(26-07-2017, 11:46 AM)Wolfgang99 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (25-07-2017, 09:49 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wolfgang, your solution is worthless if you need others to use it for you. If you are certain about your system, you should be able to decipher the Voynich yourself.
as I said ad nauseam, 400 DPI Beinecke enlargements are not enough, I need at least 700/800 DPI, it is not so difficult
letter saw at microscope matches a voynich letter I found, please watch video for more details
...
And as I have said, ad nauseum, and demonstrated with a picture of a ruler over the folios, the scans we see are higher resolution than what the scribe with the quill pen had to work with.
I think you should try to USE a quill pen on vellum and see how many unique shapes you can fit into half a centimeter. Maybe then you would appreciate how difficult it is to replicate shapes, even ones the
full size of a glyph. Trying to replicate subtle shapes 1/8th the size of a glyph or smaller consistently enough that you can recognize them when you see them again could only be done with a microscope, an
unusually steady hand, and special drawing tools (not a quill pen).
Whoever penned the VMS was not skilled with a pen and was dealing with a bumpy surface. That is obvious from the slant, the wiggles, and the very uneven flow of the ink. Some of the differences in macro shapes might be meaningful (like the length of a tail), but not 12 individual strokes that make up a letter. I don't believe it.
Just to add that first microscopes are dated to two hundred years later after the VMS has been penned.
Whatever has been produced by a medieval scribe is not going to escape notice from a 400 dpi digital image.
That's the reasonable part of it.
The problematic part is that, when people are completely convinced of their own theories, there is nothing that one can say or do to change their minds. They ignore everything that is counter to their conviction. They are completely resistant to reasonable arguments.
We have seen a few cases of that in this forum already, and I have had quite a bit more experience with this type of attitude.
So...
I don't expect for a minute that the picture I show below will change anything, but once an optimist, always an optimist.
[
attachment=1533]
(27-07-2017, 09:03 AM)Wolfgang99 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
I used a brass foil about 0.2 mm. thick, more workable if gold, details available can be found in 15 th century jewelry; I made a stencil measuring 18 x 12 mm. high like original
Probably they did not use a quill that moves difficulty within stencil but a very simple pen-nib like the type I used (it does not take a very big mental and technologic jump to think of making a quill point using metal to write thinner ...)
...
That's all. Giuseppe Bianchi
I see no evidence that these shapes were made with a stencil. Stenciled images have a certain look and feel to them.
I see no evidence that the letters were written with a special kind of nib. The text has all the characteristics of the kind of quills that were common at the time and, in fact, it's a bit clumsier and messier than professional book-hand manuscripts.
I see no evidence that whoever penned it had the dexterity, tools or skill to encode 5 or 10 extremely precise shapes into one glyph.
I would like to note that many glyphs, as it is evident, underwent emendation by subsequent users of the book. Which would of course destroy the alleged micrography.
(27-07-2017, 06:57 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would like to note that many glyphs, as it is evident, underwent emendation by subsequent users of the book. Which would of course destroy the alleged micrography.
of course, but also rotating stencil onto letters to find microscopic simbols and rotating page folds onto wheels damaged the writing (especially zodiacal wheels)
(28-07-2017, 06:55 AM)Wolfgang99 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (27-07-2017, 06:57 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would like to note that many glyphs, as it is evident, underwent emendation by subsequent users of the book. Which would of course destroy the alleged micrography.
of course, but also rotating stencil onto letters to find microscopic simbols and rotating page folds onto wheels damaged the writing (especially zodiacal wheels)
So your idea is that a stencil was laid on the parchment, the scribe chose a shape that represents a phrase/word/syllable, scribed it with a special quill through a tiny opening in the stencil (which almost inevitably causes ink to bleed out under the stencil because this is iron gall ink NOT ballpoint pen ink), then the scribe waits a few minutes for the ink to dry (you can't put a stencil down on top of fresh gall ink without smudging the previous lines) and then lines up the new stencil with the end of the first line and creates a new line, etc., etc., until a phrase or sentence is encoded into one glyph.
Using your method, it would take a twenty minutes to one hour to create one glyph when you factor in the time it takes the ink to dry enough to lay a stencil down on top of the previous lines. A word would take two to four hours.
Try it yourself, with gall ink. You can buy it online. You can also buy quills online. Don't use modern inks, they are formulated differently. See how long it takes you to encode one word well enough so that someone who has been shown your code can read back the shapes.