• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
• New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  proto57 > 22-11-2024, 08:31 PM

  (21-11-2024, 10:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is perhaps worth going into this [titanium issue] a bit more.
  It is a very specific crystalline compound of titanium that has been used in modern white paint.
  This is called 'anastase titanium dioxide'.
  Simply titanium by itself is not suspicious.
  
  The anastase dioxide was found in the ink of the Vinland map, and it does not belong there.
  This discovery was made by McCrone already in 1973. This became a topic of some controversy, and McCrone are obviously intimately familiar with this issue.
  
  So, when the same McCrone company investigates the Voynich MS in 2009, finds titanium and does not consider it an issue, we can be pretty damn sure that it was NOT anastase titanium dioxide that they found.
  
  But there is more. Even though the anastase was found in the Vinland map already decades ago, it was never convincing proof by itself that the MS was fake. Only small amounts were found, and it could not be shown that these were not the result of some later pollution.
  That was changed more recently, when it was found throughout the drawing and writing ink, and could even be linked to a specific source in Norway in 1923.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Hi Rene: You wrote, "So, when the same McCrone company investigates the Voynich MS in 2009, finds titanium and does not consider it an issue, we can be pretty damn sure that it was NOT anastase titanium dioxide that they found."
  
  How do you know this? This seems like an assumption on your part. There can be others, if we think about it. One of these may be to avoid becoming embroiled in a giant controversy, as they did with their famous Vinland Map controversy. Rather than delve into specifics, they just list the compound, and wash their hands of it.
  
  The issue with the Vinland Map titanium was, as you say, that it was in the modern anatase form. The difference is that the compound is mechanically processed, so that rather than rough crystals, they are smooth. Part of the criticism of McCrone was whether or not they interpreted the form of the compound correctly or not. Personally, I think they were correct. I've followed every iota of this argument, even discussing the issue, personally, with both Seaver and Floyd.
  
  So now back to the McCrone report... and note several key things: They do not discuss the form of the "Titanium Compound"; they do not SHOW micro-photographs of the forms; they do not say "which" "Titanium Compound", they do not qualify it with an adjective (common, uncommon, unusual, usual, contemporary, anachronistic, etc.), and they will not answer any valid questions to any of these things... even a "We don't know". Nothing.
  
  So you can assume the reasons they didn't specify these things in the report, as I can guess at them. But in my opinion, I think they wanted to just drop that in our laps... they are honest and capable people, and their reputations rely on it... so they just reported it, in the most simple way, then stepped away from it to let others struggle with the "whys" and "hows".
  
  But I appreciate the input of everyone here, and the seriousness that everyone took my points about Koen's video. I think it shows that there are many unanswered questions, still, and that is really one of my chief points. Like this one, if we really want to know the true nature of the Voynich, these things ought to be cleared up. I've tried at least three times to shake the McCrone tree on this and the other (seeming) peculiarities to that report... peculiar to them, too, as they suggested follow ups were needed. But maybe I should try again.
  
  While I'm here, though, maybe someone knows where the photo-micrographs of those crystals are? I don't like assuming anything, even when the "assumer" is me.
  
  Rich.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  proto57 > 22-11-2024, 09:25 PM

  (19-11-2024, 11:38 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I finally finished my new video. This one is about fraud, forgery and fakery of all kinds. Meaning, lack of meaning, good intentions, bad intentions, John Dee, Wilfrid Voynich or the Crossbowman.
  
  
  
  
  This video is the one that took me the longest to make so far. It includes both known and new research and highlights some lesser known aspects as well.  As usual, I tried to learn some new animations along the way, and attempted to keep it visually interesting. 
  
  I owe thanks to Lisa, Rene and Marco for their input and factchecking of the script, and to Cary for reviewing the video before publication. 
  
  I also provided English subtitles, which should make it a bit easier to watch for those who like them.
  
  Enjoy!

