I appreciate all of you explaining the process you used to create these MSI's, and for finally releasing them. And thanks, too, to Lisa Fagin Davis for posting them for everyone. This has been all really fascinating, and I think it will be potentially helpful to the field of Voynich research. But I do have a few points: 1) Gregory Heyworth explains that these MSI's were taken years ago ( 17:20 ), and they were mentioned at the 2014 event at the Folger, in DC. He says he "... had hoped, at that time, that there'd be... that it would ignite scholarly interest in it. In fact it was 'crickets', and that was quite sad". Actually, on the contrary, there was a great deal of interest in seeing these images back at the time from both amateur and "scholarly" Voynich circles. It was far from "crickets". But I suspect the disclaimer "scholarly interest" is the reason for the disconnect here, because in my experience, there is an often applied filter which excludes any and all opinions outside of the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Paradigm". There has been expert scholarly opinion on the Voynich which runs counter to that Paradigm, going back for decades, but because it does not agree with that Paradigm in its entirety, it has been excluded. These scholars have been kept from important findings and data. The MSI's are another, perfect example of this. That being said, many amateurs, such as myself, have been kept from this information... along with the Radiocarbon Report, which took me well over a decade to have released. And there is still other data which is being kept from the public. Yet, like the scholars who might disagree with the 1420 Paradigm, many amateurs have also added greatly to our knowledge of the manuscript. I, myself, have found many things in my research which have added to the story of the Voynich, and our understanding of it. Yet I like the others are still kept from much information. 2) A good example of this problem came next, when Gregory also said that the Voynich has been "poison", and that it "tainted" the rep of anyone involved with it. He describes that Zyats received two contacts a month from "crazies", and explains that the Voynich's reputation was "rehabilitated" by LFD. The "rehabilitation" described actually means scrubbing the field of participants and theories that challenge the 1420 Genuine Paradigm. I reject, strongly, the characterization of these as "crazies", and also feel that this attitude is detrimental to the universal quest to find answers to what the Voynich actually is. For one thing, keep in mind that the very people who reject Paradigm challengers as "crazies" actually have virtually NO answers of their own! They, just like all of us, admit to being baffled by many aspects of the Voynich. So while they insist tests and resulting data should be kept only for approved "scholarly interest(s)", they still offer few acceptable answers of their own. As an example of this problem, take Janick and Tucker, respected botanists, who believe they have identified many "New World" plants. And long before them, Charles Singer, Panofsky, Torresella, O'Neil, Steele, Peterson, and other botanists, herbal and medicinal history experts, gave date ranges, styles, meaning of content, and geographic origins, all well outside the range of the eventual dating of the vellum. So Gregory seems to feel that this "rehabilitation", mostly due to the work and interests of Lisa, has removed a sort of stigma. I see it very differently. I see attempts to control the image of this manuscript, of cleansing it of "crazies"... i.e., Paradigm-challenging... ideas and investigations, is actually very harmful to learning its secrets. In my opinion, a true "rehabilitation" would be to reverse these rejections, and to actually allow everyone to speak without excluding, mocking or demonizing them. But most importantly, to actually share ALL the data on the Voynich with them, and the rest of the public. 3) Gregory explains that (starting about 23:30) that the style of certain numbers can be dated, and that this means, "And so this argues for an earlier thing. So the whole Columbus thing [the idea that this might be post-Columbian]... that's not true". But of course this is incorrect, because characters of any age can be applied to any item after that age, and up to any time up to this afternoon. The dating of the style of any feature only gives an earliest possible age; it does not in any way exclude a later date of creation. There is another problem here, beside the one I just stated: I have long noted that any dating which matches the preconceptions within the strictures of the 1420 Paradigm is "allowable", and yet the many cases of style and content which are anachronistic to that Paradigm are simply ignored. That is, old content matches are incorrectly used as proof of age, as was done there, and then any newer content is dismissed as coincidence, pareidolia, wishful thinking, or "added later". Why? Because, of course, you can have old content in a newer item; but you cannot have newer content in an older one. And the Paradigm says it is older. Any newer comparison is a challenge to that Paradigm, and cannot be allowed. 4) Using only one person to pick which pages to scan was, I think, a terrible mistake. Other investigators, both amateur and expert, if asked to participate would probably have chosen many different ones (well except for f1r and f114v, we all wanted those). The theory held by Lisa may be the most "popular" one, but it is far from from the only one. I can think of at least ten others who, because of their different hypotheses of what the Voynich may be, would have chosen different leaves to scan than Lisa did. So, in effect, if choices such as these are made only by people who believe the Voynich one thing, the many people who believe it might be something very different have been kept from testing for the data which may or may not support those ideas. But, we will never know. As the old adage goes, "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". If you only think the Voynich is old and genuine, then everything you test for, and find, and accept when found, will continue to convince you it IS old and genuine. 5) On her blog post announcing the release of the images, Lisa Davis states, "(there may also have been images taken of a few other pages, but those are TBD)". I'm curious why, if still other MSI images have been made, that these have not been released? And also, will they be released, and if not, why not? If anyone, at one time, mistakenly thought there were "crickets" over these images, and now, as stated, they know there is a great deal of interest... and there is... then please release them. Again, I think that the work done here is marvelous. But clearly and strenuously object to the previous and still current reluctance to release data, through the fear that the "wrong people", i.e. the "crazies" will see it, and that they might come to opinions other than those found "acceptable" to the believers in the limits of the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Paradigm. Yes I know those who feel this way think that they are somehow protecting the reputation OF the Voynich, and of those closely involved in it... and probably, for that matter, the reputation of the institution which owns it. But that is not science, that is politics. And it is also, in my opinion, among the biggest reasons that the Voynich has not been solved yet. And if I am correct, and the answer to what the Voynich is lies outside of your carefully defined and fiercely protected paradigm, then you are not "protecting" the reputation of the manuscript at all, but rather, trying and failing to create a false image of what it really is.
