• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
• The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  ReneZ > 05-02-2026, 10:29 AM

  (04-02-2026, 08:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet.

  
  He does not seem to have added a new sheet on the Voynich MS. The J1022 is written on top of the torn bit, and also Anne Nill and Kraus wrote on the inside cover.
  
  He may have done this with some of the other manuscripts that were sold. We see it in the Boccaccio MS, digitally online here (PDF file): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Jorge_Stolfi > 05-02-2026, 01:18 PM

  (05-02-2026, 10:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He does not seem to have added a new sheet on the Voynich MS. The J1022 is written on top of the torn bit, and also Anne Nill and Kraus wrote on the inside cover.

  
  Yes for the "J102?" (what would that number mean?).  On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it seems to have been written on a sheet of paper (P0) that originally spanned the whole height of the cover, minus a couple of mm at top and bottom.  At some point, this P0 sheet was shaved off with a sharp blade, leaving only ~15 mm on each side.  These remnants are glued to the top and bottom folded-over edges of the (former?) vellum lining (V) of the outside front cover, "f0r", which are ~20 mm wide.
  
  I was referring to the sheet (P1) with the pencil writing "/ Bsa?e" and "De Ricci Census..." and the two "ketchup seal" stains.
  
  [oops hold on]
  
  The "ketchup seal" stains are on P1.  If P0 indeed was removed by Wilfrid after he got the book,  those stains cannot tell whether Marci's letter was attached to the book before the sale.  
  
  Besides, the line between the stains is tilted ~10 degrees from vertical.  The distance between their centers seems to be almost exactly 80 mm.  Is that compatible with the positions of the seals on the letter?
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Jorge_Stolfi > 05-02-2026, 01:34 PM

  (05-02-2026, 01:18 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "ketchup seal" stains are on P1.

  
  Also, looking closely at the images from the BL site, it seems that the "stains" are actually holes on P1, showing some vellum lining (U) of "f0v" under it.  
  
  As if whoever removed P0, or a later restorer, noticed two air bubbles between U and P1, and shaved them off with a sharp blade, like P0 was shaved off.   Is that possible?
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Dana Scott > 05-02-2026, 11:25 PM

  (05-02-2026, 10:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (04-02-2026, 08:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet.

  
  He does not seem to have added a new sheet on the Voynich MS. The J1022 is written on top of the torn bit, and also Anne Nill and Kraus wrote on the inside cover.
  
  He may have done this with some of the other manuscripts that were sold. We see it in the Boccaccio MS, digitally online here (PDF file): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Perhaps the J1022 is a safety deposit box/vault number, where the VMS was kept for many years in NYC.
  
  Regards,
  Dana Scott

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Battler > 05-02-2026, 11:36 PM

  - Proto57: At some point on this forum, an Italian member posted the screenshot of a copy of a Voynich Manuscript page that he bought from somewhere, and also showed the results of the ink analysis he had done on it, that dated the ink to roughly the 17th to 19th centuries. There's a thread somewhere on this forum with the photo of the page and the ink analysis graph. The page is, I believe, on paper, that has wax seal marks on it. Could that be one of the copied pages Baresch sent to Kircher? If yes, that would work against the manuscript being a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich.
  
  I also recall someone on this forum once saying that Kircher's big book had some illustrations inspired by the Voynich Manuscript's rosettes which, if true, would also work agaisnt the manuscript being a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  proto57 > Yesterday, 01:08 AM

  (05-02-2026, 11:36 PM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- Proto57: At some point on this forum, an Italian member posted the screenshot of a copy of a Voynich Manuscript page that he bought from somewhere, and also showed the results of the ink analysis he had done on it, that dated the ink to roughly the 17th to 19th centuries. There's a thread somewhere on this forum with the photo of the page and the ink analysis graph. The page is, I believe, on paper, that has wax seal marks on it. Could that be one of the copied pages Baresch sent to Kircher? If yes, that would work against the manuscript being a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich.

