The Voynich Ninja

Obviously, we have to as far as reasonably possible or sensible strive for consistency in image interpretation. If we interpret two very similar Voynich images as having completely different meanings in different places on a page or in the manuscript we have to be careful.
On the whole, I think I have interpreted the very similar illustrations in very similar ways on the rosettes folio in different parts of the page.
Clearly, it is possible that in some instances the author illustrated 2 differents things in the same way, but I think we should probably treat that as a rarity.

(24-11-2024, 06:01 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.it depends what you mean by "unverifable statements".

I mean "unverifiable at the time of writing".

In this context it is also important to distinguish between observations and hypotheses. The two are often conflated.

An observation is verifiable, even though it can be subjective to any level.
As an example let's talk about the famous largest (but small) castle drawing in the upper right Rosette.

One observation may be: "It looks like a castle".
Most people will agree.
Another observation may be: "It looks like the castle in Prato".
In this case far fewer people will agree.

However when we propose: "This represents a specific castle", this is no longer an observation.
It has become a hypothesis.

The implicit argument behind this hypothesis is that it represents it because it looks like it.
This could be verified if it had its name written beside it, but there is no readable name.
Saying that it is verified by the fact that it looks like it is a circular argument (the tightest possible circle).

When one tries to break down proposed analyses of illustrations, one often finds that there is not more than this.
Either it looks like something in a photo or it looks like something in another document.

With this, we can also distinguish between 'adding information' and 'adding hypotheses'.
Adding information can clearly be a positive thing, but when this supposed information is in fact unverifiable, it may not really add anything.

The proposer may be happy that all hypotheses are consistently pointing to an overarching grander scheme, but if each item barely has any value, then so has the combination.

Another thing to be weary about is projection.

It is one thing to deduce a theory from observations made in the MS.

It is another thing to have a theory, and try to find evidence for it in the MS. That is like projecting one's theory on the illustrations.

I just want to point out that this exists, because proposing it in specific cases is also barely verifiable.

From the manuscript Scarecrow posted in the other thread:

[attachment=9457]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (f9)

(26-11-2024, 10:40 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From the manuscript Scarecrow posted in the other thread:



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (f9)

Yes. I think this can serve as a good example of what I mean when talking image comparison.

You don't like it, right?

(26-11-2024, 01:26 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You don't like it, right?

The illustration is beautiful; I don't dislike it at all.

If you are asking me about whether I think any similarity between the illustration and that from the Voynich is more than incidental I would say largely no. I think this ties with my point about simple shapes well that I made previously in this thread.

What do you see as the similarities? I am genuinely interested.

(26-11-2024, 01:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you see as the similarities? I am genuinely interested.

Layers of scalloped lines, uneven coloring including blue and white (the Rosettes page appears to have no reddish color to its disposal). Most importantly, the way rays of light are drawn. This is linking the patterns in the VM to actual historical practice. What you like to do is disconnect from that and invent your own thing, then look down on people who refer to actual imagery.

(26-11-2024, 02:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What you like to do is disconnect from that and invent your own thing, then look down on people who refer to actual imagery.

This is becoming ad-hominen when you assert that I am "looking down on people".
I have looked at numerous maps of the period and seen how water is frequently illustrated. I am hardly inventing my own thing in this instance. So I have referred a lot to actual imagery, but I also don't believe that everything illustrated in a manuscript is merely a copy of something illustrated in another manuscript, which I think is an approach too readily taken by some other Voynich researchers.
I feel like the problem here is that whilst I am prepared to admit that I could be guilty of confirmation bias you seem unprepared to consider that you could also be guilty of confirmation bias. You have clearly invested time and effort in your "Holy Jerusalem" theory and it is natural that you have some attachment to it. I think most and probably all Voynich researchers, including myself, have a tendency towards confirmation bias as it natural for someone to prefer to be right in their thinking than wrong; the key thing is whether they feel that they can be honest and self-aware enough to admit it to themselves and others.
I think referring to real photos of real places that were visible to people at the time is not inventing your own thing, though I think the authors illustrations were a function of seeing illustrations in other manuscripts I think the author also found influence in other things that they saw with the naked eye and to some extent in their own imagination.
Anyway this conversation looks to be taking a dangerous downturn when you accuse me of looking down on people, because I question some aspects of way some researchers approach the analysis of drawings in the manuscript.

(26-11-2024, 02:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-11-2024, 01:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you see as the similarities? I am genuinely interested.

Layers of scalloped lines, uneven coloring including blue and white (the Rosettes page appears to have no reddish color to its disposal). Most importantly, the way rays of light are drawn. This is linking the patterns in the VM to actual historical practice. What you like to do is disconnect from that and invent your own thing, then look down on people who refer to actual imagery.

My earlier point about general simple shapes like circles or simple patterns was they can be found in lots of places. So that "scalloped" pattern that you refer to is an excellent example of that. On the whole the patterns that you refer to here don't seem that similar to me anyway to what we see in the Voynich illustration. In fact I think this is really an excellent example of my point. The key difference namely the two figures really illustrates how on complex illustrated shapes they really differ.

---

(26-11-2024, 01:22 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-11-2024, 10:40 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From the manuscript Scarecrow posted in the other thread:



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (f9)

Yes. I think this can serve as a good example of what I mean when talking image comparison.

I was being quite serious when I said this, above, about this example being a good example of my point.

Koen: It is noteworthy then when finding similarities with zodiac illustrations the similarities that you observed were in complex illustrations rather than in simple geometric illustrations. The more complex similar illustrations are the less chance for incidental similarity. This is the problem that we all face when comparing simple shapes and simple patterns, it becomes very hard to tell whether the similarity is merely by chance. Are the "teeth"/"claws" in the Top Right Rosette in fact crescent moons as I suggest or not? It is very hard to tell as that is a relatively simple shape.