- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Mauro > Yesterday, 12:34 AM
The modern forgery theory leaves open the biggest problem of all: how the text, with all those weird statistical property, was created? The problem stays the same, whoever wrote the VMS. Even if it were true Voynich wrote the manuscript (which I highly doubt) the VMS would be as mysterious as if it was written in the XVth century. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > Yesterday, 12:39 AM
(Yesterday, 12:17 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For one thing, it fails at the same spot where all "ancient hoax" theories fail: why would Voynich create that manuscript? Which contains no "bait" that would make it attractive to book collectors? Like alchemical symbols, recognizable famous names, an "LCF" signature below the illustrations, ...
Unfortunately, that is the common and weak argument of "*I*. wouldn't have done it that way, therefore it can't be a forgery".
There is lots of evidence for the modern forgery theory and lots against. It is the cumulative weight that matters. But all the evidence still needs to be evaluated and explained in and of itself. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
tavie > Yesterday, 01:36 AM
(Yesterday, 12:30 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The latest tactic seems to be to shut down any thread in which that evidence threatens to enter the discussion, using the justification of "one theory per thread", whatever the hell that means.)
Please stop this. This is - as you are aware - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You may disagree with it in general, or its application in specific cases. I've extended multiple invitations to PM me to discuss this privately and politely so that this did not become another open row and defeat the entire purpose of the rule. You are within your rights to have not taken this offer up for whatever reason, but it is neither fair nor acceptable for both you and Rich instead to take to other threads to make accusations about me.
I am asking you to stop and stay on topic, which in this thread is purely about the modern hoax theory. Let's have a respectful debate about the evidence for and against this, which may or may not include the watermark. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
RobGea > Yesterday, 03:18 AM
Nevermind, 4 minutes to delete is too short -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > Yesterday, 03:20 AM
(Yesterday, 01:36 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please stop this. This is - as you are aware - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You may disagree with it in general, or its application in specific cases. I've extended multiple invitations to PM me to discuss this privately and politely so that this did not become another open row and defeat the entire purpose of the rule. You are within your rights to have not taken this offer up for whatever reason, but it is neither fair nor acceptable for both you and Rich instead to take to other threads to make accusations about me.
I am asking you to stop and stay on topic, which in this thread is purely about the modern hoax theory. Let's have a respectful debate about the evidence for and against this, which may or may not include the watermark.
First of all, no one has even suggested a disagreement with the actual rule, which is "You are welcome to discuss your theory, but keep it in a single thread". That is a very good rule. You have morphed it into something you have repeatedly called "one thread per theory" which is nonsensical. It is not just infeasible to have one thread be the sole container for a theory, it is effectively impossible. The most popular theory on this forum is that the manuscript was written in the 15th century. And a significant number of the threads assume that theory and therefore implicitly deal with it -- at least as much as those posts that you have decided to shut down deal with a particular theory. We can't insist they all be kept in one thread. And, in any case, it is not what Koen's rule is even saying. Most threads are not even dealing with a "theory". Many are observations, questions, or simply prompts to achieve helpful discussion. The intent of Koen's rule is to stop people jimmy-rigging their pet theory into multiple threads where it has no relevance.
I have not responded to your PM invitation because declaring a new rule, or why you have distorted an existing one, is a matter that you need to explain and defend publicly. How can hundreds of people active on this forum possibly understand or follow it otherwise?
It is also useful when a thread stays flowing essentially on a single topic, although that also is not among the rules that Koen outlined. Discussions, regardless of the thread's initial title, evolve and and often diverge into other topics. That is both inevitable and productive. It is the nature of a subject as complex and multi-faceted as the Voynich Manuscript. When that divergence of topic is significant, it really helps to have a moderator to, if necessary, split the thread, re-title it, or cross-link it or take some similar action. But that is not what you are doing. You have SHUT DOWN multiple threads that have NOT even diverged in that way and which have in fact been ON TOPIC. And you did so, even after your misinterpretation was pointed out to you. There are dozens of threads in which the topics have evolved to a far greater degree, but which apparently did not warrant your censorship. So the fact that you had a prejudice against the postings in question --because you THOUGHT they were related to, or MIGHT become about, some theory you happen to dislike-- was pretty obvious.
