The Voynich Ninja

I have searched for days looking for signs of a signature which attributes John Dee for designing the MS-408.  I truly believe he made this document and as most artists practice as a hiding technique; they place hard to spot letters in their art.  I have done this with some of my oil paintings.  There is a leaf half way up to the right in folio 53r and if you invert it and look really close you can make out letters.
Ioaniss
Dee
This is a solid analysis for letters just don’t appear!  Also it looks as though he tried to hide the text with a dark brown stain, but he added a pointer to the letter, “o”.  This is information and finally it adds validity to my work.



Also earlier today I found this, credit JKP:

What does the cube that I image processed have to do with your interpretation of the letters you found? You posted it in such a way that it seems to imply support of your idea that John Dee signed this, but it does not.

There are letters in many of the images so I did some image processing on the folio you posted.

Here's what happened. If there's text in there (it looks like there might be but it's extremely small) it doesn't look anything like "John Dee" (regardless of whether it's viewed upside-down or rightside-up):

It looks like those lines are many times thinner than the ones used in regular drawing - is that even possible/plausible?

(07-10-2016, 08:18 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What does the cube that I image processed have to do with your interpretation of the letters you found? You posted it in such a way that it seems to imply support of your idea that John Dee signed this, but it does not.

There are letters in many of the images so I did some image processing on the folio you posted.

Here's what happened. If there's text in there (it looks like there might be but it's extremely small) it doesn't look anything like "John Dee" (regardless of whether it's viewed upside-down or rightside-up):

JKP,

You have to invert the image.

---

(07-10-2016, 08:20 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It looks like those lines are many times thinner than the ones used in regular drawing - is that even possible/plausible?

Why not?  I see information here and info requires intelligence which this man had!  A sharp point with ink could do it and that's why the letters are not uniform as evident in the, "n".  It's small no doubt yet the n is a give away along with the SS's. they all appear with straight lines.

When hunting for hidden writing in the VM one needs to be very careful not to let it develop into a personal Rorschach test, especially with the paintwork. The paint does tend to get lodged into cracks in the parchment which can lead to the confusion that there are parallel ink marks as made by a pen.

Also remember the parchment is very thin on some pages, allowing scoremarks, writing and even illustrations on the reverse to be visible. If you look at the reverse of that page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. then you can clearly see the image you are looking at, coming through the thin parchment. What we are seeing may just be a trick of the parchment.

That's not to say I'm dismissing your image - I haven't stopped to investigate it fully - but simply repeating an oft given warning about the dangers of spending too long fixed to a screen magnifying bits of the image.

(07-10-2016, 09:36 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When hunting for hidden writing in the VM one needs to be very careful not to let it develop into a personal Rorschach test, especially with the paintwork. The paint does tend to get lodged into cracks in the parchment which can lead to the confusion that there are parallel ink marks as made by a pen.

Also remember the parchment is very thin on some pages, allowing scoremarks, writing and even illustrations on the reverse to be visible. If you look at the reverse of that page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. then you can clearly see the image you are looking at, coming through the thin parchment. What we are seeing may just be a trick of the parchment.

That's not to say I'm dismissing your image - I haven't stopped to investigate it fully - but simply repeating an oft given warning about the dangers of spending too long fixed to a screen magnifying bits of the image.

That would be an amazing trick with all that Intel.

Stellar, you're seeing what you want to see.

You left out some of the shapes that are there and misread ones that aren't. Why are you ignoring the shapes next to the "name" that are more clear than the ones you marked?


Also, it's a bad idea to write over the marks. It's better to write next to them or to use dots (small ones), rather than lines that obscure the actual image.


Good research is about figuring out what is there.
Bad research is assuming what is there, and who wrote it, and imposing that idea on the data.


And why would John Dee misspell his own name when it's hidden under the paint? It's spelled Ioannis (not Ioaniss).

(07-10-2016, 09:44 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, you're seeing what you want to see.

You left out some of the shapes that are there and misread ones that aren't. Why are you ignoring the shapes next to the "name" that are more clear than the ones you marked?


Also, it's a bad idea to write over the marks. It's better to write next to them or to use dots (small ones), rather than lines that obscure the actual image.


Good research is about figuring out what is there.
Bad research is assuming what is there, and who wrote it, and imposing that idea on the data.


And why would John Dee misspell his own name when it's hidden under the paint? It's spelled Ioannis (not Ioaniss).

I agree to disagree and I feel you make this judgement in haste for some internal reason.  You dismiss everything I do; so there is definitely an agenda which I feel you have.  I'm not attacking you and I know you are brilliant by the way you write and understand language.

I don't know why he would misspell his own name maybe some deflection like what is happening in this moment with you and I.  Maybe he left and came back later to start with an, i then added an S who knows.  Maybe he was afraid of being found out.  I believe he was under a great deal of stress and money was on the line and this text must have been hard to produce for it tiny size.

(07-10-2016, 09:59 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 09:44 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, you're seeing what you want to see.

