- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 02-01-2026, 02:40 AM
(02-01-2026, 12:54 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(02-01-2026, 12:37 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Though if someone knew of the right paper to use, they probably knew of the right style to imitate too.
Exactly.
Yet they ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery (initially - as per the Forgery Hypothesis).
Another case of Wilfrid being very smart where needed and very stupid where needed? .. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 02-01-2026, 02:48 AM
(02-01-2026, 02:40 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yet they ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery (initially - as per the Forgery Hypothesis).
I'm sorry -- what is the 17C Forgery Hypothesis?
Another case of Wilfrid being very smart where needed and very stupid where needed? .. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 03-01-2026, 10:56 PM
(02-01-2026, 02:48 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(02-01-2026, 02:40 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yet they ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery (initially - as per the Forgery Hypothesis).
I'm sorry -- what is the 17C Forgery Hypothesis?
Another case of Wilfrid being very smart where needed and very stupid where needed? ..
I believe Bluetoes is referring to the element of my 1910 hypothesis which asserts that the Voynich was originally created to (falsely) appear as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as that Court was "understood" though the work of Bolton:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him. At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim). Sometime later, the 1666 Marci to Kircher letter was forged, in order to strengthen this new, intended, Bacon authorship."
This would explain:
1) Why so many elements, illustrations and styles evoke those things seen in "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
2) Why so many pre-C14 experts believed it showed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and as above
3) Why Voynich pushed the "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which he knew to be a lie
4) As above, why the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was (ahem) "found" years after he "bought" the Voynich
And then Bluetoes is pointing out that, if my above suspicions are correct, then why did they "... ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery". Well a good point, as a perfect forgery might be expected to be far more consistent, and match far more elements to such a desired time frame. But I would counter:
1) That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory: Which has no overall context that explains the diversity of content, styles, materials and construction as well as Modern Forgery. Rather, if standards were applied equally, my hypothesis would hit on far more points. I mean, why are only those features which are used to support 1420/Genuine allowed; and the many more, which do not, ignored? There are many more modern writing and numerical styles in the Voynich, and that affects, or should affect, all theories equally. Modern Forgery allows and explains every scrap of data and content in the Voynich and its provenance, the 1420GT does not, it needs to ignore all these to exist.
2) There are many supporting elements in my hypothesis which do fall outside of a strict early 17th century timeline, such as later optics, microscopic imagery, influences from later illustrations, and so on. These fit with my view that this is a bad and inaccurate forgery. The use of "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II" is, yes, my proposed "primer", the core, but I also list many comparisons which I contend show the Voynich was created from a wide range of content and influences, well outside the time frame of "Follies...". Would you or I do it "better" and stick strictly to far more narrow chronological and geographical ranges and styles? Maybe. But virtually all forgeries stray a bit, and the Voynich strays a lot... yet, it is still defended as "perfectly 1420"- so we have there an example of, in essence, claiming that "If a forgery, why so bad and all over the place with content and styles- it should be better if a forgery; BUT as a genuine 1420 manuscript, no, it does not really stray all that much at all, it is VERY consistent".
Which is it? It can't be both.
No, those very inconsistencies pointed out actually fit within the parameters of how my hypothesis envisions the Voynich: A fairly sloppy hodgepodge of styles, meant to loosely evoke the "sciences" of the early 17th century, in a sort of loose and fanciful amalgamation of what one's flawed impression of such a time would have produced. A kind of "popular" impression, as one would get from "Follies...". Colorful, brilliant, enigmatic, exciting... and therefore (hopefully) valuable. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 04-01-2026, 12:56 AM
asteckley, you should probably know what the theory you support is
(..I'm sorry, I'm a windup merchant)
I think some things here are countering ideas of people who had no bloody clue what they were on about. Frankly.
An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene and immediately said the writing was humanist (of northern Italy) which would place it at the very beginning of 15C, he also said the Zodiac names were added later using French spellings of the time, so far this seems to hold true.
This should also address - "That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory". My standard is expert opinion. I don't care what "internet guy" thinks, or "adjacent field guy" thinks. Well I do, that's a bit of a lie, but as "Likely Fact".. you know what I mean.