Forums do not have "editors" as you have dubbed yourself. They typically have "moderators" who moderate the discussion: to stop actual abusive behavior, identify actual rule violations, or to split up a long thread to improve the utility of the forum's content. They don't edit it. Voynich.ninja is one of the most useful online forums available for those interested in the Voynich Manuscript and wanting to take part in the many discussions around observations, analyses, theories, debates -- and yes, sometimes "rows" that arise between conflicting opinions. No one wants to see it become a useless mess of truncated threads because of an out-of-control editor.
So "Please stop it"?... yes... Please stop it. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
RobGea > Yesterday, 03:25 AM
Is it possible Wilfrid Voynich et al created the VMS circa 1910 , well sure it is but you need a few assumptions.
Now each of these assumptions can be explained individually and can be assigned a probability, then multiply the probabilities.
1. Could Wilf get his hands on 242 pages , 60+bifolios of medieval parchment ?
+ some bigger bits for the foldouts
--Probably, he was a dealer in ancient MSS, he knew of and visited places that would have old stuff
--He would need a lot of it
-- 52% No 48% Yes
2. Could Wilf have known some peepz with the relevant practical skills to create the VMS ?
--Probably
--20% No 80% Yes
3. Did Wilf have the necessary practical skills to create the VMS ?
--Wilf was qualified in Chemistry, so making the ink should not have been a problem for him
--The paint would be harder to make than Iron gall ink but Wilf could do it
--Book binding requires specialist tools and specialist skills,
Wilf would be familiar with the process, but any evidence, like the tools and such
--33% No 66% Yes
4. Did Wilf have any knowledge about ancient books, MSS's ?
--Yep he sure did
--O% No 100% Yes
5. What was Wilfs motive in creating the VMS ?
--Money?, Ego? Funding for his Russian buddies?
--Unknown
6. How did Wilf create the script ?
--Wilf was apparently proficient in several languages ( so thats a plus point )
--Unknown
Result:
0.48 * 0.8 * 0.66 * 1 = 0.25344 Oops ive produced a 1 in 4 chance its a modern forgery (
not my intention at all )
Anyway there are probably many more hoops an MFH theorist would have to jump through.
Conclusion:
the Modern Forgery Hypothesis(MFH) aka Wilfriddidit is not proven, it is not disproven, it is a sound and logical theory.
The many arguments against it, blank 15thC parchment, the bindings, bookworm holes, marginalia, etc can all be individually explained.
However these arguments, these hoops that the MFH theorist has to jump through, each one reduces the probability of the reality of the MFH.
Every new argument makes this theory less and less likely.
And of course as a theory it is prosaic and boring.
The Voynich manuscript as an authentic 15th century book,
its mysterious, its romantic, its author unknown, its story could involve
Renaissance celebs, Historical players, Kings, Alchemy, the Occult, Cryptographers.
In short:
An authentic old VMS is a portal to a different world whereas MFH is just boring and on the balance of probability, Unlikely. -
RE: New images: Marci letter wax
proto57 > Yesterday, 04:45 AM
(Yesterday, 02:36 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thread reopened. I've moved a few posts to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. so that their points can be debated there. Happily, I managed to do it without breaking anything.
Going forward, I'd like to ask everyone to please use that thread for advancing points specific to the Modern Hoax theory. If you want to argue the watermark is evidence there was a modern hoax, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you. And if you want to declare that the watermark rebuts the Modern Hoax theory, then the Modern Hoax thread awaits you too.
Let's use this thread as we were for its first half: to learn more about the watermark without triggering a debate about the manuscript's authenticity. If you want the latter, you can find it in the location above.
