- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Today, 05:03 AM
(Today, 12:57 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Note (*): the purpose of this was to inform of new evidence, not to disprove the completely fictional story of Voynich borrowing the Kircher correspondence from the Jesuits, in order to discover evidence to create a fake book in addition to his original old manuscripts.
Rene, you can keep misstating my position(s), but it really is not fair to me, nor to others who want to know what my ideas really entail. Also, if there is a good reason to counter anything I propose, as I propose it, then of course do that, instead. My contention is that he had access to the information in the Carteggio, either in person, second hand through someone who conveyed that information to him, or possibly, he borrowed the letters. We don't know. I am not relying solely on that last possibility... there are many ways he could have come across the necessary information.
On the topic you are referring to, again, and for anyone new: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".
And I have read this possible version of the movements of the Voynich. It is a bit complicated, but I've followed it enough to realize... as you have, too, and said so... that it does not fundamentally nor critically alter anything of importance to either of our positions. And I don't really agree with all of your reasoning in that paper, nor many of the conclusions (opinions) you come to, any more than you agree with most of my own.
But I think the one main difference... although there are many smaller ones... between this new version of the movements of the manuscript now give as a possible repository the Villa Torlonia: "This concerned a selection of the manuscripts from the Collegium Romanum, which they had hidden in the Villa Torlonia in Castel Gandolfo, in order to avoid confiscation by the state in 1873."
OK, perhaps for the other books, but still... and still and still... there is no mention of the Voynich, anywhere. Knowing the movements of the Carteggio, or any other books, does not mean the Voynich was with them... and in fact implies that it was not. And many of the points you raise only reinforce this fact, such as showing the book plate. Yes, the other books, many of them, had book plates and labels. The Voynich? Nil, nada, zip. All this effort to find the Voynich, peering deeper and deeper into all these histories, has failed to turn up any evidence of it.
I was told, recently, that "Provenance does not matter, because lots of books don't have provenance". Well clearly that is not the case, in our case, because nobody has eased up on their attempts to find it... and all the while doing this, only increasingly amplifying the fact that it cannot be found.
And since the letters and the books were together... if they were together, wherever they were, then as I wrote in my blogpost,
"But then one day (I think in 2013), I had for me what was a revelation, as I had either not noticed it, or it had little importance to me, before then: I learned that the Letters of the Kircher Carteggio were kept with other 30 or so books which Wilfrid Voynich had purchased, purportedly, in 1911/12! The Letters and the books were either at the Villa Mondragone, or the Villa Torlonia in Castel Gandolfo, but they were together. From the site of Rene Zandbergen (at the time, but since altered),
“Among the many valuable books, this collection included the Voynich MS and the bound correspondence of Athanasius Kircher. It was apparently brought to the Villa Mondragone in Frascati, near Rome, where it was kept for more than a century.”
"Of course I immediately thought that since he had access to the books he purchased, and those books were with the letters, then why could he not have seen the Letters as well?"
For, as I later wrote, "Also, Strickland was known to have access to the Villa Torlonia, the other possible location of the 30 books and the Carteggio."
So these books and manuscripts keep getting moved around in these various versions of provenance, it seems to try and continue to project the idea that Voynich could not have seen the Carteggio, nor known of the mentions of the Baresch manuscript. But even in all these various versions... and, unless new real evidence comes up saying otherwise, the fact remains that, "Yes, Voynich Could Have Seen the Letters". I believe I have shown, logically and clearly, in my post, that this is completely possible and even plausible. And that has not changed:
- Still no provenance
- Still no lock and seal -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > Today, 06:41 AM
Versions of the history have been changing as more information surfaced.
This has happened continually, yet slowly, over the last 10+ years.
Older versions of this history are no longer valid - quoting such older versions will just confuse.
There is nothing suspicious about the fact that this changed.
The whole acquisition of books by Voynich was a mystery because this had to be kept secret. Evidence has been destroyed. Voynich did not say anything, except to his wife, who also did not say anything during her lifetime (and only knew a small part). Villa Mondragone was false information that has led people in the wrong direction ever since Kraus mentioned it in the early 60's.
From the first time I got in contact with researchers of the Society of Jesus, they have been telling me that Villa Mondragone could not have had anything to do with it. No evidence though.
Just to add the briefest summary of the actual state of knowledge, for people who do not want to read the whole story:
Books from the Roman College were transported to a villa in Castelgandolfo. This was a secret that the Jesuits had to keep from the government. This included the Kircher correspondence. At least by 1912, the set was split into two parts and described in two different (summary) catalogues.
One catalogue listed historical material of the Jesuits themselves, among which the Kircher correspondence. The other catalogue listed books that they agreed to sell because they needed money. Voynich got a small part of that. Yet this was 'hot' merchandise.
