was created with many more elements in addition to them.

  
  
  
  just a quick reminder -- that's Rich's entire case on this point: the letters in the Carteggio don't refer to certain aspects of the mss. that he thinks they should/ought to have, therefore the mss referred to in the letters isn't the Voynich mss.
  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:"Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details."
  
  
  
  
  Actually my hypothesis can only seem flawed to anyone who accepts the opinions, stated as though they were absolutes, offered by you and others. I hear them repeated all the time, when they are not true, or unknowns. It is when one realizes that the image of the Voynich as an unassailable genuine and old manuscript is really a "castle built in the air", but with no real foundation under it, that people realize my hypothesis is possible, and even plausible.

  
  
  
  I cant speak for Rene or anyone else, but the claim that my perception of Rich's claims as flawed does not reflect a deep familiarity and engagement with its details is bull puckey. Rich and I have butted heads on a number of specific claims of his over the years in depth and detail...
  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:[...] And anyone who does understand the points of my hypothesis realizes that the claims by you and Karl, here, and the others I've read, are simply incorrect: There are no contradictions, no problem with timeline, no problem with the known facts of the Voynich... the real known facts, not those opinions stated as facts. I don't do that, I don't need to do that.

  
  
  
  Just a quick reminder -- in the context of this thread, the claims Rich is referring to are that
  
  (1) he claims the Marci letter is a forgery,
  
  (2) he claims the Carteggio letters served as part of the inspiration of Voynich's forgery of the mss, and
  
  (3) he claims the description of the mss in the Carteggio letters isn't a good match for the Voyich mss
  
  None of those three claims is incorrect. As for "no contradictions", I'll get to that below...
  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:...while I am ready and willing to explain each and every point I make, and change those points which are in error,

  
  
  
  Opinions may differ on that.
  
  
  
  

  Quote:it is always a one way street of "drive by comments" criticizing something I've written, but then leaving before explaining why; while those so criticizing never fully explain, or explain properly, or at all, the many hundreds of anomalies and anachronisms the Voynich is sick with.
  
  
  
  
  I mean, I can and must point out the massive amount of timeline violation, hypocrisy and contradictions one needs to believe the story that the Voynich is genuine: The "signature" which would have been visible in the 17th century, but was not mentioned in the Letters. The nude woman, baths, tubes, zodiac and more, not mentioned in the letters. The use of foldouts hundreds of years before they appeared on the literary scene. The pages being made of calfskin as much as 60 or more years apart. [...]

  
  
  
  The irony of following up a complaint about "drive by comments" with a spectacular example of what's referred to as a "Gish gallop" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is palpable.
  
  
  
  

  Quote:[...] Why do several experts identify plants, animals, script and more, as post-Columbus, i.e., "New World", in a supposedly 15th century document? How does it happen that most people agree the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal looks much like a curled armadillo, while all believers in 1420 say it is something else?

  
  
  
  Given that your theory claims, "At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim)." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), I can just as reasonably ask why the supposed forger didn't remove all the (supposedly compellingly) post-13th-century items when they changed their mind? If per one of your earlier posts in this thread, "I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To 'erase' most of the more 'Rufolfesque' content, and 'make it' pass as a Roger Bacon" then the forger clearly (if we buy your arguments) didn't do a very good job of it. Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is the quality of the evidence for post-Columbian items in the drawings...
  
  
  
  

  Quote:Why is the 16th century term, "Pox Leber" written in that text, when it is written in supposedly early 15th century ink?

  
  
  
  Here is a prime sentence that shows the Gish gallop in action. "Pox leber" occurs before the 16th century -- in fact, in a Sept. 6, 2014 post to the mailing list Rich said, "Well that is my point. We have a perfect, fifteenth century example of 'pox leber', in the Hans Sachs work, and we can assume that it may have been used earlier... but we don't know." Yet, now here we are in 2024 and Rich is talking about "the 16th century term, 'Pox Leber'" As for "supposedly early 15th century ink", that is Rich reading a great deal into the use of the word "same" in the McCrone report as meaning something more than same general type of iron gall ink. In fact, the report is very clear that there is variability in the formulation of even the inks which it refers to as the "same." I'm not going to rehash the extended prior discussions of both those points here -- even at this level of detail, it's taken me 6 lines of text and the non-trivial amount of time involved in digging through my collected saved materials to respond at this level of detail. Which is, of course, the entire point of Gish galloping as a tactic...
  