These are the opinions a theory should contend with, not some botanist (who knows nothing of manuscripts) or internet guy.. but people who actually know what they are on about. In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it. To think this was due to a 17C then turned 13C fake is very difficult for me to follow. (Though I am also "internet guy," so pinch of salt).
What is inconsistent?
The real inconsistences are with the characters of the "forgery story". Wilfrid makes a 17C manuscript, then removes (literally cuts out) all evidence of such.. but thinks armadillos and microscopes are funny to leave in, then facing a 17C manuscript that needs to be 13C.. and everyone needs to ignore the removed signature.. well, then he writes a letter. The letter directly links the manuscript to the 17C and Rudolph (STOP!) who happens to have a botanist who would be interested in herbals.. who's signature we just removed - hopefully to never be discovered! If I was near him at this time I would slap him! How stupid do you need to be?! "You could have written it from anyone in the last 600 years Wilfrid!!!.. You chose this guy?!!"
.. though in the next breathe he is a genius pulling off some 17C writing that fools everyone.
The story does not make sense. It's not believable.
You are a very good researcher and things you dig up I could never do myself so I have a lot of respect (I just tend to talk plainly.. probably rude at times which suggests otherwise). I don't care if the VMS is real or fake, I just walk where the compass points. In that respect I look forward to all your future updates on the blog, but I just can't follow the forgery stuff, so far for me it's not where the compass points. Maybe one day it will. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 04-01-2026, 02:04 AM
(04-01-2026, 12:56 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene
Actually, he went to the Beinecke himself, and reported his findings to Jim and Karen Reeds. All this is in the archives of the old mailing list. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Bluetoes101 > 04-01-2026, 02:13 AM
(04-01-2026, 02:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(04-01-2026, 12:56 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene
Actually, he went to the Beinecke himself, and reported his findings to Jim and Karen Reeds. All this is in the archives of the old mailing list.
Apologies, looks like I misremembered on this point^, though I do like the mental image of someone being this assured.
We have an English guy "irving finkel" that I could imagine doing this
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 04-01-2026, 05:53 AM
(02-01-2026, 12:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(01-01-2026, 10:30 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for what I would consider rising to "serious problems", for the 1665/66 Marci letter, I would list that bad Latin;
In 2002, Margaret Garber successfully defended a PhD thesis about Marci's philospohical writings. In the committee was Joseph Smolka, who has studied Marci's life, and published about him continually since the 1960's. The title of the thesis is:
Garber, M.: Optics and alchemy in the philosophical writings of Marcus Marci in post-Rudolphine Prague 1612-1670, dissertation submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, San Diego, 2002.
In this thesis she literally writes that "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners".
His Latin was cumbersome.
This is a feature of Marci's writing. The opposite of evidence that this letter is not genuine.
But Rene, isn't it your contention that some "scribe" of unknown identity wrote the 1665/66 letter for Marci? And this supposedly done because Marci was too old and ill to write it himself? And that this, to explain the "vexing" Latin, and different "look" of that letter?
But now you are using, instead of this "scribe" to explain this, Ms. Garber's assertion that, "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners" as the reason it is poorly written, and by Marci again?
Which is it? It can't be both badly written because Marci wrote that way; AND badly written because this supposed "scribe" wrote that way.
And if you have changed your mind, and now Marci DID actually write it, in his usual bad Latin (to explain Mr. Ernst's, Phil's, and the observations of others that the Latin is poor in it), why is it so different than the other letters? In style and quality? Do you contend that it was his age and sickness which caused this change in his writing style? Then why are the signature and part of the date a practical overlay of an earlier letter (while seeming to add a little line changing a "5" to a "6")?
If that is the new version.. that he actually DID write this letter... then it brings into sharper focus the problem of the different paper, because a scribe can't be used to explain it (as was done already in this very thread). We would be back to only Marci having multiple paper brands as an (unknown) defense.
And in any case, why did Marci choose paper that seems to have weird fold lines that don't allow it to be folded into either a letter, or an envelope, as virtually all of the other 2,000 letters of the Carteggio?
I disagree with all these varied versions of the defense of that letter, for the reasons you well know. But I also point out, as I have before, several of those defenses contradict each other, as they seem to do, now, again.