Frankly, Tavie, this is ridiculous. I've been the moderator of six forums, and several mailing lists in my life, and never done, let along seen, such silly rules as you have implemented. You are going to censor anyone who touches on the possibility that the Voynich, or the Marci letter, might not be old or genuine? People are allowed to discuss a leaf, but NOT allowed to say the leaf might be fake? Even though I had much to add about the watermark... even identifying it for everyone!... But I am forbidden by you from pointing out implications of the watermark, and the discussion about it, which would imply or even include the possibility that that watermark (and the others in the carteggio and other letters) might be helpful in determining the authenticity of the letter?
And you stripped my posts from this thread? That is so insulting!
Also, this thread, and really most threads on this forum, discuss many topics. This one discussed several in addition to the watermark. So, in essence, they have also broken your own stated rules, and yet you will only censor me?
And also again, you fail to realize that your "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal" is actually a theory, not fact. But you treat it as it is a proven baseline for discussion. Yet your theory is on every forum, every thread, and you don't relegate it to just one, as you have for me and anyone who believes this is a modern fake.
As I've said long ago... and I see you don't understand this, or don't care... if it turns out that the Voynich is anything but the what the 1420 Paradigm insists it is, you will never find the answer. You won't allow that possibility, since you will filter it from your discussion.
Mr. Jackson assured me... is he still here?... assured me that this forum would never censor, and would be open to free discussion of ideas, even ones he didn't like. I'm not certain that was ever the case, but it clearly no longer is... at least, under your moderation. This is clearly a "one theory forum" now.
I have long had much to contribute to Voynich research, making and breaking much new and important information and findings... findings which were valuable for everyone, whatever theory they were working on. I have gone out of my way, and spent much time, in many archives, digging up information that has been helpful to many. I have copied passages from rare and hard to find books and documents related to this investigation, no matter what the beliefs of the person I was helping. I still do, and will continue to do so. I've contributed much to this forum, in fact.
But I will not be treated like a child, by you. I will not be told to silence myself and not share the forgery or modern implications of a topic under discussion. That is really hard to imagine, that anyone would require this of any other free-thinking individual. I have stayed on topic here, so that is clearly not the problem. The problem is obviously that you do not like my opinion about the on-topic findings... such as the present and future implications of this watermark... and don't want them to sully your version, your opinion, on those findings.
If you only see the Voynich as one thing, it will never be anything else to you, even if it turns out it is. And try as you, or anyone else desires, you can't change what it is through censorship of ideas, or ignoring or dismissing uncomfortable evidence. It is what it is, whatever that is, and if you truly wanted to know, you would allow open discussion and free sharing of ideas... even ones uncomfortable to you. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Yesterday, 04:58 AM
(Yesterday, 01:36 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 12:30 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The latest tactic seems to be to shut down any thread in which that evidence threatens to enter the discussion, using the justification of "one theory per thread", whatever the hell that means.)
Please stop this. This is - as you are aware - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You may disagree with it in general, or its application in specific cases. I've extended multiple invitations to PM me to discuss this privately and politely so that this did not become another open row and defeat the entire purpose of the rule. You are within your rights to have not taken this offer up for whatever reason, but it is neither fair nor acceptable for both you and Rich instead to take to other threads to make accusations about me.
I am asking you to stop and stay on topic, which in this thread is purely about the modern hoax theory. Let's have a respectful debate about the evidence for and against this, which may or may not include the watermark.
Honestly Tavie, I was not aware of your offering to talk in PM was anything but optional. I prefer, in any case, to keep things like this public. There I can make my case without have it ignored or mistated... in this case I was absolutely on topic, to the watermark, and to the other information relating to it, other watermarks, and the stated philosophy of Lisa Fagin Davis as to what she thinks it means if we find no more watermarks, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"... and a few other topics, brought up by others.
All varied, and I, following the rules discussed those things, along with their use, and related implications. It is very obvious that your "red line in the sand" was simply any discussion of how any of these discussed topics might relate to the letter, or the Voynich, being a forgery.