  
  Hi Battler: I am not sure, but I believe that page is the same which I was privately shown, along with a friend of mine on these forums (is it, ___?), back in 2013. It was shown to another mutual friend, Italian, by the man who claimed to have found it somewhere. I don't know if, even after all this time, I have the right to publish it, but I'll put up a small crop of the full page, and you can tell me if this is the one you are talking about:
  
     
  
  If that is it, then my opinion on it, from the time, still applies... that it was a bad copy of f14v. But now, when looking in my notes and old emails, I do see that the one I am referring to was publicly announced in 2016, and on this forum... and the name of the person who said he found it, "Fabrizio Salani". So again, is that the one you mean?
  
  If so, I also see that he had spent money to have forensic tests on the pigment run, and they came back modern, not 17th century. But I'll stop there, so we are talking about two different cases of found Voynich pages, you can correct me, and show me the one you mean, and the test results and who made them. But from what you tell us, this part, "... that dated the ink to roughly the 17th to 19th centuries.", unless that was through radiocarbon dating, and not chemical analysis, I don't think it would be a problem for the item to have been made EITHER in the 17th century, or this afternoon. But if showed definitively that it was made no later than the 18th century, then yes, it would counter my Modern Forgery theory.
  
  

  Quote:I also recall someone on this forum once saying that Kircher's big book had some illustrations inspired by the Voynich Manuscript's rosettes which, if true, would also work agaisnt the manuscript being a forgery by Wilfrid Voynich.

  
  Again from what you say, I have too little to go on to make a specific comment. And Kircher wrote many books. The problem with any such illustrative comparisons is that a modern forger has all these illustrations to copy from, and that is just about all they do! And even among the works of Kircher I do know of several such good comparisons... but then, whether the one you are referring to, or some one I have seen, that is a problem for genuine/1420, and not modern forgery, because Kircher was not even born when the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal" theory claims the Voynich was created. So no, in this case a good similarity to anything from Kircher's time would support a far later origin of the Voynich than the 1420 Genuine claims.
  
  But yes, I acknowledge that several illustrations associated with Kircher do have similarities to those found in the Voynich manuscript. If you can find the one you are referring to, I'd love to see it. Here is one of Kircher's microscopes, in fact... I believe he was the first person to see a living micro-organism through one, in fact... I think, before Leeuwenhoek? I could look it up but dinners ready! Here is Kircher's microscope. Look familiar?:
  
     

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  LisaFaginDavis > Yesterday, 02:28 AM

  (05-02-2026, 11:25 PM)Dana Scott Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (05-02-2026, 10:29 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (04-02-2026, 08:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet.

  
  He does not seem to have added a new sheet on the Voynich MS. The J1022 is written on top of the torn bit, and also Anne Nill and Kraus wrote on the inside cover.
  
  He may have done this with some of the other manuscripts that were sold. We see it in the Boccaccio MS, digitally online here (PDF file): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Perhaps the J1022 is a safety deposit box/vault number, where the VMS was kept for many years in NYC.
  
  Regards,
  Dana Scott

  
  J1022 was Voynich's stock number for the manuscript. He wrote stock numbers like this inside everything he offered for sale.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  Battler > Yesterday, 08:26 AM

  - proto57: Yes, it was Salani's, He posted a photo of the entire page somewhere on this forum back in 2016 or so. I believe 18th to 19th century was the most likely date range for the ink, with the 17th being maybe a possibility. And the wax seal remains showed a seal with a triangle with a G inside, that someone posited may be an indication the page had at some point been owned by a Freemason.
  
  As for the Kircher similarity - I'm positing the other way around - that it would indicate Kircher saw the Voynich Manuscript and based an illustration in one of his books on its rosettes page. I believe it was the big volcano dissection picture in one of his books - the smoke of the volcano resembled that seen in the rosettes, if I recall correctly, which could be either a coincidence or an indication that he had seen the manuscript.
  
  Edit: Found the Kircher illustration: .
  
  This is the volcano in the Voynich Manuscript: . The shape of the smoke is similar.
  