Again, I think there is a far simpler explanation for the bad Latin, the impossible folds, the different paper, the odd cutting, the impossible seal alignment, and Voynich "not noticing" a letter to one of the greatest figures in the history of science for many years: It's not real. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 04-01-2026, 07:01 AM
(04-01-2026, 12:56 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene and immediately said the writing was humanist (of northern Italy) which would place it at the very beginning of 15C, he also said the Zodiac names were added later using French spellings of the time, so far this seems to hold true.
I'm sorry I've discussed so many topics with so many people, I cannot remember if I asked you if you have read "The Elegant Enigma" by D'Imperio. What you say about the expert Rene knows may be true, but using any expert that happens to agree with early 15th century is cherry picking. As I've often said, and anyone can learn from D'Imperio, and many other sources, dating of all elements of the Voynich has been all over the map and calendar since Voynich "found" it. Another factor... filter really... must be whether or not the chosen expert- because you do have to choose one, while modern forgery accepts the judgement of all of them- you must determine if the chosen expert made such judgement pre or post C14 dating. You can't place bets after the roulette wheel stops spinning.
Anyway, the point is, you can pick an expert to "prove" anything, because experts almost always disagree... and, BTW, high levels of varied expert opinions tend to rise when presented with forgeries, because they are not as consistent as genuine items, for obvious reasons.
Quote:This should also address - "That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory". My standard is expert opinion. I don't care what "internet guy" thinks, or "adjacent field guy" thinks. Well I do, that's a bit of a lie, but as "Likely Fact".. you know what I mean.
Well as above, again, consult D'Imperio, and much of the early- up to pre-C14 expert opinions on the Voynich. If "expert opinion" is truly your "standard", then we actually agree... or should agree... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., whom you used above. I made this point in the post linked in the previous sentence, when Koen similarly made the claim he listened to the experts, and I do not. No, I listen to MORE experts than anyone else, I don't need to discard any of them, as forgeries often exhibit multiple styles and sources, genuine items rarely do. They are consistent, uniform, as they are usually produced in a specific time and place, and the writers of them only know that time and place.
Quote:These are the opinions a theory should contend with, not some botanist (who knows nothing of manuscripts) or internet guy.. but people who actually know what they are on about. In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it. To think this was due to a 17C then turned 13C fake is very difficult for me to follow. (Though I am also "internet guy," so pinch of salt).
What is inconsistent?
What is inconsistent are: The expert opinions for the characters, the style, the objects ranges from the 13th to the 17th centuries; the construction has modern elements; the foldouts date to a hundred plus years past the C14 dating; the plants have been expert identified from Old Europe and the New World; the pharmacy/herbal "jars" look nothing like those; the ink and paints have unusual and unexplained elements and unknown binders in them; the covers are 17th century goatskin; it matches no other styles of the supposed era, or any era, which is also inconsistent with a real work; and so much more about it is "inconsistent". Saying it is "consistent" over and over, while never actually explaining WHY these problems are not problems does not suffice.
And to assert that, "In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it.", is simply not true, for all the reasons I've listed here. And again, it sounds like you have not read D'Imperio, for starters, because if you had you probably would not believe this is so. "Literally" very little "comes back to early 15C", a far cry from everything. Again, the only way to claim the Voynich is "consistent" is to ignore the many inconsistency. It is one of the most inconsistent items in literary history, in fact.
Quote:The real inconsistences are with the characters of the "forgery story". Wilfrid makes a 17C manuscript, then removes (literally cuts out) all evidence of such.. but thinks armadillos and microscopes are funny to leave in, then facing a 17C manuscript that needs to be 13C.. and everyone needs to ignore the removed signature.. well, then he writes a letter. The letter directly links the manuscript to the 17C and Rudolph (STOP!) who happens to have a botanist who would be interested in herbals.. who's signature we just removed - hopefully to never be discovered! If I was near him at this time I would slap him! How stupid do you need to be?! "You could have written it from anyone in the last 600 years Wilfrid!!!.. You chose this guy?!!"
.. though in the next breathe he is a genius pulling off some 17C writing that fools everyone.
The story does not make sense. It's not believable.
