(06-03-2024, 01:34 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (06-03-2024, 06:55 AM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me know your thoughts about all this : )
I think you are seeking magic. I'm curious to know what magical secret you are hoping to find in the Voynich Manuscript. In what way do you think knowing this hypothetical secret magic will change your life? Do you seek fame for being the one to solve the mystery? Or are you hoping to become the one to possess this magical knowledge?
Magic is real, it just sounds crazy cause we call it magic. One person explains all this well is Rudolph Steiner.
How will it change my life? Maybe it would change the world... to seek knowledge and truth. Wouldn't you want to know? To give hope. To never have lock downs ever again. To stop all wars in the world... who knows! Why would I keep this to myself?
I am also very fascinated about the VM (if you have not noticed), have been for the last 8 years. I decided to share my findings here. I am not selling anything. I am not promoting any books, artwork or events, don't have a Youtube channel or Facebook account, am not requesting money if people want to ask me a question like some people on SM... I just want to collaborate and share on this forum, with some of the most qualified people with knowledge about the VM to try to get to the bottom of this. That is all I want : )
(06-03-2024, 06:49 PM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (06-03-2024, 01:34 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (06-03-2024, 06:55 AM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me know your thoughts about all this : )
I think you are seeking magic. I'm curious to know what magical secret you are hoping to find in the Voynich Manuscript. In what way do you think knowing this hypothetical secret magic will change your life? Do you seek fame for being the one to solve the mystery? Or are you hoping to become the one to possess this magical knowledge?
Magic is real, it just sounds crazy cause we call it magic. One person explains all this well is Rudolph Steiner.
How will it change my life? Maybe it would change the world... to seek knowledge and truth. Wouldn't you want to know? To give hope. To never have lock downs ever again. To stop all wars in the world... who knows! Why would I keep this to myself?
I am also very fascinated about the VM (if you have not noticed), have been for the last 8 years. I decided to share my findings here. I am not selling anything. I am not promoting any books, artwork or events, don't have a Youtube channel or Facebook account, am not requesting money if people want to ask me a question like some people on SM... I just want to collaborate and share on this forum, with some of the most qualified people with knowledge about the VM to try to get to the bottom of this. That is all I want : )
If it is real then it is science and if it is science then it is not magic. You have an admirable dream but, I am sorry to say, it is nothing but a dream. Dreams are fun but dreams are not real. I never heard of Rudolf Steiner before. According to Wikipedia, he was an occultist. If you want knowledge and truth, study science. Skip the voodoo witch-doctor stuff.
I love magic. I grew-up on J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth and Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons and Disney pixie dust. I'd love to be a Jedi or an elf mage. Not real. Wishful thinking. The Voynich Manuscript is not a magic spell book. It is not going to be your door to Hogwarts.
And it is not extraterrestrial space aliens either.
According to your profile in the post header, you "Joined: Jul 2016". What have you found in all the time you have been here?
Let's look at this from a broader perspective.
One should distinguish between two things - the Voynich Manuscript as a cultural phenomenon and the Voynich manuscript as the object of scientific research.
It being extant in only a single physical copy, in both the roles above described the Voynich Manuscript is accessible to the general population just through the means of digital scans.
Digital scans perfectly fulfil the task of channeling the Voynich manuscript as a cultural phenomenon into the modern culture, and of making it the source of inspiration for many artists and making elements thereof entwined in many artistic concepts. And although, from the rational point of view, such concepts may look complete nonsense, this does not diminish their artistic value because art is often above rational or at least it's fine with irrational element. As a ready example, one endeavour to which I am part uses VMS glyphs for an acronym of its title in its logo. Rationally thinking, this is nonsense, because we all know that VMS glyphs do not correspond to letters of the Latin alphabet, and the common correspondence of e.g. a to "a" etc. just derives from transcription alphabets such as EVA designed to facilitate machine analysis of the VMS text. But it looks cool and feels cool and mysterious and, as long as the VMS is not demystified, fulfils its artistic design. Pareidolia is also fine in this regard, as long as one respects artistic freedom and is not inclined to put boundaries to artists.
Now, when we turn from art to the scientific analysis, digital scans have limited (although of course still immense) value. To name just a few drawbacks, they have limited resolution (which invalidates or at least hinders any attempt of a micro-level research), they were made with the object being lit from one and the same angle, they are two-dimensional (while the VMS sheets are not, due to spoilage, aging and native properties of vellum), and they are lossy-compressed. So, while they mostly allow for transcribing the text and judging upon illustrations, their value for research of the VMS as a physical object is limited strictly to its macro properties. To use scans for making conclusions on the micro level is just impractical. In many cases the conclusions will turn out to be not even simple pareidolia, but, so to say, "secondary pareidolia" induced by impairments of the limited-resolution lossy-compressed digital image.
(10-03-2024, 02:32 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now, when we turn from art to the scientific analysis, digital scans have limited (although of course still immense) value. To name just a few drawbacks, they have limited resolution (which invalidates or at least hinders any attempt of a micro-level research), they were made with the object being lit from one and the same angle, they are two-dimensional (while the VMS sheets are not, due to spoilage, aging and native properties of vellum), and they are lossy-compressed. So, while they mostly allow for transcribing the text and judging upon illustrations, their value for research of the VMS as a physical object is limited strictly to its macro properties. To use scans for making conclusions on the micro level is just impractical. In many cases the conclusions will turn out to be not even simple pareidolia, but, so to say, "secondary pareidolia" induced by impairments of the limited-resolution lossy-compressed digital image.
