- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Rafal > 19-11-2025, 02:00 PM
Quote:The recent casual dismissal of the "armadillo vs pangolin" investigation is indicative of a misinterpretation based on a lack of known evidence.
There is yet another option which was once suggested at Nick Pelling's blog.
It could be catoblepas, a mythical creature:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
![[Image: catoblepas-topsell-300x197.jpg]](https://ciphermysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/06/catoblepas-topsell-300x197.jpg)
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-11-2025, 02:48 PM
(19-11-2025, 02:00 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is yet another option which was once suggested at Nick Pelling's blog. It could be catoblepas, a mythical creature: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
However, the first mention of scales, according to Nick's blog, is from ~1600. None of the Medieval depictions show scales.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 19-11-2025, 02:55 PM
(19-11-2025, 02:00 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:The recent casual dismissal of the "armadillo vs pangolin" investigation is indicative of a misinterpretation based on a lack of known evidence.
There is yet another option which was once suggested at Nick Pelling's blog.
It could be catoblepas, a mythical creature:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hi Rafal! Yes I mention the catoblepas in "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". The list of of the alternatives given by others by the time I wrote that was "wolf, sheep, pangolin, catablepas, sea monsters, ibex, capricorn goat, sea-goat, [and] hedgehog".
But not only do I think the armadillo is a good match, because:
1) It hits on many points of comparison (the tail is a poor match, but it is for the other "contenders", also, especially the pangolin with its fat tail):
2) It fits the context of my hypothesis, as the armadillo was one of the items which found in various Kunstakammer, along with other New World animals, plants, objects and clothing. As a book to reflect, in part, New World items, as I propose, it fits that context, along with the other noted New World plants and animals believed to be in there.
3) The armadillo illustration it "happens" to match best is the 16th century Conrad Gesner version, with the upturned snout, "backwards" scales, pointy ears, and curve of the top of the head. The thing is, this illustration is in Conrad Gesner’s Historicum Animalicium, which is mentioned in "Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II", which was one of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., from which many Vms items also "happen" to have good comparisons from:
As I wrote in "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", this mention appears on page 212 of "Follies...":
Quote:“Conrad Gesner, Professor of natural history at Zurich, whose “History of Animals,” published in 1551, is the basis of all modern zoology; his younger contemporary, Ulysses Aldrovandus, who held the chair of natural history at Bologna, published six large folio volumes illustrated with wood cuts of many of the animals, his descriptions being in part taken from the work of Gesner.”
The other suggestions for alternative possible You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animals do not match on all these points, and they do not have any context to the Voynich as whole. Why a catoblepas in a genuine 1420 Cipher herbal? With zodiac, and these plants, and every other things we see in there. Modern forgery, using "Follies..." as the Primer, explains most of the comparisons I and others have felt best for the Vms illustrations. They are virtually all mentioned in Follies, or tangentially mentioned in it: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Here are my other two posts on the poor armadillo:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All the best, Rich
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 19-11-2025, 04:19 PM
The fundamental assumption in all of this is that the drawing is meant to depict a real animal, or that the artist was drawing well, neither which is truly justifiable. The manuscript is full of fantastical creatures (e.g. the creatures in the lower margin of folio 79v) so there's really no reason to assume that this must represent something real. All of the animals in the manuscript are marginal in some way - none are the primary focus of the illustrations. They may simply function like the hybrid creatures in, for example, the borders of a Book of Hours, which generally have no semantic meaning but are just there to entertain. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 19-11-2025, 05:26 PM
(19-11-2025, 04:19 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fundamental assumption in all of this is that the drawing is meant to depict a real animal, or that the artist was drawing well, neither which is truly justifiable. The manuscript is full of fantastical creatures (e.g. the creatures in the lower margin of folio 79v) so there's really no reason to assume that this must represent something real. All of the animals in the manuscript are marginal in some way - none are the primary focus of the illustrations. They may simply function like the hybrid creatures in, for example, the borders of a Book of Hours, which generally have no semantic meaning but are just there to entertain.
Hi Lisa: I've heard this explanation before, but I see it as another case of adjusting and varying standards of comparisons to support a position: In this case, to fit genuine and 1420, in this case excusing its similarities to an armadillo because of a supposed lack of skills on the part of the artist.
I've heard the contrary views that the artist was too good to draw an armadillo this poorly, therefore it is not an armadillo because they would have done better; and then also heard the argument that the artist lacked ability, therefore their poor skills mean this is not an armadillo.. it is something else and they didn't get it right. And believe it or not, I have heard both arguments, in one case, from the very same person! (not you).
And it is like that to "excuse" many such comparisons that work against 1420 Genuine: The artist was too good, and too bad, in different cases, for the things we see to be anything but expected in a 1420 work. It is sort of a "Goldilocks Rule": If it fits 1420 Genuine, then it IS what it seems to be. If it does not fit 142 Genuine, then it is NOT what it seems to be.... or, "added later", if that seems possible.
For instance, the women, the stars, the zodiac symbols and animals, the baths, the clothing and accessories, and many other illustrations are of a similar poor quality to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal, but because they fit the C14 dating, they are accepted as what they look like. The armadillo does not fit that dating, therefore its similar poor quality is said to mean it can't be one. Then, that list of numbers is too new, so that must have added. The covers are 17th century? Added. The marginalia is too new? Added. When the ink tests show that marginalia is the same ink as the main text, then suddenly it isn't so new anymore. And on and on... the opinions on the evidence are constantly being adjusted to fit 1420 genuine.