  Edit #2: And googling for Athanasius Kircher book, I also find some circular diagrams that remind me a bit of the Voynich rosettes as well.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  proto57 > Yesterday, 01:59 PM

  (Yesterday, 08:26 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- proto57: Yes, it was Salani's, He posted a photo of the entire page somewhere on this forum back in 2016 or so. I believe 18th to 19th century was the most likely date range for the ink, with the 17th being maybe a possibility. And the wax seal remains showed a seal with a triangle with a G inside, that someone posited may be an indication the page had at some point been owned by a Freemason.

  
  I see then, thank you. Yes, again I am familiar with that page. Well again, I think we would have to also see that there was some way that the ink could be proven to have been from the "18th or 19th" centuries, and not, for instance, just a smidgen a bit later and actually in 1910, to be supportive as a copy by Baresch and company... and not Voynich himself, or for him. I know of no such chemical analysis that could do that, as inks matching old formulas can be mixed at any time, and the distinction of dating would need to be so precise. And I also do not think radiocarbon dating would be able to precisely place an ink, if that was what is claimed, in such a recent era like that. But again, if you can find those tests I'm sure everyone would love to see them. Maybe I'll try to find them, if you can't. Who did them?
  
  As for the page itself, there is nothing about it that, in my opinion, evokes a 17th century authorship. Below you can see my own work back in 2013 on the left, which this morning, for this post, I have added an image of the real You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the right. In my 2012 image... if you look closely... I used "layers" in my graphics program to place Salani's image over a very lightened f14v. You can see that many of the elements line up perfectly, as though traced, while there are added elements such as a new leaf, and different roots, and so on. I think it was traced, either on a light table, with an opaque projector, or perhaps a camera lucida:
  
     
  
  There are many serious problems with accepting this as a 17th century copy of the genuine f14v: Why would Baresch or other man of the Carteggio change the roots and add a leaf, if trying to transmit the illustration to Kircher for proper identification? Why change the page number to 22? Where is the ink report definitively placing the origin in the 17th century? What paper is it on? Is it authentically old? And the style of the roots is distinctly modern to me, anyway.
  
  I am giving this some level of time and serious consideration again, after 12 years, but in revisiting the issue again I see why I, and everyone else who has seen it, has roundly dismissed it as some sort of prank, or "fan fiction" type exercise. I don't know why someone made this, but I have my suspicions. At the time, I remember suspecting it was some attempt to promote a Voynich book just then coming out. But I don't know. All I know is this is to me an obvious modern production, which has taken up far more of its share of the time of Voynich researchers than it ever deserved.
  
  

  Quote:As for the Kircher similarity - I'm positing the other way around - that it would indicate Kircher saw the Voynich Manuscript and based an illustration in one of his books on its rosettes page. I believe it was the big volcano dissection picture in one of his books - the smoke of the volcano resembled that seen in the rosettes, if I recall correctly, which could be either a coincidence or an indication that he had seen the manuscript.
  
  Edit: Found the Kircher illustration: .
  
  This is the volcano in the Voynich Manuscript: . The shape of the smoke is similar.
  
  Edit #2: And googling for Athanasius Kircher book, I also find some circular diagrams that remind me a bit of the Voynich rosettes as well.

  
  Thanks, and I'm glad you found that. And I see what you mean... it is a "Chicken/Egg" problem then, if one things one influenced the other, as in: Which came first? Yes, there are many illustrations in the works of Kircher, and from a great many other books which strongly resemble images in the Voynich. I have seen suggestions that this author/artist or that one was possibly privy to the Voynich at some time. In Kircher's case we have the Letters which are interpreted by many to mean he have it. There was also a suggestion that Tolkien saw it, and another I am sure you have not heard about, that Elias Vedder saw it. Why? Because the ONLY place an illustration of women holding strings attached to stars, other than the Voynich, is in Vedder's 19th century illustrations for The Rubyat of Omar Kayam: 
  
     
  
  So, did Vedder see the Voynich? It was suggested he must have, and was influenced to draw these women with stars on strings. BTW, they are holding the stars of Pleiades, as they are meant to be the "Seven Sisters", and of course Pleiades appears in the Voynich, too. But now look at the problem in front of us: A great many very similar illustrations from a great many works spanning hundreds of years- we can try and trace the supposed route of the Voynich to dozens of people who were influenced by it; or we can simply hypothesize that a forger in 1908 to 1910, surrounded by all these images was influenced by them, instead, and that is why all these similarities crop of. I believe it is far more reasonable to assume the latter, especially since Voynich himself was plausible surrounded by all of these illustrations. You can see a smattering of them in my blog post here:
  
