The Voynich Ninja

(21-11-2025, 05:35 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(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. 

As someone also with the education and experience in relevant engineering science, I have to concur with Jorge’s assessment. While the McCrone report provides useful raw data, its analysis has weaknesses. In my view, that particular report shouldn’t be accepted without question; its conclusions and inferences warrant further scrutiny. Yes, the report was produced by competent "experts", but that alone rarely means what it says is without flaw.

More retracing hallucinations on f3v:
[attachment=12616]
This clip spans the left end of lines 1-6.
.
(V) This bench is half Rt2 and half Rt1. (W) The first @i is Rt1, second is Rt2. (X) This glyph @r entirelty Rt2 with plume traced in wrong direction.


All the best, --stolfi

And the other half:
[attachment=12617]
This clip spans the right half of lines 1-6 of the text on page f3v.
.
Figure*: (T) Plant outline retraced by Rt1. (U) Petals added by Rt1. (V) Petal added by Rt1 crossing pod outline. (W) Glyph @y with tail crossing Rt0 outline and mostly covered by paint. (X) Possible Rt0 outline detail obscured by the blue paint.


All the best, --stolfi

Jorge, apologies if you've answered this elsewhere, but are there any pages of the manuscript you feel were barely retraced or not touched all? There's no loaded question here, and this is related to something I was wondering about the CLS. The patterns you've identified dovetail with a mystery I'm looking at, and a "clean" page might well illuminate what each of us is looking at.

Relatedly, have you published a statement of your theory here? I've pieced together much of it from the back and forth I've seen, but I would find it helpful to see the full argument.

(25-11-2025, 03:51 PM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.are there any pages of the manuscript you feel were barely retraced or not touched all?

I don't think there are any pages fully in their original state.  There are only some words, glyphs, and parts of drawings.

My current belief is that an owner of the VMS, say around 1500, was quite upset because most of the text and images were fading on the way to invisibility, because of the bad ink.  So he hired a scribe (or "scribal office", like a monastery) to restore it to legibility.  These scribes (who may have been used to that sort of work) carefully retraced all the text and significant parts of the figures, with ink that closely matched the original.  

They only could not match the dynamics of the original handwriting.  Specifically, each original tail or plume was drawn with a quick flick of the pen while reducing the pressure, leaving a smooth trace that tapered to a fine point before vanishing.  The restorator(s) had to retrace those strokes slowly, which made them thicker and more jittery. They may have been conscious of that problem, because they often traced only part of the tail or plume, leaving the original thin -- and faint -- trace sticking out.  On the other hand, they often retraced plumes in the wrong direction (CW instead of CCW), with visible consequences for the thickness of the stroke. 

And they also could not restore things that had faded completely. And they would often misunderstand glyphs or details of the drawings and "restore" them wrong. Because, unlike the original scribe, they did not really know the Voynichese alphabet.  Or they would hallucinate over vellum defects and add strokes that were never there before.

Then, much later again, someone else retouched some scattered glyphs and words and figure details.  I believe there were at least two separate passes by distinct people.  The last of these (the "Boobs Retracer") also "improved" the figures with many spurious details.

So that is my Massive Retracing Theory (MRT).  

The main alternative to the MRT is the Everything is Pristine Theory (EPT), which says that every ink stroke we see today was put there by the original Scribe.  Who, if he was not the Author himself, was being watched closely by him.

I have no absolute definitive clinching proof of the MRT, but I have seen thousands (literally) of small bites of evidence -- visibly retraced strokes, inexplicable ink variations, weirdos that are obviously misunderstood and mis-restored ordinary glyphs, details on drawings that would not have made sense for the original scribe, etc.  Whereas I don't know any evidence or logical argument for the EPT.  

Thus, if I had to give a number, I would say that my probability for the MRT is now 95%.

All the best, --stolfi

Now a bit of Superior Pareidolia on f82r:
[attachment=12629]
This clip covers the nymph at the NE corner of page f82r, and the right end of lines 1-8. As usual it shows a few original traces (Rt0, green labels), and two later retacing/retouching passes, (Rt1, cyan labels, and Rt2, purple labels).
.
(S) Section of drain pipe outline added by Rt2. (T) Parts of pool outline added or retraced by Rt2. (U) Hairline, forehead, eyebrow, and nose retraced bt Rt2. (V) Breast, nipples, belly button, and spurious crotch line added by Rt2. (W) Original crotch line retraced by Rt2.

And here is what think the page looked like by ~1450, when the original Scribe was done with it, before all the later interventions in ink and paint:
[attachment=12628]
Maybe the pool had a second outline on the back side, representing the edge of the water inside, but I cannot see sign of it now.  Maybe the big "drain pipe" leading away from the pool was there, but the only bit of light trace on it is a smooth transition from the thicker Rt1 trace.  Moreover, "hydraulically" it makes no sense. Finally, I see no sign that the spigot had originally a double edge to show the thickness of its wall.  Those look like the sort of detail that the later restorers would have hallucinated, or felt necessary to add them for "clarity".

All the best, --stolfi

Does the drain outline skip over l? This would be a good argument that the drain was drawn after the text had been put on the page.

(25-11-2025, 08:10 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Does the drain outline skip over l? This would be a good argument that the drain was drawn after the text had been put on the page.

Sure You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. it's part of it, and in a way that makes me think it was put down shortly after

(25-11-2025, 08:10 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Does the drain outline skip over l? This would be a good argument that the drain was drawn after the text had been put on the page.

Well spotted!

So the person who did the dark text was the one who touched up the drawings? (Which could still be the same person who obtained better ink one week later).

(25-11-2025, 08:10 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Does the drain outline skip over l? This would be a good argument that the drain was drawn after the text had been put on the page.

The bottom outline of the drain has two parts that do not quite meet. The main part (1) starts a tad inside the loop of the l and goes down and east. The ink is medium brown.  Then there is (2) a straight stroke that starts at the west edge of the pool and goes down an slightly east until the upper stroke of the l. The ink is dark brown, like that used by the Boobs Retracer.

The l itself is the same shade of dark brown, so I assume it was retraced at the same time as the (2) part of the drain.  Thus the overlaps on the l do not say whether the drain was original or not. Where the (1) part crosses the l, the latter seems to run over the (1) stroke.

[attachment=12631] (magnified 200%)

To further confuse the matters, there seems to be a very faint bit of trace inside the loop of the l, connecting (1) to (2).  But it is fainter than the original outline of the pool ((M) on the annotated pic) and it could be just one of the spots of the blank vellum.

By the way, I now suspect that the pool may in fact have had a double outline all around. The part in on the front (south) side of this double outline is now obscured and washed out by the blue paint, but it may be faint like the original (M) trace.  An original double outline all around would make sense if the "pool" was the opening of a drain with inch-thick walls.

All the best, --stolfi