The Voynich Ninja

(07-10-2025, 09:08 PM)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.These photos have a resolution of 72x72 dpi. This resolution cannot be classified as microphotography.

I get what you are saying, and they are certainly not high resolution. But I think the point is the magnification... that they are demonstrating, at high magnification, the areas from which they took the samples.

But still, I was also surprised that the magnification was not very high. The purpose was different, I suppose, but when McCrone made photomicrographs of the inks of the Vinland map, it was far higher... you could see the shape of the crystals of the components of the ink:

[attachment=11581]

Whereas these Voynich "microphotographs" are far, far less magnified... I'm not sure the power of magnification is recorded anywhere, but obviously not anything like the above image for the Vinland Map. In this case, the "4o" width would be about 4mm, according to the scale.

[attachment=11582]

Also, though, the 72x72 resolution of the report images may not be anything like the original images which McCrone took. These were probably reduced for use in the report, as, again, if my guess is correct, the only purpose of these "microphotographs" was to show, in adequate detail, where the sample was from.

Rich

(08-10-2025, 02:19 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, they realized it because of my requests. But no, they actually were lost... in that they no longer remembered they had them, and even countered my requests with firm denials that they even existed.

You were talking with someone in the Beinecke library, who apparently did not know about this.

Some of the pictures were used in the Yale photo facsimile, so they were not lost. They are again being used in a new on-going publication.

(08-10-2025, 05:27 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You were talking with someone in the Beinecke library, who apparently did not know about this.

Some of the pictures were used in the Yale photo facsimile, so they were not lost. They are again being used in a new on-going publication.

Actually I included just about every person at the Beinecke, from the bottom to the top, in a giant CC list! I can be annoying that way, but in my experience I've found that a successful tactic*, as often even only one person of many might know the information I am after. But, in this case, none of list of recipients remembered they had them. I even included the gentleman who was the listed recipient on the original report! But without my copying the very long email correspondence I had with them, here, I understand your disbelief on this issue.

But as you say, some others apparently did know... as I do see that one of the image areas was used, as you say, in the Yale book... on the top of page 32, "The detail of the right margin of f. 1r.", and that probably is from one of the McCrone images. So I see that you are correct, and it does sound as though some staff had known of these, and even used them.

But it also revisits the issue that there must be still many more unreleased images, as those Yale pages show several more microphotographs which are not in the McCrone "McCronemicrographs (003).pdf" file shared with me. Perhaps this explains the "003" part? I had wondered about that. Is there an "001", an "002"? or higher numbers than "003"? Maybe the other wonderful images, such as those at the top of page 33 in the Yale book, were from those (if they exist)? Maybe I should try, again... or someone else, as they probably have a wanted poster of me on the wall there by now.

I hope I am not alone... if I am, so be it... in hoping and wishing all data, all photographs, would be released to us. Some do come out in dribs-and-drabs, and sometimes with great effort, while others are selectively used in various publications.

But as always, I do look forward to any new publications. Is this new "on-going" publication one of Lisa's announced books, and/or one you are working on? In any case, I look forward to it as I always do, and will be one of the first on the list to order it.

Rich.

* I found the first Voynich photocopies in the New York Public Library this way. They had been left there by Ethel and Anne, and not catalogued by the NYPL except in an old ledger. They let me examine them, but not photograph them: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The same thing happened with Voynich's 1928 color copy of his "Magellan Chart" in their rare map room. It was missing from his catalog (number 8?), but after searching an old hand written catalog they found it... in a manila envelope, marked as last opened in 1948! Since then, some French collection posted their copy online. They are very rare... I'm not sure if the NYPL has digitized either the map, or the catalog entry, since then. These, and this recent example, are just a few successes, and not just in the Voynich field, but in others. I enjoy doing this, it is like a treasure hunt...

[attachment=11601]

I am not surprised that no one at the Beinecke could track down the charts...there has been significant staff turnover in the last year and a complete reorganization of the hierarchy and job descriptions at the Library. The transition from Ray Clemens to the new curator Agnieszka Rec was complex, taking place after the COVID shutdown, Ray's extended medical leave, and a lengthy national search. 

In other news, Colin Layfield and I will be at Yale on Friday to present our work on the original structure of the manuscript to a joint gathering of the Linguistics and the Medieval Studies programs. We'll meet up with Claire at the Beinecke in the morning to spend some time with the manuscript, and as promised I'll take a close look at the foliation on f. 42 and a few other things I want to check.

(07-10-2025, 09:43 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I find this analysis particularly interesting: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have tons of, uh, comments about the McCrone report.  The actual spectra and the microscope images only added to them.  

I hope to write a, erm, commentary of their report some time.  Meanwhile, abut that "clear/white paint".  There are two samples described as such on Table 1, namely samples 12  and 18.

Sample 12 is discussed in the text. It is supposed to come from attached micrograph 11A:
[attachment=11605]
I can't see definite sign of any white paint there. The lightest area seems to be just blank parchment, that appears to be white only because it was spared by the light yellow paint.  Maybe that is why the report added "clear/" to the description.  Why not "invisible/"?  The report "identified" sample 12 as "proteinaceous, with a large amount of calcium carbonate present".  Know what else is "proteinaceous, with a large amount of calcium carbonate present"?  Blank parchment...