We've done nothing wrong, even by your own rules! So of course I have no intention of having a private conversation with you. You complained about my posts in public, so you should be willing to hear my rebuttal to those complaints in public, too. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Yesterday, 05:50 AM
(30-10-2025, 11:43 PM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are several major issues with the modern forgery hypothesis:
- C-14 dating strongly suggests the parchment dates to the early 15th century, and most parchment created in the early 15th century was used in the early 15th century.
- As convincingly demonstrated by Koen and Marco in this very forum, the marginalia handwriting is diagnostic of the early 15th century, specifically of documents created in a region approximately centered on Fulda, Germany.
- Some of the illustrations, notably the crossbow-wielding human Sagittarius, are also consistent with some Germanic depictions from the late medieval period.
- There are no anachronistic ingredients used in the ink or pigments.
- …And with all of this in hand, Wilfrid Voynich went around claiming the VMS was a 13th-century English document created by a specifically well-documented individual, Roger Bacon.
It strains credulity that Voynich completed a forgery in which all available material evidence converges on the early 15th century and Germanic Alpine region, even though he repeatedly and publicly attributed the book to a well-documented man living in 13th-century England.
Hi, Magnesium: Thanks for your interest and thoughtful points rebutting my theory. I'll give counter-points for them:
"- C-14 dating strongly suggests the parchment dates to the early 15th century, and most parchment created in the early 15th century was used in the early 15th century."
Yes the parchment does date to the early 15th century, and I fully agree with the testing that determined that. Although it is important to understand that the dates of the individual samples actually spanned 60 years or more, and not the neat and tidy 1404-1438 range everyone was provided from those tests. The actual numbers were "averaged" and "combined" on the "assumption" that the Voynich was created in under ten years. I explain this in my blog post called, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., it is myth number 8.
Also, not all vellum or parchment of any kind was used soon after creation. I found many examples of blank parchment being You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. after production. And also, by "coincidence" (ahem), Voynich purchased the Libreria Franceshini in 1908, and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of all kind, said to be about half a million items. He is even known to have sold old blank paper!
So I would point out that old, blank parchment has long been available, and would sufficient amounts would have arguably been owned by my suspect himself.
"As convincingly demonstrated by Koen and Marco in this very forum, the marginalia handwriting is diagnostic of the early 15th century, specifically of documents created in a region approximately centered on Fulda, Germany."
Well if they are correct in identifying the marginalia handwriting, it is clear that writing in all styles is commonly forged. So even if they got that right, it does not mean that the writing was applied in Fulda, nor in the 15th century. And that being said, there were... before the C14 dating mentioned above... a great many expert opinions which fell outside of the 15th century, and outside Germany for that matter... for the main text and for marginalia. Those expert opinions were later ignored, on the basis of the C14 results. But among them were some pretty impressive people, and I don't think they should be ignored, on the basis of the date of the pages, which could have been written on any time from about 1400 to 1912.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Some of the illustrations, notably the crossbow-wielding human Sagittarius, are also consistent with some Germanic depictions from the late medieval period."
Remember, though, that old content can be drawn later, but new content can not be drawn in the past. Then, also, there is a great deal of expert and amateur disagreement on all the images, including the one you mention. And then, still again, while there is obviously old imagery in the Voynich dating to the 15th century, there are also many illustrations which are strikingly similar to all the centuries after. For instance, O. Tucker and Jules Janick have convincingly identified many plants which are post-Columbian. Others have, too, such as O'Neil identifying the sunflower and capsicum pepper. But the list of anachronistic comparisons is too long for this post... it includes many plants, some animals such as the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. armadillo, anatomy as found in Grey's, microscopic plants, cells, diatoms, and even microscopes themselves, by myself. As I said, there is much more... and IMO, far too often has this happened for it to be coincidence, or paradiolia. If even one of the dozens of such comparisons is correct, the Voynich is either post-Columbian, or if later, early 20th century.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"There are no anachronistic ingredients used in the ink or pigments."
