The Voynich Ninja

(21-11-2025, 02:41 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quite the opposite.  My big problem is that I don't have time to post all the evidence that I see.  I posted at least half a dozen image clips to this thread, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which show several cases more patent than that daiin.  Like nymphs with three legs and robot tentacles, glyphs turned into weirdos, etc.  They can be found on almost every page, if one is not a priori set to deny the possibility...

I generally follow the threads and I think I've see all the images you have posted, but I haven't seen anything as convincing (or even anything convincing) as these two examples from 1r and 80r. Most of the other examples appeal to strangeness: weird glyph, unnatural pose, strange arms, etc, combined with a different ink color. These can mean many things. From my point of view it's undeniable that the manuscript has a lot of original weird imagery. Plants with strange roots, all the elements from the Rosettes, etc. It looks like this was a manuscript with some weird drawings from the very beginning. I do not see strange or unusual glyphs or drawings combined with some variation of ink color as confirming retracing.

One very simple explanation for why the crown, the eyes and some other elements of some images are of different color is they were just tiny and detailed, so the artist switched to a small stylus or some other drawing instrument, which grabs the ink in a different way, or which can be dipped deeper into the inkwell, or which uses a different preparation of ink entirely. Combined with the fact that some inks change their darkness with time in a bit unpredictable way, it could be quite possible that when the drawings were initially made the contrast between what now is the dark and the light ink wasn't as pronounced and it looked like the ink density roughly matched.

While it's of course possible that the original manuscript was tampered with at a later date (I'm talking specifically about retracing, not foliation or cutting pages), I haven't seen any clear evidence of this so far.

I think that both types of ink were used in the VM (and lead). First walnut, later gall apples. The difference in colour tells me that. But nothing is 100% certain.
Difference:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The advantage of walnut is that every farmer had a tree in their garden and it literally fell at their feet. Gall apples, on the other hand, have to be searched for and harvested, and that can be dangerous.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[attachment=12545]

A little humour on the subject.
Ink production.
Sometimes you just end up with an octopus that looks like a wet flannel.
But be careful, the bistres will be furious afterwards.

(21-11-2025, 12:38 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will keep naively assuming that the people at McCrone know what they are talking about.

As you wish.  But I have read the full report, and I do understand the physics and chemistry that they used (or not).  The raw data is very useful and seems reliable, but their interpretations of it are not. You need not believe, but the report has several bloopers and makes claims that are not supported by the data -- including the conclusion that the ink is iron-gall.  Even when their instruments did not detect significant amount of iron. 

But that is not important.  More important is the claim by other experts, who were specifically trying to distinguish iron-gall from ocher in the underdrawings of paintings by using multispectral imaging.  They say that iron-gall ink is opaque to infrared up to 1200 nanometers and beyond, whereas ocher becomes transparent  above 800 nm or so.  And guess what one sees when comparing the 800 nm and 950 nm images of the VMS...

All the best, --stolfi

(21-11-2025, 03:05 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Most of the other examples appeal to strangeness: weird glyph, unnatural pose, strange arms, etc, combined with a different ink color

The key is not just strangeness, but apparent inability by the retracer to understand the drawing or glyph.  For instance, on f73v, the Boobs Retracer (my Rt3) apparently mis-interpreted the lower outlines of the nymphs' thighs as the top outlines of a row of barrels, and proceeded to "restore" (rather crudely) the "faded" ends of the barrels.  

[attachment=12552]

He would not have made that mistake if he was the same scribe who drew the nymphs.

(21-11-2025, 03:05 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One very simple explanation for why the crown, the eyes and some other elements of some images are of different color is they were just tiny and detailed, so the artist switched to a small stylus or some other drawing instrument, which grabs the ink in a different way, or which can be dipped deeper into the inkwell, or which uses a different preparation of ink entirely.

Indeed there are many places where ink density and color variations can be explained by the original Scribe himself going back and retracing some of his own work, for any reason.  Often I cannot decide between that and a much later intervention.