  
  Again, I really appreciate the discussion about my rebuttal to Koen's video, agree with me or not. Yes, the individual points are important, and should be discussed, I think. Even though people here often do disagree with me, I sense that most everyone wants to know as much as possible about every aspect of the Voynich, and are interested in some of these little "nooks and crannies" that often get glossed over. Like me, you sincerely want to know the answers to them, and don't want to have to rely on others processing the information for them.
  
  And that is the overriding point to my rebuttal. Koen, your argument, to seem successful, absolutely relies on a restriction of ideas, and limiting of all known information to only those things which make your points for you. I personally don't do this, and also, I don't think it is fair to others. I would rather people discuss every single aspect of every theory, and see every shred of evidence, and all the opinions, so that they can make up their own minds. I don't feel my ideas will die under the light, but also feel that, if they do, then that would be correct and proper.
  
  [EDIT by Rich]: It turns out that Koen did NOT remove my post, as I first wrote, below. Perhaps the Youtube "bot" saw something in it, a word, an unacceptable link, or whatever. My apologies to Koen for making this mistake before checking with him.
  
  So I ask you, seriously, to explain to me, to us, why you do this? I read every single comment under your video, and even commented on one of them. You erased my comment, and substituted your own! Below is a screenshot after you erased my comment:
  
     
  
  The comment was by a seditt5146: "Na dude, those are micro-organisms. You can easily match the images up with many common yeast and bacteria. Why I never see more people discuss this is beyond me."
  
  So this being a deep interest of mine, as well of others, I wanted to assure seditt that he/she was far from alone. I pointed out that plant and animal cells, and also diatoms, were often suspected to be in the Voynich. Then I linked to the ORF video at about the point where this issue was discussed, just before I appear in it. And so on... I gave very appropriate response to this commenter, and my answer would have been of interest to them, and others.
  
  But you deleted my answer! And this is what I mean... if you theory relies on censoring discussion, in keeping your viewers ignorant of alternative input and observations, even of facts, they how solid is it, really? As for your replacement answer to seditt, "Because it’s conspiracy level nonsense”, I'd have to first ask why so nasty to someone who was genuinely interested in an aspect of the Voynich that occurred to them? And to a person who wanted to watch your video?
  
  And I noted that you didn't give similar short-shrift to others in the comments who offered less... compelling?... theories. You didn't delete their comments (or at least, I checked back in a few times, and didn't notice that they were also gone). And by the way, for anyone interested, I practice what I preach. You can see that on my youtube channel, named "proto57". I feel it is important to have open discussions, even if the commenter is nasty and contrary... which seditt certainly was not. Poor guy/girl... I hope they retain an interest in the Voynich after THAT.
  
  And so on. Similarly to that incident, and to your video for that matter, you hold back information in order to strengthen your point(s). Here is another example, of several:
  
     
  
  OK, so this person writes, "Isn't some of the plants look [sic] like New World Species? That doesn't fit into the 1400-1430 dating" That is, to me, agree with them or not, a wonderful observation. Maybe they read that somewhere, maybe they thought of this themselves. I don't know.
  
  But your answer was purposefully (because you know these things) incomplete, and entirely misleading as a result. First of all, as I pointed out in my rebuttal to your video, your claim that was the poor quality copies which kept others from making proper judgements is simply not... in every case... correct. Many of the experts had access to either the Voynich itself, by appointment, or to the fine, and oversized photostats which the Voynich's had prepared for this purpose. As I also pointed out, I've seen them. And also, many others had access to the film strips... I think, by the time O'Neil opined on his sunflower and pepper. But you don't show those photostat copies, nor even a film strip print. You show either a newspaper print, or something from D'Imperio, notoriously poor. That is not what most of those people saw.
  
  And there was another, if small, but still important omission in your answer, because O'Neil also identified a pepper... a type from the New World. As for "everyone went with it because he was a botanist", well I don't know if that was the sole reason that his ideas held sway, and still, actually do with some... but to your point here, he was a botanist, and a very respected and experienced one. Were the copies so bad that the could not make a valid identifications? I doubt it, for this and the reasons above.
  