Actually, the McCrone report found "unusual copper and zinc", an unexplained "titanium compound", and a binder which was not gum Arabic, and unidentified by them as any other gum binder, as it was not "in their library" of normal gums. Titanium is virtually unheard of in Medieval manuscripts. You can see the graph of Richard Hark in a previous post of mine, in this thread: He tested 120 samples in 50 manuscripts, and only found traces in one or two samples. And if he used the Voynich for THOSE samples... I've asked him, he has not yet answered me... it may not be only exceedingly rare, but unheard of outside the Voynich and the Vinland Map (poor Yale).
The report also found that the ink of the last page marginalia was the same ink as used for the main test. Before this finding, it was said that that marginalia was from a later time, by a different person than the author, so it was, in a sense, odd to discover this.
"And with all of this in hand, Wilfrid Voynich went around claiming the VMS was a 13th-century English document created by a specifically well-documented individual, Roger Bacon."
True that was a poor choice of "author". But I do not believe that the work was created to look like a Bacon, but as a book owned by Horcicky, who supposedly signed it. That is, I think it was meant at first as an early 17th century work from the Court of Rudolf II, because of the best selling 1906 book, "Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II". A poor book, very inaccurate, but a favorite of Voynich's. He claimed to "know it by heart". And in his notes was found 19 names, all from that book, and listed in the order they appear in it. I believe it was the "primer" for the Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If you read that book... it is available on Archive dot org... you might be surprised to find that so much of what people "see" in the Voynich is mentioned in it.
In any case, I think that at some point before 1912, Voynich abandoned Horciciky (as owner or creator), took pages out, re-ordered it, and pushed Bacon instead. The 700th year of Bacon's birth... 1219... was coming up, and the man's real and imagined exploits were all the rage at the time.
"It strains credulity that Voynich completed a forgery in which all available material evidence converges on the early 15th century and Germanic Alpine region, even though he repeatedly and publicly attributed the book to a well-documented man living in 13th-century England."
But the thing is, as pointed out above, it was not, and still is not, "all available material evidence"... really only the C14 dating, and then selected opinions as to the origins and regions you suggest. Many in the past, and today, will argue Italy as an origin, and other areas. If a forgery, we don't know his intentions... but as I also pointed out, the experts were and still are "all over the place" with dating and placing the origins and meaning of the work.
Have you read Mary D'Imperio's 1978 book, The Voynich: An Elegant Enigma? Many highly recommend it, as I do. It is amazing how little is really new since then, and also, it is very interesting to read the great many diverse thoughts on the work, by some very brilliant, experienced, and talented people:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Yesterday, 06:33 AM
(30-10-2025, 11:06 PM)Kaybo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is the argument against the C14 dating? I mean, if you would fake it around 1910, why would you fake it the way that it tricks the C14 method?
I don't, and I think no one argues with the dating, in general. So I don't think it tricks the C14 method... that is probably not possible, and anyway, in Voynich's time it didn't exist, so he wouldn't have seen the need.
In my opinion, it is simpler than that: He just grabbed a stack of blank vellum, in his piles of stuff at his Florence location, because it looked old. For various reasons I believe he cut down "folio sized" sheets, and that he would have only needed three folios worth of it, at eight sheets per folio. There is, I think, evidence for this: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And remember, the date of the parchment does not actually match the content applied to it... the writing and illustrations. Yes, this is claimed now, but before the dating results most experts gave far different dates. In my opinion, also, it is that dating that has been driving the identifications... I watched it happen, in fact. When the C14 came out, it was considered a shock, as it didn't match the predictions. Now it is said the age of the parchment DOES match the content! What changed? We learned the dating of the parchment... but no, Voynich, if he forged this, happened to grab parchment that was over a hundred and fifty years too old for what he applied to it... at first.