as a German Biologist - this fascinates me from the first second I saw this story on German TV in 2011 - and wondering - how that fits into the Occult East European Tradition around Prag - and may be the young Leonardo making his first Comic and sell it as a Magical Grimoire... it was evident to me - there is no “Code” to crack - it is all random gibberish... I see it as a fancy marvelous adorable precious Comic - may be the BEST ever created...
It is rather depressing to see that the Beinecke library supplied Prof. Easton with so much out-of-date and erroneous information. Those section descriptions, like the 'Columbus' theory have already been addressed and debunked. The 'biology' notion dates from 1921 and was debunked in the same year - including by an article by the editor of Scientific American. The 'Columbus' theory depends very heavily on imaginative interpretation of the drawings, and does not agree with current understanding of where Columbus went, and when. Speaking as an iconographic analyst with more than forty years experience, there is nothing about the drawings which requires a date later than the first four decades of the fifteenth century. I have been actively researching Beinecke MS 408 for more than a decade, and have shared much of that work in summary form. As I say, it's depressing to see that so much misinformation and out-of-date, unfounded and fantastical ideas are still being promoted. Thank you for these scans, though. Good of you to post it.
I appreciate all of you explaining the process you used to create these MSI's, and for finally releasing them. And thanks, too, to Lisa Fagin Davis for posting them for everyone. This has been all really fascinating, and I think it will be potentially helpful to the field of Voynich research. But I do have a few points:
1) Gregory Heyworth explains that these MSI's were taken years ago ( 17:20 ), and they were mentioned at the 2014 event at the Folger, in DC. He says he "... had hoped, at that time, that there'd be... that it would ignite scholarly interest in it. In fact it was 'crickets', and that was quite sad".
Actually, on the contrary, there was a great deal of interest in seeing these images back at the time from both amateur and "scholarly" Voynich circles. It was far from "crickets". But I suspect the disclaimer "scholarly interest" is the reason for the disconnect here, because in my experience, there is an often applied filter which excludes any and all opinions outside of the "1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Paradigm". There has been expert scholarly opinion on the Voynich which runs counter to that Paradigm, going back for decades, but because it does not agree with that Paradigm in its entirety, it has been excluded. These scholars have been kept from important findings and data. The MSI's are another, perfect example of this.
That being said, many amateurs, such as myself, have been kept from this information... along with the Radiocarbon Report, which took me well over a decade to have released. And there is still other data which is being kept from the public. Yet, like the scholars who might disagree with the 1420 Paradigm, many amateurs have also added greatly to our knowledge of the manuscript. I, myself, have found many things in my research which have added to the story of the Voynich, and our understanding of it. Yet I like the others are still kept from much information.
2) A good example of this problem came next, when Gregory also said that the Voynich has been "poison", and that it "tainted" the rep of anyone involved with it. He describes that Zyats received two contacts a month from "crazies", and explains that the Voynich's reputation was "rehabilitated" by LFD.
The "rehabilitation" described actually means scrubbing the field of participants and theories that challenge the 1420 Genuine Paradigm. I reject, strongly, the characterization of these as "crazies", and also feel that this attitude is detrimental to the universal quest to find answers to what the Voynich actually is. For one thing, keep in mind that the very people who reject Paradigm challengers as "crazies" actually have virtually NO answers of their own! They, just like all of us, admit to being baffled by many aspects of the Voynich. So while they insist tests and resulting data should be kept only for approved "scholarly interest(s)", they still offer few acceptable answers of their own.
As an example of this problem, take Janick and Tucker, respected botanists, who believe they have identified many "New World" plants. And long before them, Charles Singer, Panofsky, Torresella, O'Neil, Steele, Peterson, and other botanists, herbal and medicinal history experts, gave date ranges, styles, meaning of content, and geographic origins, all well outside the range of the eventual dating of the vellum.
