09-04-2020, 03:53 PM
Hi, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You wrote (in the above locked thread):
"So you are going to ignore the minor differences?"
No, I don't ignore the differences (between the 1665/66 Marci letter, and last, genuine Marci letter dates and signatures). Of course there are differences. The vast majority of the content of both letters is different, so of course it would have to be. My point is simple, and clear: Large portions of these areas line up exactly, as if traced, with the notable exceptions of additional lines turning a "5" into a "6" (causing many decades of consternation), and a "0" into a "9" with a tail.
You are welcome to not consider this at least a bit troubling, but I do. And of course it is no island unto itself... these issues are endless, in the letter, the ms., and so on.
"I know people who can write the same phrase 20 times and have it so much the same you can pretty much lay them one on top of the other. Good fine-motor coordination and good muscle memory. Not everyone has it, but some do. I have come across a few manuscripts that are that way as well. One scribe was so precise you literally could drop the letters on top of each other and not see any difference. This is especially true of words and numbers that are frequently written, like the current date and a person's name and place of residence."
"To me, the examples you posted do not look the same. They DO look like the same handwriting, but each letterform is slightly different, just as one would expect for something written by the same person on another day."
Well you've given several counters to my point, but I think they may be irrelevent in the first case I noted (other writing), and contradictory in the last two: On the one hand, you point out people CAN write exactly the same; in the second, they are NOT exactly the same.
![[Image: marci_signature_compare.jpg]](https://i2.wp.com/www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/marci_signature_compare.jpg)
"I don't understand the logic of your argument."
I respect you disagree on my observation, but I think the logic is clear. And it is an accepted, frequent, proper and scientific tool in forensics: Comparisons of written documents, looking for evidence of forgery. Among these are tracings, because forgers often trace genuine items.
No, I am not saying, "The handwriting is almost identical, therefore it is a forgery??? Is that what you are saying?" I think I made it clear, several times, what I am saying. Tracing is a red flag of forgery, and the "found" letter lines up perfectly, in key aspects, with a genuine letter. This, and the seemingly added tails, to change day and year, are evidence of forgery. Not "therefore", but evidence.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You wrote (in the above locked thread):
"So you are going to ignore the minor differences?"
No, I don't ignore the differences (between the 1665/66 Marci letter, and last, genuine Marci letter dates and signatures). Of course there are differences. The vast majority of the content of both letters is different, so of course it would have to be. My point is simple, and clear: Large portions of these areas line up exactly, as if traced, with the notable exceptions of additional lines turning a "5" into a "6" (causing many decades of consternation), and a "0" into a "9" with a tail.
You are welcome to not consider this at least a bit troubling, but I do. And of course it is no island unto itself... these issues are endless, in the letter, the ms., and so on.
"I know people who can write the same phrase 20 times and have it so much the same you can pretty much lay them one on top of the other. Good fine-motor coordination and good muscle memory. Not everyone has it, but some do. I have come across a few manuscripts that are that way as well. One scribe was so precise you literally could drop the letters on top of each other and not see any difference. This is especially true of words and numbers that are frequently written, like the current date and a person's name and place of residence."
"To me, the examples you posted do not look the same. They DO look like the same handwriting, but each letterform is slightly different, just as one would expect for something written by the same person on another day."
Well you've given several counters to my point, but I think they may be irrelevent in the first case I noted (other writing), and contradictory in the last two: On the one hand, you point out people CAN write exactly the same; in the second, they are NOT exactly the same.
"I don't understand the logic of your argument."
I respect you disagree on my observation, but I think the logic is clear. And it is an accepted, frequent, proper and scientific tool in forensics: Comparisons of written documents, looking for evidence of forgery. Among these are tracings, because forgers often trace genuine items.
No, I am not saying, "The handwriting is almost identical, therefore it is a forgery??? Is that what you are saying?" I think I made it clear, several times, what I am saying. Tracing is a red flag of forgery, and the "found" letter lines up perfectly, in key aspects, with a genuine letter. This, and the seemingly added tails, to change day and year, are evidence of forgery. Not "therefore", but evidence.