+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis (/thread-5008.html)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 04-02-2026
""
(04-02-2026, 08:27 PM)eggyk 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.(04-02-2026, 07:10 PM)eggyk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I can tell, it folds nicely into a pocket, similar to the first two examples although the wax would have been completely inside.
Apart from the folding, there is the problem that, AFAIK, the lining of the front cover was removed by Wilfrid and eventually replaced by a new blank sheet. If so, any stains on the new lining will not be evidence that the letter was originally attached to the book.
(And besides I wonder if 400-year-old seal wax can still stain anything.)
All the best, --stolfi
If the letter was folded this way, theres no reason why it needs to match marks on the inside. It could have just been loose, right?
But the reason I mentioned this is to show that the letter could have been folded in a natural way that makes sense (and could explain the apparent ripping on the left side). The other issues are another matter.
Well our comments crossed, and you probably have seen my opinion on the results of your (excellent) folding experiment: I disagree that the results "make sense" in any real context. Certainly not as a letter or envelope, but even as a "pocket"... which would not for any reasonable explanation have an address on it, then. It was clearly meant to look like a letter or envelope, but is, in reality, not and envelope nor letter in any known sense.
As for this, though, "If the letter was folded this way, theres no reason why it needs to match marks on the inside. It could have just been loose, right?"
The thing is, there are many different reasons something is of importance, the reasons are not always the same, nor always apparent. In this case the importance of your observation about the seals not needing to match is this: To counter the already debunked claim that they do! No, they don't. Yet, we still see that incorrect claim being used in lectures, books, blogs, comments, whatever...
So what you say may be true... in an empirical sense it does not matter that they don't line up... but it matters to show how false narratives are created, disseminated, and then, believed and repeated. Most of the "construction" of the "image" of the Voynich is made of such vaporous claims, which are either wrong, or not known, or even having the opposite implication of the ones promulgated. No, the seals don't line up. No, the construction is not normal for 1420. No, the materials are not right for 1420. No, the content is not (all) right for 1420. No, there is no provenance. No, Wildmann probably has nothing to do with it. No, it didn't appear on a list from 1903. No, the Carteggio was not under lock and seal. No, the experts did not pick 1420. No, the ink is not perfect for Medieval ink.
But... sense my frustration?... the next time we see a "description" of the Voynich, in voice or in print, we will hear, or read, "Their is nothing about the Voynich manuscript that is at all usual nor suspicious. The construction is perfect, except for what Kraus did. The ink is perfect, the parchment is perfect, there are no corrections, it shows signs of meaning, and the provenance shows, beyond all doubt, that the Voynich is a genuine, 15th century manuscript..." and on and on. Oh, and "The Marci letter is perfectly normal, and was found by Voynich after the purchase of the manuscript attached by two seals, which fit perfectly with the two seal marks found in the inside of the cover, and the letter reflects, through the scribe, the bad Latin of Marci".
OK rant over. But it's true, that is what will happen. And by the way, the rant was not at all directed at you, eggyk, you took honest pictures, which are there for anyone else to see and judge for themselves, and kudos for that. It is directed at a "self healing" world of Voynich scholarship, which erases, in real time, any actual problems, even though they are right there in front of us... many, not even speculative, but factual, actual problems... such as the letter not folding, the seals not lining up, and the million other things I also rant about.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - eggyk - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - oshfdk - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - eggyk - 04-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 05-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 05-02-2026
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-02-2026