But the explanation above seems quite unlikely for the things that I ascribe to the Boobs Retracer, because on many Zodiac pages we see the same details (among other things) being redrawn in that darker ink: left breasts, nipples, eyes, belly buttons, hair, and the "showercaps".  And in some places we can see the lighter ink poking out by the side of the dark one.  

I cannot imagine the process you described above being repeated for every one of those pages: draw things in brown ink, change ink and pen, draw things in dark ink, go to the next page, repeat.  The brown ink parts must have been drawn first over the whole section, then the dark ink details were added or retraced again for the whole section, in a second pass.

But if we accept this solution -- two passes over the whole section -- then the question is how much time went between the two passes.  Why should we assume hours or days, instead of centuries?

All the best, --stolfi

(21-11-2025, 06:12 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The key is not just strangeness, but apparent inability by the retracer to understand the drawing or glyph.  For instance, on f73v, the Boobs Retracer (my Rt3) apparently mis-interpreted the lower outlines of the nymphs' thighs as the top outlines of a row of barrels, and proceeded to "restore" (rather crudely) the "faded" ends of the barrels.  

He would not have made that mistake if he was the same scribe who drew the nymphs.

For starters, I'm not even sure I understand what you think happened here with the thighs and the barrels.

But more generally, this logic presupposes that you understand something about what it was supposed to depict, but the retracer, who according to your theory certainly saw more of the now faded original and maybe saw details and shapes that now faded into oblivion, somehow couldn't grasp the idea of the original artist. I find this a bit self-contradictory.

(21-11-2025, 06:12 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the explanation above seems quite unlikely for the things that I ascribe to the Boobs Retracer, because on many Zodiac pages we see the same details (among other things) being redrawn in that darker ink: left breasts, nipples, eyes, belly buttons, hair, and the "showercaps".  And in some places we can see the lighter ink poking out by the side of the dark one.  

I cannot imagine the process you described above being repeated for every one of those pages: draw things in brown ink, change ink and pen, draw things in dark ink, go to the next page, repeat.  The brown ink parts must have been drawn first over the whole section, then the dark ink details were added or retraced again for the whole section, in a second pass.

We have no idea about the contents of the book. For example, if the images are mnemonics, which is quite possible for the XV century, maybe certain elements were highlighted by the artist on purpose.
Or maybe it's exactly the "unlikely" explanation I gave above, that the artist, knowing that certain elements require a much more fine writing tool, would create basic shapes with the normal instrument and reserved a fine tip stylus for the same list of objects on each page: eyes, breasts, nipples, belly buttons. After all, the nymphs are tiny, their features are minute.

(21-11-2025, 06:12 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if we accept this solution -- two passes over the whole section -- then the question is how much time went between the two passes.  Why should we assume hours or days, instead of centuries?

If we remove the part drawn in the different ink, will the images still look complete? This is not a trick question, I really didn't look into this. The lack of belly buttons and left breasts is possible, what about the lack or eyes and hair?

(21-11-2025, 08:48 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we remove the part drawn in the different ink, will the images still look complete? This is not a trick question, I really didn't look into this. The lack of belly buttons and left breasts is possible, what about the lack or eyes and hair?

Nymphs without dark ink usually have no left right breast, nipples, or belly buttons; and the eyes are drawn in brown ink, usually like simple dashes, and the right left breast is just a bump on the chest outline, both drawn as a single stroke.  Check for example the nymphs on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at ~04:00, inner and outer:
[attachment=12560]
The inner nymph has no black ink.  The two outer ones have a right breast with nipple in black ink, but the rest is in brown ink, and the eyes and left breast are how described above. 

In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I showed my idea of what the f72v1 nymph with the crown looked like before the Boobs Retracer got to it.  (My reconstruction of the pubic areas is not quite right, and that drawing is meant to be after the first round of restoration and possibly one additional round of retracing. But it must be close enough to the original...)

All the best, --stolfi

Something that would interest me and, I think, be more convincing is if specific cases could be zoomed in on.
For example. I don't know for certain, but the eyes of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. crown nymph, I don't think these eyes are seen again in the manuscript. I might be wrong, I haven't looked. But, that feels like a pretty strong claim for not being of any of the original scribes, or drawers, or the scribe/drawer, whatever your stance on that is. If it turns out to be right. 

