The Voynich Ninja

(09-12-2025, 09:17 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here's four more "strokes" like this one. They are just not placed conveniently enough for MRT, it's likely there is no real difference between them.

There is a difference.  Three of them are much lighter than my "plume", just within range of the texture of blank vellum; and the fourth is irregular, like vellum damage.

But I concede that one, it may be just dirt and not the remains of an original plume.   I think I see insect damage on the vellum at that spot, but it may be just hallucination.  

Until we get a 2400 dpi image of that area...

All the best, --stolfi.

PS. But please pick a page...

(10-12-2025, 12:52 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.

But you showed that you will not do that in this case.  "If it looks like a nabla, the Author must have meant a nabla"...

I don't think this is what I said, there was an important clarification there: "Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way." If I see a nabla in a Greek 101 textbook, I would assume this was a typographer's mistake. If I see a nabla in a book on postgrad math I'd say this quite likely just a nabla.

If, for example, there is a method to produce a linguistically and historically plausible reproducible translation, but it requires that all reverse plumes be a mistake, or even all plumes be purely decorational, I will be happy to admit they are a whim or retracements or decoys and are not really essential to reading the manuscript.

But to assume that an unusual glyph was a retracement and then use this as supporting evidence for MRT that uses the presence of many unusual glyphs as one of the reasons for its existence looks like circular reasoning to me.

(10-12-2025, 01:02 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.PS. But please pick a page...

Let's try f8r, I think it's a fair choice - it has quite a lot of variation in the density of the ink, not very damaged surface and at the same time there are MSIs available. For me personally it's one of the "sleeper" pages, I don't think I have spent any significant time on it, so it would be useful for me to have a better look in any case.

Edit: if I was doing this and checking if my method worked, I probably would first investigate the page based on the normal visible light TIFFs, identify and finalize the list of retracing candidates and only then check them on MSIs. Just to find out how many of the retracings from the normal scans would still look plausible on MSIs and how many won't.

Generally about "weird" characters. q is famously absent on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and mostly absent on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but elsewhere is ubiquitous. The first occurrence of q on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the first in the MS in the present order of folios) looks a bit like an accident that started with writing p or t and then abandoning it half way through.

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 can use this one to criticize my superpareidolia if you wish)

One possible explanation for this is that the author was experimenting with different ways of writing and was free to invent new ways of writing if needed. Whether these experiments were directly on the vellum or in the original draft and just got copied over is probably not important. I'm not sure there are other convincing explanations for why q is only introduced on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and why its introduction has this weird macron sign and looks like some unfinished job.

If this explanation is correct, and the author was adjusting the script on the go, then it's certainly possible that all kinds of weird and unusual characters were invented ad hoc to accommodate for some unusual words, characters or letter combinations (or phonemes) in the text.

(10-12-2025, 08:26 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's try f8r, I think it's a fair choice - it has quite a lot of variation in the density of the ink, not very damaged surface and at the same time there are MSIs available. For me personally it's one of the "sleeper" pager,

Just as background info... it received more than average attention because it was one of the pages used for C-14 dating. The reason for its inclusion was that it is part of a bifolio that has additional datable info on it.

Meanwhile, here are some hallucinations of mine over f86v3, traditionally nicknamed "T-O Map and Garden of Eden"(?!?).  First, the "map" itself:

[attachment=12877]

    Based on trace densities and other clues, on this page there seem to be at least a general restoration pass (Rt1) and a limited retouching pass (Rt2), in addition to the original ink traces (Rt0).
   
    This clip spans the central diagram of page f83v3. It consists of a circle C1 divided into three unequal parts by two simple lines L1,L2.
   
    The circle is very close to circular and is mostly drawn with a compass, with a thin (~0.1 mm) and faint  trace, with occasional dots and dashes of ink, assumed original (Rt0). However at 11:00 there is a  sharply delimited ~2 mm arc that is hand-drawn with slightly wider trace (~0.2 mm) with ink similar to the text ink; presumably Rt1.
   
    Unlike the circle, the lines L1 and L2 seem to be hand-drawn, as they deviate irregularly from straight.   Both are in Rt1 ink, ~0.21 mm wide, with no visible trace of Rt0 underneath. Line L1 is roughly diameter of the circle, titled ~8° clockwise from WE, and L2 is roughly  north-pointing radius, almost but  not quite perp to L1. They meet ~0.5 mm away from the circle's center.
   
    The diagram seems to be incomplete.  In the original version (Rt0) it may have been just an empty mechanical  circle C1. Lines L1 and L2 may have been spuriously added by the first general restoration pass (Rt1). This diagram is usually called a "T-O map", but it is very different from usual Medieval T-O maps: the latter have the big sector at the top, the dividing lines are doubled (with the space in between representing the Mediterranean), and the three sectors are labeled "Asia", "Europe", and "Africa".
   
