The Voynich Ninja

*If* it's a 20th or 21st century copy, there are a limited set of options for the source it was created from given that it appears to have been copied using some sort of optical projection:

1) From the object itself -- vanishingly small probability once Yale acquired it, maybe pre-Krauss (but I'd say an unlikely maybe).

2) From the rotographs of f1-56 deposited with the British Library. This can be eliminated because f14v/f15r are missing from the scans (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). 

3) From an n-th generation copy of the pre-Yale photos (these got passed around prior to Yale posting the color scans online because before they gave Takahashi permission for his transcription it was an explicit condition of obtaining a copy of the Yale microfilm/copyflo that it couldn't be used to create a machine-readable transcription). I don't know what You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looked like in these.

4) From the Yale microfilm or a copyflow print from that. This is a screenshot from a PDF containing scans of a copyflo copy from the old Yale microfilm (so some degree of degradation relative to the original copyflo) of f14v: 
[attachment=14923]

Are there any features in the copy of the page (copying errors in the text in areas where the copyflo is hard to read, for instance, or matching distortion relative to Yale's color scans) pointing to use of the Yale copyflo?

(and, of course: 5) From one of the sets of color scans Yale did.)

(02-12-2016, 08:28 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, nothing about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the left resembles 15th-century works—not the pigments, not their application, not the style of drawing, not the way the pen is used or the ink (it looks more like India ink than gall ink), or the way the hatching is applied, but it hit me out of nowhere (while I was looking at an unrelated 12th-century manuscript) that something about the roots of the claimed VMS page nevertheless reminded me of Spenser MS 65 (middle left), Cadamosto (middle right), and a few of the other illustrators working in the late 15th and 16th centuries. The one on the far right, from Augsburg (BSB Cod.icon.26, c. 1520s), is probably the most similar in terms of the hatching and the light application of pigment to the root.

Back in April 2021 you teased further thoughts on potential illustrators of the Salani page (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and then you had a several year hiatus -- do you have further thoughts you have recovered and are willing to share?

Unfortunately, JKP left Voynich research some time ago (went into local politics if I understood correctly). Unfortunately, he never got around to telling us what he thought about the parchment. We may never know who he had in mind.

(29-03-2026, 02:47 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.*If* it's a 20th or 21st century copy, there are a limited set of options for the source it was created from given that it appears to have been copied using some sort of optical projection:

1) From the object itself -- vanishingly small probability once Yale acquired it, maybe pre-Krauss (but I'd say an unlikely maybe).

2) From the rotographs of f1-56 deposited with the British Library. This can be eliminated because f14v/f15r are missing from the scans (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). 

3) From an n-th generation copy of the pre-Yale photos (these got passed around prior to Yale posting the color scans online because before they gave Takahashi permission for his transcription it was an explicit condition of obtaining a copy of the Yale microfilm/copyflo that it couldn't be used to create a machine-readable transcription). I don't know what You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looked like in these.

4) From the Yale microfilm or a copyflow print from that. This is a screenshot from a PDF containing scans of a copyflo copy from the old Yale microfilm (so some degree of degradation relative to the original copyflo) of f14v: 


Are there any features in the copy of the page (copying errors in the text in areas where the copyflo is hard to read, for instance, or matching distortion relative to Yale's color scans) pointing to use of the Yale copyflo?

(and, of course: 5) From one of the sets of color scans Yale did.)

Yes, these are theories I've heard before, and they're all American in origin. They don't take into account the fact that the parchment was located in Italy, inside a "madia" at an antiques market in Narni, Umbria. That said, we can hypothesize that a 20th-century "American" created the parchment, brought it to Italy, and placed it in a "madia" in Narni, hoping someone would find it and, more importantly, recognize it. Now, given that the theories about the manuscript's creation (from what I've read) range from the Cathars, to Nostradamus, to a young Leonardo da Vinci, to Filarete, to Woynich himself, and to aliens, then this American theory also has some plausibility.

For example, regarding the "Narni" story, some have challenged me, saying, "But you're the one saying that; there's no real evidence for what you're claiming." True. You have the financial means to have it made by one or more skilled forgers. This is also true (even though I don't know any forgers).
Motivations?

1 - As a joke. Thanks, but I have other things to do than make fun of people, and my morality and seriousness (in every human and professional field) cannot be questioned.

2 - To deceive MS scholars. Scholars weren't waiting for a Fabrizio Salani, and in any case, if you're a serious scholar, you do your research and then draw your own conclusions, and if you're a scientist, you want scientific proof, not words.
3 - To sell it and defraud a buyer. I've never tried to sell it, and in any case, IT'S NOT FOR SALE (no ifs, ands, or buts).

Do we have a higher quality copy of the Yale microfilm?
It has quite some lens distortion and tilt. See for yourself and tell me what you think of these overlays. The VM images are white while Fabrizio's reproduction is colored.