  
  
  

  Quote:[...] Why do the illustrations of the nested and flying birds on f86r, seeming representing the four elements, happen to match the same representation's in Maier's Altalantia Fugeuns, from 1617? [...]

  
  
  
  Why is someone forging what's supposed to be a 13th century work leaving in drawings that match a 17th century model? Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is your theory. 
  
  
  
  Which brings us back to contradictions. As I have pointed out in the past, if your theory and interpretation of the evidence is correct, then we have to believe that Voyich-as-forger rockets back and forth between being cunning at a level that would make a Bond villain blush on some occasions and sloppy in a way that beggars belief on others. That he went to all the trouble to manipulate the pages (reordering the women-in-ponds folios so the drawing that crosses the fold isn't the center bifolio in the quire, etc.) to cunningly imply a fictitious codicological history for the manuscript, but was so careless and sloppy he left illustrations of 17th and 18th century optical devices in it after switching gears and deciding to make it a Bacon mss. One minute he's Danny Ocean, the next he's Blackadder's sidekick Baldrick. 
  
  
  
  Which brings us back to falsifiability -- all those problems get swept under the rug with the shrug emoji and that's just they way Voynich did it. Which can explain anything, and so explains nothing.
  
  
  
  By the way -- what am I doing wrong that extra blank lines show up in my posts? I don't see it in other posts...

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  ReneZ > 20-04-2024, 03:08 AM

  Unfortunately, in the last post the quotes have been mangled up, and it is no longer possible to understand who wrote what.
  
  I may explain a bit more once things are more clear, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this.
  
  Short summary:
  
  1) There is no evidence that the Marci letter is a fake created by Voynich
  
  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that Voynich did not care about this letter for 8 years, that he could barely read it, and that he completely misunderstood its contents in the time frame 1915-1917. All this should have been a 'show' by Voynich ?
  
  2) There is no evidence that Voynich ever saw the Kircher letters
  
  In fact, there is strong evidence that the chances that he ever saw it are negibly small. And he would have had to read quite a lot of it.
  
  So: 
  - A cool story, based entirely on imagination.
  - No evidence.
  - Plenty of evidence that Voynich acquired it as a genuine item and was puzzled by it. I have only mentioned a fraction.
  
  It's a good thing that we don't have to worry about getting arrested for a burglary, just because:
  - we live nearby so we could have been in the house
  - we could have known where a spare key was hidden

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  kckluge > 20-04-2024, 06:31 AM

  (20-04-2024, 03:08 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, in the last post the quotes have been mangled up, and it is no longer possible to understand who wrote what.
  
  I may explain a bit more once things are more clear, but I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this.
  
  Short summary:
  
  1) There is no evidence that the Marci letter is a fake created by Voynich
  
  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that Voynich did not care about this letter for 8 years, that he could barely read it, and that he completely misunderstood its contents in the time frame 1915-1917. All this should have been a 'show' by Voynich ?
  
  2) There is no evidence that Voynich ever saw the Kircher letters
  
  In fact, there is strong evidence that the chances that he ever saw it are negibly small. And he would have had to read quite a lot of it.
  
  So: 
  - A cool story, based entirely on imagination.
  - No evidence.
  - Plenty of evidence that Voynich acquired it as a genuine item and was puzzled by it. I have only mentioned a fraction.
  
