+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Conference] Voynich Zoom CFP (/thread-5211.html)
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - bi3mw - 11-03-2026
Unfortunately, I missed the conference. Is there a YouTube recording of it, for example?
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - Jorge_Stolfi - 11-03-2026
I could watch only the last tree talks (SantaColoma, Barabe, Huth), and then only part of the time.
As far as I can tell, Rich presented only what we have already seen in his blog and here. If there was any new observation, I missed it.
Barabe presented some excerpts of the McCrone report, and showed some microscope images that are not in it. I didn't hear anything significant that was not in the report. But he stressed that some of the conclusions are more uncertain and baffling than they appear in the report.
Huth presented a rather specific theory about the sources of some VMS images. Including a manuscript with two "scorpions" that look very much like that one in the VMS Scorpio page. But I did not get the details. Did he present them here in this forum?
All the best, --stolfi
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - kckluge - 11-03-2026
(11-03-2026, 09:08 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, I missed the conference. Is there a YouTube recording of it, for example?
I second this -- I very much hope recordings can be made available so those of us who missed the Zoom call will have the chance to view the talks.
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - proto57 - 11-03-2026
(11-03-2026, 09:10 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I could watch only the last tree talks (SantaColoma, Barabe, Huth), and then only part of the time.
As far as I can tell, Rich presented only what we have already seen in his blog and here. If there was any new observation, I missed it.
True it was mostly a compilation of various points I've covered before, but with less of a "theory-specific" bent... it was more to point out to people that the foundational factors which form the current, most popular image of the Voynich, are all not so settled... and are still open to alternative interpretations
Quote:Barabe presented some excerpts of the McCrone report, and showed some microscope images that are not in it. I didn't hear anything significant that was not in the report. But he stressed that some of the conclusions are more uncertain and baffling than they appear in the report.
Yes Mr. Barabe's talk was very refreshing to me, because "the man himself" basically echoed what I had been saying about that report for over a decade: That it is not "cut and dried", that there are confusing, mysterious elements in it, all of which deserve further analysis and testing.
He also dispelled his original claim (in the 2009 report) that a "brass inkwell" was a possible source of the "unusual copper & zinc". He used words like "not your typical iron gall ink", and that the green he tested was "most mysterious". And so on. Many answers to questions I've put forth for many years, but had not, until now, had answers for.
For one, when I asked if the level of Titanium in the Voynich ink was "trace", or how he would categorize it, he said that in one sample it was "A large amount."
As for the parts of the McCrone report that are not in the official download which you mention, I shook those loose from the Beinecke last summer or fall (after a dozen years of trying!), and posted them at the link below... almost all the charts and "microphotographs". If interested: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
They are fascinating!
Rich
(11-03-2026, 09:20 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-03-2026, 09:08 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, I missed the conference. Is there a YouTube recording of it, for example?
I second this -- I very much hope recordings can be made available so those of us who missed the Zoom call will have the chance to view the talks.
Hi, Karl: Elonka got permission to record the entire thing, and only one participant... a Mr. Huth... declined. She said that she would be processing and posting the recording at some future date, and let everyone know.
I'm sure someone will post on the Ninja forums, but if no one gets around to it, I will.
Rich
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - Koen G - 11-03-2026
I was also surprised by the amount of uncertainties Barabe expressed (the last part of his presentation and the Q&A was the only part I was able to watch, and I got patches of the last presentation).
For completeness' sake, I think I also understood that:
* the titanium is not of the kind indicative of modern pigments
* he considers everything he saw period-appropriate, though some pigments (like the green) do not correspond to any of his reference samples. He suspects the green may have been gained by oxidizing copper. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this).
* puzzling results are very common
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - Torsten - 12-03-2026
(11-03-2026, 09:20 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-03-2026, 09:08 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unfortunately, I missed the conference. Is there a YouTube recording of it, for example?