Another point is, that when a person not versed in the Voynich, or the strong 1420 Paradigm assigned to it, that almost always looks like an armadillo to them. This is another indication that it is 1420 biases which cause people to reject that more obvious identification. Here is the list of excuses for the armadillo comparisons which I've listed in my blog post, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". In the post I explain each one of these, the source of them if there is one, and even actual examples of where and how they have been used. This list was compiled in 2019, but perhaps there are more excuses for the poor beast:
Quote:1) “It looks too much like an armadillo to be one, because the artist was too inexpert to draw one accurately, therefore it is something else badly drawn.”
2) “It does not look ENOUGH like an armadillo, because the artist was good enough to draw an accurate one if they wanted to, so it is animal X, Y, or Z (which all look less like an armadillo)”.
3) “It looks much more like an animal in an illustration it was copied from, but we have not found or seen that source drawing yet.”- (paraphrasing) Ger Hungerdink
4) “Even if it looks more like an armadillo than X, Y, Z, it can’t be, because the Voynich is too old for it to be an armadillo”
5) “It only looks like an armadillo to those who have a post-Columbian Voynich agenda”
6) “It only looks like an armadillo to those who are familiar with one”
7) “It does look like an armadillo to our modern eyes, but would not, to a 15th century viewer, therefore it is not an armadillo”.
9) “It is not technically good enough to be an armadillo, as it combines features from curling and non-curling species, such as not having 9 bands”.
10) “To know the popular conception of an armadillo, we only have to do a Google search. We will see the curling, band-less, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal does not fit the first X number of hits.”
11) “It will look less like an armadillo, and more like A, B, C, or D, if I just photoshop it here, and there.”
12) “It does not look like an armadillo”
Another similar case to the "armadillo effect"... there are probably a few dozen of them... would be my comparisons of cylinders to optical devices. On a point-by-point basis they fit far better than the alternative suggestions, such as herbal or pharma jars. They have parallel sides, multiple diameters, rings at sections, recessed tops with blue and green tints, similar decorative motifs, and some have legs, even evoking the "delphini" motif which appears on several 18th microscopes. Yet this better set of comparisons is rejected on the basis that the Voynich is "too old" for them to BE microscopes. Substituted, off the top of my head, are jars, perpetual candles, soft soap containers, inkwells, cannons, windlasses, and many other far lesser comparisons.
I do not believe in adjusting standards to fit what we "want" or "believe" the Voynich to be. I think it is simply just what it looks like, and is telling us it is, and we should listen to that, and not continue to make excuses for it. Fitting a catoblepas or wolf on this page feels like a square peg in a round hole, while it fits You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., for all the reasons I've given.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 19-11-2025, 05:43 PM
And besides that (Post #205), none of these interpretations shows, mentions or takes into account in any fashion, the *presence of the nebuly line* and its valid, medieval use as a cloud band and cosmic boundary - not to mention the particular structural arrangement of "critter - cosmic boundary - droplets" not found (so far) in any other illustrations. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
quimqu > 20-11-2025, 02:28 PM
(19-11-2025, 02:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But not only do I think the armadillo is a good match
Given the overall poor quality of the drawings in terms of depicting realistic figures, the strongest point against this animal being an armadillo is that it is too well drawn. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 20-11-2025, 03:23 PM
(20-11-2025, 02:28 PM)quimqu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(19-11-2025, 02:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But not only do I think the armadillo is a good match
Given the overall poor quality of the drawings in terms of depicting realistic figures, the strongest point against this animal being an armadillo is that it is too well drawn.
Thank you, Quimqu... I think that is #1 on my list which I posted earlier:
"1) “It looks too much like an armadillo to be one, because the artist was too inexpert to draw one accurately, therefore it is something else badly drawn.”"
The opposite of this has also been claimed:
"2) “It does not look ENOUGH like an armadillo, because the artist was good enough to draw an accurate one if they wanted to, so it is animal X, Y, or Z (which all look less like an armadillo)”."
Which is why I coined the term, "Goldilocks Rule". I prefer to think that things were meant to be what they most look like, which is really in the middle of #1 and #2. But that reasoning would have to be on a "why it probably is an armadillo list":
1) The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animals has more points of comparison to an armadillo than any other real or imaginary animal
2) It looks more like an armadillo* to anyone who has no Voynich knowledge, or 1420 bias
3) It fits well with the general skills the Voynich artist exhibited in their other illustrations
4) An armadillo would be reasonably expected in the context of work meant to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, as New World plants, animals, objects were of great interest to the collectors in Europe at this time
5) The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. matches on more points to a specific armadillo illustration in the Gesner book, mentioned in the Bolton book, which Voynich admitted he loved, and "knew by heart"
So I appreciate the feedback on this identification, and admit that it is so far not provable, and of course your opinion on the issue is just as valid as mine. You could be correct. But I do think it is an armadillo we are looking at there.
Rich
* I can't find it at the moment, but there was actually a discussion on the voynich.net, long before I came on the scene (90's? 00's?), in which someone pointed out that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal looked like a lot like an armadillo, and many of the same arguments we are all having here, and I have had in the past, went back and forth. So I was far from the first person to note this... and, BTW, I noted it long before I came to believe the Voynich was a modern fake, and still believed it was early 17th century, as many of the pre-C14 experts did.