You left out some of the shapes that are there and misread ones that aren't. Why are you ignoring the shapes next to the "name" that are more clear than the ones you marked?


Also, it's a bad idea to write over the marks. It's better to write next to them or to use dots (small ones), rather than lines that obscure the actual image.


Good research is about figuring out what is there.
Bad research is assuming what is there, and who wrote it, and imposing that idea on the data.


And why would John Dee misspell his own name when it's hidden under the paint? It's spelled Ioannis (not Ioaniss).

I agree to disagree and I feel you make this judgement in haste for some internal reason.  You dismiss everything I do; so there is definitely an agenda which I feel you have.  I'm not attacking you and I know you are brilliant by the way you write and understand language.

I don't know why he would misspell his own name maybe some deflection like what is happening in this moment with you and I.  Maybe he left and came back later to start with an, i then added an S who knows.  Maybe he was afraid of being found out.  I believe he was under a great deal of stress and money was on the line and this text must have been hard to produce for it tiny size.

There's a lot you could learn from some of the people here who do very careful, very well supported research. I do not dismiss what they do.

You want quick results, instant gratification. You're creative and energetic, but you're not willing to take the TIME it takes to get real results. Check your work, double-check with other sources, don't try to impose your expectations on the data and your work will NOT be dismissed. Then you will have a chance of being taken seriously.

I have no agenda, only a commitment to good research and finding the truth. If you're not trying to do that, if you decide in advance John Dee did this, then you are prejudicing your own results and you may miss important clues leading to real answers.

(07-10-2016, 10:03 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 09:59 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-10-2016, 09:44 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, you're seeing what you want to see.

You left out some of the shapes that are there and misread ones that aren't. Why are you ignoring the shapes next to the "name" that are more clear than the ones you marked?


Also, it's a bad idea to write over the marks. It's better to write next to them or to use dots (small ones), rather than lines that obscure the actual image.


Good research is about figuring out what is there.
Bad research is assuming what is there, and who wrote it, and imposing that idea on the data.


And why would John Dee misspell his own name when it's hidden under the paint? It's spelled Ioannis (not Ioaniss).

I agree to disagree and I feel you make this judgement in haste for some internal reason.  You dismiss everything I do; so there is definitely an agenda which I feel you have.  I'm not attacking you and I know you are brilliant by the way you write and understand language.

I don't know why he would misspell his own name maybe some deflection like what is happening in this moment with you and I.  Maybe he left and came back later to start with an, i then added an S who knows.  Maybe he was afraid of being found out.  I believe he was under a great deal of stress and money was on the line and this text must have been hard to produce for it tiny size.

There's a lot you could learn from some of the people here who do very careful, very well supported research. I do not dismiss what they do.

You want quick results, instant gratification. You're creative and energetic, but you're not willing to take the TIME it takes to get real results. Check your work, double-check with other sources, don't try to impose your expectations on the data and your work will NOT be dismissed. Then you will have a chance of being taken seriously.

I have no agenda, only a commitment to good research and finding the truth. If you're not trying to do that, if you decide in advance John Dee did this, then you are prejudicing your own results and you may miss important clues leading to real answers.

To my knowledge the research is only supported until we all agree that a word or words of the voynich glyph's have produced real results and are truly decoded, not like Stephen Bax, because he has academia on his side.  Stephen Bax has explained to me that this voynich script is not a cipher at his site. The pictures are nice and some are obvious that is why what I have done is historical.  My associations have given them meaning from the glyph's.  So right now I only agree on my method  that it is true and maybe a few here like it, but I believe some day my work will be referred to many times.

Truth should be open to everyone's input until further deduction proves otherwise. Anyone in the Voynich Community who has access to the Beinecke Library should view this leaf under a microscope. Like I said it took me days to find and its perhaps the only clue for authorship of the VMS.  Furthermore this signature proves my assumption correct that John Dee is the author if verified by a microscope.  I am taking the high road on that, because I would like to know that result.

Also can you prove that my method of numerology is incorrect?  What are the odds of lining up a Zodiac in traditional manner like I did and then finding many labels consistent to my cipher?  Have you ever decoded words from the Voynich Manuscript using a cipher that you constructed and if you have lets see it.  My work is a huge paradigm shift for approaching the voynich manuscript and it has produced results like no other method.  Maybe you could learn from me as well!  Your agenda is clear and its very dismissive of my work without realizing the facts of my cipher to the imagery and themes which show a profound correlation to them.

Yes I agree I am learning from others, but you are my greatest critic and at every turn its pure negativity.  I think every post you have dismissed my work, wow.  You can't even say like Thomascoon, nice work or what an effort?  As a matter of fact I would like to say thank you for all your efforts and nice work, because I know you have spent years on this document.  And after years of looking at it could you please tell me what language you think it is in?  Please don't patronize me about research and you have no idea the amount of time I have spent on this.




MODs sorry if I posted anything wrong but to my defense I had too.