- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 16-01-2026, 06:08 PM
(16-01-2026, 07:19 AM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Funny – you accuse my argument of doing exactly what you often do in your own arguments: you use assumptions. With one small difference: you are convinced of your assumptions/arguments, but not of mine, of course.
But conviction is not truth, it is only a conviction, and therefore something highly individual. Well, that is a fact that many people confuse nowadays...
Almost everything about the VMS is assumptions – it is sophistry on your part, but rhetorical manoeuvring does not get us anywhere either.
Well I strongly reject your assertion I use "sophistry". I don't, I avoid it when I think it even rises to the level of being mistaken, and also, simply, I do not need to use sophistry. I do have opinions, and you are correct that almost everything about the Vms is an "assumption", or speculation, based on the few facts that we all must work with. But I never need to reject any known facts about the Voynich, while 1420 Genuine relies on it.
Quote:Let's get to the facts:
As far as I know, there are approximately 170,000 characters written in the Voynich text. Tracing even a fraction of these glyphs is an incredibly laborious procedure that requires a high degree of concentration, patience and time. Your argument that one can see it this way or that way is illogical for the following reason. Why would a modern forger go to such incredible lengths? And what would he hope to achieve by increasing the potential purchase price? Most people don't even notice that. This is where the argument becomes difficult.
... and you have also... again, as we all must... started with "facts", and quickly shifted to "assumptions", and personal opinions based on the facts. What is always important is to test our assumptions. In this case, as I have heard your assumptions that it would have taken "...an incredibly laborious procedure that requires a high degree of concentration, patience and time..." to create some aspect of the Voynich, or that doing so would imply genuine, does not necessarily follow for several reasons:
1) While several, including my self and Gordon Rugg, have made timed tests on creating Voynich-like characters and illustrations, no, I know of no one who has traced characters as per Jorge's theory. Now I said before I had not studied his theory in detail, but I was realizing that I have, almost endlessly studied enlargements of microscopic images of hundreds of Voynich characters, and seen some of Jorge's images, and I simply disagree that this is the case. I don't think these are retraced, or, at least, if any where, it is a very small minority of them.
2) But whether or not they are retraced, huge effort and care for little reward is NOT an indication of genuineness. Humans are crazy, and will create and build hugely elaborate works for decades of their life. This is obvious and easily ascertained by looking at the Crazy Horse statue, and the people who have built castles from pop bottles, model railroad enthusiast, the guy who dug tunnels for his whole life... and then, books. There are many examples of people who have created books as tributes, for sale, as art, as props... for no discernible reason at all! Even long, enciphered, works. Here is just one example I came across, and studied in person, from Vermont, The Chittenden Manuscript: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This would have been hugely expensive, and taken a tremendous amount of time, cost and care, and made by a very, very busy man. Why? He just wanted to do it. That's all. For his personal pleasure. And I have other such examples on other pages of my blog. People just do these things, so it is unfounded to claim they do not, or would not, or could not, have done so with the Voynich... old, new, fake, real.
And anyway they actually did it, if one accepts 1420 genuine! This always baffles me... the argument that "no forger" would put this effort into a fake. Meanwhile, some old scribe, being paid nothing, did? What was his/her motivation to expend all this supposed effort? Fear? Blind faith? And whatever instutioin provided the (also supposedly... see below*) vellum?
3) That being said, making these pages is provably not all that hard or time consuming. My small sample took 13 minutes. Rugg's, I think, an hour. For the whole Voynich, then, a couple of months of spare time? One of Gordon's one hour pages:
My 13 minute page:
I also watched, during the 2014 Toronto William Shatner episode I participated in, three calligraphers whom they had hired quickly write out page after page of Voynichese, using Gordon's Grilles. That is proof it is not all that hard, nor difficult, nor time consuming.
4) Even IF it were hard, which it is not as baselessly claimed, we are talking about an over a million dollar profit here, in today's dollars. So all other logistics and motivations aside... ignored despite the evidence they are valid points... if one still clung to the baseless assertion it would be hard, expensive, or difficult to create "a" Voynich... say, three years of constant labor? Thousands of dollars of vellum?... ignoring all other points, I think it still clear that most people would knuckle down and work on such a thing, and make such an investment, for the modern equivalent of what Voynich wanted for the thing, which is about $5,300,000.
