The Voynich Ninja

(11-09-2016, 04:32 PM)Tisquesusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only area I could add my expertise is on the mineral that is said to have been recognised in the VMS. That is boleite, a blue lead-copper-silver salt: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

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

Questions about that:
- which folio should contain this mineral?
- how could a mineral that has been found first in Mexico late 19th century appear in a pre-Columbian era (if that's true) manuscript?

Just to be clear. There is no boleite being found in the materials analysis of the Voynich manuscript. If you are talking about the speculations about what the drawing of a blue cube (fol 102v2 per JD) could represent - there are other proposals for that cube (all of them just as speculative as boleite). In the future, try to avoid representing speculations as fact.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Tisquesusa,

I'd be interested to know the source which first mentioned bolite.  I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say it as been "recognised in" the manuscript. Do you mean that someone has read the raw data from the McCrone analysis and seen it as in the pigments, or that someone has thought they recognised reference to it in one of the images?

(11-09-2016, 06:38 PM)EllieV Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-09-2016, 04:32 PM)Tisquesusa Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only area I could add my expertise is on the mineral that is said to have been recognised in the VMS. That is boleite, a blue lead-copper-silver salt: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

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

Questions about that:
- which folio should contain this mineral?
- how could a mineral that has been found first in Mexico late 19th century appear in a pre-Columbian era (if that's true) manuscript?

Just to be clear. There is no boleite being found in the materials analysis of the Voynich manuscript. If you are talking about the speculations about what the drawing of a blue cube (fol 102v2 per JD) could represent - there are other proposals for that cube (all of them just as speculative as boleite). In the future, try to avoid representing speculations as fact.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have never said that:
- there was boleite found in the materials analysis
- I didn't use the term "fact", a term used by non-scientists mostly. "Fact" is a so much abused term that I avoid it at all times, only using it in combinations as "as a matter of fact" or "in fact" and even that in rare cases

I said:

"the mineral that is said to have been recognised"

Recognition can be visual (as is the case here) and "it is said" is referring to a publication by people who have done this recognition.

Thanks for the folio link, now it's even clearer how shaky that "recognition" is. A cube drawn and painted blue in f102v2 (top centre) would be a rare mineral that wasn't discovered and described before 1891, from Mexico.

Obviously that interpretation is part of the idea that the VMS contains New World-only species (the sunflower and thus this mineral). But it's not only the time problem of pre-Columbian vs post-New World discovery that is the problem, but the huge timespan between 1891 and 14xx/15xx.

(12-09-2016, 03:32 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Tisquesusa,

I'd be interested to know the source which first mentioned bolite.  I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say it as been "recognised in" the manuscript. Do you mean that someone has read the raw data from the McCrone analysis and seen it as in the pigments, or that someone has thought they recognised reference to it in one of the images?

The second is apparently the case; the mineral boleite has been visually interpreted in f102v2. This is a page that mentions it: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (linked before).

What we observe is a cube with 1 side painted blue. If that is enough to interpret a complex Ag-Cu-Pb salt, then everything seems possible to interpret. It could also be the common cubic mineral pyrite where the artist just painted 1 side of the cube blue, because he/she didn't want to use the much more logical brown.

I use the terms observations, measurements and interpretations. In the wiki the term "positively identified" is used, where I think "identification" is already a far too certain term for it.

Interpretation is a broader term and can be used by amateurs and experts. Identification is far too much in my opinion. With identification there is hardly room for other views. Interpretations are much more flexible.

The terms "fact" and "evidence" are terms used by non-scientists to describe things. They are much closer related to the justice department than to the science department.

On all pages of "leaf - roots" all the drawings (except for bottles) are plants (plant components). Why blue cube f102v2 impossible to be regarded as part of the plant?
Proceeding from the fact that the little drawings of plants are like drawings of plants herbal section, I think that the blue cube is part of the root (cube) of sunflower f53r.
Why is he blue? I think because of the oxidation of the chemical elements in the same way as turning blue the slices mushrooms: the moss (моховик), cap boletus.

(12-09-2016, 04:42 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On all pages of "leaf - roots" all the drawings (except for bottles) are plants (plant components). Why blue cube f102v2 impossible to be regarded as part of the plant?
Proceeding from the fact that the little drawings of plants are like drawings of plants herbal section, I think that the blue cube is part of the root (cube) of sunflower f53r.
Why is he blue? I think because of the oxidation of the chemical elements in the same way as turning blue the slices mushrooms: the moss (моховик), cap boletus.

Yes, it's possible that it's plant sap or some mineral. There were quite a few resins (some of which roughly resemble cubes) and a few minerals represented in de Materia Medica and others. There are also some specifically represented as cubes as they are crystalline in nature.

Alchemical mercury was also sometimes represented as cubes and the blue could symbolize celestial origin.

>> There were quite a few resins (some of which roughly resemble cubes) and a few minerals represented in de Materia Medica and others. There are also some specifically represented as cubes as they are crystalline in nature.

I was curious, could you please mention the names of the chemicals or herbs or pastures that :

* have been presented before in a MS as such or as small cube
* have a bright green or blue color
* have a herbal or root origin

.....

(13-09-2016, 03:33 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.>> There were quite a few resins (some of which roughly resemble cubes) and a few minerals represented in de Materia Medica and others. There are also some specifically represented as cubes as they are crystalline in nature.

I was curious, could you please mention the names of the chemicals or herbs or pastures that :

* have been presented before in a MS as such or as small cube
* have a bright green or blue color
* have a herbal or root origin

Sorry, David, I tried to look up the answers to your questions on the weekend, but I have tens of thousands of files, not all of them organized yet and cannot easily put my hands on the names of these resins and minerals, especially since the herbals are in many different languages and these items are labeled differently in each one (and some are not labeled at all, but they are recognizable by context).

Even when I can find the right document, one has to know the name of the item to find it alphabetically, or to know where it was when it's not alphabetical. In a 300-page manuscript, this means going through each page. I remember some of the resins were frankincense, myrrh, balsam, etc., but it was the minerals that were more often drawn with angular sides. Sometimes a picture of a miner with a pick-axe is shown but other times the mineral itself is shown as a small drawing without a miner (or mine) nearby to give context.

The alchemical mercury can be found with a Google search and I think I posted one of the pics (with mercury cubes in the sky) on my blog a while back.

iiiii

(27-09-2016, 07:15 PM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I want to thank all of you who have apparently decided this thread is about cubes and minerals rather than jars.

Here it comes...

Thank you.  

Don of Tallahassee

PS. I will sell to each of you your very own thread about cubes and minerals at a very reasonable price. I also offer group prices for group threads. Let me know.

---

Hey, maybe if I open a thread about cubes and minerals, would y'all will want to write about jars?

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee

Sorry, Don, but the resins are the substances that were particularly associated with ornate jars in those days (hence the fancy jars carried by the "three wise men" who are said to have brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh).

Regular apothecary jars tend to be more utilitarian so they don't tip over when in regular use. The fancy jars are usually used for the "fancy" (more exotic and more expensive) stuff that often came from the middle east and Levant and plant resins are high on the list of exotic plant substances (particularly balsam). In the more northern parts, only the nobility could afford them (and only the nobility could afford the fancy jars for storing, serving or gifting them).