I’d call it ‘caution’ rather than ‘skepticism’. Part of the cause for caution is that Bax is identifying the Voynich plant drawings as familiar, time-honoured plants from the Herbal tradition. But they’re so badly drawn that as mindfu pointed out upstream, another theory centres on identifying them as Central American plants.
Bax has certainly done his homework; he’s aware of all the pro-hoax arguments (e.g. the statistical properties of the text), and addresses them in his paper.
No number. Was refering to a Monty Python show where, repeatedly, it would stop, show a picture of a tree and a voice would intone: “The larch!” Which was confusing at first but eventually became hysterical. I believe they were applying Spike Jones theory of comedy: repeat something often enough, it becomes funny. To this day “The larch!” makes me giggle. So I guess that the number would definitely have to be more than 3.
There’s also something about the word acetaminophen that’s rather seductive. Just rolls off the tongue…
Ah, but that’s the thing y’see. It wasn’t just “The Larch”, but “Number X, The Larch”, voiced over - as you say - a picture of a tree (a Larch, one might assume) as in a slide show. X was a (monosyllabic, I believe) number which I cannot for the life of me remember. What’s the funniest monosyllabic number?
It is both number 1 and 3 in the slideshow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8nHaelWtc
Hoaxers are the third-oldest profession.
Or oldest, depending upon how you look at it.
There’s a sucker born every minute, and there always has been.
Ah, now your question makes sense! And so far it seems that the number is actually two numbers, to wit, 1 and 3. From ‘The Larch’
Edit. Dimmit. Somman beat me to it. Drat it all.
Also, I think that the funniest monosyllabic number is ‘zed’. But then, that’s just me and I get into wicked arguments about that in the pub.
Oh but my dear chap, much of the point about posting on BoingBoing is the abstruseness of shared cultural reference.
Also, thank you. Even though the estimable dagfooyo beat you to it, your estimablarity is under no threat.
I think it should be repurposed; the noise a blowhard spouting wharrgarbl makes when you choke 'em.
Your statements depend entirely on what you classify as a “Hoax”.
If you use “hoax” to refer to invented situations and fabricated evidence to support the acceptance of those situations as true, divorced from ulterior motives such as fraud or controlling people and the like, and distinct from mere rumors and hearsay which lack significant supporting evidence (faked or otherwise), then no, hoaxes are pretty recent.
If you instead use “hoax” to callously dismiss anything that isn’t objectively literally true, ranging from religion and philosophy to tradition and custom to mere differing interpretations and understandings of the world other then your own, then sure, such “hoaxes” are as old as time.
See “The Holy Bible”.
I really want this to be true. The Voynich Manusccript has fascinated me for years. To think it could actually be decoded and may contain a look in to a forgotten world view is wonderful.
I’ve always been disappointed by these things in the past. Here’s to hoping this isn’t one of those times.
I’d be pretty surprised to find out that con-artists are a modern invention. But that’s just my differing interpretation and understanding of the world.
I’ll also throw out that when I was more of a practicing performer (“performance artist” was the closest word I used, and that was applied poorly), “cons” and “gags” were usually the words I used to describe the core of a given piece (or “modal event”).
In the context of a 600-hundred-year-old item I’d lean more towards “hoax intended to separate some nobility from their gold” than towards “crazy art experiment with no precedent or antecedants” (where “hoax” and “con” are interchangeable). We certainly have evidence of art forgeries subsequent to the Voynich, with Michaelangelo’s Sleeping Cupid. I’ve no citations prior, but would be surprised if cons had not previously existed.
That’s just how I oscillate around an axis, but callous dismissers gonna callous dismiss.
NOTE: I am not asserting that the V.M. is a con, just that it could be, and is more likely to be a con than an outsider artwork.
The problem is hoaxes and cons are not interchangeable.
A hoax is fabricated evidence of something that doesn’t exist or that didn’t happen, but without ulterior motives. The point of a hoax is merely to influence what people believe, not to profit off of it. One famous example is the Spaghetti Tree hoax, where on April Fool’s Day in 1957 the BBC aired footage of what they claimed were Spaghetti trees being harvested in Switzerland.
A con is an attempt at falsehood, with or without evidence, designed to fool someone into giving up money, services, access, or other tangible benefits. One famous example is the many, many times various unscrupulous figures have “sold” people “London Bridge” (the name many people mistakenly associate with the famous Tower Bridge), either giving them false deeds or sometimes legitimate ones to unrelated bridges elsewhere officially named “London Bridge”, then taking the money and running.
You seem to be uninterested in using the word “hoax” accurately, and more interested in using it as a sort of insult against religion for some reason, and for some reason specifically against Christianity.
Religions, by their nature, are built on concepts that the authors hold to be true - if not literally true, then at least spiritually or philosophically true.
Hoaxes, by their nature, on built around known falsehoods that the authors do not hold to be true, propagated on for the sake of attention or ego.
If someone provided false evidence of an ancient Brittish cult of Cheese Worshippers, that’d be a hoax. If someone actually wrote a religious document about Cheese Worship in all earnestness, that’d be a religion, however odd or ephemeral it might prove in the end.
Oh my. Well flkj you too! you bloody alkjsk!
Historia Augusta.
Is that what I seem like? 'Cause I was wondering what I seem like.
Merriam-Webster defines hoax as:
I think that that’s accurate, certainly of how the Bible was used 600 years ago, if not originally. So, interested in accuracy!
Are you interested in how you seem? You seem uninterested in using the word accurately. For example, you say:
…which will come as some surprise to P.T. Barnum (lifetime profit hoaxer including the Fiji Mermaid and Joice Heth, among many others), Richard Adams Locke (author of the Great Moon Hoax, 1835), and George Hull (who saw quite a profit from his Cardiff Giant, 1869), just to name a few.