5) Yes, I get that you are referring to the additional and speculated "retracing". But the same applies. I would "retrace" a s***load of manuscripts for five million dollars, and take a good 5 years to do it. That being said, I would think it would take far less time. And, as I have said, I am unconvinced this was traced in the first place.
Quote:I can imagine how you will argue again, but doing so in the same way really doesn't make it any better.
Well let me know how well my actual response matched up to the one you "imagined" for me.
So here is my point here: While I do agree with you that we all must rely on scant facts in order to formulate our "assumptions"... or, opinions, whatever... there is a WORLD of difference between imagining assumptions with no basis other than our own intuition; and actually being able to back up those assumptions with facts, testing, and examples. I have demonstrated all three, on my part, in this case. In fact, with such facts, testing and examples, I would argue that I've backed up my assertions, and they are not actually "assumptions" any longer.
Rich
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 16-01-2026, 07:50 PM
What about the nebuly line? Where were all the experts?
The recovery of historical terminology provides the explanation. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 17-01-2026, 08:32 PM
(16-01-2026, 07:50 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What about the nebuly line? Where were all the experts?
The recovery of historical terminology provides the explanation.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm no "expert" on this area of symbolism, but I've always thought your ideas have merit. The heraldry comparisons, the galero (sp?), the "nebuly line", and so on. So I don't in any way argue against these things being what you think they are.
The thing is, if you are correct, I think they are there for different reasons than you do. It is like that for me and many expert and amateur opinions, even those held by 1420 Genuine adherents, when it comes to "what they think we are all looking at". I rarely argue with what is observed by many, because I believe this is a "hodge-podge" of items and images and styles from the history of manuscript and printed literature.
And as you know, I've long suggested you look for an overall context which would explain your various observations, and your opinions on them. The "why?" would these things be in there? If you have such a context, which fits with everything else we see in an explanatory way, then it would go a long way to accepting that as the correct solution.
But for me, yes, I think you very well could be correct, and this symbolism is in the Voynich. Other ideas for Voynich content I believe credible, but without favoring their overall explanation for the age, authorship and or purpose of the Voynich are:
- Jules Janick and Arthur Tucker, who famously described dozens of plants, animals, and characters in the Voynich. They even adopted my phrase "Bird Glyph" for their New World herbal theory, denoting the prominent character on f1r. I agree it is meant to be the paragraph marker known as a "Calderon", and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And, the armadillo. Jules and I are friends, and have argued our theories at length... Because while I do think many of the things they see in there are in there, I think it is because the work sources that imagery to create a faux manuscript to look like it was discussing New World stuffs.
- The Comegys brothers: They, too, have made a good case for Nahuatl influenced content, I think, and I also accept this is possible, but for different reasons than they do.
- Robert Teal: My late friend Robert made good cases for various constellations and other astronomical content, along with various historic figures in the field.
- Charles Singer, of course, felt the work was 17th century, and "Paracelsian" in nature. I agree with his thoughts on this, I do think THAT is in there.
- Most of the other early experts, like Singer, above, who saw content and influences on content from the 14th through late 17th centuries. Yes, I think most of what they saw is actually in there, again, for reasons different than they speculated on.
- Those who think Hildegarde Bingen (sp?) has influenced the content.
- Those who think the New Atlantis influenced the content.
- Glen Claston: Gone for so many years now, but he also made credible cases for mid 16th century medical content, and embraced previous theories this was an Anthony Askam work. I agreed with many of his opinions.
- Berj Ensanian felt there was evidence of 19th century scientific content in there, including the "Pleiades-Moon" curve, which is striking, and I think more than coincidental. I don't agree with him this is a 19th century work, though.
I could go on and on, these are just a smattering of examples. Yes, most of what everyone thinks they have seen in the Voynich is probably there, and in that, I think they are all correct. I agree, therefore, with more amateur and expert opinions than anyone I have heard of or met, for this reason. I only don't agree with their varied and usually contradictory reasons that content would be in there... I explain it all under one roof: Modern Forgery. That umbrella is majorly inclusive.
And I like your ideas, also. I just have a different reason to explain why I think you could be right, than you do.
