- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Mark Knowles > 17-11-2025, 05:15 PM
(17-11-2025, 03:29 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I mean, I see it that way, as a mess. A jumble of styles from several centuries, made with the wrong materials, from the wrong eras, that is only accepted as old or genuine on the basis that people want it to be old and genuine, and who then incorrectly state "we know" it is old and genuine.
Rich
To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. I can't prove that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. However I think is so unlikely to be the case that I don't waste my time with that hypothesis.
Ultimately at core the carbon dating of the vellum seems to provide a strong reason to accept the dating and the counter arguments that you have presented to the dating seem flimsy by comparison. Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating and so no reason to collect a large amount of 15th century vellum to support a fake dating. You can doubt the effective dating of the myriad of other objects dated using carbon dating. I spent some days browsing through 15th century letters in the Milan State Archives in February. Are you telling me that they are probably all fake too? What about all the other supposed objects dated by carbon dating are they all fake? What about all the other 15th century manuscripts? It seems to me that the core motivation for claiming the Voynich to be a fake is that we can't read it and if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now; I don’t think that is necessarily the case. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 17-11-2025, 07:53 PM
(17-11-2025, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(17-11-2025, 03:29 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I mean, I see it that way, as a mess. A jumble of styles from several centuries, made with the wrong materials, from the wrong eras, that is only accepted as old or genuine on the basis that people want it to be old and genuine, and who then incorrectly state "we know" it is old and genuine.
Rich
To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. I can't prove that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. However I think is so unlikely to be the case that I don't waste my time with that hypothesis.
Ultimately at core the carbon dating of the vellum seems to provide a strong reason to accept the dating and the counter arguments that you have presented to the dating seem flimsy by comparison. Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating and so no reason to collect a large amount of 15th century vellum to support a fake dating. You can doubt the effective dating of the myriad of other objects dated using carbon dating. I spent some days browsing through 15th century letters in the Milan State Archives in February. Are you telling me that they are probably all fake too? What about all the other supposed objects dated by carbon dating are they all fake? What about all the other 15th century manuscripts? It seems to me that the core motivation for claiming the Voynich to be a fake is that we can't read it and if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now; I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
Hi Mark: You have used a few Straw Men in your response to me, in that they don't reflect my positions on my own theory, or the use and validity of C14 as a whole. The fact that people need to create straw men, rather than rebut what I really say and think, only reinforces my understanding that there are no good responses to the evidence I actually do base my theory on. It tells me that I am certainly on the right track. But to break it down, not necessarily in the order you wrote them:
Quote:Ultimately at core the carbon dating of the vellum seems to provide a strong reason to accept the dating and the counter arguments that you have presented to the dating seem flimsy by comparison. Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating and so no reason to collect a large amount of 15th century vellum to support a fake dating.
You seem to conflate two issues here: The dating of the parchment, which I do accept; and the dating of the writing and illustrations on the parchment, for which there are many different dating ranges given by many amateurs and experts. And I agree with your point that "Voynich had no knowledge of carbon dating", which is actually evidence of the Voynich being fake. Why? Because the C14 dating does not match the content! He picked the wrong parchment, not the right parchment. When the C14 results came out they were controversial exactly because they didn't match the overwhelming number of expert opinions.
It took maybe a month or two before everyone started to "toe the C14 line", and eliminate those experts who didn't match the C14, and only accept any new experts on the scene who validated that the Voynich content must have been made in the early 15th century. That is science done backwards. We should not adjust our opinions, and weed out the uncomfortable ones, but rather listen to what both the C14 and those valuable opinions actually tell us: The content does not match the C14 dates.
Quote:You can doubt the effective dating of the myriad of other objects dated using carbon dating. I spent some days browsing through 15th century letters in the Milan State Archives in February. Are you telling me that they are probably all fake too? What about all the other supposed objects dated by carbon dating are they all fake? What about all the other 15th century manuscripts?