  It's a good thing that we don't have to worry about getting arrested for a burglary, just because:
  - we live nearby so we could have been in the house
  - we could have known where a spare key was hidden

  
  Mea culpa -- I haven't figured out how to respond in multiple places in the middle of what I'm replying to while maintaining the indentation. Aaannnndddd...now that I look at the editing ribbon it looks like the cartoon speech bubble button towards the right side is maybe the right way to do it. 
  
  (It makes it better, but it's still not quite right...)

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 20-04-2024, 06:55 AM

  (20-04-2024, 03:08 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's a good thing that we don't have to worry about getting arrested for a burglary, just because:
  - we live nearby so we could have been in the house
  - we could have known where a spare key was hidden

  
  But hold on... that is a misleading analogy.
  
  It is true that we don't have to worry that we could be prosecuted for burglary just because we live nearby and had a key (at least it's highly unlikely to be prosecuted, so ... no need to worry.) We don't have to worry  because those things are circumstantial evidence which is therefore insufficient to bring charges.
  But we DO have to worry if our only defense, once charged on the basis of direct evidence, is to claim that we "were not there" or "didn't have a key". Because in response to that, the prosecutor only needs to show that it is "plausible" that we could have been there (perhaps because we lived nearby) and plausible that we could have had a key (perhaps because there was a hidden one, that we could have known about).
  
  Similarly, Rich doesn't have to prove (and, unless it's somewhere I've not seen, he has not actually claimed), that the Marci letter IS a fake. He only needs to show that it is plausible that it is a fake and so therefore cannot be used to negate other evidence that might support the manuscript being a forgery.
  
  I want to be clear, I am not arguing for the forgery theory. I'm only arguing for the use of properly applied logical arguments, whether they be for or against a theory, and against switch and bait, whether intended or not.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  ReneZ > 20-04-2024, 09:45 AM

  I would like to stress the difference between proof and evidence, or at least how I use these words.
  
  As Lisa already said, and I agree, there is almost nothing that can be proven.
  
  However, one can collect and show evidence.
  This can and should be done for both cases. It can then be weighed against each other.
  Of course, it is both possible to have evidence for (in favour of) something, and against something.
  
  A  letter that has been preserved is a piece of evidence. 
  A hypothesis is not a piece of evidence.
  
  

  (20-04-2024, 06:55 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.once charged on the basis of direct evidence,

  
  Not if there isn't any direct evidence. That's the situation we are dealing with here.
  
  

  (20-04-2024, 06:55 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.he has not actually claimed), that the Marci letter IS a fake.

  
  Oh he has. Karl already hinted at it.
  
  

  (20-04-2024, 06:55 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He only needs to show that it is plausible that it is a fake

  
  I agree that that would help his case a lot.
  
  But just imagine:
  If the Voynich MS did not exist, and the Marci letter did not exist;
  and if Voynich decided to create a fake letter from Marci to Kircher to provide some fake provenance;
  
  How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?
  
  He would have to search in the Kircher correspondence, before knowing that Kircher had anything to do with it.
  
  So, the odds are completely against such a scenario.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  ReneZ > 20-04-2024, 11:43 AM

  For those interested:
  here is a summary of Voynich's actions between the time he acquired the MS (1912) and he made his first presentation of it (9 years later):
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 20-04-2024, 01:27 PM

  (20-04-2024, 09:45 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But just imagine:
  
  If the Voynich MS did not exist, and the Marci letter did not exist; and if Voynich decided to create a fake letter from Marci to Kircher to provide some fake provenance; How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?
  
  He would have to search in the Kircher correspondence, before knowing that Kircher had anything to do with it.
  
  So, the odds are completely against such a scenario.

  
  Hi Rene: I'll try to deal with the many arguments against my ideas in the threads overnight, but I wanted to address this one, first, because it seems to be the source of your claims that the timeline of my hypothesis is wrong, or unworkable, and maybe the old claim you made that Voynich would have "needed a time machine" made a few years ago.
  
  "How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?
  He would have to search in the Kircher correspondence, before knowing that Kircher had anything to do with it."
  