Sample 18, curiously, is not explicitly discussed in the report. It is supposed to come from the "woman's face" of micrograph 17A is from f70v1, the outer nymph at ~04:00, rotated 120 degrees counterclockwise.  There seems to be no "clear/white paint" on the nymph itself, so presumably the sample was taken from the tiny white rectangle inside the large dark brown area:
 [attachment=11604]
But that is not "paint".  The size, shape, edge sharpness etc. is quite wrong for that.  A clue to its nature is the round yellow knob that seems to be attached to the NW of that white area.  The glints show that its surface is glossy and knobby.  The material seems to be translucent, as the brown hues of ink show through it. 

I bet a pizza and a beer that the white and yellow object it is a bit of food, specifically of egg yolk and something white like egg white or pastry.   That is, just another food accident, like the "goulash" stain on f102v1+f103r.  

And Table 1 says "Proteinaceous - Carbohydrate - starch (traces)". No calcium carbonate.  I don't put calcium carbonate in my French toast, either.

All the best, --jorge

Several people who were involved with the 2009 Austrian documentary have a complete copy with all the annexes. I know at least one person at Yale (not Beinecke) who also has this, and who has already contacted the Beinecke to have them put online. That is what I hinted at in my first contribution to this thread. 

I suppose it is just a matter of waiting.

With respect to the tiny 'object' in Stolfi's second picture, the white bit was looked at and Joe Barabe was not able to decide what it was, except that to him it appeared to be foreign to the MS, i.e. some unintentional external thing that ended up being attached to the MS. He did not like to speculate.

The shiny gold-like blob to me looks a bit like similar items found on other pages. I'd have to search for my notes....
These were already seen in the digital scans before, and suspected to be gold or gold paint. During the 2014 Folger workshop I asked them to look at it, and they were identified as tiny drops of gum that were spilled on the parchment. This is the gum used to make the iron-gall ink.

(09-10-2025, 12:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With respect to the tiny 'object' in Stolfi's second picture, the white bit was looked at and Joe Barabe was not able to decide what it was, except that to him it appeared to be foreign to the MS, i.e. some unintentional external thing that ended up being attached to the MS. He did not like to speculate.

Ok!

Quote:The shiny gold-like blob to me looks a bit like similar items found on other pages.

That would be interesting...

Quote:suspected to be gold or gold paint

It does not look like that at all.  I expect gold leaf to look angular like crumped aluminum foil, not with round knobs. And to me it looks like the brown hue of an ink trace is showing through the yellow stuff.

Quote:they were identified as tiny drops of gum that were spilled on the parchment. This is the gum used to make the iron-gall ink.

I used gum arabic when I has a kid.  It was commonly used to make glue for paper, envelopes, stamps and things like that.  Being edible, it could be licked...

Gum arabic is traded as translucent lumps, almost  as hard as candy.  For use, those lumps are dissolved in hot water yielding a thick syrupy liquid.  That glue is what one would use as binder for tempera paint or thickener for ink. I suppose one could prepare gum arabic so that it would have the consistency of a putty, but I cannot see why.  

But while some large chunks of gum arabic can be orange or rusty brown in color, a drop as small as that object (~0.3 mm) should appear colorless.

I am still betting on egg yolk...

All the best, --jorge

I just went back to my notes...

Some supposed 'gold specks' were on my list of things to look at during the Folger 2014 workshop. These had been highlighted in one of the older Voynich fora by a contributor called David Suter. Most are on f46v, the page with the so-called "eagle root". I include a figure he had prepared for this:

[attachment=11609]

This was looked at under a laboratory microscope similar to the one used for the McCrone images, under various magnifications. Unfortunately, there are no pictures of these views. The positive identification that these are drops of gum was from a professional conservator. I was fortunate enough to see this as well. They were clearly tiny 3-dimensional blobs and translucent.
I hope you will understand that I trust this positive identification.

It is of course entirely possible that the item in the nymph's face discussed before this is something else, but to me it looks very similar.

It often seems to me that some Ninja contributors are desperately looking for material evidence that can't be easily explained and therefore "proves" that the manuscript is a modern forgery. But none of the testing - C14, material, MSI, XRF (coming soon) - suggests that the manuscript is anything other than an authentic 15th-century object. Any ancient object will collect foreign material. Think about the journey this object has had, at the very least from Prague to Rome (hundreds of years on a bookshelf) to London to New York to New Haven! Plus whatever journeys it went on before arriving in Prague. Think about the HUNDREDS of people who have handled it over the years. The liquid and food and candlewax and smoke it was exposed to. I've probably left epithelial cells behind. So has Rene, and anyone else who has handled it. Manuscripts accrete evidence over the centuries, and not all of it is going to be easily explicable. Nor does it need to be.

Prague to Rome - likely on horseback or a wagon. Rome to London - by ship. London to New York - by ship. New York to New Haven - a quick 2-hour journey, either in the back of Kraus' car or by train. That's a lot of environmental exposure and a lot of opportunity to accrete foreign material. 

It would be suspicious if there WASN'T any foreign material!

(09-10-2025, 11:37 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I hope you will understand that I trust this positive identification.

Sure.  I myself am a lot more skeptical of expert opinions in general, but that is just me...

All the best, --jorge