This another Straw Man you have created, and not at all based on any reality about what I think of the process and value of carbon dating. Of course I value the important use of the process of carbon dating, but as I explained above, when the C14 date of any item does not match other aspects of that item, we should be concerned. And each case must be treated separately based on its own merits and flaws. If any of the letters you saw and refer to have serious anachronisms I would hope that you, too, would then question them. Would it be right for me to assume, of you, that you would not?
Well it is not fair of you to assume I blanket ignore valid C14 results, anywhere, including the Voynich. Stating anything else is another Straw Man, not me.
Quote:It seems to me that the core motivation for claiming the Voynich to be a fake is that we can't read it and if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now; I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
That Straw Man strays even further from my beliefs and claims than the other ones. I in NO WAY have ever, and do not now, claim that the possibility of meaningful text, or gibberish, supports either old and real or new and fake. As I've often... and correctly if I might boldly claim... most forgeries do have meaning anyway. However, the burden on the genuinists is to find meaning, because the opposite is true, that most meaningless documents are fake (for one reason or another). BUT I don't even use THAT point as one against it being real, as I would be fully ready to accept that a gibberish document could have been produced in the early 15th century.
Your other point, also not mine, that "... if it were really 15th century supposedly we would be able to read it by now..." is one I have heard, and it goes something like, "There were no ciphers, codes nor any other systems from the early 15th century which had the necessary complexity to still remain unsolved in the modern age, therefore the Voynich cannot have been written then".
No, I don't feel that way, and actually agree with you that "I don't believe that necessarily the case".
None of the points and rebuttals you have made actually address my real thoughts and writings on all this, except in the most tangential ways. This is something I often find, as I said... people arguing 1420 Genuine are not arguing everything really known about the manuscript, they are forced to be selective, and reject much solid counter evidence; and at the same time, when arguing my Modern Forgery Theory, must restate elements of it, and the basis and reasoning I use for those elements, in order to attempt to make a case against it.
And one last thing, relating to the first part of your rebuttal to me...
Quote:To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien. I can't prove that it wasn't written by a visiting alien.
... the tactic of making some vague insinuation that my ideas are "of the ilk" of alien, flat earth, conspiracy, tin foil hat theories and so on, is, to me, a base and ineffective method of argumentation. It is clearly meant to paint my own ideas with the same brush. Why, Mark? Why do you feel a need to be that way? Obviously I could do the same to all those who believe 1420 Genuine, or really any other unproven theory on virtually any subject. I don't, and never have, because I find it distasteful. I'd rather make my points with respect for the person I am having a discourse with, no matter how much we both disagree.
But if we remove the ad hominem implications of your statement, in essence you are saying that "You can't prove it wasn't written...", and therefore is valueless. Well everything here is unproven, for you, for me, for anyone else. However, again, that is not in any way an element of my case. I don't use the (possible, and so far) unsolvability of it as any form of evidence, and also point out that my theory IS falsifiable.
And also, provable, as is 1420 Genuine. But I actually think proving it genuine should be far easier, as all that needs to be found is one shred of evidence it existed before some afternoon in Italy in the summer of 1910. So yes, not finding a atom of anything in that direction probably means something... but I don't use that as an element of my own theory, only as suspiciously undermining genuine.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 18-11-2025, 09:22 AM
(17-11-2025, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me the simple point is that what you suggest could be approached like the "Voynich manuscript was written by an alien" hypothesis. I don't know for certain that it wasn't written by a visiting alien.
How about: 'Voynich discovered the secret recipe of Coca Cola, and made a fortune selling counterfeit coke".
This would also supposedly fit his character, and he had studied chemistry. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 18-11-2025, 04:38 PM
(17-11-2025, 07:53 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is something I often find, as I said... people arguing 1420 Genuine are not arguing everything really known about the manuscript, they are forced to be selective, and reject much solid counter evidence; and at the same time, when arguing my Modern Forgery Theory, must restate elements of it, and the basis and reasoning I use for those elements, in order to attempt to make a case against it.