  Well, yes, he would have had to know of the mentions in the letters of the Carteggio, referring to "a" manuscript (as we know said manuscript was described), which I prefer to refer to as the "Baresch Manuscript" (because those letters are genuine, but it is speculation to say it is the Voynich we know today that they are describing).
  
  And this is possible, and even plausible, for many reasons:
  
  - Strickland was friends with Voynich
  - Voynich is famous for finding rare items all over Europe. He had connections, he had sources to do this
  - Strickland (and his brothers) attended the Villa Mondragone in the late 19th century, and he taught there, then, he ran the place
  - Kircher's life works and archives would have unarguably been of great interest to all Jesuit scholars, and still is
  
  It is completely plausible, and allowable timeline-wise, that the information in those letters was mentioned to Voynich in some form, or that he was allowed to see the letters. So:
  
  "How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?"
  
  Because of course in the 1666 letter to Kircher, Kinner states, "You will be the occasion of even greater joy if your craft and skill can uncover the interpretation of that arcane book which he gave up to you, and I would dearly like to know myself."
  
  So from the letters, he would have the descriptions of the Baresch Manuscript, have known that transcribed portions of it were first sent to Kircher, and that eventually the whole manuscript was sent to Kircher.
  
  As I said, it is accepted that Voynich was good at ferreting out rare books, that he had a large network all over Europe... friends, contacts... and that he bought books, of course. The idea that there had existed an "arcane book" in "unknown characters" would of course pique his interest, and this is obvious and indisputable. It was his whole game, and one he was very, very good at.
  
  So who told him about this missing arcane book? Probably some Jesuit scholar, maybe Strickland himself. Perhaps Voynich was shown some paper about the Carteggio. Maybe Voynich was allowed to peruse the Carteggio. And a million other combinations of this are possible.
  
  You, and others, have long claimed this is impossible: For one thing, the fore-mentioned claim the letters were "under lock and seal", when this is speculation on your part, not fact. I was also told that, since there are 2,000 items in the Carteggio, he could not have found these references... when, of course, somehow, many other can, and did. Or that Voynich's Latin was bad, as though (if it were as bad as claimed) there could not have been anyone there to help him read them... like, say a Jesuit student or professor, or Strickland himself? And so on...
  
  No, you speculate, I speculate, but there is nothing factual barring Voynich from being privy to the knowledge that the information about the Baresch Manuscript, in the Letters of the Carteggio, both describing it, and explaining the transmission of transcriptions of part of it, and then, the whole thing, to Kircher. And that information would have been to Voynich like raw meat to a dog- irresistible.
  
  And so my points here are this, in rebuttal to your claims of a timeline problem, which I point out, does not exist. In my hypothesis, the information about a lost arcane book, this Baresch Manuscript, became known to Voynich. Maybe he found that book, and it exists, or existed, somewhere. I would be "under the radar" for us, as those descriptions actually would fit many manuscripts, and actually far better than the Voynich does. And armed with this information, which Voynich could have received before 1909 or so, he, or he and someone, or someone, could have created the Voynich. And then, to add to this pre-existing "provenance", created the 1665/66 Marci letter... or not, as I say it changes nothing, if my speculation on the authenticity of that letter is correct or not. But if forged, there is still nothing in that letter which counters the timeline of Voynich having learned of the missing Baresch manuscript, and creating the story in the letter.
  
  So you may consider the "odds" against it, just as I consider the "odds" against the Voynich being real, for all our opposing reasons. But the timeline of my hypothesis? It is fine, it works, there is no problem with it at all.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 20-04-2024, 03:42 PM

  Hi Karl: To clarify the back-and-forth, I've added "Rich said", and "Karl said" to your quotes, but otherwise left them intact. And "yes" on the recurring problem of spacing... it is difficult to avoid in answers on this forum. I've had trouble removing them here, particularly, but tried. I erase them in edit, but they seem to come back on their own.
  

