Comments on: Pseudo-science and The Curse of the Voynich… http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/10/13/pseudo-science-and-the-curse-of-the-voynich The latest news, views, research and reviews on uncracked historical ciphers... Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:44:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Rene Zandbergen http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/10/13/pseudo-science-and-the-curse-of-the-voynich/comment-page-1#comment-121 Rene Zandbergen Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:29:23 +0000 http://www.ciphermysteries.com/?p=263#comment-121 Thanks, Nick, for this link. 'Skeptical' is really a euphemism for the very negative tone of the entire article, and quite a bit of the 'lack of progress' reported stems from incomplete knowledge of the author, as you also indicate. There is also a lot more in Schinner's article than just a confirmation of Rugg's work. In fact, that confirmation seems quite contrived. I wish I really completely understood that article, as I feel that it contains something valuable that I cannot quite grasp. Unfortunately, this 'confirmation' of Rugg doomed the article as the press jumped on it. Best wishes, RenĂ© Thanks, Nick, for this link. ‘Skeptical’ is really a euphemism for the very negative tone of the
entire article, and quite a bit of the ‘lack of progress’ reported stems from incomplete
knowledge of the author, as you also indicate.
There is also a lot more in Schinner’s article than just a confirmation of Rugg’s work.
In fact, that confirmation seems quite contrived. I wish I really completely understood
that article, as I feel that it contains something valuable that I cannot quite grasp.
Unfortunately, this ‘confirmation’ of Rugg doomed the article as the press jumped on it.

Best wishes, René

]]> By: nickpelling http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/10/13/pseudo-science-and-the-curse-of-the-voynich/comment-page-1#comment-120 nickpelling Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:48:55 +0000 http://www.ciphermysteries.com/?p=263#comment-120 Simply, the letters that were found relatively recently would have been unknown to a forger circa 1910: yet they describe (particularly Baresch's letter) the VMs in a very clear and evocative way. It's just a shame that the accompanying notes Baresch sent to Kircher have disappeared into the ether, as that would have been a slam-dunk. And I don't believe it is possible that someone could have forged the VMs and the Marci letter, as well as inserted a bunch of (also forged) letters in the Kircherian archive for researchers to dig up 80 years later. Perhaps in a novel - but not really in real life. Cheers, ....Nick Pelling.... Simply, the letters that were found relatively recently would have been unknown to a forger circa 1910: yet they describe (particularly Baresch’s letter) the VMs in a very clear and evocative way.

It’s just a shame that the accompanying notes Baresch sent to Kircher have disappeared into the ether, as that would have been a slam-dunk.

And I don’t believe it is possible that someone could have forged the VMs and the Marci letter, as well as inserted a bunch of (also forged) letters in the Kircherian archive for researchers to dig up 80 years later. Perhaps in a novel – but not really in real life.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

]]> By: infinitii http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2008/10/13/pseudo-science-and-the-curse-of-the-voynich/comment-page-1#comment-113 infinitii Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:23:17 +0000 http://www.ciphermysteries.com/?p=263#comment-113 Is there a reason why the Kircher letters could not refer to a completely different manuscript? I've always thought that the modern forgery theory had merit (although I would like it less if that were true), and while I could see if the manuscript was described at all it would prove it, but as far as I can see this isn't the case. Am I wrong? Is there a reason why the Kircher letters could not refer to a completely different manuscript? I’ve always thought that the modern forgery theory had merit (although I would like it less if that were true), and while I could see if the manuscript was described at all it would prove it, but as far as I can see this isn’t the case. Am I wrong?

]]>