Rich -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 18-01-2026, 02:28 AM
Well, "You see what you want to see," as the old saying goes, and in some cases more so than others. However, I believe this example is different. Regarding the nebuly line, we have the definition and the heraldic example, both prior to the VMs C-14, and the VMs use of this line pattern matches on both counts. The presence of the nebuly line in the VMs cosmos and the use of more elaborate examples elsewhere indicate that the VMs artist knew what s/he was doing.
The host of previous experts, WMV included, AFAIK, never used or proposed the use of the nebuly (cloud-based) interpretation. It seems to be a matter of not seeing what you don't know and not properly interpreting something that has not been correctly named. The recovery of historical terminology marks a small but significant step forward.
Interpreting the nebuly line as a cloud band and recognizing it as a cosmic boundary severely limits the potential identifications of the VMs critter's identification in a European context regardless of when it was created. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Aga Tentakulus > 18-01-2026, 02:29 AM
It's surprising that you didn't mention the little green men. Is it because Erich von Däniken just died? 10 January 2026.
Or because there are no little green men.
In reality, they are yellow, but our sky (blue) makes them appear green.
Ergo, yellow men are real.
Simple science.
About the armadillo.
Can you even tell the difference between hair and a brain?
What do you think it looks like when you take out the brain and lay it on the table after the corpse has been rotting for a few days? That's why it was only done in winter.
And since it is also the seat of the soul, the cushion and the cloud bands.
There is no such thing as a sacred armadillo.
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
R. Sale > 18-01-2026, 09:50 PM
There are many interesting possibilities to consider. All those previous interpretations and investigative opinions. Regarding the nebuly line, however, that's not what this is. This is a valid, relevant, historical interpretation based on heraldry. And my opinion is *maybe* we should try to use that terminology and follow that interpretation - just for fun.
In one sense, it's a small matter of vocabulary. In another sense, it is a vast, new world of ideology - the old-fashioned kind.
There is a chronological history of illustrations:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The use of nebuly lines as a basic pattern was a predominant technique. Lots of Pizan. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 19-01-2026, 01:01 AM
(18-01-2026, 02:29 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's surprising that you didn't mention the little green men. Is it because Erich von Däniken just died? 10 January 2026.
Or because there are no little green men.
In reality, they are yellow, but our sky (blue) makes them appear green.
Ergo, yellow men are real.
Simple science.
Although that was clearly a mocking response, there is a point to be made here: Your argument seems to be closest to "Reductio ad absurdum", a subset, or sometimes element of which is Rhetorical Exaggeration: "In everyday argument, it involves taking an opponent's premise and exaggerating its implications to show how silly or untenable they are, demonstrating the original point is also flawed."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Of course the point is, it never demonstrates anything, only pretends to. An ironical aside to von Däniken, if I might name drop, I was asked to be a counter point to "alien theories" in an episode of the TV show Ancient Aliens in which they were planning to do a Voynich segment. I was to argue that it was NOT made by aliens, if that wasn't clear. Unfortunately I didn't make it to that show... I really wanted to meet the man. If someone here took my place, I'll be mad at you. When I was a child, I read his book "Chariots of the Gods" and thought it possible. But then I grew up.
Here is a list of fallacious arguments, BTW... I think virtually every one of them has been used, so far, in attempted defense of the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Paradigm: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:About the armadillo.
Can you even tell the difference between hair and a brain?
Yes.
Quote:What do you think it looks like when you take out the brain and lay it on the table after the corpse has been rotting for a few days? That's why it was only done in winter.
And since it is also the seat of the soul, the cushion and the cloud bands.
There is no such thing as a sacred armadillo.
Yes, but Aga, before refrigeration people also died in hot weather, and for that matter, in hot places on Earth, so I'm not sure that the proper handling of brains was "... only done in winter" ("Excuse me dad, you can't die NOW! Please wait until winter, when we can chuck your brain in the snow!"- my own stab at an Reductio ad absurdum... which actually isn't, because it makes sense, if you think about it).
But real the problem with your question, after your "Reductio ad absurdum" alien argument, is that I am not sure if you are being serious or not. Then I am caught between a rock and a hard place, because if you ARE serious, I don't want to diminish your ideas; and if you are still mocking me, I don't want to play the fool.