  (20-04-2024, 12:30 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The problem, of course, if that *if* the Marci letter is a forgery, then the forger *had* to have specific knowledge of the prior correspondence with Kircher about whatever mss was being discussed (because the Marci letter references that prior correspondence). Rich has no actual evidence of such knowledge, and the burden of proof is on him to provide it (as neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative). At best he can make vague plausibility arguments that are just that -- plausibility arguments, not evidence.

  
  Well this is true, technically, but it is a two way street: The entire case of authenticity and age of the Voynich is, likewise, a "plausibility argument", with no direct evidence. My major effort is to make it clear to others that this is the case, so that they don't falsely believe... as, unfortunately many do... that "1420 Genuine Cipher Herbal" is fact, and "1910 forgery" is speculation. They are both hypotheses, plain and simple. Everyone should know the source material and reasoning behind both of them, and not be led astray by incorrect claims. People need to be aware the true situation of all the issues Voynich, so that they can both make up their own minds, and have a better chance of solving the problem. I would also point out that the 1420 Paradigm, while fiercely, although I think undeservedly, defended, has not been able to find the answers. Shouldn't others have the ability to follow the actual, real, facts of the Voynich problem, so that they have a chance of solving it? That is the core reason I argue these points... not to convince you nor anyone, really, but to show that my hypothesis, and many others, other than yours, are actually perfectly possible. Then they can decide what is "plausible" or not, based on reality, not fictions.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich writes, "2) As for the letters of the Carteggio, it was long claimed that the letters were "under lock and seal", with no evidence they were. They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits, and I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched. They were seen, considered important, and were referenced. [...]" (Sorry, I clearly haven't figured out how to do replies in the middle of quotes...)
  
  Karl wrote: Note the proof by vigorous assertion. "They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits..." -- as evinced by what, exactly? "...I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched" -- what you don't "buy" isn't evidence of anything. "They were seen, considered important, and were referenced." -- By whom, by whom, and where and when, exactly (and don't forget, you and I had a lengthy exchange about this on the mailing list...)? Who in the19th or early 20th century directly references and quotes material in the Carteggio?

  
  There is at least one reference to some study of the letters from the 19th century, which I cannot find at the moment. There is also one from the 1960's, a paper written about them. But this is again a case of "Any hypothesis for forgery MUST prove itself, while genuine can simply claim things with no proof". But in this case, say I cannot find those references, we have two cases from which to compare their mutual "plausibility": One, that an active Jesuit university did not and would not be interested in, and study, Kircher's correspondence, and two, that they would have. The whole case that the information would not, and could not, have been shared with Voynich is based on what is, on the face of it, an implausible premise, although just as speculative as mine. I mean, why should your claim, which is likewise "not evidence of anything" trump my claim? It is important for anyone reading the true cases both are based on, and decide for themselves which is "more plausible".
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote: "3) The guy in charge, Strickland, was a long time friend of both Ethel and Wilfrid. And he sold items to Wilfrid. So the idea that Wilfrid only saw and knew about what Strickland offered him? He was known for having his feelers out all around Europe. It is not inconceivable at all that the mentions of an intractable book, with unknown characters and script, and "plants unknown to the Germans", and some stars, was not passed on to Wilfrid."
  
  Karl: The "it's not inconceivable" as Rich's best argument speaks for itself.

  
  The point you miss here is that it is possible, and plausible, when it is incorrectly claimed that it is impossible to have happened as I describe. It also points out one of the many hypocrisies that the 1420 hypothesis needs to float it and keep it alive: On a great many points, some habit, affect, trait, instance is known and accepted to support "1420 Genuine"; and then the reverse is claimed in order to protect it. In this case, for instance, we are told, over and over, just what an amazing sleuth Voynich was, digging up unknown rare manuscripts all around Europe, from collections laying in obscurity until he came along. That is true, I accept that. But when the suggestion is made, when my hypothesis is formed around that agreed upon premise, suddenly there is no way, it is impossible, it is "implausible" that Voynich could have ever seen the descriptions in the Letters.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote: "4) No, the mentions are not a good match, not at all....But looking at the evidence critically, I think we can see it probably was not the Voynich they were talking about: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."
  
