- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
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?"
proto57 > 06-04-2024, 07:57 PM
(06-04-2024, 06:14 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The idea of 'listening to the experts' is subject to interpretation. One might note that all the proposed experts agree that the VMs is at least 400 years old, in current terms, being made before 1600.
Listening to the experts, one might say: Hmm, they might be right. OR, they clearly failed to detect Wilfrid's cunning plan.
Well true, they would have failed to detect his plan as you say, and there are many cases of such expert failures throughout history. The forged "Oath of a Freeman", in fact, was practically guaranteed by "our own" McCrone associates to be 100% genuine. And on this very forum, only a few years ago, I was told that the experts said the Vinland map was real... they didn't all, and the ones who thought so, it turns out, were wrong. And experts and institutions are highly reluctant to both investigate their collections FOR forgeries, nor admit them when experts reveal them. There are probably hundreds of cases of this, from what I have learned. To name two, the Metropolitan has the bronze Romulus and Remus sculpture, revealed to be an 18th century "homage" and not original... but to my knowledge, the still present it as authentic. The British Library has not yet re-written their description of the "Columbus Miniature" (sold to them by Wilfrid) as a forgery, although this is universally accepted.
Forgeries in literature and art have a long history of being missed, ignored and improperly described as real, by the experts and institutions.
As for them agreeing it was at least 400 years old, yes... but from what I have gathered, 1) They didn't actually agree, for the most part, but were all over the calendar and map, 2) They were dating the Voynich by the content and styles they observed within it, not on any "forgery" criteria, as they 3) were not forgery specific scholars, nor 4) tasked with the question, "Is it real or not?".
I mean, I separate the type of scholarship which looks for signs of forgery, from that which dates and identifies items through comparative studies of content, art history, paleography, graphology, and so on. For instance, I can find no case of Singer, or Panofsky, being asked, or opining, on whether or not "Wilfrid might have done it".
Rich. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
RobGea > 06-04-2024, 09:54 PM
Regarding the anatomy of the image comparison in this post:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
VMS: both Rams have 2 toes and dew claws
VMS: the Lion has 5 toes on both front feet (small one is hard to see) and 4 on the left rear foot (right foot is hard to make out)
Exactly as anatomy dictates.
Whereas Wilfrids cat has 2 toes on 3 feet and the left front has possibly 3 ( polydactyly ?
)
So perhaps the overall style of both images is rustic but the VMS artist is far superior in terms of anatomical detail.
Maybe Wilfrid got some tips from one of his forger buddies after he drew the logo and before he drew the zodiac roundels
.
-
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
proto57 > 06-04-2024, 10:06 PM
(06-04-2024, 09:54 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regarding the anatomy of the image comparison in this post:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
VMS: both Rams have 2 toes and dew claws
VMS: the Lion has 5 toes on both front feet (small one is hard to see) and 4 on the left rear foot (right foot is hard to make out)
Exactly as anatomy dictates.
Whereas Wilfrids cat has 2 toes on 3 feet and the left front has possibly 3 ( polydactyly ? )
So perhaps the overall style of both images is rustic but the VMS artist is far superior in terms of anatomical detail.
Maybe Wilfrid got some tips from one of his forger buddies after he drew the logo and before he drew the zodiac roundels .
Well those are very exacting standards for comparison, which of course would obviate... for genuine, for forgery... just about 99.9% of every comparison ever made, on any item, for anyone. Which is of course the problem with the whole Voynich field, that there is nothing that is close enough to be a "slam dunk" for anyone, and therefore keeps everyone guessing.
That being said, it is only my opinion, as it is for you, for anyone on most of these matters, but I stick by it. Toe counts being off on some of the kitty's toes, some do match very well and have only two: On the Ram and on the Voynich cat. And I consider that pretty amazing. Also, think of it: Who represents any cat with two toes? It is almost as though the "cloven hooves" of the Ram were transplanted on the cat. A ramcat?
Anyway, we disagree, and so be it.
Rich -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
Aga Tentakulus > 07-04-2024, 01:25 PM
The VM author knew the difference between paws and claws, which Wilfried apparently didn't look at in the cat. The difference between the paws of a lion and a cat is worlds apart. Wilfried's cat is a cloven-hoofed animal.
The ram is exactly what a ram is in the Alps. I doubt that Wilfried knew that. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
proto57 > 07-04-2024, 02:59 PM
(07-04-2024, 01:25 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VM author knew the difference between paws and claws, which Wilfried apparently didn't look at in the cat. The difference between the paws of a lion and a cat is worlds apart. Wilfried's cat is a cloven-hoofed animal.
The ram is exactly what a ram is in the Alps. I doubt that Wilfried knew that.
Well of course what you say it technically correct... cloven hooves on an appropriate animal, are not on the cat. But here is the thing I've noted for over 15 years now... 18 years? And it is hard to explain, but I'll try:
A use of widely varying standards of exception and admission in any investigation- forensic, legal, cultural, archeological- is one of the greatest problems in determining the truth of the matter. That is, by altering the standards used to determine the truth of anything, one can never come to any conclusion. And the lack of standards, the use of varying standards, is inadvertently applied to "adjust" the opinion about what the truth might be.