This pretty much sums it up. I've seen the same pattern ever since I joined this forum (I can't speak for other platforms). With very few exceptions, those trying to attack Rich's theory either lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or they are so rigidly committed to a prior belief—usually what Rich calls "1420 Genuine"—that they simply can't recognize the flaws in their own position.
That's the real problem here. I'm not convinced the MFT is correct, but it is nowhere near simple enough to dismiss out of hand. Rich deserves a serious, capable opponent to test the strengths and weaknesses of his theory. After watching these discussions for so long, I’m highly doubtful he’ll find that here—at least not in a way that will actually move Voynich research forward. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
rikforto > 18-11-2025, 06:58 PM
Whatever judgement you might make about the various theories on balance, I think the majority of replies to you and Rich have been thoughtful, on topic, and making ample use of the full array of facts and findings we have at our disposal. I am disappointed, given that I was one of the people who spoke with you two, that you feel I "lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or" am "so ridgedly committed to prior belief", but I stand by my contributions. I'd sensed this was case, which is why I withdrew from the conversation, but hopefully you can find a forum where the vast majority of people do not fall below your exacting and evidently unimpeachable logical prowess. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 18-11-2025, 07:29 PM
(18-11-2025, 06:58 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Whatever judgement you might make about the various theories on balance, I think the majority of replies to you and Rich have been thoughtful, on topic, and making ample use of the full array of facts and findings we have at our disposal. I am disappointed, given that I was one of the people who spoke with you two, that you feel I "lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or" am "so ridgedly committed to prior belief", but I stand by my contributions. I'd sensed this was case, which is why I withdrew from the conversation, but hopefully you can find a forum where the vast majority of people do not fall below your exacting and evidently unimpeachable logical prowess.
Well of course no one, including you, should take the overall impression by asteckley, or me, or anyone, as representing the situation with 100% accuracy. I can't speak for him, but I suspect he would agree that there HAVE been some valuable and interesting feedback, and I would cite you as offering some of of this, along with others.
But it is true that the mass of it is the "same old, same old". I find myself shaking the tree by challenging those who disagree with me, and often being disappointed in the type of arguments that are provided in response: Straw Men, Cherry Picking, misrepresentation of my ideas, demonization by false association (mockery) with discredited theories such as Flat Earth, Aliens, and so on; ad hominins; deflection; Sophistry; Argument by Ignorance; Argument by Authority; and many others right out of the list of fallacious argumentation.
But there is another common type of rebuttal to my ideas, which is of course innocent: Lack of knowledge about what I am actually claiming, and on what basis I make those claims. So I may seem repetetive... I am... for instance in needing to explain, over and over, that I in no way believe this was created as "a Roger Bacon", or that I argue with the C14 results at all. There are dozens of such misconceptions repeated here alone, and I consider them, while in error, a valuable part of the conversation for me.
And while all this is going on, I look for and wait for the "golden nugget"... some idea I have not thought of, that makes sense to me, that will either be helpful in my bettering my hypothesis, by adding an idea, or removing something, or giving up on it in its entirety, because a good case was made against it. I welcome all of it... and expect all of it... and if I have to weed through a lot of chaff to find that wheat, that is just par for the course.
As I've said before, this is the way I like to do things... I strongly believe in open discussion of all ideas... and such converstations have been extremely valuable to me over the years, and caused me to give up on two major (Drebbel and New Atlantis) theories, and dozens of minor points to those, and my current one. This is, I believe, how one hones their ideas... by testing them, over and over and over.
In fact, I would challenge you to find any other Voynich researcher who has engaged their intellectual opponents more fully, and often, as I have over the last 18 years, and also, as a result, has explored more possibilities with my level of seriousness. While I am nowhere near the intellectual and scholarly ability that Michael Ventris was, I have admired his approach immensely, and have emulated it whenever I think appropriate and possible.