There is no evidence that Voynich ever visited the villa in Castelgandolfo.
That is not an empty statement. Visitors were recorded in a visitors' log, which still exists. Strickland's name appears in it several times (his base was Mondragone). So does Ehrle from the Vatican library, when he came secretly to estimate the books' value, and Tacchi Venturi who came with him, and on other occasions. There are occasional researchers' names, such as Xavier de Bachelet S.J. who researched materials of Bellarmino (in the unsellable part).
As soon as information would leak, that the Jesuits were hiding materials that were subject to confiscation, it would all be taken away from them.
The only suggestion that Voynich ever inspected any Jesuit books, are his own words in his 1921 paper. That is part of his cover story (lie) that he discovered this collection in some forgotten trunks. In reality, they were in a hidden and guarded location. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > Today, 06:58 AM
If the Marci letter was a fake by Voynich, how could this letter have ended up with the actual handwriting of Marci's scribe, who wrote only one other letter to Kircher? That letter is in the Kircher Carteggio, equally hidden and guarded and not accessible to Voynich.
It would be necessary to have this letter in front of one to do it. Even then, I don't think it would be possible.
And finally, there would be no need, as the real letter would continue to be hidden for the foreseeable future.
Marci's own handwriting:
![[Image: tr_mar_1.png]](https://voynich.nu/extra/img/tr_mar_1.png)
The Beinecke letter:
![[Image: tr_mar_2.png]](https://voynich.nu/extra/img/tr_mar_2.png)
The other letter from the same scribe:
![[Image: tr_mar_3.png]](https://voynich.nu/extra/img/tr_mar_3.png)
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > Today, 07:08 AM
I think I have now written enough about this.
Let everyone form their own opinions about it.
And wikipedia will also get the location right eventually... -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 11 hours ago
(Today, 01:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To get out of that difficult situation, one can usually decide relatively easily whether for statements or hypothesis there is any evidence or not.
Rene, thanks for the reply and for the patience. I read again your timeline on voynich.nu and the article you just linked to. But I still cannot see that there is enough evidence to conclusively exclude the Book Switch Theory. But I have created You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to discuss it, since it is quite different from Rick's Modern Forgery Theory.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Antonio García Jiménez > 10 hours ago
I'm really enjoying this debate. It's like debating with flat-Earthers. It's not relevant to the Voynich investigation, but it teaches a lot about human nature.
That the Voynich manuscript is an authentic codex is undeniable, even though its contents are very difficult to understand. I recommend watching the video Koen G made, where he clearly presented this evidence. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 6 hours ago
(Today, 06:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Versions of the history have been changing as more information surfaced.
This has happened continually, yet slowly, over the last 10+ years.
Older versions of this history are no longer valid - quoting such older versions will just confuse.
There is nothing suspicious about the fact that this changed.
The whole acquisition of books by Voynich was a mystery because this had to be kept secret. Evidence has been destroyed. Voynich did not say anything, except to his wife, who also did not say anything during her lifetime (and only knew a small part). Villa Mondragone was false information that has led people in the wrong direction ever since Kraus mentioned it in the early 60's.
From the first time I got in contact with researchers of the Society of Jesus, they have been telling me that Villa Mondragone could not have had anything to do with it. No evidence though.
Just to add the briefest summary of the actual state of knowledge, for people who do not want to read the whole story:
Books from the Roman College were transported to a villa in Castelgandolfo. This was a secret that the Jesuits had to keep from the government. This included the Kircher correspondence. At least by 1912, the set was split into two parts and described in two different (summary) catalogues.
One catalogue listed historical material of the Jesuits themselves, among which the Kircher correspondence. The other catalogue listed books that they agreed to sell because they needed money. Voynich got a small part of that. Yet this was 'hot' merchandise.
There is no evidence that Voynich ever visited the villa in Castelgandolfo.
That is not an empty statement. Visitors were recorded in a visitors' log, which still exists. Strickland's name appears in it several times (his base was Mondragone). So does Ehrle from the Vatican library, when he came secretly to estimate the books' value, and Tacchi Venturi who came with him, and on other occasions. There are occasional researchers' names, such as Xavier de Bachelet S.J. who researched materials of Bellarmino (in the unsellable part).
As soon as information would leak, that the Jesuits were hiding materials that were subject to confiscation, it would all be taken away from them.
The only suggestion that Voynich ever inspected any Jesuit books, are his own words in his 1921 paper. That is part of his cover story (lie) that he discovered this collection in some forgotten trunks. In reality, they were in a hidden and guarded location.