So Gregory seems to feel that this "rehabilitation", mostly due to the work and interests of Lisa, has removed a sort of stigma. I see it very differently. I see attempts to control the image of this manuscript, of cleansing it of "crazies"... i.e., Paradigm-challenging... ideas and investigations, is actually very harmful to learning its secrets. In my opinion, a true "rehabilitation" would be to reverse these rejections, and to actually allow everyone to speak without excluding, mocking or demonizing them. But most importantly, to actually share ALL the data on the Voynich with them, and the rest of the public.
3) Gregory explains that (starting about 23:30) that the style of certain numbers can be dated, and that this means, "And so this argues for an earlier thing. So the whole Columbus thing [the idea that this might be post-Columbian]... that's not true".
But of course this is incorrect, because characters of any age can be applied to any item after that age, and up to any time up to this afternoon. The dating of the style of any feature only gives an earliest possible age; it does not in any way exclude a later date of creation. There is another problem here, beside the one I just stated: I have long noted that any dating which matches the preconceptions within the strictures of the 1420 Paradigm is "allowable", and yet the many cases of style and content which are anachronistic to that Paradigm are simply ignored. That is, old content matches are incorrectly used as proof of age, as was done there, and then any newer content is dismissed as coincidence, pareidolia, wishful thinking, or "added later". Why? Because, of course, you can have old content in a newer item; but you cannot have newer content in an older one. And the Paradigm says it is older. Any newer comparison is a challenge to that Paradigm, and cannot be allowed.
4) Using only one person to pick which pages to scan was, I think, a terrible mistake. Other investigators, both amateur and expert, if asked to participate would probably have chosen many different ones (well except for f1r and f114v, we all wanted those). The theory held by Lisa may be the most "popular" one, but it is far from from the only one. I can think of at least ten others who, because of their different hypotheses of what the Voynich may be, would have chosen different leaves to scan than Lisa did.
So, in effect, if choices such as these are made only by people who believe the Voynich one thing, the many people who believe it might be something very different have been kept from testing for the data which may or may not support those ideas. But, we will never know. As the old adage goes, "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". If you only think the Voynich is old and genuine, then everything you test for, and find, and accept when found, will continue to convince you it IS old and genuine.
5) On her blog post announcing the release of the images, Lisa Davis states, "(there may also have been images taken of a few other pages, but those are TBD)". I'm curious why, if still other MSI images have been made, that these have not been released? And also, will they be released, and if not, why not? If anyone, at one time, mistakenly thought there were "crickets" over these images, and now, as stated, they know there is a great deal of interest... and there is... then please release them.
Again, I think that the work done here is marvelous. But clearly and strenuously object to the previous and still current reluctance to release data, through the fear that the "wrong people", i.e. the "crazies" will see it, and that they might come to opinions other than those found "acceptable" to the believers in the limits of the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal Paradigm. Yes I know those who feel this way think that they are somehow protecting the reputation OF the Voynich, and of those closely involved in it... and probably, for that matter, the reputation of the institution which owns it.
But that is not science, that is politics. And it is also, in my opinion, among the biggest reasons that the Voynich has not been solved yet. And if I am correct, and the answer to what the Voynich is lies outside of your carefully defined and fiercely protected paradigm, then you are not "protecting" the reputation of the manuscript at all, but rather, trying and failing to create a false image of what it really is.
Remember film? I miss the days of film. I know, I know...but I love to see it. It looks great and you never have to count pixels,
That English Psalter palimpsest is AMAZING!
as a German Biologist - this fascinates me from the first second I saw this story on German TV in 2011 - and wondering - how that fits into the Occult East European Tradition around Prag - and may be the young Leonardo making his first Comic and sell it as a Magical Grimoire... it was evident to me - there is no “Code” to crack - it is all random gibberish... I see it as a fancy marvelous adorable precious Comic - may be the BEST ever created...
It is rather depressing to see that the Beinecke library supplied Prof. Easton with so much out-of-date and erroneous information. Those section descriptions, like the 'Columbus' theory have already been addressed and debunked. The 'biology' notion dates from 1921 and was debunked in the same year - including by an article by the editor of Scientific American. The 'Columbus' theory depends very heavily on imaginative interpretation of the drawings, and does not agree with current understanding of where Columbus went, and when. Speaking as an iconographic analyst with more than forty years experience, there is nothing about the drawings which requires a date later than the first four decades of the fifteenth century. I have been actively researching Beinecke MS 408 for more than a decade, and have shared much of that work in summary form. As I say, it's depressing to see that so much misinformation and out-of-date, unfounded and fantastical ideas are still being promoted. Thank you for these scans, though. Good of you to post it.
Yes; if you're interested yourselves, then study the pages.
These clowns probably no more than anyone else.
Hoax.