The Voynich Ninja

(26-11-2022, 05:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If it were the opinion of someone with training and experience in the matter, it would be a different story already.

Well then whatever myself, yourself, Koen or anyone has said in this thread should be ignored on that basis as to the best of my knowledge none of us could be said to have "training and experience in the matter".

(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Lauber has a very specific style, and the VM does not have that style.

I would be curious as to what precisely is meant by this statement with respect to the central Zodiac drawings and how this means that the Voynich author could not have copied the central Zodiac drawings from a Lauber manuscript.

(26-11-2022, 08:51 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sure you could cherry pick a dozen images from another workshop

Well, I would love to see you try. Why didn't all these other workshops show up in the dataset?

I haven't cherry picked anything on the contrary I have relied on all the data. The cherry picking hasn't been done by me.

(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the VM does not use any of the post-1430 fashion Lauber does use.

Clarification as to what is precisely meant by that could be interesting.

(26-11-2022, 09:18 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So my assessment was made after I set up an experiment to prevent myself from cherry picking and I tried to take in several variables. This is the opposite of what's happening here.

Well, you didn't do any statistical analysis of the resultant dataset, whereas I did. In fact you did the cherry picking by asserting that some data could be excluded as it was "non-manuscript art" as if that distinction was relevant. You also seem to discount the Lauber examples, though I don't see a good reason for doing so. You also seem to treat multiple instances from the same source as only one instance, what is the justification for that? All this cherry picking that you did served to justify the earlier dating which you had already decided upon. I suggested using the complete dataset which is the opposite of what you chose to do.

I'll leave out the details of fashion for a moment.

On one side I have the C14 data and a remark that the ink was not applied much later.

On the other side I have the drawings by Lauber.
When were the pictures painted, when did the book come onto the market? Universities, monastery libraries..... How long until the book reached a certain level of popularity.

Now I can compare the dates of the comparisons.
How does it look now ?

To reiterate, on the basis of the dataset Koen compiled and referred to:

the mean average year is 1416

The standard deviation is 15 years

I will assume the data is normal distributed. I would be interested in anyone with an argument why it would not be normally distributed.

Considering a 95% confidence interval this gives us a range of dates from 1387 to 1444

Despite the claims of non-bias or precision there was no, even basic, statistical analysis of the data carried out.

(26-11-2022, 01:48 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When were the pictures painted, when did the book come onto the market? Universities, monastery libraries..... How long until the book reached a certain level of popularity.

I think those are all highly relevant questions and only serve to push the date forward in time.

Mark, can you please respond in fewer threads. This scattergun approach not only makes it impossible for us to keep up with your arguments, it also stops people from replying to earlier threads because they get lost. It might not be your intention, but you hit these threads with a machinegun spray of posts, and the end result is that people can't keep up, lose interest and wander off.
It also lowers your argument by making it look like a stream of consciousness, kneejerk stream of replies instead of a measured response.

(26-11-2022, 02:05 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Mark, can you please respond in fewer threads. This scattergun approach not only makes it impossible for us to keep up with your arguments, it also stops people from replying to earlier threads because they get lost. It might not be your intention, but you hit these threads with a machinegun spray of posts, and the end result is that people can't keep up, lose interest and wander off.
It also lowers your argument by making it look like a stream of consciousness, kneejerk stream of replies instead of a measured response.

I am sorry for that. Do you have any suggestions as frequently I comment from my mobile phone and I find it very easy to lose comments whilst I am mid-way through them if I have to answer a phone call or look at an urgent email or just want to Google to check something? An automatic refresh or a careless click and I have to retype the whole comment.
Sometimes, like with my first comment on this thread I type it into a word document first, which I save, and then I copy and paste it into a Voynich Ninja comment. However this approach, whilst it does prevent, me from losing my comment is slower and more laborious.

Click "New Reply", and use the save as draft feature as you go along. You can open the forum in a separate window and copy /paste quotes. When you're satisfied you can post the final draft.