  But to me the worst part of your answer to this interested and well meaning person was your omission of ALL the post-high res scan botanical experts who feel they have identified MANY New World plants! You just left it out, as though it didn't happen. What about Tucker and Janick? You know of them, you have used them in your blog. You even have a picture of the cover of one of their books! And they feel they have (well we lost Tucker years ago) identified DOZENS of plant as being New World plants. And Tucker and Janick are far from alone in identifying New World plants, and other content.
  
  And also, since they did this after "instant access to good scans on the internet", as you say, it undermines the point you are making in the very answer. And, it is simply, provably, false. Such identifications didn't stop when good scans became available: If anything, they vastly increased!
  
  Anyway, of course you have the right to your opinions, and even the right to omit anything you so choose. But this frequent, selective editing of the fact and opinion base of the Voynich "story", in order to garner hits, a following, and agreement, I don't feel is a good path to be pursuing. It is unfair to those people who have a genuine interest in the Voynich, and who are hungry to learn as much as they can toward that end.
  
  You have convinced many new people, with that video alone so far, that there is no merit to my own hypothesis, nor any modern fake theory, but at what cost? Don't you trust your viewership to know all and make up their own minds? Or are you worried as to what conclusion they would come to, if they knew everything? I would say you should trust them, as I do. That is good for them, for everyone...  but it would also be good for you.
  
  Rich.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  Koen G > 22-11-2024, 09:51 PM

  I never delete any comments, Rich, do not falsely accuse me. Did it contain a link? Rene had one of his comments swallowed by YouTube because he linked to his website. I had to solve this by replying with the link myself.
  
  The reason why I don't debate you directly is that I'm not prepared for that. To do your arguments justice, I would have to research and write a paper for every one, and the result would be a monograph that nobody would read. I made the video documenting my own insights:
  
  - Any argument based on the moral compass of the medieval author is fiction
  - Any argument based on the (lack of) meaning of the text is currently speculative.
  - Everything points towards an early 15th century origin. We disagree on this, and you are welcome to post any arguments you like. I saw a number of large comments of yours pass by, did those disappear?
  
  I'll just add that I have a very strong opinion about the relevance of botanists in assessing medieval manuscripts. I don't go to a florist to have my car fixed just because it has a flower drawn on the hood.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  tavie > 22-11-2024, 11:15 PM

  Your other comments are showing up for me, Rich.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  proto57 > 23-11-2024, 12:17 AM

  (22-11-2024, 09:51 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I never delete any comments, Rich, do not falsely accuse me. Did it contain a link? Rene had one of his comments swallowed by YouTube because he linked to his website. I had to solve this by replying with the link myself.
  
  The reason why I don't debate you directly is that I'm not prepared for that. To do your arguments justice, I would have to research and write a paper for every one, and the result would be a monograph that nobody would read. I made the video documenting my own insights:
  
  - Any argument based on the moral compass of the medieval author is fiction
  - Any argument based on the (lack of) meaning of the text is currently speculative.
  - Everything points towards an early 15th century origin. We disagree on this, and you are welcome to post any arguments you like. I saw a number of large comments of yours pass by, did those disappear?
  
  I'll just add that I have a very strong opinion about the relevance of botanists in assessing medieval manuscripts. I don't go to a florist to have my car fixed just because it has a flower drawn on the hood.

  
  Hi Koen: Well then if you didn't delete my comment, I of course apologize. Yes it had a link or two in it, but so did my three part response... many links... and the bot didn't remove those. So I assumed the other comment had been manually removed, by you.
  
  But I should not have made that assumption before writing, publicly, here in this thread, that you did.  So yes, I apologize. And I'll edit and add a disclaimer to my vicious slander (kidding... my... mistake), above.
  
  I don't think it would take a paper to address each and every of the points of my hypothesis, before writing or making a video about them. With respect, you did more than make a video about "your own insights", my hypothesis was a focus of your video, and you did name me, after all. So I would think it would be important to get it right.
  
  But I do also understand that some of my complaints about inaccuracies are because they are not areas you are yet familiar with, whether part of my theories or outside of them... and essentially you second that, in your post which I quoted, above.
  