In the case of the Voynich, we of course have a tremendous range of accuracy, from deplorable to almost perfect, in the illustrations. This range of styles, content, and artistic representation leaves it particularly susceptible to the problem I am describing. There are no "land marks", as there are in, say, a work of art by a particular artist, or the engraving on paper money, or in the evidence in a crime, or anything in which we are seeking an answer: If something is "off", we see it, we know it is wrong, and it points to a possible answer: Who made it, or did it, if it is real or not, when it was made or happened, and so on.
But in the Voynich, there is from the beginning to the end of it a cacophony of styles, quality, accuracy, which form a vast stew from which anyone can draw inferences, and they have: I have (we all have) seen the illustrations alternatively described as poor and talented, amateur and expert, immature and adult, accurate and inaccurate. Things that look, on the surface like some thing are said to be "too good" to be that thing, because the Vms artist was too talent-less to make it that good; and the SAME OBJECT said to be "too poor" to be that thing, because the artist was too good to make it that bad. In fact in a great many discussions about many illustrations over the years, I have had several people so argue these opposite points, for the same illustration. And even, in a few cases, had the same person say, in the same discussion, that something was both "too good" and "too bad" to be the thing many think it actually looks like.
It ends up being like the Three Bears... anything one wants an object to be, or any comparison noted, to any features, can be "adjusted" to fit whatever outcome they like, until the result is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So look what happened here, with my ram-cat comparison: Some of the feet don't exactly match in the cat to ram, so they are said to not be by the same person. Then you point out, correctly, that cats don't have cloven hooves, and apply what you think the standard of the artist is in order to dismiss a connection to Voynich: That the Vms artist would KNOW what animals have hooves, and which do not, therefore the artist cannot have drawn the cat. He/she was "too good" for that.
Meanwhile, even much higher levels of inaccuracy are constantly excused, for almost any illustration in the Voynich, in order to accept that the thing is what it must be to be old and real.
Well first of all, I do think, as I have often said, that the problem is partly intentional... and that it has to be. No other work that I know of, that I have seen, has so many features that are both very close to something identifiable, and then off "just enough" to cause a lack of ability to identify them. IMO, that staggers credibility. From 2010:
https://proto57.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/a-little-like-everything/
"Added up, all these myriad of these similarities, so close and yet so far, are staggering in number. And again, I propose, to accidentally miss on thousands of individual elements, over 200 plus pages of text, without giving away one concrete connection to anything real… this, in my opinion, would be almost impossible to have happened by chance, and must have been intentional, and therefore is our biggest clue… a clue never followed. Instead, effort is put into finding a real connection, endlessly, as it has for a hundred years."
So what do we do to avoid this dilemma? Where do we find our "land marks"? Maybe that problem is impossible to resolve. Here, I believe the artistic standards are low, very low, and so the level of comparison between the ram and the cat are very good, that they very well could be by the same person. You disagree, and the previous commenter, too, and that the Voynich artist would be better than to make these mistakes. So how are problems like this resolved? Where is our yardstick, or land mark, to decide?
I would say "consistency and context". If one judges the accuracy and talent of any particular illustration to some level of acceptance/rejection, they they must attempt to use that same standard over the entire work. And while doing so, think about the possible context that would then explain the reasons items fall in and out of acceptance... without then adjusting the standard to fit the new observation. I mean, don't use a scissors when doing a jigsaw puzzle.
And while applying this uniform set of standards, look for a context that explains why items fall in and out of acceptance.
I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you both what I try to do, and what I see in others, when trying to determine the value of their input... for my own use, my own purposes. If I don't see consistent standards applied, or a uniform context to explain their opinions, then I value it less. It is less useful to me, I mean. I believe that the overall style, ability, accuracy, and yes, features, of the cat and the ram are not easily dismiss-able, and plausibly suggest the two artists may be the same. And I come to that opinion through a consistent application of a standard: That the Voynich artist was a very poor artist, and that they were both purposefully and unavoidably inaccurate in representations of items they often used as influences and suggestions, items which they then altered in form to some degree, so that inarguable identification would always be elusive, thus insulating themselves from identification and possible detection. And they did this under an overall context which explains these observations: They were a forger with poor artistic skills, and lacking in a care or understanding of human and animal anatomy and botany.
This then also explains the occasional accuracy seen, as even a poor artist can copy better ones: I'm thinking particularly of the claims I've read that the artist was "good" because they used perspective, and only a good artist would understand perspective; while at the same time looking at illustrations using perspective that are actually atrocious. Which is is? I believe that they were, still, a bad artist attempting to copy perspective.
TLDR: Without any uniformly applied standards of acceptance/rejection, the Voynich can be seen to be anything the observer expects or desires.