  Karl answers: Rich's argument (as stated briefly in a following post of his) is the following: "Although I think there is a possibility that the comments in the letters, referring to 'unknown characters', 'plants unknown to the Germans', 'stars', 'chemical symbolism', 'arcane book', and so on, did influence the creation of a forgery to fit them, it is not a contradiction on my part to then note that the Voynich was created with many more elements in addition to them." That is the sum and totality of Rich's case on this point -- that because the letters in the Carteggio don't specifically mention aspects of the mss. that *he* would have mentioned or that *he thinks* the writer(s) would/should have mentioned, that that is evidence that the letters aren't referring to the mss. in front of us.

  
  That's actually pretty accurate, yes. That is how I feel. Well, it is not the "totality of Rich's case on this point", but you do reflect it essentially correctly. I prefer to think of the actually manuscript the men of the letters was describing as the "Baresch Manuscript". I've looked for it, and I urge others to, also. It may be found in the Kircher catalogs or collections, or who knows where? You should look for it, too, Karl... what a find that would be! The "real Voynich".
  
  

  (20-04-2024, 02:33 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just a quick reminder -- in the context of this thread, the claims Rich is referring to are that
  
  (1) he claims the Marci letter is a forgery,
  (2) he claims the Carteggio letters served as part of the inspiration of Voynich's forgery of the mss, and
  (3) he claims the description of the mss in the Carteggio letters isn't a good match for the Voyich mss
  
  None of those three claims is incorrect. As for "no contradictions", I'll get to that below...

  
  Yes, that is essential correct, in the most raw form. But one small correction: I do not claim the Marci letter IS a forgery, only that it may be one. I do think is a forgery, personally, but I think that is different than claiming it is one, which I think would be saying I have a proof... which I do not.
  
  Anyone interested can see my argument for a forged Marci letter, here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view./
  And decide for themselves. But I would encourage others to explain the problems I see with that letter, in short:
  
  - The fold lines make no sense in any context (see video)
  - The "seals" do not make sense in any normal context
  - The "signature", date, and last letter of "Prague" are exact overlays to another Marci letter in the Carteggio
  - The Latin is bad, according to Latin experts, while the Latin in the known real letters is not bad
  - That he was allowed to leave with the letter at all, when it would and is precious to the Jesuits
  - That he said he didn't find it for some time after purchase of the book
  - That in the letter, Marci relates information that would not have been held back in earlier letters... why now?
  - and more, check out the post linked above
  
  As for, "(3) he claims the description of the mss in the Carteggio letters isn't a good match for the Voyich mss"
  
  You think the descriptions ARE a good match?
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote: it is always a one way street of "drive by comments" criticizing something I've written, but then leaving before explaining why; while those so criticizing never fully explain, or explain properly, or at all, the many hundreds of anomalies and anachronisms the Voynich is sick with.
  
  I mean, I can and must point out the massive amount of timeline violation, hypocrisy and contradictions one needs to believe the story that the Voynich is genuine: The "signature" which would have been visible in the 17th century, but was not mentioned in the Letters. The nude woman, baths, tubes, zodiac and more, not mentioned in the letters. The use of foldouts hundreds of years before they appeared on the literary scene. The pages being made of calfskin as much as 60 or more years apart. [...]
  
  Karl answered: The irony of following up a complaint about "drive by comments" with a spectacular example of what's referred to as a "Gish gallop" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is palpable.

  
  I had to look up this "Gish Gallop", and first of all I have to say it is both incorrect to claim this about me, and also a pretty nasty thing to do so. Yes, we have had arguments in the past, but I never found you to be so personally insulting. Why? What happened? I always appreciated your input, and your disagreement, and still do. But I like you, and was so happy to have met you in 2014 at the Folger, and thought we had a friendly rapport at the wine and cheese event after the Voynich talk. The tone an content of your responses here both surprised and saddened me...
  