  If you or anyone has any questions about my own ideas, they can search my blog, or even, ask me directly. That would avoid misconceptions about what I actually do and do not believe, and on what evidence I base those beliefs on.
  
  I really appreciate your reasoned response. All the best, Rich.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  

  ---

  (22-11-2024, 11:15 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your other comments are showing up for me, Rich.

  
  Thanks, Tavie. The giant three part response is there, I see it, too. I was confused because it has many links in it, yet survived the YT bot, where for some reason, my shorter comment did not. But apparently, Koen didn't remove it, so it is a mystery. I'll post a short response again, and without links, and see what happens.
  
  All the best, Rich.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  ReneZ > 23-11-2024, 12:41 AM

  I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that the titanium found in a sample of the Voynich MS ink by McCrone has any chance of being the suspicious anastase crystals. This would have been a major find. McCrone knew it and Yale/Beinecke knew it.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  (This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware)
  
  This would mean that McCrone were either highly incompetent (not realising it) or dishonest (knowing it but hiding it).
  
  The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation.
  The McCrone conclusion is evidence.
  The idea that they might have been incompetent or lied is speculation.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  Bluetoes101 > 23-11-2024, 02:08 AM

  I think Koen has informed new enthusiasts in a handful of videos to a level far beyond other content available on the platform achieves, for what my views worth. I wish I had this information available when I started out. If people wish to be further informed they will find competing evidence and evaluate for themselves.
  
  I think to assume people are brainwashed by expert opinions is.. yeah.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  asteckley > 23-11-2024, 02:11 AM

  (23-11-2024, 12:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that the titanium found in a sample of the Voynich MS ink by McCrone has any chance of being the suspicious anastase crystals. This would have been a major find. McCrone knew it and Yale/Beinecke knew it.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  (This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware)
  
  This would mean that McCrone were either highly incompetent (not realising it) or dishonest (knowing it but hiding it).
  
  The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation.
  The McCrone conclusion is evidence.
  The idea that they might have been incompetent or lied is speculation.

  
  
  But Rene -- it is precisely BECAUSE the presence of anatase would have been such a major find and everyone involved knew it (presumably), that we would expect their report to be particularly specific on details regarding titanium compounds!  They would go out of their way to be explicit on whether it did or did not contain anatase, or if they were simply unable to identify that fact one way or the other. 
  
  If, by "incompetent", you mean being unaware that it would be important to their client and to everyone else interested in the manuscript (as opposed to simply being incompetent with the technology), then YES -- it appears that they were either incompetent or else they were being intentionally vague.  And, while one could imagine some plausible reasons why they might want to be intentionally vague, it does seem most likely that they were simply --and incompetently-- unaware that the detail was a relevant one.  (After the Vinland fiasco, how could they not know?).
  
  In any case -- in ANY case -- they did not specify the compound. And so we do KNOW the compound. It is pure speculation to say, based on the report, that they found any particular titanium compound as opposed to any other one. And it is therefore invalid to assume a specific answer in order to support any thesis that depends on the particular compound -- it does not matter whether the thesis is for genuine, forgery, or extraterrestrial origin.
  (To be clear, Rich has not done that -- he is using the lack of specificity as evidence against a thesis, which is distinctly different than using an assumed specificity as evidence for a thesis.)

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  proto57 > 23-11-2024, 02:49 AM

  (23-11-2024, 12:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that the titanium found in a sample of the Voynich MS ink by McCrone has any chance of being the suspicious anastase crystals. This would have been a major find. McCrone knew it and Yale/Beinecke knew it.
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  (This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware)
  
  This would mean that McCrone were either highly incompetent (not realising it) or dishonest (knowing it but hiding it).
  
  The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation.
  The McCrone conclusion is evidence.
  The idea that they might have been incompetent or lied is speculation.

  
  But Rene, I didn't say I believe the titanium which McCrone was or was not the anatase form. What I am saying is that you don't know, I don't know, and they won't answer the question of what titanium compound it is that they found, what its form is, pictures of it, and so on. They did not, and so far will not, answer this very important question, nor several others which they raised.
  