But don't make the mistake that any of my complaints, or those listed by others... which I agree with... are targeting any particular person, or specific response. I've been enjoying this now long conversation greatly, and find it very valuable for a long list of reasons. If you or several others felt compelled to leave, it would be a loss, I mean. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 18-11-2025, 08:07 PM
(18-11-2025, 07:29 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't speak for him, but I suspect he would agree that there HAVE been some valuable and interesting feedback, and I would cite you as offering some of of this, along with others.
You can't -- but you successfully did.
(18-11-2025, 06:58 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am disappointed, given that I was one of the people who spoke with you two, that you feel I "lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or" am "so ridgedly committed to prior belief", but I stand by my contributions.
Actually, I did not name you as being in that group nor to the one providing the exceptions. It seems that you assigned yourself, and then concluded it was how I felt about you. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 18-11-2025, 09:13 PM
The recent casual dismissal of the "armadillo vs pangolin" investigation is indicative of a misinterpretation based on a lack of known evidence. The relevant evidence is found in BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18.
The 'actual' interpretation of the critter remains ambiguous. It's the rest of the illustration that confirms the similarity of the three-part structural relationship of the basic elements in these two representations of the Agnus Dei. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 18-11-2025, 10:45 PM
(18-11-2025, 09:13 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The recent casual dismissal of the "armadillo vs pangolin" investigation is indicative of a misinterpretation based on a lack of known evidence. The relevant evidence is found in BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18.
The 'actual' interpretation of the critter remains ambiguous. It's the rest of the illustration that confirms the similarity of the three-part structural relationship of the basic elements in these two representations of the Agnus Dei.
Hi Richard: I remember your mentioning this some time back. I think you mean this leaf:
... and more specifically this section?:
I do see some similarity between the setting for the sheep (followers of Christ?) here, but the oval is circling the sheep... it is not sitting on it. But maybe I misunderstand you. Could you explain what you mean? I do recall someone... you? Elitsa? Someone else? showing a sort of "pillow with fringe" that resembles the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal's setting. The name "Osemre", or "Oresme", or something similar springs to mind. I remember that being quite similar, with a sort of fringed veil around the image, that was strikingly similar. I think that one had a T/O map. But I forgot... do you remember?
EDIT TO ADD: I found it... Nick has a page on the Oresme image, with "veil": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 19-11-2025, 02:06 AM
Yes, that's the illustration. To my knowledge, it was first posted by JKP.
The cosmic investigation as you mention is based on an *inverted* T/O Earth and a cosmos with no planets or planetary spheres or any potential 'heavens'.
The Agnus Dei of BNF Fr. 13096 is inside a fancy vesica piscis. This structure represents a sort of cosmic boundary that various medieval artists used to show a separation between the sacred and the earthly realms. This same sort of boundary has also been shown by the use of a cloud band (wolkenband), which has been represented in a wide range of styles and colors, some of which were based on a nebuly line, like the scallop-shell "Oresme" cosmos [BNF Fr. 565]. Sometimes a vesica piscis will use nebuly lines.
The VMs artist makes much use of the nebuly line, including in the cosmos and associated with the VMs critter. If the nebuly line is interpreted as a cosmic boundary, then what sort of critter would be associated with a cosmic boundary? Armadillos and pangolins don't need to be associated with cosmic boundaries. [If one knows nothing of wolkenbands and only sees a pillow, of course, all bets are off, though the 'droplets' may still be problematic.]
The particular thing about this illustration is the structure. The lamb is on one side of the cosmic boundary, and the droplets of blood are on the other side, and this is mirrored in the VMs. Other representations discovered so far, where blood is shown, have the lamb and the blood on the *same side* of the cosmic boundary.
Early as it is; the manuscript is dated 1313, it is still anachronistic to a Roger Bacon scenario.