The Yale microfilm image was simply resized, or rather I downscaled Fabrizio's scan to match the small size of the microfilm image.
[attachment=14939]

The Beinecke 2014 scan was also rotated -1.5° but no further distortion was applied to any image.
[attachment=14936]


Salani - Yale Microfilm
[attachment=14938]

Salani - Beinecke 2014 scan
[attachment=14937]

I also made much better looping videos that morph between those images but I cannot upload them here directly:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Nice work, Bernd. One thing I notice is in the number of dots in the center of the inflorescences. There are always there dots, yet in the degraded copy, it sometimes looks like there are two. The Salani copy also has two with only two dots, in corresponding places.

Now when talking about the direct use of scans, I guess the 2004 ones should be preferred since we know the parchment existed before 2014.

I did just notice that voynichese.com cuts off the root. Was this around already before 2013?

(30-03-2026, 05:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did just notice that voynichese.com cuts off the root. Was this around already before 2013?

Not before December 2013:

Quote:Create Date 2013-12-08

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

May 2014: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:The new website You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a wonderful tool for seeing patterns of signs and words in Voynich text

First crawled by the Wayback Machine in September 2014.

DNS record archived only since 2015 on this website: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(30-03-2026, 05:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nice work, Bernd. One thing I notice is in the number of dots in the center of the inflorescences. There are always there dots, yet in the degraded copy, it sometimes looks like there are two. The Salani copy also has two with only two dots, in corresponding places.

Now when talking about the direct use of scans, I guess the 2004 ones should be preferred since we know the parchment existed before 2014.

I did just notice that voynichese.com cuts off the root. Was this around already before 2013?

Maybe it can be useful, I found this Japanese site that provides B/W images of (I think) the MS microfilm and they are of good quality (maybe this has already been posted, in which case I apologize for the repetition).

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=14942]

I used photoshop to enlarge the image published by Kckluge of the microfilm of sheet 14v and with photoshop I enlarged and resized it to 300dpi, the three dots in the flower on the left are visible and only by comparing the image of the left block, the differences are evident in the curvature of the inflorescences.
[attachment=14943]

(29-03-2026, 09:59 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do we have a higher quality copy of the Yale microfilm?

Seconded! The lighter areas on the text could also explain some of the very interesting glyph choices, such as that on the first line. Also, the lack of tail on the l glyphs line up with a lack of visibility on the microfilm. A higher quality scan would help.

[attachment=14944][attachment=14945]
[attachment=14946][attachment=14947]

(30-03-2026, 09:17 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found this Japanese site that provides B/W images of (I think) the MS microfilm and they are of good quality

I don't believe that is the same microfilm image, surely? One has significant fading in areas and this one doesn't. There is also what appears to be a square around the text, as if composited onto the image. Perhaps a clearer image of the text imposed upon the microfilm image? Or perhaps enhanced for the text areas? 

[attachment=14949]

(29-03-2026, 09:23 PM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, these are theories I've heard before, and they're all American in origin. They don't take into account the fact that the parchment was located in Italy, inside a "madia" at an antiques market in Narni, Umbria. That said, we can hypothesize that a 20th-century "American" created the parchment, brought it to Italy, and placed it in a "madia" in Narni, hoping someone would find it and, more importantly, recognize it. Now, given that the theories about the manuscript's creation (from what I've read) range from the Cathars, to Nostradamus, to a young Leonardo da Vinci, to Filarete, to Woynich himself, and to aliens, then this American theory also has some plausibility.

For example, regarding the "Narni" story, some have challenged me, saying, "But you're the one saying that; there's no real evidence for what you're claiming." True. You have the financial means to have it made by one or more skilled forgers. This is also true (even though I don't know any forgers).
Motivations?

1 - As a joke. Thanks, but I have other things to do than make fun of people, and my morality and seriousness (in every human and professional field) cannot be questioned.

2 - To deceive MS scholars. Scholars weren't waiting for a Fabrizio Salani, and in any case, if you're a serious scholar, you do your research and then draw your own conclusions, and if you're a scientist, you want scientific proof, not words.
3 - To sell it and defraud a buyer. I've never tried to sell it, and in any case, IT'S NOT FOR SALE (no ifs, ands, or buts).

I just want to say that there are many many many potential scenarios for this scan to be a modern copy and for there to be no foul play, joking, or deception. As I am researching this, I am doing so firstly under the impression that you have honestly provided your information and story. I (and i'm sure others) continue to appreciate your openness in this topic. 

For example, a hobbyist who found the images online or from media, that decided to make a realistic copy for their own interest and later decided to sell it for a small amount of money to their local market. You could talk about potential costs, but there are many who spend the same amount on collecting figures, stamps, or historical recreation. Like the gentleman from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., who surely spends a lot for his hobby. (any guesses why I watched that video?   )

So, the person who did this does not necessarily have to be american, and did not necessarily have to have had any prior motivation when copying the VMS. And even if someone had bad intent for some crazy reason, that does mean that you are implicated in any way. So please don't take that as an attack against your character!