The Voynich Ninja

(26-09-2020, 08:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In both old and new scans, the edge of folio 8 throws shadow upon the underlying folio, which means they are not pressed to each other. If they were, there would have been no shadow.

There would have been no shadow, but the gap between the ink marks would not become smaller.
If anything, through the camera perspective, it could become marginally bigger.

I made some experiments creating my own bifolios and mimicking the process that I suggested. It appears that this is all a bit complicated.

Supposing that the quire marks are left after the quire binding (stitching) was done, three things lead to the shift of the written part in the upper folio in respect of the part in the lower folio:

1) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting sidewards from the outer bifolio.
2) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting downwards from the outer bifolio.
3) The upper folio gets excessively contorted (e.g. due to the aging)

If all three factors act at once, their effect is accumulating to the same direction.

Clause 2) will additionally leave an y-axis gap between the two parts (we observe the y-axis gap in Q1 and Q3 marks (but not in Q15)).

However, in all three cases the upper part will shift towards the binding. This is what we see in Q3 and Q15. In Q1 the shift is in the opposite direction - outwards from the binding. I was not able to explain this so far. Maybe there's a local downward curvature of f8 in this place.

At the bottom of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page are the remnants of a plant outline. I matched the fold at 37r with the fold at 38v and was surprised that the 38v cutoff coordinates of the flower matched the outline at 37r.

Could this be true?
[attachment=4845]

I don't think it's a good match between the two, but these marks on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are interesting. Note that they do not protrude to the edge of the folio.

I suppose it is possible to have lain the flower folio over the other one and gone over the top edge. Funny how the creases line up, but otherwise is a random place, if it is the same crease, the folios were not cut vertically in the same places. Maybe they caught on each other. Doesnt have to be the same crease for that to occur. So my guess is that it is two pieces from a larger skin, but they were already cut when that happened, and then there was further trimming, as the flower has even less of a top now. The bit to the right has a different opacity, does seem to extend nearer to the edge, but doesnt correspond with the flower, so not sure what is going on there, maybe it is from the bottom of another, laid directly on top?

By the way did anyone ever contact the biocodicology people that are working on the dna database for vellum from eraser crumbs? Seems to me this case would be interesting to test to see if it is the same skin. Plus if enough pages were tested i think we would gain other answers (possibly to questions not yet asked)

The promised blog on the use of scissors and a pocket knife. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.   
 Conclusion.
Sheets 12, 74, bifolio 109 - 110, Quire 12 are specially cut. This happened simultaneously for a unified purpose (apparently for the presentation of samples). These four examples are united by the fact that the central pages of the notebooks were removed. This is the easiest way to preserve the safety of both the book and the deleted sheets.

Temporary stapling of pages Q 20.

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

(26-09-2020, 06:26 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Conclusions I have come to
4 / Another period (reason) for undercutting with a clerical knife, seen on page f90r2, when too much parchment has been removed.

Detailing Wladimir's remark about f90r2/f90v2:

Description: On the BL 2014 images the panel f90r2 is 3496 pixels tall next to the W edge (a bit less than panel f90r1) and 3284 pixels near the E edge.  Assuming the scale of 235/2534 = 0.0927 mm/pixel, that means ~235 mm and ~221 mm, respectively. Some of the difference may be due to parallax, as the folio seems to be bent convexly and sloping away from the camera for lack of support.  However the ~14 mm difference may be real,due to the top and bottom edges having been cut away; see below. 
   
    With the bend and slope caveat, the panel is 2268 pixels wide near the N edge, and 2321 near the S edge; which would be ~152 mm and ~156 mm, respectively.

    The vellum near the N and S edges is clean, unlike that of f90r1 which has a dark "dirty old" halo, ~2 mm wide or more, along those edges. The top edge of the f90r2 panel is slanted and looks like a sliver was cut out of it with 7 sharp cuts. Each cut, except the last one at the E end, is practically straight for most of the length, but in the last ~3 mm it bends up by ~1.5 mm and meets the next cut, forming a sharp corner with obtuse or traight angle.  The first cut starts at ~10 mm from the west edge (the fold that separates this panel from f90r1); that part of the N edge has the "dirty old" halo. The lengths of the cuts (from end to end, including the final bend) are ~18 mm, ~18 mm, ~22 mm, ~24 mm, ~23 mm, ~24 mm, and ~15 mm.  The portion that was cut away from the top may be a triangular sliver ~145 mm wide and ~10 mm tall at the E end.
   
    The S edge of the f90r2 panel too seems to have been cut. There seem to have been one smooth cut from the W edge, ~115 mm wide, that ends abruptly, then a second cut that starts ~0.5 mm lower and continues to the E edge.  The cuts are slightly curved, but that may be due to vellum curvature.  The part that was cut away may have been another triangular sliver ~150 mm wide and ~4 mm tall at the E end.
   
    The E edge is somewhat irregular and has a broad "dirty old" halo, ~5 mm wide. 

Interpretation:  The regularity of shape and relative straightness of the cuts along the N and S edges suggest that they were done with a scissor, rather than with a razor or pen-knife over a solid support.  The lack of the "dirty old" halo suggests that the cuts were not contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript but were relatively recent.
   
     The "dirty old" band along the E edge is a bit too broad. Could it be that folio f90 had a third flap, f90.3, that was cut away along the fold, or broke off from much folding?

All the best, --stolfi