Jorge_Stolfi > 8 hours ago
Jorge_Stolfi > 8 hours ago
Mauro > 7 hours ago
(8 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If MFT were true, there would be no point in trying to decipher MS408, since its contents would be gibberish or uninteresting.
ReneZ > 6 hours ago
(8 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.F4: In ~1911, Voynich acquired hundred of books from the Jesuits in Rome. Evidence: accounting records of the Jesuits.
(8 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.C2: Sinapius ever owned MS408.
(8 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In particular, the only evidence for C2 is the signature on f1r; but that is not good evidence, because there is no record of the signature having been seen by anyone before Voynich obtained MS408.
Kaybo > 4 hours ago
(8 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi all, I am creating this thread for a theory that is quite distinct from the Modern Forgery Theory, even though it potentially involves foul play by Voynich.
Jorge_Stolfi > 3 hours ago
(6 hours ago)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fact check: the best guess [Voynich acquired] 30-ish [books from the Jesuits], as explained here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:An 'ex libris' is generally good evidence that a certain person owned a book.
Quote:I can see that this is an important point for your hypothesis that book A is not MS408, as it strongly links MS408 to Prague.
Quote:With respect to [C3] and [C4], I guess you will agree that they held one of the two.
Jorge_Stolfi > 2 hours ago
LisaFaginDavis > 2 hours ago
Jorge_Stolfi > 1 hour ago
(2 hours ago)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In order for the Sinapius signature to have been faked by Voynich, he would have had to have written it, scraped it away, and then added the "liver of sulfur" reagent to make it legible, damaging the book in the process. Why go to all that trouble and risk?
Quote:Same goes for the Marci annotations on f. 1r.
Quote:The lack of external, supporting evidence does not surprise me at all and does not make me suspicious. Nearly every medieval manuscript has holes in its provenance.
Quote:I would be more suspicious if the provenance had no uncertainties at all.