asteckley > 26-04-2024, 10:25 PM
(26-04-2024, 08:22 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From your previous comments, you clearly do have a dog in this fight.
I marvel at our patience in reading and replying to Rich's theory.
proto57 > 26-04-2024, 10:57 PM
(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich
You don't seem to have understood me.
Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.
(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to me that variation in dating of historical objects with no readable text by people is probably quite normal and so the different dating of different people is to be expected. How accurately do you expect an individual to be able to date an object of this kind? Lisa Fagin Davis pointed out that difficulties in dating medieval text like this is normal. Have you compared it to the dating of other medieval objects without readable text? How.accurate are they?
ReneZ > 27-04-2024, 06:04 AM
(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.
I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.
Aga Tentakulus > 27-04-2024, 10:30 AM
Mark Knowles > 27-04-2024, 01:04 PM
(26-04-2024, 10:25 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-04-2024, 08:22 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From your previous comments, you clearly do have a dog in this fight.
I marvel at our patience in reading and replying to Rich's theory.
Well I guess I do have a dog in the fight to use consistent standards and logic when evaluating evidence.
But what I meant is that I have no dog in the fight regarding modern forgery vs authentic.
I am actually not convinced of Rich's modern forgery theory (and have told him as much.)
I do, however, see that he has some valid observations and I respect his open minded-approach, politeness to those with a different opinion, and the consistency of his logic, all of which are often contrasted by some commenters.
Perhaps I am seeing those things more easily because I have not subscribed to any particular theory.
proto57 > 27-04-2024, 02:09 PM
(27-04-2024, 06:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-04-2024, 07:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(26-04-2024, 07:27 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your point seems to be that the variation in dating amongst the people you call experts is so great that it demonstrates that there is a fundamental problem with their datings and so it must be a modern forgery.
I guess I missed it. I've never seen him say that.
Hi Andrew,
see this blog post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and then play the video.
Of course, this is now 7 years ago and Rich may want to add if he has changed his opinion on any of these points.
Mark Knowles > 27-04-2024, 02:34 PM
(27-04-2024, 02:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.
I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.
I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.
If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue... I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.
I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.
That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.
Rich.
proto57 > 27-04-2024, 03:30 PM
(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="proto57" pid='59191' dateline='1714223347']
Actually, Andrew is absolutely correct, and it seems both Mark, and now you, Rene, have missed a fundamental and very important distinction between how Mark describes my point on this, and what I actually believe is the case. I've just explained this, above, but will do it again at an attempt to end this misunderstanding on both of your parts, and anyone reading this thread.
I absolutely do NOT think there is a "fundamental problem with their [the expert's] datings". It is quite the opposite, I think their "datings" are fundamentally correct. That is the core point I actually make, not your straw man substitution for it. I posit that all the things they "saw" in the Voynich ARE there, that their widely varied dating opinions are correct for the content in the Voynich.
I do not reject their opinions, I do not think they were wrong, but right. And the fact that they were right, that all this contrary stuff is in there, strongly implies, to me, that this is a forgery.
If, on the other hand, I believed what you mistakenly thought (and no longer do, because I corrected you both), that there was a problem with their dating, this would not be an issue... I would be able to dismiss them, as the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm needs to do to exist. And of course this is also core to the entire point of the blog post this thread is about: I do listen to the experts, I do think they were, to a major degree, correct, and by listening to these experts, come to what is to me the only logical conclusion: The Voynich is a forgery with varied age of contents.
I also fail to see how one can make the mistake you have both made, considering I explain this clearly (except for the horrible audio, sorry) in the VERY video you link. I've queued it to the time at which I describe my "Red Flag" #2:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There is nothing in that description of my point that would remotely imply the error you both relate, nor in any of my other explanations of this point in writing, anywhere.
That brings me to another point that I often make is amply demonstrated here: In order to rebut my Modern Forgery hypothesis, one must misstate all or portions of it, or ignore them, or inadequately answer them. The first is of course a "straw man", frequently used to avoid discussion of the actual problems with the Voynich, which are evidence of forgery.
Rich.
(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your presentation is very misleading. You don't think their datings are correct, as many of them make it quite clear that they don't think the manuscript is a modern forgery. You can pretend that they agree with you, but they don't. As just one example, how can the Voynich be written by Roger Bacon and at the same time be a modern forgery? It can't.
(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In addition with the same data in many cases they come to different conclusions from one another, and so they are mutually contradictory and therefore it is impossible for even all their analysis to be consistent with your theory or anyone else's.
(27-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You seem to be trying to co-opt, mostly dead, people who can't talk back to your theory despite the fact that they have made it clear that they don't endorse your theory.
Mark Knowles > 27-04-2024, 03:54 PM
proto57 > 27-04-2024, 04:18 PM
(27-04-2024, 03:54 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is clear that you are trying to be very selective about when you listen to people you call experts and when you don't. The manuscript being "geninue", or not, is a dating conclusion. If you respect these people's opinions you should listen to their resounding conclusion that the Voynich is not a modern forgery and not downplay or ignore that opinion.
(27-04-2024, 03:54 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The contradictions between the different datings does not imply your theory is true. I think that many or most of the people that you list can hardly be considered "experts" when it comes to dating as I said a long time ago. Was "Newbold" really an expert? In addition the difficulties in dating an object like the Voynich in part account for the various datings.