The Voynich Ninja

(25-02-2025, 07:27 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Re: 16th Century Alchemists who can create Golems which can be programmed with punch-card encoded Fortran to write tiny humanistic script with their massive earthen hands.

(25-02-2025, 05:30 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Having expressed these things, there is no use to continue in this direction

No, really, please do it, .

You can start a thread here: The Voynich Ninja > Water Cooler > Off-Topic

Oh yes, I can do it: 

 Golem- the third scriber of Voynich Manuscript! (title)

 At night, when the humble, tired  men of Prague were sleeping, the monster Golem was turning into a writer. He translated the old Ayurveda Alchemy book from Hindu into Moravian.
He knew that his writings will be the most in-decipherable text ever and will break the hearts of many researchers. This made him inspired and happy in his planned revenge to the scientists who had created him so ugly, that no female dared to look at him. (That is why he was drawing the female figures always fat and ugly, as he had seen some bathing in the public bath... He wanted to ironize them too.)
  (continuation to follow)
br: Vessy

The only realisation that comes from such research is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain friendly.

(26-02-2025, 06:53 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only realisation that comes from such research is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain friendly.

Offering a rational part- that the script was created or used by experienced alchemists from middle-aged Prague and irrational part- Golem being created by them- the most interest is focused on Golem- the irrational part of my discourse.
 Obviously the irrational part creates highest resonance in the bloggers. Some have it in the positive- others - in the negative or unfriendly quadrant...
br: Vessy

Most members are here to at least attempt to do (or read) serious research. If you come in claiming Golems are real, you can't expect to be taken seriously. It's a complete disregard for scientific evidence and, frankly, reality. I'm not stopping you, but expect some agitated reactions when you do stuff like this. It's like barging into a farmer's convention, proclaiming that calves grow better of you feed them wine exclusively and also the easter bunny has something to do with it and it really exists.

According to LFDs analysis, there would technically be at least 5 different Golem hands doing the writings!

Back to track:
The plant on Q2 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is Acanthus.

The tiny "dots" read "Petir" taken the capital P in which they are nested.
 In Czech - "patir" is acanthus.
Even there is a star, written after the name of the plant...

The spirits who always deny - will be silenced, or maybe not?

br: Vessy

An argument for Dots and not characters.
Using the TIFF image i count the line width of the extended 'P' to be around 7pixels.
The 12 marks in the centre of the P-loop are around 7-12 pixels both in height and width.
This is indicatve that these 12 marks were written with the same implement that the P-loop was written with. 

However we can see that the 8th mark has a visual similarity to a Arabic numeral '6' or latin-script 'G'

The 8th mark is approximately 10pixels high and 7pixels wide and a possible line width of 3pixels.
We could conclude the 8th mark was either created with a 7pixels pen nib and produced an unusual blob of ink
or a pen with a thinner nib of approx 3 pixels was used to create the mark.

As none of the other 11 marks are seemingly legible we are left with 2 scenarios:

7pixels nib : 1 out of 12 marks is an outlier resembling a legible character
                    11/12 marks are correct attempts at making a dot; '.' character

3pixels nib : 1 out of 12 marks is a correct attempt at writing a legible character.
                    11/12 marks are failed illegible attempts at writing legible characters.

Summary:
11/12 marks are correct attempts at making a dot; '.' character.
Vs.
11/12 marks are failed illegible attempts at writing legible characters.

Therefore, the 12marks inside the P-loop are more likely to be Dots than legible characters.

This is by no means evidence of any kind and medieval books could be written with tiny handwriting, as seen in the following link.
Medieval manuscripts blog :: Miniature books
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
     .

All these miniature books can be read perfectly well, and one is never in the situation where one has to guess what 'some blob' is supposed to mean.

(27-02-2025, 07:06 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Using the TIFF image i count the line width of the extended 'P' to be around 7pixels.

How many dpi is that particular image?
I am always using the 400 dpi scans, and the minim height of characters is typically 15 pixels.

EDIT: this was wrong, so rest deleted, and replaced by post further below.

@ReneZ, 
windows properties says 96 dpi, GIMP says 300x300 ppi, none of my other viewers gives the dpi.
TIFF from the the collections.library.yale.edu/catalog -> download "Full size original (tiff)".
"typical line thickness is around 5 pixels."--> Yeah i'd go with roughly that , the top horizontal bar of that P is surely 7pixels in places--was zoomed in a lot though.