- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 8 hours ago
If
(10 hours ago)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(11 hours ago)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
Hey, Egg-man! No, not derailing anything, in my opinion. Discussion of the dating, origins, nature of a page that was possibly copied from the Voynich is certainly relevant. And of course I would accept any evidence the Voynich existed before 1908 (well, 1905) as evidence against Modern Forgery. The trouble is (for 1420 Genuine) that each time something new is found, like this page, it turns out to not be that evidence. But of course I am ready to look carefully at everything, and ready to concede I am wrong. In fact, it would save me time, and I could move onto other ventures, and ride my motorcycle more.
But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Prof. Paolo Bensi, 2013 Wrote:The chronological indications that we can draw from the results of the analyses, in light of our knowledge
of the history of materials, are as follows:
The pink dye, which has the characteristics of a synthetic substance, indicates a dating of the
analyzed layers later than 1856; these compounds are still in use.
The green tones:
- if the presence of Cobalt and Zinc green is assumed, the dating is later
than the 1830s;
- however, the presence of Titanium shifts the dating at least to the First World War,
when titanium white was put on the market;
- if, as seems almost certain based on the analyses, Cobalt titanate was used
(with Nickel as a possible accessory element), we know that the pigment was
patented in 1933.
Logwood ink, alone or with iron, indicates a date at least later than 1525:
this material was used until the Second World War, then went out of production.
It should be added that the analyses did not detect materials of the type expected in miniatures and
watercolor drawings prior to the eighteenth century, such as tannic inks with iron and/or copper, verdigris,
malachite, copper resinate, cinnabar, minium, orpiment, lead yellows, cochineal lakes.
If we compare ourselves with the investigations carried out by McCrone Associates on the copy of the
Voynich manuscript in New Haven, we see that among the most significant materials identified were:
iron-tannic inks, azurite, organic copper compounds (probable copper resinate), atacamite
(copper chlorides), lead oxide yellows or oranges; in this case, these are pigments of an
ancient type, not detected in the parchment under examination.
Summing up these indications, we can affirm, to complement the results and hypotheses of
Professor Baraldi, that the chromatic layers of the drawing under examination date back to the twentieth century, most
probably to the years between 1918-20 and the 1940s.
Certainly, the analyses themselves do not allow us to say that the entire painting was done in the 20th century, leaving the doubt that a 20th-century repainting occurred on an older base (not earlier than 1525, however), but apart from the ultramarine, and the particles of yellow ochre and calcium carbonate, present in all eras, no material has been found that can be defined as ancient, therefore the hypothesis of repainting appears highly improbable.
OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts. But as is always recommended, "Go back to the source". When we read the source... in this case the actual, scientific tests, we learn that this Fabrini Folio is most likely from between WWI and WWII, or just after the latter. So, mid 20th century, and no chance at all this was by Baresch/Marci/Kinner whatever. Actually, WWII did surprise me somewhat, because I thought it was more modern than that. And also, it should put to rest all the speculation on the Ninjas, back in 2016: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I didn't read through that entire thread, maybe I even chimed in back at the time, maybe someone finally put this to rest with the actual 2013 Bensi results, IDK. But since the issue of age is settled, it is not a Baresch copy, it is not relevant to the age of the Voynich as it post dates teh 1912 announcement, so to me, "case closed". Still a curiosity, no doubt, but it does not affect any of us, with any Voynich theory.
As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404. But here is the thing: Since we know it is post WWI, it could have been made several ways:
- If the same size, then on a light table from a printed out copy of f14v.
- If a different size, then using an "opaque projector". Those devices allow tracing any opaque by projecting it on a wall. I owned one for decades, mine was made in the 1930's.
- If a different size, then maybe by someone with access to the film strips which the Voynich's had prepared. They could have been projected in a "film strip projector". I own one made in the 1920's (I used to be a dealer in cameras and photographic equipment, and still have hundreds of items of all types). But this would have involved access to those film strips.
- If a different size, then the Camera Lucida, invented in 1807. I own one of these, mine made in the 1960's. I've never published it, and will, but I have an old article or blog post I've written about this device, in which I ask, "The Camera Lucida: Secret Tool of the Forger?". I did many experiments with it, and there are certain "tells" to illustrations made with it... such as darker areas of the original being hard to see, and therefore hard to copy. Another "tell" is that they can and often do distort on the vertical plane, as the original might be propped up, but leaning. This elongates the copy. But not usually on the horizontal, as a user would tend to have the original at least roughly parallel with the device. Here is mine in action. It can be used for copying 2d illustrations/photographs:
The thing is, one French manufacturer of the Camera Lucida sold over 5,000 examples in the early 20th century! They used to be very well known. And they fold up into a neat little case, so they could fit in a coat pocket and be carried into libraries and collections very easily.
I suspect the "Columbus Miniature" forgery, sold by Voynich to the British Library, was made this way. It is known this was copied from a called "America", by DeBry (sp?) or like that... when I copied the DeBry source engraving with my Camera Lucida, it showed some characteristics to the forged Columbus which I think may implicate that device in its creation. Likewise, the source map... an 18th century engraving of the Bianco World map was shown to be the source of the Vinland forgery (by John Floyd), and I think the Camera Lucida may have been used there...
... so that is my first suspect in this Fabrini Folio copy, but really of course I can't know. Sorry my answer got so long... but all these things relate, I think, to the nature of the Voynich story, in one way or the other.
TL/DR: The Fabrini Folio copy of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is to me an obvious post-WWI copy, probably a fan made art piece, of some talent, and made either with a light table, an opaque projector, or a camera lucida.
