Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The Voynich Manuscript
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> General Forteana
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
linesmachineOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Total posts: 1053
Location: Oxfordia UK
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2011 10:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carbon dating by Arizona university apparently gave a 95% confirment that the vellum itself dates to between1404-1438. The McCrone research institute confirmed that they believe the ink was added shortly afterwards.

*edit* sorry, should have added that this info comes from Wiki but I've googled around it a bit and there's a lot different sources backing it up.
Back to top
View user's profile 
bosskROffline
Thunder Lyger
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Total posts: 230
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 34
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 18-02-2011 17:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

AngelAlice wrote:
Uh, but it was written on old vellum wasn't it? I thought that was pretty much beyond dispute.

What I mean is: dating the vellum will not date the manuscript in the minds of all ”researchers”. If the vellum is dated to the 1400s and some crank is sure the document was written by John Dee, well, then the researcher will simply say that John Dee found some vellum that was already 200 years old and wrote the manuscript on that.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 10662
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2011 17:48    Post subject: Reply with quote

bosskR wrote:
AngelAlice wrote:
Uh, but it was written on old vellum wasn't it? I thought that was pretty much beyond dispute.

What I mean is: dating the vellum will not date the manuscript in the minds of all ”researchers”. If the vellum is dated to the 1400s and some crank is sure the document was written by John Dee, well, then the researcher will simply say that John Dee found some vellum that was already 200 years old and wrote the manuscript on that.


You're right - art forgers do this regularly. They get a really old piece of paper, vellum, board, canvas etc. and then do a painting. Sometimes they even paint over the top of an existing picture.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 18-02-2011 21:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus, the fact that vellum was a valuable commodity and often scraped clean to be reused at a later date. Known as a palimpsest. Although, I don't think that's the case, here. The scraping would leave evidence. Any forgers would probably have had to have found a whole blank vellum book.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Mister_AwesomeOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Total posts: 266
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 19-02-2011 05:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the Voynich Manuscript is just as interesting as a fraud as it is if it's what it seems to be. Whenever it was made, it was done with great craftsmanship and is a great piece of art.
Back to top
View user's profile 
proto57Offline
Grey
Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Total posts: 2
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-04-2011 23:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

linesmachine wrote:
Carbon dating by Arizona university apparently gave a 95% confirment that the vellum itself dates to between1404-1438. The McCrone research institute confirmed that they believe the ink was added shortly afterwards..


McCrone actually said that the ink was of a type which was used during the time that the vellum dated to, and that there was no evidence of anything modern in the inks. They did not say that they believed the ink was "...added shortly afterwards...". Although of the "correct" composition, it could have been added any time up until the Voynich was found, in 1912, or if the provenance is correct, up until about 1622.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Offline
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25737
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 25-05-2011 08:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

General summary of knowledge so far:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8532458/The-Voynich-Manuscript-will-we-ever-be-able-to-read-this-book.html
Back to top
View user's profile 
proto57Offline
Grey
Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Total posts: 2
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 25-05-2011 14:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
General summary of knowledge so far:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8532458/The-Voynich-Manuscript-will-we-ever-be-able-to-read-this-book.html


I'm afraid that article perpetuates several errors, though:

" However, previous ink analysis done by the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago suggests that it was placed on the parchment while it was relatively fresh. "

It is not sure where this erroneous claim originates, but it is not going to every go away, I think. Nothing in McCrone's results state anything like the vellum was "fresh", or "relatively fresh", or anything like that. They only determined that the ingredients of the ink were consistent for the time the vellum was prepared... and also consistent for inks used years and decades later. One could produce these inks this afternoon, in fact. There was no test performed, nor any result, which determined how soon after the vellum was made, that the ink was applied.

"Professor Gonzalo Rubio, a specialist in ancient languages at the University of Pennsylvania, agrees that the carbon-dating result is significant. "This shows us that it's not a forgery," he says. "It wasn't written by Voynich himself, as some people suspected. It's a genuine artifact from the early 15th century."

Why? Even assuming the ink was applied around 1420, why does this show it is not a forgery? No one "forged" anything in 1420? Or 1480? Or 1550? And also, how are the only two choices, "forgery" or "genuine artifact"? Whatever it is, it is a genuine artifact... whether a "real" 1420 herbal, or a work of gibberish from 1580, it is "genuine".

"The script itself is widely believed to be about alchemy, the medieval science with metaphysical and magical overtones, whose practitioners sought ways to turn base metals into gold."

Incorrect... not that the numbers matter, but alchemy is way down on the list, not "widely believed". I actually think is is somewhat influenced by alchemy, but this statement is wrong.

The article goes on like that, with many incorrect assumptions, guesses and claims... some baseless, and many, already disproven. What has happened, I think, is that when journalists have asked questions about the Voynich, they have asked the people surrounding the recent tests... who also are quite unaware of the history of the Voynich, and previous attempts, and so on. They are very new to it. For a much better overview of the history of the manuscript, read this:
http://www.voynich.nu/
It is not my site... it is a very good overview of the history of the Voynich, it's known provenance, and the many theories around it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Daftbugger1Offline
Thumb twiddler
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Total posts: 265
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 30-05-2011 17:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, I thought I'd read somewhere that the The Phaistos Disk was a fake. In The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4318911.ece
Back to top
View user's profile 
escargot1Offline
Joined: 24 Aug 2001
Total posts: 18745
Location: Farkham Hall
Age: 5
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 16-05-2012 20:36    Post subject: Reply with quote

Next Tuesday, 9pm, National Geographic Channel: New Ancient X Files, featuring 'the bizarre Voynich text'.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Offline
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 25737
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 16-05-2012 21:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daftbugger1 wrote:
Ah, I thought I'd read somewhere that the The Phaistos Disk was a fake. In The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4318911.ece

The Times is behind a pay-wall, so a bare-naked link tells most of us nothing at all!
Back to top
View user's profile 
Daftbugger1Offline
Thumb twiddler
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Total posts: 265
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 16-05-2012 21:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
Daftbugger1 wrote:
Ah, I thought I'd read somewhere that the The Phaistos Disk was a fake. In The Times http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4318911.ece

The Times is behind a pay-wall, so a bare-naked link tells most of us nothing at all!

Ah, it wasn't when I posted it. I'm not paying for The Times subscription!
Back to top
View user's profile 
JamesWhiteheadOffline
Piffle Prospector
Joined: 02 Aug 2001
Total posts: 6273
Location: Manchester, UK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 17-05-2012 09:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently came across some interesting ideas about the Voynich MS by a writer called Sean B. Palmer:

http://inamidst.com/voynich/


The months associated with the zodiac seem like a few tiny lights being turned on in a very large, dark room! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
WhistlingJackOffline
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Total posts: 4298
Location: The Sewers of The Strand
Age: 10
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 17-05-2012 14:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a very interesting letter in the new issue (FT289) featuring a screengrab showing an 18th century 'ritual horoscope' with what the correspondent claims to be the same font as that used in the VM.
Back to top
View user's profile 
DrPaulLeeOffline
Yeti
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Total posts: 85
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 05-06-2012 11:55    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it looks like it has the same font as the Voynich manuscript, its for a very good reason. Its from the manuscript itself:

http://www.voynich.nu/q10/index.html

- its f70v1
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> General Forteana All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group