But I'll take a chance and assume you are being serious, and are making the point that a brain might be considered sacred... by somebody?... and illustrated on the nebuly cushion for that reason? Well I don't know, but good luck with that. Maybe you are right. But I personally don't think it is a brain... because it has and eye, ears, tail, and legs.
So we have armadillo, pangolin, sheep, lamb, dragon, catabolas (sp?), that "topcan" thing... forget what it is called... and now your "brain" as candidates. I still favor, by a wide margin, armadillo. Whether or not you were serious. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Aga Tentakulus > 19-01-2026, 02:34 AM
You've misunderstood something.
Autopsies (Latin: obductio) were performed at universities throughout Europe from the 14th century onwards, but only in winter.
The green aliens are an allusion to
seeing what you want to see. There is always a way to explain something, Tucker and co.
If you mention Atlantis, you should also think about aliens. Both are absurd.
You can believe in an armadillo.
1. It doesn't fit in the book. And it's not comparable to the other images.
2. Pillows and sky lines? The only time I've seen an animal with the lines was the bull as a star pattern. Again, no reason for an armadillo.
3. If you consider the VM to be a forgery, of course, then anything is possible for you. I don't do that, so it has to fit with the Middle Ages.
No Mexico, Atlantis, aliens, and no armadillos either. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 19-01-2026, 05:05 AM
(19-01-2026, 02:34 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You've misunderstood something.
Autopsies (Latin: obductio) were performed at universities throughout Europe from the 14th century onwards, but only in winter.
Ah! Autopsies! You should have explained this, why the brains were being removed from rotting bodies only in winter. NOW it makes perfect sense, thank you. But you ought to tell us if you are seriously saying you think the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal is a "brain". Do you?
Quote:The green aliens are an allusion to
seeing what you want to see. There is always a way to explain something, Tucker and co.
If you mention Atlantis, you should also think about aliens. Both are absurd.
You either know you are purposefully misstating my ideas, which is not nice for one thing, and also counter-productive to any useful discussion- or you are doing it innocently. Let me know which it is, OK?
Assuming the latter (innocence), no, I do not "mention Atlantis", not now, not ever. It was never part of any of my (3 major) hypotheses. For a time I did theorize that the Voynich was someone's early 17th century "homage", or art, or somehow influenced by Francis Bacon's fictional utopian work, "The New Atlantis". I was not the first person to suggest this, not that it matters. But others, then I, noted that the Voynich has many observed and suggested elements that also appear mentioned in Bacon's work. Among them are:
- Fantastic hybrid plants and animals
- Advanced optics
- Utopian cities (The Rosettes map is very similar to early illustrations of Utopias)
- Microcosm and Macrocosm
- Grafted plants (many Voynich plants appear to show stem grafting)
- The New World
- Glossolalia, in a book only readable by those spiritually viable
- New Atlantis mentioned in the Kinner/Kircher letter
- Medicinal cures, such as pills and baths
... those are off the top of my head. It has been a long time since I gave up that theory, but I still do believe the New Atlantis may have had some influence on Voynich when he created his forgery, but of course now believe those similarities are mostly do to Bolton, as they almost all also appear in his book, and more. In fact, Bacon's New Atlantis is mentioned in "Follies in Science in the Court of Rudolf II".
Anyway, point being, "Atlantis", as in the probably fictional island, mentioned in Critias as related by Plato, is most probably an invention (perhaps based loosely on some lost culture); while Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis", a fiction of course, has inspired much art and literature. That is, there are precedents for its influencing other works, and that is what I was exploring.
Quote:You can believe in an armadillo.
1. It doesn't fit in the book. And it's not comparable to the other images.
In the context of my hypothesis, it very much fits, as another reference to New World items, animals, plants, styles, which the Voynich is (arguably) rife with.
Quote:2. Pillows and sky lines? The only time I've seen an animal with the lines was the bull as a star pattern. Again, no reason for an armadillo.
3. If you consider the VM to be a forgery, of course, then anything is possible for you.
That is a straw man, as my theory in no way would allow "anything" to be possible. It is one specific type of forgery I suggest, with a very specific range of content, noted by me and many others, which fits one overriding context. You just claiming it allows "anything to be possible" is entirely incorrect.