I second this -- I very much hope recordings can be made available so those of us who missed the Zoom call will have the chance to view the talks.
Voynich Zoom - March 11, 2026
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - LisaFaginDavis - 12-03-2026
It was really great to hear first-hand from Barabe. My takeaway is just how I've always interpreted the McCrone: there's nothing that directly indicates the inks and pigments are modern. There are some unexplained results, but nothing that indicates the manuscript is not fifteenth century.
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - proto57 - 12-03-2026
(Yesterday, 08:31 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It was really great to hear first-hand from Barabe. My takeaway is just how I've always interpreted the McCrone: there's nothing that directly indicates the inks and pigments are modern. There are some unexplained results, but nothing that indicates the manuscript is not fifteenth century.
Well, technically accurate. But there is also "nothing [in the ink] that indicates" any age at all, from the radiocarbon dates to the day the ms. was announced by Wilfrid. And so, there is also "nothing that indicates", in the ink, that the ink came from the fifteenth century, either. Yes, AFAWK it could be from then, but there is nothing in the inks and pigments to indicate this was the era they were from.
So far, it is only from clues outside the ink and pigment contents from which age guesses for the ms. are made. The ink, so far, tells us nothing about that.
And yes, he did describe the various additional elements and compounds as "unexplained", and also "mysterious", "head scratching", "problematic". For one substance, he said, "I don't understand this, it is not in the McCrone catalog". He expressed surprise there was "potassium lead oxide", yet "no lead"... as, he explained, lead is usually found with the former. For the green he tested, he said that it is "the most mysterious" to him, something about the "clorides", I think. He said, it was "not your typical iron gall ink", and that the presence of potassium was "odd".
And he also has changed his mind on the "unusual copper and zinc", as he wrote in the 2009 report: He seems to no longer feel that a brass inkwell is a possible source any longer, as brass will leach zinc, but not the copper. So, he still feels the "unusual copper and zinc" is unexplained, even speculatively. And much more.
My point is that, despite accurately describing the results as "unexplained", they much more than that, and may afford clues to the age and origin of the inks and pigments. Mr. Barabe agrees with me. But nevertheless... and this was the point of that segment of my talk... the inks continue to be misleadingly described, in lectures and videos, blogs, articles and books... as "perfect", and "from the 15th century", with "nothing unusual found" in them, and so on.
Clearly, and as I have been saying for well over a decade now, and even up to the very talk on Wednesday, right before Barabe by some cosmic coincidence,
the inks have much that is unusual about them, and very important information is being missed by not reporting on that fact. And now, I was very heartened to see, the man himself, the expert who provided those tests, absolutely agrees with these assessments. Like me, he wants further testing, further examination of the results we have, exactly because the results are so unusual. I hope that these realities about the ink don't continue to be brushed under the rug. We should all want these mysteries explained, and not ignored any longer.
Rich.
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - kckluge - 13-03-2026
I thought one of the more interesting things Barabe said (quoting the transcript) was,:
2:24:50
I my my tentative conclusion on this is that there's a good chance
2:24:57
that the a better than equal chance that the text and the drawing inks are
2:25:03
probably this uh come from a moderately they're
2:25:08
they're they're basically out of the same uh group of batches.
He seems to be implying that in his judgement the mss. was created over a fairly short period of time. Which probably makes Torsten & Rich happy...
RE: Voynich Zoom CFP - Koen G - 13-03-2026
If this is true and can be expanded to the whole manuscript, it would certainly be problematic for some theories...
While this particular point is exactly what I would have expected, I think we should also be cautious with overanalyzing every new thing Barabe says, however speculative. Here, he basically said that he has a 50%+ suspicion that the inks were "basically out of the same group of batches". What does that even mean?
It would be great news if he is able to retrieve the samples and do additional tests. But currently, we are in a stage of selectively listening to what the man has to say about decade-old research.
He has restated that he sees no indications of modern pigments. Why isn't that the end of it then?