    (A) Original (Rt0) mechanical circle.
   
    (J,K) Parts of the circle hand-retraced by Rt1. (L) The L1 line starts deviating from straight  at this point. (M)  Premature end of  L1. (N) The radial L2 line deviates from straight between these points.
   
    (X) Exact reference circle concentric with C1 but ~1 mm away from it.

(10-12-2025, 08:26 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's try f8r

Thanks, will do!  I have already obtained the MS images and converted them to a saner file format.  Just let me get this and the next hallucination out of the pipeline.

More on f86v3, now the tip of the SE "sprout" and the bird in the nest:

[attachment=12880]

This clip covers the distal half of the big "sprout" rooted at the SE corner, including the bird nest and "stadium lights", and also the final part of the E-side parag, lines 23-27
   
    (A) Presumed original (Rt0) traces. (B) Presumed Rt0 traces.  Note that they cross the Rt1 outline of the "nest". (C ) Presumed Rt0 outline of sprout. (D) Rt0 ribs of the sprout. (E) Tail of y by Rt0 extending from under the Rt1 body and tail stump.
   
    (F) Edge of nest is Rt1, may not follow Rt0. (J) This part of bird may have been mangled by Rt1 and/or Rt2. Note the feathers of the wing crossing the outline of the nest, the backside of the bird in front of the wing, the doubly-traced hump, and the incongruous interaction between the upper filaments lines (A) and the edge of the nest,  See inset for possible original. (K) There is no Rt0 trace of these "stadium lamps"; they may have been added by Rt1. (L) Most glyphs are mosty Rt1.
   
    (Q) These circles are possibly Rt2. (R ) This r may be Rt2.

By the way, I found another example of what I would consider very likely retracing. Again, for the third time, it is at a start of a line, my guess is by the original scribe who started the line low on ink and had to redo a couple of glyphs. So far, there are only three example of what I would consider likely retracing in the text, all of them at a start of a line, all of them to me look like a quick fix by the original scribe.

[attachment=12881]

Just for the reference, all three examples of actual likely retracing as one image.

[attachment=12882]

(10-12-2025, 05:20 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So far, there are only three example of what I would consider likely retracing in the text, all of them at a start of a line, all of them to me look like a quick fix by the original scribe.

You can add f4.3:

[attachment=12883]

Hallucinations in psychedelic colors! 

[This is a first small sample of f8r, as requested. More to follow.]
[attachment=12884]

This clip spans the first few words of lines 1 and 2 of page f8r, including the initial puff. It is a false-color image obtained by using three narrow-band images from the Lazarus set -- 940 nm IR (012), 700 nm IR (008), and 625 nm RD (006) -- as the red, green, and blue channels of an RGB image.  No processing has been done other than scaling sample values linearly to the full 0-1 range.
   
    As usual, besides vestiges of the original ink text and drawings (Rt0) tha page shows evidence of at a comprehensive restoration pass (Rt1) and scattered subsequent retracings (Rt2).  The original traces appear here as faint pink, and the Rt1 ones as strong red, which is consistent with them being not iron-gall but some ocher or siena paint.  The Rt2 traces are darker, nearly black, which is consistent with them being iron-gall ink or containing a significant portion of it.  Plumes and loops of gallows should be traced counterclockwise, but Rt1 and Rt2 often retrace them clockwise, with noticeable consequences in stroke width and weight.
   
    The blue grain on the vellum is something that absorbs 904 nm infrared but is transparent to the other two wavelengths (the opposite of ocher paint).  No idea of what it could be.  Unfortunately when the Rt1 ink is overlaid on those grains, the result is black; which gets confused with Rt2 ink, as in (M) below.
   
    (A,B) Oringinal (Rt0) traces on the initial puff p. (C ) This plume seems to be original. (D,E) parts of t and k gallows that are still original.
   
    (H) Loop of p retraced Rt1 in the wrong direction (clockwise) (I) The lower arm of the p is probably Rt1. (J) Double trace of the p leg, possibly Rt1. (K) Bit of the loop of a t retraced (probably clockwise) by Rt1. (L) Head of t retraced by Rt1 with 4 separate strokes, including clockwise on the loop). (M) Glyph Ch retraced by Rt1. (N) Glyph Sh where Rt1 retraced the C and h and only the middle part of the plume, clockwise.
   
    (Q,R) Stroke C and glyph o retraced by Rt2. (S) Glyph r with body and bottom half of plume Rt2, and top half of plume Rt1 traced clockwise.