The scans are limited resolution, taken when the subject is illuminated at one angle, lossy compressed, then why are there still no photos at maximum resolution, at different angles and with different side lighting?
(10-03-2024, 03:55 PM)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The scans are limited resolution, taken when the subject is illuminated at one angle, lossy compressed, then why are there still no photos at maximum resolution, at different angles and with different side lighting?
The library's foremost task is to preserve the manuscript, not to research it. And I guess each time the scans are made (and this is not done too often, as we all know), they just follow their standard procedure with parameters pre-determined by their long-term practice and deemed sufficient for the general purpose digitalization of this kind of manuscripts. Mind that for them it's just another medieval manuscript, not some "book of all books" and all that.
Any special request has to be determined in advance, to begin with. And those special requirements have to be somehow agreed and approved (and the process somehow funded from someone's pocket!) prior to any such request would be even considered by the library. I do not know what's the exact submission process (if it's formalized at all), but definitely as keepers of the manuscript they are not happy with massive scanning and the like intrusions because the elapsed centuries made the MS very fragile. Sometimes there are advances though - like ten years ago multispectral scans of several folios were made, including f116v. But, at any rate, the manuscript is unfortunately not available for anyone's inspection. You can't just visit Beinecke and request to see it and make your own photos and all that.
(10-03-2024, 08:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (10-03-2024, 03:55 PM)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The scans are limited resolution, taken when the subject is illuminated at one angle, lossy compressed, then why are there still no photos at maximum resolution, at different angles and with different side lighting?
The library's foremost task is to preserve the manuscript, not to research it. And I guess each time the scans are made (and this is not done too often, as we all know), they just follow their standard procedure with parameters pre-determined by their long-term practice and deemed sufficient for the general purpose digitalization of this kind of manuscripts. Mind that for them it's just another medieval manuscript, not some "book of all books" and all that.
Any special request has to be determined in advance, to begin with. And those special requirements have to be somehow agreed and approved (and the process somehow funded from someone's pocket!) prior to any such request would be even considered by the library. I do not know what's the exact submission process (if it's formalized at all), but definitely as keepers of the manuscript they are not happy with massive scanning and the like intrusions because the elapsed centuries made the MS very fragile. Sometimes there are advances though - like ten years ago multispectral scans of several folios were made, including f116v. But, at any rate, the manuscript is unfortunately not available for anyone's inspection. You can't just visit Beinecke and request to see it and make your own photos and all that.
One way to compensate for the lack of images of different angles is to take screenshots of the few existing videos of the manuscript. The quality is not great but it's better than nothing.
To use scans for making conclusions on the micro level is just impractical. In many cases the conclusions will turn out to be not even simple pareidolia, but, so to say, "secondary pareidolia" induced by impairments of the limited-resolution lossy-compressed digital image.
[/quote]
What I have noticed on this thread is no valid explanation apart from saying it's pareidolia.
Like I said, I have worked with images for a long time with Photoshop. I know what mathematical patterns from a low res image looks like and what is happening here is not it.
The last image I sent about the half symbol I would not consider it micro. I am not imagining this shape. Everyone can see it. As much as people wish to discard or deny this, most of the stuff I shared (only I few I am not sure) but most of it is there we can all see it. I am certain some people see it and are not commenting...
I know all this I am saying and sharing sounds crazy, I am showing you proof. There is a big resistance and I understand that too, it took me 8 years to come to terms with the fact that there are mysteries we did not solve yet.
Here is a list of things that cannot be explained by simply saying it's pareidolia or by saying the image is low res:
- IMPOSSIBLE STRAIGHT LINES.
- SYMMETRY IN THE ''DEFECTS''
- RECURRING GOLD COLOUR EMERGING IN SOME AREAS ONLY
- GOLD CHAINS
- THREAD
- JEWELS (JEWELS DON'T APPEAR BECAUSE OF THE RESOLUTION OF AN IMAGE)
- ALL THE FINDINGS ARE NOT RANDOM, RELEVANT WITH EACHOTHER.
- FAINT GRIDS
- ONE VOYNICH WORD = A LETTER OR NUMBER.
None of these things I have listed are due to low resolution or pareidolia.
There is so much more to share in my findings...
For example, all the zodiac pages, the middle part on all of them is a mechanism/handle.
See the 71v middle area attached
I try to imagine how the people in the 1400's would look at this manuscript.. I assume by candle at night. Which will result in seeing a little blurry when loooking at the manuscript... just a thought here.. since I feel the manuscript needs to be looked at in a blurred way..(or wet)
Let me know your thoughts about this : ) thanks!
...imagine Bosch, Flamel and Paraselcus at a medieval coffeeshop discussing the creation of this enigmatic manuscript
(10-03-2024, 03:55 PM)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The scans are limited resolution, taken when the subject is illuminated at one angle, lossy compressed, then why are there still no photos at maximum resolution, at different angles and with different side lighting?
The resolution of 400 dpi (dots per inch) means that you have 15 x 15 pixels per square mm.
How can that not be sufficient for all practical purposes? It is better than most scans people make for themselves, which are typically at 300 dpi.
The scans of the Voynich MS are at least as good as all the tens of thousands of digitally scanned manuscripts that are freely available on the net. Quite probably there are over a 100,000. All done with sungle illumination and the majority represented as jpeg.
Why would it be good enough for the others but not good enough for this one???
I think that we can be quite happy with what we have.