  "Sources for the Voynich Forgery": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  And that is "not the half of it", just a smattering of a great many examples which many others, and I, have compiled. As for your "volcano" example, yes I am familiar with it, but I disagree that Kircher's illustrations are the best match, in this case. I rather prefer this one:
  
     
  
  ... especially since other illustrations from that book, an 1869 microscopy book by a Jabez Hogg also "happen" to match illustrations from the Voynich. If you see my above linked "Sources for the Voynich Forgery" you will see several, but by far, not all of them. And for your interest... I think before I noticed the striking similarity between the Voynich "Volcano" and the Jabez Hogg sponges, I wrote a 2012 post about this: "A Volcano in the Voynich" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  And BTW, it was Tim Tattrie who is chiefly responsible for seeing this detail in the first place, as it used to be obscured by the page's fold, and he was curious and asked Yale to disclose it for him.
  
  Anyway, this is already too long, but in my defense it is a far longer story, but one which is amply illustrated by my answer to the points you bring up, and which is brought up every time someone points out a very similar illustration to a Voynich one: Did that artist see the Voynich, or the same item the Voynich author saw, or did Voynich see the illustration and rudely copy it into a forgery? The shear number of cases tells me that the last is by a very long shot the most probable.
  
  But there is one more decisive factor to me, which I don't often... if ever?... discuss publicly: It is what I describe (tongue in cheek?) as "Voynich Theorem #1", which states, "For every case in which a good comparison is found between a Voynich illustration and an illustration or item outside of it, it will either be in a book which was published by 1909, or in a place with Voynich is known to have, or reasonably can be considered to have visited".
  
  Try it yourself. And ask yourself, why does this work? I know many reading this are scrambling to find cases which break my theorem, but they will be bad cases, bad comparisons. But you can practically trace Voynich's movements like pins in a map, and know what books he probably saw and owned, simply by looking at the best comparisons between the comparisons of illustrations in them. And the converse is true: If these comparisons are coincidence or paradeolia, then why nothing from the discovery of King Tut's Tomb, found in, I think, 1921? Why no item, un-illustrated, from the New York Metropolitan Museum by 1909? Why no art or object from Leningrad, or Madrid, or San Francisco, unless in print by 1909? If, I mean, this is all a coincidence, all these comparisons, why none that fall outside the grasp of Voynich?
  
  Because he copied all this stuff, is my answer. And that answer is much simpler than any attempt to explain how it all got into a genuine, 1420 Voynich, or conversely, how all these people were privy to that supposedly old Voynich, which was flitting about Europe, influencing dozens of people over centuries, while not leaving even the barest of traces during its travels.

• RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

  eggyk > 11 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 01:59 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the page itself, there is nothing about it that, in my opinion, evokes a 17th century authorship. Below you can see my own work back in 2013 on the left, which this morning, for this post, I have added an image of the real You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the right. In my 2012 image... if you look closely... I used "layers" in my graphics program to place Salani's image over a very lightened f14v. You can see that many of the elements line up perfectly, as though traced, while there are added elements such as a new leaf, and different roots, and so on. I think it was traced, either on a light table, with an opaque projector, or perhaps a camera lucida:

  
  Do we have the true size of that copied page, so that it can be compared to the VMS? This is the first time i've read about this, and I unfortunately have had a lot of difficulty sourcing a good version of the Salani image and still can't find a version with a true scale.  
  
  Anyway, I noticed that in your layered image many aspects of the text and plant do not line up, but upon doing the same thing in my graphics program you can make everything line up almost perfectly (With resizing of course, but I don't know the relative sizes of both).
  
  Knowing the true size would go some way in knowing how it was copied. Sorry if im once again derailing anything 
  
         
  
  edit: a higher res scan of this page would also be nice to do some post processing on, in case anything has been missed.
• Next Oldest Next Newest