I'm also not sure the eyes of the nymph to the right are seen again, the curve with the pupil. It's not something I have looked into, but I think things like that, proving they are complete odd ball cases + darker ink, could be more convincing and maybe not so easy to refute "they just went over it" or "they used new ink" or whatever way, it has more meat on the bones.

Here is what I see on the root of f1v, the "Belladonna" plant:

[attachment=12563]

As everybody knows, the root and leaves of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are clearly the "same drawing" as the bottom right plant on f102r1 (Pharma), apart from differences in some details, and the flower being excluded from the latter.
   
This root, like many other images in the VMS, shows a few strokes that seem to be original (Rt0) traces, the general restoration round (Rt1), and later retraces Rt2 and Rt3.  The distinction between Rt1, Rt2, and Rt3 is often unclear because the latter rounds have suffered fading by wear and stains.  That said, generally the labels above are green for Rt0, cyan for Rt1, purple for Rt2, and rose for Rt3.  

• (A1,A2) Rootlet tips in original (Rt0) traces. nearly invisible now. (B1,B2) Possibly Rt0 hatching strokes, nearly invisible.
  
• (H1,H2,H3) Restored (Rt1) parts of rootlets. (I1,I2) Rt1 outlines. (J1,J2,J3) Lobe ends rendered as flat by Rt1. (K) Hatching strokes by Rt1.
  
• (N) Hatching strokes by Rt2.  (O1,O2,O3) Hatching strokes by Rt1 or Rt2 partly retraced by Rt2 or Rt3.
  
• (Q1,Q2) Root outline retraced by Rt3. (R1,R2,R3) Parts of rootlets retraced by Rt3. (S) Sharp claw-shaped Rt3 rootlet.
  
• (X1,X2,X3,X4) Original and retraced outlets aligned with fuzzy grey streaks on the inside front cover ("page f0v"). (Y) Gray streak that extends past folio edge onto f0v.
  

By this illustration, the three lobes of the root appear to be stubby horizontal cylinders with flat ends that face away from the reader, so that only the edges of those faces are visible (J1,J2+Q2,J3).  The rootlets here sprout from those flat ends, and from below the east lobe. Both details are different on f102r1.  These differences cannot be blamed on the Retracers, since I cannot see any trace of an original outline that differs from the current one, which I assigned to Rt1 (as J1,I1,J2,I2,J3).

The details (X1,X2,X3,X4) and (Y) seem to make no sense given the date of the binding, but I think I found a simple and rather boring explanation.  Later.

All the best, --stolfi

More NI (Natural Ignorance) hallucinations, on f3v, topmost flower:
[attachment=12587]
In what follows, assume "in my opinion", "I believe", etc before every sentence.

This clip covers the distal part of the topmost and largest of the two bulbous structures at the top of the plant of page f3v. They are conventionally called flowers but may have been intended to be fruits.
 .
Legend: (A) Examples of Rt0 traces (parts of outer rim C0), almost invisible now. (B) Dash of C2 also Rt0. (C ) Rounded extremity of C0, also Rt0. (D) Diagonal dashes of C1 attributed to Rt1. (E,F) Petals added by Rt1. (G) Dashes of C2 and C4 attributed to Rt2. (H,I) Parts of C0 and pod outline retraced by Rt2. (J,K) Petals wholly or partly retraced by Rt2.


The following sequence is a rough approximation of how I think that flower could have got to its present state:

• Original drawing (Rt0), as of ~1430:
  [attachment=12582] 
  
• Original drawing  (Rt0), as of ~1500:
  [attachment=12583] 
  
• After general restoration (Rt1), as of ~1500:
  [attachment=12584] 
  
• After general restoration (Rt1), as of ~1600:
  [attachment=12585] 
  
• After second retouching (Rt2), as of ~1600:
  [attachment=12586] 
  

The dates are of course arbitrary except that Rt1 must have occurred when the Author and original Scribe were no longer around, and Rt2 probably (but not certainly) occurred before the book was sent to Kircher. 

I am convinced that the painting occurred after Rt2.

All the best, --stolfi