RE: VMs: RE: RE: RE: Yet another page

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce Grant wrote, in response to John Groves comments:

> John Grove wrote:
>
> >         The possibility that order wasn't important to the
> author has to insinuate
> > that the content on each folio or at least each sheet of vellum
> is independent of
> > its surroundings because the neighbouring folios were not
> pre-determined.
>
> Unfortunately, it  could also be because the pages are
> meaningless (part of a hoax),
> though I hope not.

Every bit of evidence diligently gathered by so many people points to
intelligent construction, meaningful, systematic, deliberate, insightful,
and capable of relaying real information.  In fact, numerous statistics
indicate that real information is actually contained in these pages, from
title, label, content, context, and obvious thought progression.  Viewed as
a compendium with drawings and text, I've yet to see any statistic that
indicates systematic "hoaxterism", by any definition, and I'll change my
opinion if you can produce any account from known VMS statistics that
implies the rest of the statistics are biased or skewed by a specific
mechanism.  Until this happens, I can only assume that the "hoax" theory is
simply the product of those with poor digestion (of the facts).

> Even if the pages are interrelated, I don't think the task of
> figuring which pages are
> going to end up where in the volume is that daunting, is it?
> Printers face the same
> problem all the time, I believe, and have mnemonic devices for
> keeping track.

The question here is whether the order was decided before the bifolios were
written, or decided later, especially in the early stages of manuscript
construction.  John has been of the opinion that some of these things were a
later reshuffling of leaves, and I tend to concur, only from a different
angle, using a different set of "facts" to reach my conclusions.  What's
exciting about this is that each of us gets to approach something from a
different angle, converge in the middle, compare notes and arguments, and
mutually improve our understanding of our study by collaboration of effort.
In this case John spent a great deal of time in his analysis, and I have
done the same in mine.  I've supported some of his assumptions and offered
bias toward others.  He in turn tempers my own work through his, and offers
bias on my own work.  We will both benefit from the experience, and VMS
research as a whole will also benefit.

Bruce, this comment is not directed at you, so take no offense -

Only three books have had so many man-hours expended on them in an effort to
gain an understanding - The highest by far is the Bible.  Second to that,
Shakespeare's First Folio, and next to that, the Voynich Manuscript.  (This
is of course only from an English-speaking sense, and as of 1971
Shakespeare's First Folio was considered second in line only to the Bible,
time that has been made up by the last 12 years of VMS investigation.)

In deference to all the highly qualified people who have spent a greater
part of their lifetime researching and identifying different elements, is it
fair to even consider the "hoax" theory until you've done the same amount of
work as any other on this?  Don't you think that at one point or another one
or more of us would sit down and proclaim that this is in fact a "hoax"?
After all this, the very idea that a "hoax" was perpretrated would certainly
be the one thing to set the formulations of a multitude of minds on their
very end, and if it were true, we'd all deserve it.  A coup indeed....

The problem with that is that, just like any other theory, you'd actually
have to do the work and present the proofs that make your "hoax" theory
viable, something unlikely to come from people who readily espouse the
"hoax" theory.  You'd have to systematically address, encompass, and explain
all other work before you, incorporating ALL aspects of Voynich research and
statistic into your theory.  You'd have to have a working knowledge of ALL
current Voynich research in order to refute it, and if that were the case,
it's almost impossible that you would still subscribe to the "hoax" theory
at all.  My assessment - the better the understanding of the facts, the less
likely you'll advocate the "hoax" theory.  Conversely, the less
understanding of the facts, the more likely you'll advocate the "hoax"
theory.  Draw your own conclusions.

GC
















______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list