  In any case, "Gish Gallop": "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality."
  
  That is patently false, an inaccurate portrayal of my attempt at honest rebuttal of the objections to my hypotheses. My posts are 100% accurate, first of all, and I always make every effort to be accurate. And I do correct myself when shown to be in error. My opinions may differ from others, but that does not, in itself, automatically make them "inaccurate". It is for others to decide how "strong" they are, and I never say otherwise. As for "quantity", I answer what I am asked... am I wordy when doing this? Yes, sometimes out of necessity, to answer the great many questions and comments aimed at me, and partly because I am not always good at explaining things in a more concise way. But I stand by their quality, and to suggest anything else of me is... frankly... really insulting.
  
  And I would never make any such charges against you. I think you are wrong, but I do not question your motivations, because I respect you too much.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote, "[...] Why do several experts identify plants, animals, script and more, as post-Columbus, i.e., "New World", in a supposedly 15th century document? How does it happen that most people agree the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal looks much like a curled armadillo, while all believers in 1420 say it is something else?"
  
  And "Given that your theory claims, "At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim)." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Karl (I think) responded: I can just as reasonably ask why the supposed forger didn't remove all the (supposedly compellingly) post-13th-century items when they changed their mind? If per one of your earlier posts in this thread, "I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To 'erase' most of the more 'Rufolfesque' content, and 'make it' pass as a Roger Bacon" then the forger clearly (if we buy your arguments) didn't do a very good job of it. Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is the quality of the evidence for post-Columbian items in the drawings..."

  
  I can't argue your choice of explanation, and you have every right to dismiss those who see comparisons to "post-Columbian items". But the thing is, those items left behind do fool many, if fake, so that would be the answer as to "why they were left behind", and then, therefore, he DID "do a very good job of it". What is left, although some see it as such, is dismissed by others who believe the Voynich is 1420. I mean, you can't argue with success.A good place to make a point I often do, about all of this. It goes something like this: Most of what people accept as evidence the Voynich is a genuine 1420 item today are based on the long history of accepting the opinions, methods and practices of the early 20th century world of book dealing, literature, art, and so on. Those standards have long changed, but the Voynich was already "approved" by them. This is why most of the defenses for the Voynich as real are actually very apologetic, a sort of patch-work of explanations for all the many faults its content and construction and given provenance actually exhibit.
  
  And so as I also say, imagine for a moment we never had heard of the Voynich, but it were dropped in our laps, today... the same work, the same story, the same test results, the same "provenance": I think it would be laughed off the World Stage as a poor fake almost immediately.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote, "Why is the 16th century term, "Pox Leber" written in that text, when it is written in supposedly early 15th century ink?"
  
  Karl wrote, "Here is a prime sentence that shows the Gish gallop in action. "Pox leber" occurs before the 16th century -- in fact, in a Sept. 6, 2014 post to the mailing list Rich said, "Well that is my point. We have a perfect, fifteenth century example of 'pox leber', in the Hans Sachs work, and we can assume that it may have been used earlier... but we don't know." Yet, now here we are in 2024 and Rich is talking about "the 16th century term, 'Pox Leber'" As for "supposedly early 15th century ink", that is Rich reading a great deal into the use of the word "same" in the McCrone report as meaning something more than same general type of iron gall ink. In fact, the report is very clear that there is variability in the formulation of even the inks which it refers to as the "same." I'm not going to rehash the extended prior discussions of both those points here -- even at this level of detail, it's taken me 6 lines of text and the non-trivial amount of time involved in digging through my collected saved materials to respond at this level of detail. Which is, of course, the entire point of Gish galloping as a tactic...