The 1910 Forgery Theory: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:I don't do that, so it has to fit with the Middle Ages.
No Mexico, Atlantis, aliens, and no armadillos either.
Now that is fine, and your opinion, and I have no problem with that of course. But why do you get so upset about my ideas? Why do they bother you so much, if you think they are so ridiculous? And why do you feel the need to use mockery and sarcasm, and strawmen, and so on, when arguing against my theory? If it is so weak, why not explain why it is weak, instead of going on about aliens and Atlantis and so on, which have nothing to do with my theory?
And also, as always, I would love to see your overall hypothesis as to what the Voynich actually is. Is it online somewhere that you can point me to, so I can read about it? -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ioannestritemius > 27-01-2026, 09:49 PM
(08-01-2026, 01:38 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(08-01-2026, 07:23 AM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me save everyone some time. Each and every last letter contained in PUG 555-568 pertaining to Kircher's supposed Prague correspondents, plus Beinecke 408A, is a modern forgery.
This includes the two letters from Kinner to Kircher, PUG 562, both also using "â" meaning "from" in the same "incorrect" way.
Here is a 1653 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from Kinner to the famous mathematician and astronomer Christiaan Huygens:
Quote:Set quoniam ab eo tempore iam tertius mensis labitur, neque tamen responsus â te video, quem aliàs in vices alienis literis rependendas cognovi satis pronum [...] morbus aliquis â scriptione te prohibeat.
Translation: But since the third month has passed since that time, I still see no response from you, whom I have known to be quite prone to replying to other people's letters at other times [...] some illness may prevent you from writing.
Are all Kinner's letters fake? Is Kinner fake?
Indeed, the 28 letters by Kinner in the respective APUG-volumes are genuine. A cross-check against letters by Kinner printed in Vol. I of Huygens's Oeuvres, I, Correspondance (1888) confirms Kinner's idiomatic diacritics, especially "â" and "è" in both collections, also characteristic turns of phrase like "pace tuâ", salutations, letter signatures conform, even Kinner's seal recognizable on some of the letters (his coat of arms facsimilied in Correspondance). The Latin in the APUG-letters corresponds to that in the letters printed in 1888. – Which stands in stark contrast to the horrendous diacritics in the Barschius-letter. However, it has been suggested to me that post-humanism they could be employed not for grammatical reasons at all, but simply to differentiate the shape "u", both /u/ and /v/, from similar upstroke letters, like "n" (as still in 19th century German Sütterlin). The indiscriminate placement and formation of these signs, even for that purpose, remains difficult to comprehend, especially if Barschius, as the signature suggests, wrote the letter manu propria. Some other APUG-letters, like the Martinic-set, the German letters by Duke August and Johann von Lichtenstein, or the French one by the publisher Elsevier contain some extreme linguistic and orthographic allegr[i/os] di confusione – "Agosto Duca di Brunswjc & di Lunæbourg" = four languages; "Lünäbúrgk", which combines a German trema with a Germanified Latin "ae"; "Antonio Gontier mercante fiamengo" in Elsevier's letter (he refers to the Florentine publisher) = two languages. Martinic enciphered, for no apparent reason, the innocuous "lego" in a simplistic cross-Polybios à 4 (four angles of the cross paired 11, 12 etc.), the same cipher about which Johann Schega corresponds with Kircher as a "new invention". Andreas Schaffer uses quaint abbreviations for which even Capelli has no answer (yes, his Dizionario is limited to medieval abbr.). And Marci must have mumbled "succulata[m] bona[m] to his very inexperienced and inattentive amanuensis to drop the accusative endings, or to not overline the two "a". – Since it is difficult to surgically remove Kinner's letters from the same manuscript collection that contains so much semantic and orthographic mumbo-jumbo, logic dictates that I can no longer consider the volumes APUG Mss. 555-568 as forgeries. Apparently, 17th century linguistic standards varied as widely as the measurements taken of the famous total solar eclipse of 12 August 1654 by Kircher, Kinner, and Huygens (APUG Ms. 557, f. 239; Correspondance, p. 287). The German Jesuit Johann Jacob Balde published a satire about the event in 1662, with amusing pictures. People had time back then ... Kind regards, TE.