I have taken the time to read and understand your paper, "Acquisition_RZ_2023" three times now. To be certain that I fully understood your claims in it, and the evidence you use to base those claims on, I read it again, this morning. I transferred it to my Kindle, and meticulously poured over it. My opinion has not changed, though. Your reasoning is based on a great many assumptions by you, and by making those assumptions, a great many alternative versions could be created. This one, it seems, is reactive to my determining that Voynich could have been aware of the descriptions in the Carteggio, by some means, including but not exclusive to his actually removing it.
And in relation to my plausible set of such scenarios, you have thus far ONLY repeated that one extreme, and I think I see why: It is based on the assumption that the visitor logs at Castelgandolfo were perfect, and that if Voynich visited, he certainly would have been recorded. Even if that were so, and he was not otherwise let in... to there or the Villa Mondragone... there is a selective use of the level of "secrecy" in your paper. Those facts you do not have for the movements of the books, or the Carteggio, and the books which do not show up on various lists and catalogs, including the Voynich, were do to various levels of "secrecy", but at the same time, every visitor was dutifully logged in and out of these two locations? Basically, these lines from your paper, which you consider plausible, undermine the entire case that Voynich could have not seen the Carteggio, "Did Strickland take the selected manuscripts to Villa Mondragone, so that Voynich could obtain them there 65? All are possible, but we simply do not know, and more speculation will not take us any further 66."
Point being, the entire paper of this version of events uses such speculation far more than the previous versions. Here is a list of points which occur to me, which is by no means complete. I could go line-by-line of your paper, and dissect it, showing how this is speculative, that is not known but stated as fact, the other is irrelevant, but presented as relevant... but briefly:
1) Your paper is based on the assumption that the Voynich was among these books at all, when it appears in no list, and there is no reference to it, nor anything like it.
2) It is based on the assumption that the Carteggio Kircheriano was always with the books. I think it probably was, it does not matter... but the point is, the paths of the two are being conflated here... or three, really: The Carteggio's, the other books known, the unmentioned books, such as the Marcanova and the Voynich.
3) It is based on the assumption that the visitor logs are pristine, and that no other visits by any persons would ever have been excluded, while other portions of this version rely heavily on assumptions... and realities, actually... for a very high level of secrecy. This is a common thread to making all these stories work, in order to make them seem plausible: Selective use and acceptance of assumptions of the level of secrecy, truthfulness, completeness, and accuracy of evidence. If a statement by Voynich supports the version needed, he was telling the truth; if it counters it, then he was lying. If a record of a book is missing, it is due to sloppiness or secrecy; if another is listed, it is claimed to then show how accurate these records actually were. If bookplates exist for some books, it means the bookplates for the Voynich were also there (somehow), but are just missing in that case... that a desire for secrecy eliminated some, but not all.
4) It admits the very core premise of my own, that Voynich could have seen the mentions in the Carteggio, or known of them, by admitting that Strickland certainly did have the opportunity to move items around... such as from the Castelgandolfo to the Mondragone. This alone leaves open my entire premise, that Strickland admittedly had, and therefore anyone else he so choose also had, access to the Carteggio.
In short, your new scenario, based on this new information, while interesting in its own right, does not alter my core points, as outlined in my blog post: That Wilfrid could have been privy, directly or indirectly, with the descriptions of the Baresch Manuscript in the letters of the Carteggio, by a whole host of means: By being allowed to see them, by some other party, such as Strickland, a Jesuit or other scholar, by being let into see these collections at either the Villa Torlonia or Mondragone, or really anywhere else.
And although, in keeping up with the changing versions of this story I have included the Torlonia in my page on this subject, perhaps with respect to this new version I could add a reference to it at the beginning of that page explaining how new information has come to light, but nothing has really changed:
- Still no provenance
- Still no lock and seal
The Voynich is invisible to all of history, and Wilfrid could have known of the mentions of the Baresch manuscript by various plausible paths, explaining the (very bare and even contradictory) similarities the Voynich has to them. Perhaps some other references to those other books he bought, and which he didn't buy, will turn up, and be used to attempt to (virtually) "move" the Letters further from his historic grasp. If convincing, I will of course accept such evidence and reasoning.
But my prediction is it will never be found, because I don't think... based on all the evidence we have up to now, and my opinion about it... the Voynich was never a part of this very extensive story to begin with. It just was not there. The movements of all these books, all these people, have zero to do with the Voynich Manuscript at all. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 5 hours ago
(10 hours ago)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm really enjoying this debate. It's like debating with flat-Earthers. It's not relevant to the Voynich investigation, but it teaches a lot about human nature.
That the Voynich manuscript is an authentic codex is undeniable, even though its contents are very difficult to understand. I recommend watching the video Koen G made, where he clearly presented this evidence.
Hi Antonio: The mockery of alternate theories is a common, but fallacious tactic in debate. Unfortunately it runs rampant in science, politics and philosophy, but usually when proper rebuttal to countering ideas is not possible.