  
  I stand corrected, if in a mailing list post I incorrectly wrote "fifteenth century". In my defense, like many, I am sometimes caught in that century vs. century bugaboo, as in "1500's is 16th century, and NOT 15th century". I try not to do that, but it does slip by from time to time. That being said, my post on the subject does not make this mistake: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  "19th and 20th scholars were curious about the Hans Sach’s usage of “pox leber”, which they noted was first used in the 16th century"
  
  As for the level of similarity that McCrone was implying by using the phrase "same ink", one can read the report and make up their own mind about how the various definitions used are applied by them. But I do point out that I am not alone in my interpretation of their findings, as soon after the release of that report, the "official" description of the marginalia changed from being of a much later hand, applied much later, to it having been applied at the time of the main text. I was perplexed why it had been changed, and this caused me to re-read the McCrone report again. That is when I found the "same". If that is not the reason the 1420 story (quietly) changed, and it is just a coincidence, then I do not know the reason for it. But it did change. I think, if you continue to believe the last page marginalia is from a later time, you might be in the minority. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I think it would be the case.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Rich wrote, "[...] Why do the illustrations of the nested and flying birds on f86r, seeming representing the four elements, happen to match the same representation's in Maier's Altalantia Fugeuns, from 1617? [...]"
  
  Karl responded, "Why is someone forging what's supposed to be a 13th century work leaving in drawings that match a 17th century model? Maybe the problem isn't a careless forger, maybe the problem is your theory."

  
  Could be either careless forger, or my theory. But a correction: I do not believe this was made as a 13th century work, but actually, first, as a 17th century one. If you want to dismiss You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., you should refer to the actual claims I make in it:
  
  "I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him."
  
  Although I will point out that this is a frequent occurrence, which arises either intentionally or innocently: Some argument is made, but it is for something I never said nor believe. It is great to disagree with me, but it should be done with what I actually have said.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Which brings us back to contradictions. As I have pointed out in the past, if your theory and interpretation of the evidence is correct, then we have to believe that Voyich-as-forger rockets back and forth between being cunning at a level that would make a Bond villain blush on some occasions and sloppy in a way that beggars belief on others. That he went to all the trouble to manipulate the pages (reordering the women-in-ponds folios so the drawing that crosses the fold isn't the center bifolio in the quire, etc.) to cunningly imply a fictitious codicological history for the manuscript, but was so careless and sloppy he left illustrations of 17th and 18th century optical devices in it after switching gears and deciding to make it a Bacon mss. One minute he's Danny Ocean, the next he's Blackadder's sidekick Baldrick.

  
  Yes. Humorous and sarcastic, and I'd take issue with some of your interpretations of my hypothesis, but essentially correct. If anything, though, I think the claims that he would have had to have been so talented are a refection of what it would mean to have been fooled by him. I do think this is a very poor forgery, and do not think its acceptance is due to any great ability on his part... but more attributable to a low standard of acceptance by the audience. It is human nature for people to think that if they are fooled, they were fooled by the greatest. No, many times in history the worst and most obvious forgeries have fooled the greatest minds.
  
  

  kckluge Wrote:Which brings us back to falsifiability -- all those problems get swept under the rug with the shrug emoji and that's just they way Voynich did it. Which can explain anything, and so explains nothing.

  
  Well I would counter that this assessment is lacking in an honest appraisal of just how the image of a genuine 1420 Voynich is supported, and how I've clearly demonstrated so many problems and anomalies have actually been "swept under the rug", while pointing out, again, I never do that. Ironically, when I explain, at length and in great detail, my reasoning and the basis for it, it is then said I am "gish galloping", or as Rene said years ago, "arm waving". Which is it? Am I sweeping things under the rug; or explaining in too much detail, every detail?
  
  No, there is no rug, I need no rug. If anyone wants to know anything I think, and any basis for what I think, they can ask, and I won't shirk the question, I won't evade it, I won't base my answer on wrong information. And when it is my opinion only, I will explain why I think the way I do, and make it clear, as I always have, that it IS my opinion, and not an indisputable fact. If you want to criticize that, fine, but that is what I believe is the right way to do things, and also the most productive for everyone involved. Rich.
• Next Oldest Next Newest