Rich. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
pjburkshire > 07-04-2024, 03:24 PM
(07-04-2024, 02:59 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you both what I try to do, and what I see in others, when trying to determine the value of their input... for my own use, my own purposes. If I don't see consistent standards applied, or a uniform context to explain their opinions, then I value it less. It is less useful to me, I mean. I believe that the overall style, ability, accuracy, and yes, features, of the cat and the ram are not easily dismiss-able, and plausibly suggest the two artists may be the same. And I come to that opinion through a consistent application of a standard: That the Voynich artist was a very poor artist, and that they were both purposefully and unavoidably inaccurate in representations of items they often used as influences and suggestions, items which they then altered in form to some degree, so that inarguable identification would always be elusive, thus insulating themselves from identification and possible detection. And they did this under an overall context which explains these observations: They were a forger with poor artistic skills, and lacking in a care or understanding of human and animal anatomy and botany.
Why is it important to you to prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake? Why not just walk away? -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
asteckley > 07-04-2024, 04:00 PM
(07-04-2024, 03:24 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why is it important to you to prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake? Why not just walk away?
These are very odd questions to ask on a forum dedicated to discussion of the manuscript and its mystery. Looks like an admission to having no valid counter argument to the proposed theory. Just saying. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
bi3mw > 07-04-2024, 04:08 PM
(07-04-2024, 03:24 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why is it important to you to prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake? Why not just walk away?
No matter how much you disagree with the "forgery theory" ( as I do ), that's not how you "discuss" it. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
proto57 > 07-04-2024, 04:24 PM
(07-04-2024, 03:24 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(07-04-2024, 02:59 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you both what I try to do, and what I see in others, when trying to determine the value of their input... for my own use, my own purposes. If I don't see consistent standards applied, or a uniform context to explain their opinions, then I value it less. It is less useful to me, I mean. I believe that the overall style, ability, accuracy, and yes, features, of the cat and the ram are not easily dismiss-able, and plausibly suggest the two artists may be the same. And I come to that opinion through a consistent application of a standard: That the Voynich artist was a very poor artist, and that they were both purposefully and unavoidably inaccurate in representations of items they often used as influences and suggestions, items which they then altered in form to some degree, so that inarguable identification would always be elusive, thus insulating themselves from identification and possible detection. And they did this under an overall context which explains these observations: They were a forger with poor artistic skills, and lacking in a care or understanding of human and animal anatomy and botany.
Why is it important to you to prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake? Why not just walk away?
As others have pointed out, and I agree, while we all have different opinions about what the Voynich might be, isn't it interesting and valuable to discuss it? I can tell that even those who strongly disagree with me... for a long time, and even in this very thread... have come to think of new things in new ways. No, not changed their minds... that is not the point, nor actually even the goal in discussing it (for me), but explore all possibilities, and the problems and merits of them.
As for why it is "important to [me] prove that the Voynich Manuscript is a fake?" First of all, I am trying to figure out what the Voynich is, fake or not. As I have demonstrated over and over, during the last almost 20 years, that I am one of the very few people who is willing to change my mind. My opinions and my hypotheses have been fundamentally altered in two large ways, and a great many smaller ones. So I'm not trying to "prove" it is a fake, I am testing my hypothesis that it may be a fake. I do this through research and discussion.
As for "Why not walk away?", well why would I? I would not suggest that of anyone else, first of all. I am interested in, and admire their dedication, and intelligence, even when I think they are wrong. I listen to them, and their reasoning about why they fell the ways they do... that is actually the most interesting part to me.
And lastly, don't you want to know for certain? I mean, those with a myriad of theories mostly realize... as I do... that they have no proof. No one does. You don't know what the Voynich actually is, any more than I do. So you would rather not know, for sure, if it is real? Would you rather not be confronted with that possibility? Also, if you are sure I am wrong, why not make your case? Explain to my why I am wrong. Then, as I do, I will argue my points to you... sometimes, on some points, I will agree with you.
We will both learn. Whatever you think the Voynich might be, I guarantee I have something to add to the discussion. Not so sound arrogant, but I have been in this field a long time now, and done much research in areas not studied by others, and much in person, in archives, museums and libraries. I mean, even if I am wrong, I think I can, and have, added valuable information and insights... as many others do, too. I, and they, should not "walk away". I want to hear it all, discuss it all.
Why don't you? That's a serious question... why don't you want to hear alternate arguments to your own viewpoint? It is proper, scientific, valuable and productive to have discussions with people of all understandings and experience, even those we don't agree with. Why don't you want that?
With respect, Rich. -
RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
RobGea > 07-04-2024, 05:21 PM
Just a quick clarification.
Rereading my post #52, i feel that the last line could be interpreted as a little rude.
I hereby wholeheartedly assert that that was not my intention, it was meant to add a lighthearted tone,
my apologies for any confusion caused.
Also, my post was simply an anatomical observation regarding only the 3 VMS zodiac roundels vs Wilfrids cat. Nothing more, nothing less.