It would be quite easy for me to do the same for opposing arguments, but I do not need to.
Also, I do not rely on the opinions of others, I believe strongly that one should look to the source materials, when and if they are available, and make up my own mind. Your us Koen's video as a standard of the anti-Modern Forgery case is an example of this. The video is clearly addressed at my own arguments, but in order to appear to make its case, it is very incomplete. It misstates many of the claims and premises of my Modern Forgery theory, and it selectively leaves out the many problems and anomalies the Voynich clearly exhibits.
It is a perfect example of my claim that the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Theory depends on omission to exist, while in contrast, Modern Forgery explains every scrap of everything known about the manuscript.
If interested, you should be able to see my three part rebuttal, with video time stamps for easy access, in the comments below You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My youtube user name is "proto57", and so far there are 520 comments, so it should be easy to search for and find. If you are truly a believer in knowing the whole story, and against the sort of myopic and selective "reasoning" that we both agree undermines poor theories, you will read it.
Also.. although for some reason (!!!) it will not open for me, now, I put a link to my counter to Rene's "NoFake" pages, which Koen linked in his pinned comment. If it does not appear for you, either, here it is: "https://proto57.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/rebuttal-to-nofake/
Note, by the way, that my rebuttal was NOT linked under the "nofake" link, while I do link "nofake" in my rebuttal! -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 5 hours ago
(11 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Today, 01:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To get out of that difficult situation, one can usually decide relatively easily whether for statements or hypothesis there is any evidence or not.
Rene, thanks for the reply and for the patience. I read again your timeline on voynich.nu and the article you just linked to. But I still cannot see that there is enough evidence to conclusively exclude the Book Switch Theory. But I have created You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to discuss it, since it is quite different from Rick's Modern Forgery Theory.
All the best, --stolfi
Hi Jorge: I don't know how the moderators would view the situation, but I for one would not mind at all if your Book Switch Theory were included in this discussion of the Modern Forgery Theory. Although very different ideas, they do overlap a great deal.
And I do like it, and the reasoning you use in it. But one point... which does not counter your theory, it is tangential to it. You wrote,
Quote:If MFT were true, there would be no point in trying to decipher MS408, since its contents would be gibberish or uninteresting.
In contrast, whether BST is true or not, it would make little difference for our research. MS408 would continue to be an intriguing document from the 1400s, and our expectations about its contents would not change.
As I often point out, the vast majority of forged documents actually DO have meaning. Think the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the "Howard Hughes Will", the "Hitler Diaries", the "Oath of a Freeman", and a great many others. I have a book from 1909 on the "forgeries shelf" of one of my bookcases, titled, "The Autobiography of Shakespeare". Um, no. I also have several others, among them "I, Libertine", and more, and all have meaning.
That point does not affect your overall premise, but I mention it because I do think that, whatever one thinks the Voynich might be... MFT, BST, 1420 Genuine, or some other possible, it still may have meaning, and I don't think we should stop looking for, and even hoping for it. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 5 hours ago
I wanted to revisit a book I mentioned in response to Rene's excellent suggestion that we learn about the case of the Archaic Mark, and that is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
As I wrote in my listing on my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,
Quote:This book is unique on the subject of the forged Oath of a Freeman, as it contains the interviews of the forger and murderer Hofmann, along with essays by various experts and law enforcement people. This gives a view from the mind of the forger, the methods he used and why, and how that forgery both fooled some experts, and was discovered by others. Spoiler alert: Walter McCrone was fooled, he stated definitively it was genuine.
I also find this one of the better insights into the "process of apology" that often permeates expert opinion: On the one hand, their experience notices problems; on the other, they dismiss those problems, with prejudice. Experts often do the forger's work for them, without even realizing it.
It is a fascinating story in its own right, but it also obviates the common claim that "If the Voynich were a forgery, the experts would know". Because in this case, as in many others, forgeries are sometimes so good that it takes outside events to reveal them, such as Hofmann accidentally blowing himself up in his car in a parking lot, leading to the revelations of this murders, and then, through finding the very ingenious plates he created to print his forgery... and the perfect inks he made... the gig was (finally) up.
Hofmann created perfect inks, which fooled McCrone. In fact, Hofmann's ink had NO anomalies, while the Voynich's does. He created false provenance by flying to New York City (or Boston? I have to read it again...), going into a bookstore, and buying an item for a few dollars, one which would elicit a description "close enough" to his forged Oath, so that he could falsely claim that he bought the latter document at the store.
And so on and so forth. One knowing this... and there are many other stories with similar elements to this... one will realize that 1) there is no practical reason to consider that the Voynich may not be, likewise, a forgery, and 2) the libraries and museums of the world are probably filled with forgeries which were just good enough to pass, because nobody accidentally blew themselves up, or whatever.