- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Ironically, the watermark discussion was ended...
- Ironically, the watermark discussion was ended...
-
Ironically, the watermark discussion was ended...
proto57 > 10 hours ago
The watermark discussion was ended by Tavie, and so my below response to Rene was not allowed. Perhaps this will be removed, too. But I point out that the issue is not whether or not the topics discussed are relevant to the discussion, but clearly because they rebut the narrative desired by the moderator. Ironically... or not... I actually point this out in the below post, which was never seen because the forum was closed before I could post it.
Mr. Jackson assured me, long ago, that this forum would not be adverse to discussions contrary to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Paradigm. Since then I have found that is anything but the case. Perhaps Mr. Tavie came from a later date, and so has his own ideas, and feels it is proper and correct to censor content to only that direction... so even a discussion, on topic, about the watermarks on the Marci letter and what that might mean, should be banned.
So maybe this will be removed by Tavie, maybe it will be read by some. I don't know. But for the sake of honesty and completeness, here is the my response... on topic to watermarks... which should be of interest to the discussion:
(Yesterday, 11:09 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a good example of what Tavie pointed out: hashed and rehashed.
For an earlier discussion see (among others) here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
especially posts in the 20's+ range.
Well of course there is a world of difference with discussions here, in the Ninjas, as opposed to the raft of outside ideas which properly rebut them. Most of those don't show up here, as the Ninjas is heavily "genuine-centric" and 1420, and resistant to any findings, or interpretations, which point to other reasonable alternatives to that viewpoint. That is fine, of course, and I rarely... despite how it might seem to you... very rarely come here to give my alternative views and opinions and unmentioned facts which counter the narrative here. It ain't easy! It would take a massive amount of time and effort to point out each and every alternative to the readers here (...and I do not have a staff!). But I think it is important for the sake of an accurate picture of what the Voynich really is, so people are not led astray, and have the tools and information to make up their own minds. I see dozens of ideas, which originate here as opinions, which are then later being stated outside these pages as indisputable fact.... sometimes by the same people! Point being, you call it "rehashing" of ideas, I would say rehashing of viewpoints is not always beneficial, rather the introduction of fresh ideas is.
(Yesterday, 11:09 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's stick to the watermark here.
(Had the watermark been from 2 centuries later - or earlier - we would have to have the other discussion).
Any forger in 1910-1912 would have been perfectly aware of the origins and dating of virtually all watermarks. Several very complete and important works on the subject, as we all know, and some have been discovering due to the recent revelation by Lisa, were already published by then. And, you know of course, that Voynich would have been aware of this, and had and sold blank paper from all ages.
So no forger with an ounce of sense, certainly not Voynich, would have used paper with watermarks from "from 2 centuries later - or earlier -". It would be inexplicable to find such paper, IMO: Would not be found in either genuine use, nor forgery use. But, we didn't find that. What was found was age appropriate paper, and so far, seemingly of Italian origin. If it is found in any other Marci letter it is strong evidence that the 1665/66 letter is genuine; if not found, it is evidence that age appropriate paper could have been sourced to create that letter as a forgery, because absence of evidence does matter, and is evidence.
Also on the watermark topic (I hope Tavie agrees), although a different book... you may not know this, but I was researching the 1475 Valturious De Ri Militari copies once owned by Voynich, and which ended up in the Library of Congress. I was... and am curious why Voynich, in his lifetime, only claimed to own one copy, when on his death, two were found. As part of my research I requested to see those copies, and permission was granted. I used a watermark lamp... which is comprised of lit sheet of plastic which can be inserted behind any page, which then evenly lights it and reveals watermarks. This is what I found in one of the copies (and is now in the records in the LOC for this manuscript):
This watermark... a Griffin (or Griffon)... was used in the 1470's, and is therefore not anachronistic for use in the Valturius. Likewise, the "three tasseled hat" watermark is NOT anachronistic to the 1665/66 letter, as you point out. But there is a difference in that we need to find contemporary examples in the other letters of Marci to compare it to. But also... and it seems you are doing this, too... finding the exact source and age of the specific three hat watermark is important, as some examples post date 1666. So there are several important things which can be learned from it, still, for all of us. Age, source, and finding it or not in the papers of Marci. -
RE: Ironically, the watermark discussion was ended...
tavie > 8 hours ago
The rule is one thread per theory. Nothing to do with my thoughts about your theory. You are not being censored.
The watermark thread is only temporarily locked to stop arguments while I try to merge the threads without breaking anything. It should be open again by tonight for on topic discussion.