Just for jollies, semi-off topic, above is my drawing of a cicada made with my 1960's Camera Lucida. If you are interested in art, they are indispensable... even today!... for miniatures, landscapes, portraits... to hash out your proportions of any drawing. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
eggyk > 7 hours ago
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404.
Thanks for having a look! I also ran into many links that had 404'd. Salani did make a video where the page is in frame; perhaps I could work out its size by looking calculating against the other objects in the picture
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts.
Salani refers to the 18th/19th century in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Salani also posted the ink results on the forum, with the graphs and everything:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If anyone wants the original picture of the copy:
It certainly seems that the colouring was done after voynich unveiled the manuscript. Salani does say:(15-09-2017, 10:32 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that the ink used for the text and the shape of the plant is camping ink with iron added to stabilize the color and the oxidation of that ink is completly natural and is, at least,100 years old.
If that's correct -we only have his word on this- it would push youngest dating of the black ink to just before the unveiling. I suppose there's not really any way of checking. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 6 hours ago
(7 hours ago)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the size, I looked through all my own notes... what I was sent about it, and also all my copied emails between all the interested parties. I'm sorry, I could find nothing about the original size of the Fabrini Folio. And his website on the folio is now gone 404.
Thanks for having a look! I also ran into many links that had 404'd. Salani did make a video where the page is in frame; perhaps I could work out its size by looking calculating against the other objects in the picture
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK so clearly that is quite different than what was quoted by the good Mr. Battler, "18th through 19th centuries". I am sure, Battler, you are quoting some source accurately... I think you were referring to Mr. Fabrini's own posts.
Salani refers to the 18th/19th century in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(8 hours ago)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But first of all, I spent more time looking at my files on this page, and it turns out that, back sometime before 2017 I was sent the actual ink report which Battler refers to, and all the graphs showing all the elements found in the ink! But the thing is, back then I was asked not to share those publicly, and so I don't want to take a chance in doing so, even now, almost ten years later, without permission. However, since it is apparent that Mr. Fabrini has already shared the results of that report, I think it would be fine for me to do so, too. The tests were run in 2013, by a Mr. Bensi. Here is are his conclusions, translated by me, using Google Translate:
Salani also posted the ink results on the forum, with the graphs and everything:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If anyone wants the original picture of the copy: It certainly seems that the colouring was done after voynich unveiled the manuscript. Salani does say:(15-09-2017, 10:32 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.that the ink used for the text and the shape of the plant is camping ink with iron added to stabilize the color and the oxidation of that ink is completly natural and is, at least,100 years old.
If that's correct -we only have his word on this- it would push youngest dating of the black ink to just before the unveiling. I suppose there's not really any way of checking.
OH! So it turns out all of Salani''s cards have been on the table for some time, then. And like you say, we may never know the true origins of this copy, or when or why it was made. It is a interesting side-note, though... Rich. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Philipp Harland > 6 hours ago
Good God, this thread is still active? I would've expected it to die down by now. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 5 hours ago
(6 hours ago)Philipp Harland Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Good God, this thread is still active? I would've expected it to die down by now.
... "expected", or hoped?
The thing that I've learned, Philpp, is that whether people want to admit it or not, they have a nagging sense that modern forgery is a very real possibility. This is why the interest. Other theories are not considered remotely as possible as this one, so they get much less interest and attention.
Others, may think that there is nothing to Modern Forgery. It sounds like you may feel that way. That with a simple examination of the pros and cons, it will be easily dismissed. So they drop in in order to "get my mind right", like the Sheriff said to Hud.
I used to think so, too, by the way. I believed all the commonly stated counters to it being a modern forgery, but saw some things that concerned me. So I critically examined each one, and one by one they fell. And that also may be part of the interest here... I see many new people who don't know my arguments, or the basis for them, and they say things like, "But don't you know about A, B, or C?". Not realizing that I also looked at A, and B, and C... maybe even in 2009, or 2013, or 2019, whatever. I've done the digging, found the sources, and can give factually based responses... either differing opinions or facts that people didn't know... to these concerns.
And for old timers, too. Many may have dismissed Modern Forgery long ago, but usually not because they read the best arguments for it, but more because they retreated from the discussion, and have ignored it, assuming it is impossible without even knowing. This forum thread has been great for that... a place for newcomers and old timers like me to see those best arguments, and what the counters to them really are.
That that is also of interest. I think the "dirty little secret" is that many people do actually wonder if the Voynich is real or not, old or not. They want to be convinced it is real, but really are not certain it is. So they want to see the arguments pro and con. It is interesting to them, no matter what they come away thinking about it. And if they go away still thinking the Voynich 1420 and genuine, then at least they will be more informed, and know the arguments against their own theory. Maybe it will help some sharpen their own personal theories better, or come up with new ones.
It is good for me, too, and interesting to me. I've learned a lot from this thread, myself. It has honed my hypothesis by seeing some of the best arguments against it. Basically, it is a win-win for everyone, I think. And I thank Koen for creating it, actually. In the beginning I thought it was a way of isolating the concept of modern forgery, but it has turned out to be a major asset for everyone. For one thing, when I was arguing my theory outside this thread, I had to restrain many points I felt pertainent. The answers I gave, even though pared down, were still unwanted in those other threads. This dedicated thread gives me the opportunity to express completely and honestly how I see Modern Forgery, and that has been another reason it is a help to me and everyone.
But Philipp, probably the best reason of all for this thread, and the interest in it, is that it is totally, 100% voluntary whether or not you read it, or participate, yourself.
Rich