  No, I don't assume anything at all about it. I can't, I don't have enough information about it. Nobody does. I never assume anything, I am a skeptic. And also, many times in my life, and many times in the case of the Voynich, things have been implied is fact, or outright stated as fact, and when I dig into the reality of that, it turns out the information given, and accepted, is false or unknown. Many of these things are STILL stated as fact, when they are not.
  
  So yes, I stand by my desire to have the questions about the "titanium compound" answered. Until we know, we don't know. Don't you want to know, instead of having to guess?
  
  "This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware"
  
  That is entirely irrelevant, and beside the point. Where the anatase was found in the Vinland Map has no bearing on where it might be found in any other documents. So the lack of any similar yellow stain lines in the Voynich has no bearing on this issue.
  
  "The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation."
  
  As I've stated, Koen's video is well produced, and well presented. But there is a great deal of speculation in it, and much cherry picking of facts and opinions to form an image of one narrow view. Yes it has evidence in it, but also has removed much contrary evidence in the subjects covered. For one, very important thing, it removes the mass of excellent expert pre-C14 opinion, and gives demonstrably incorrect grounds for doing so (bad copies of the Voynich)... and does not offer any credible ones. Also, it misstates my hypothesis, and leaves out factual data and test results, and ignores a mass of contrary opinions on many points.
  
  Among these, it elevates Haupt beyond the level of the experts who it ignores. It picks a small sampling of stylistic comparisons, which fit the chosen 1420, and ignores all those which do not. And much more. The whole video is tailored to fit the desired conclusion, and not to truly reflect any reality about the issued (partially) presented.
  
  As such, the video is an opinion piece, and not a factual demonstration of a valid disproof of Modern Forgery... not my hypothesis, nor the concept in its general. Which even, in that regard, would normally be fine... because there are a great many similarly opinion based, speculative videos about the Voynich on the internet. I don't bother with them, as a habit.
  
  But the difference HERE is, this video projects itself as a direct rebuttal to my 1910 Modern Forgery Hypothesis. This is the main thrust of it, as my theory is named, and I am named, in it. For that reason alone it very much becomes my business. It is incomplete by design, it is speculative, and its conclusion that I am wrong, and Koen is right, is based on a many false or incomplete premises, and therefore it is both misleading to the viewers, and at the same time, unfair to me and my hard fought, original work and ideas.
  
  I have a right to object to this, and a right to make my case. And you know that I have, and will continue to do so.
  
  Rich.

• RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

  ReneZ > 23-11-2024, 04:19 AM

  As a piece of interesting trivia (well, I find it interesting...)
  
  In 1996 one of the members of the old Voynich MS mailing list: Don Latham wrote to Tom Cahill.
  Tom Cahill, of the University of California - Davis, was deeply involved in the dating of the Vinland Map and the titanium analysis, as mentioned among others here:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Don was wondering if Tom could be interested into doing a dating analysis on the Voynich MS. There
  is a response from Tom Cahill dated 20 March 1996: (minor typos removed)
  
  

  Quote:Very interesting! But if I so much as show my face around the Beinecke, they will call 
  in the Yale SWAT Team. Did you catch that bizarre scene on NPS where Phyllis asked 
  to see the Vinland map? The Beinecke people would not so much as open their mouths.
  This is all the more ridiculous since they insure the VM at $24,000,000., so they have 
  "voted with their pocket book" for possible authenticity.

  
  

  Quote:As for this manuscript, it looks like a worthy project, but a large
  undertaking since there would have to be many comparisons with other
  documents. We do have some of these already, but I could not take the
  lead on such a matter. Bruce Kusko, my former project manager, was forced to
  take a job in Kansas. And what could we say? That it does (or does not) look
  like other manuscipts of the period? Clearly, it is old, so the question of
  a 20th century forgery (as proposed for the VM) is not a question.

  
  On a side note, Don's questions to Tom included some 'wish items'  like having the
  Voynich MS images on a CD, having a good quality coffee table book and dating the
  costumes in the MS.
  We've come quite a long way since then.
• Next Oldest Next Newest