Well you have purposefully complicated my very, very simply hypothesis, I think. But: About the "armadillos and microscopes", you can't argue with success, right? I mean, if they are that, and left them in, they have been fooling thousands for well over a century by now. So if he thought "few will get it", he was right about that. He also left the sunflower and capsicum pepper, a practical tracing of a diatom only found in the 19th century, Rosicrucian symbolism, and so much more. All of which did not rise to the level of convincing many, including you, Rene, Koen, and hundreds of others, that this is a fake. Which is fine, we disagree... but my point is this, again: the claim seems to be that if this was a forgery, he would have done it better; while if a forgery, these things don't reveal it to you. Wouldn't that make it a "Good enough forgery to fool you"?, and therefore these decisions you complain should have been done better, were actually done pretty well?
That is hard to explain, I'll try another way: You claim that, if a forgery, he would not have left an armadillo, because that would have been stupid, as it would give it away; while at the same time, the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal does not look like and armadillo, to you, so it could not have been a bad choice to leave it in there, as you contend.
For the rest I sort of guess what you mean by it, but again it over complicates and misstates the contentions of my theory in several ways. My timing is very clear, and very simple: 1908 find unused vellum; 1908 to 1910 create fake botanical manuscript to look like it came from Rudolf's Court; realize it falls short of that in some way(s), and that Bacon was becoming all the rage; edit the work for obvious "non-Baconesque" content, rebind; write letter now pointing to Bacon, and explaining that now problematic signature; make up Dee story; goad that useful tool Newbold into helping, with a $10,000+ carrot.
Quote:You are a very good researcher and things you dig up I could never do myself so I have a lot of respect (I just tend to talk plainly.. probably rude at times which suggests otherwise). I don't care if the VMS is real or fake, I just walk where the compass points. In that respect I look forward to all your future updates on the blog, but I just can't follow the forgery stuff, so far for me it's not where the compass points. Maybe one day it will.
Well thank you for the former, that is very kind. As for sounding "rude", no, as I did take it as part of your style, and your passion, and not any sort of personal animosity. And of course, follow your compass... just make certain to check your pockets for magnets! Ha!
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Legit > 04-01-2026, 10:37 AM
This forgery theory is not so subtly shifting the burden of proof.
To claim a forgery in 1910 (so recent!) please explain how the vellum which would be blank and centuries old could be written on and then weathered and show such distress and use without destroying it.
You must also explain the required resources needed for this forgery and the strange counter motive choices made.
He would need a master callirapher, but then choose an artist with Picasso levels of creativity and instruct them to illustrate like a gradeshcooler.
Why would he leave out all references to popular esoteric knowlede?
Seriously, the level of genius and stupidity required not to add a single hieroglygh precludes any possibility of this being a forgery from 1910. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 04-01-2026, 11:13 AM
(04-01-2026, 10:37 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You must also explain the required resources needed for this forgery and the strange counter motive choices made. He would need a master callirapher, but then choose an artist with Picasso levels of creativity and instruct them to illustrate like a gradeshcooler.
I do not think that the Modern Forgery theory is likely, for various reasons. However, skillfully forged medieval manuscripts are a thing.
These are some examples, cited by Google:
Famous Modern Forgeries- The Spanish Forger (active c. 1900): One of the most successful forgers in history, this anonymous artist created over 200 "medieval" miniatures. He typically painted on genuine 15th or 16th-century parchment from which he had scraped original text. His works were eventually unmasked using neutron activation analysis and Raman microscopy, which revealed modern synthetic pigments like Paris Green and chrome yellow.
- The Vinland Map: Acquired by Yale in the 1960s as a 15th-century map depicting Viking settlements in North America, it was definitively proven in 2021 to be a 20th-century forgery. Scientific analysis identified that the map was drawn with inks containing titanium, which only became available in the 1920s.
- Constantine Simonides (1820–1867): A prolific Greek calligrapher who forged numerous "ancient" documents, including Greek papyrus rolls and Byzantine imperial decrees. [...]
- The Czech Manuscripts: The "Queen's Court" and "Green Mountain" manuscripts, "discovered" in 1817 and 1818, were forgeries intended to bolster Czech national mythology. They were accepted as authentic for nearly 70 years before being debunked.
All the best, --stolfi - The Spanish Forger (active c. 1900): One of the most successful forgers in history, this anonymous artist created over 200 "medieval" miniatures. He typically painted on genuine 15th or 16th-century parchment from which he had scraped original text. His works were eventually unmasked using neutron activation analysis and Raman microscopy, which revealed modern synthetic pigments like Paris Green and chrome yellow.