+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: 'P' is the key (/thread-5418.html)
RE: 'P' is the key - Loose_Spell_9313 - 09-03-2026
JSTOR:
Parchment: 40 cm x 28 cm
Size of Map (velum): 19cm x 26 cm
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
LOC:
on sheet: 29 x 41 cm
vellum (map): 22 x 19 cm
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If you're saying Parchment=Sheet, where has the other 11cm height & 13cm width gone? How does one get an additional 13cM in length? There's a lack of consistency in values assigned; height and width interchange freely to the point that it creates contextual ambiguity, particularly because the values don't have a corresponding W/H notations. If we accept them at face value, based on the values assigned in a 1:1 comparison, on-sheet and & parchment wouldn't be the same and neither would the map.
Now if we have to start applying our own logistics, and trying to figure out which value assigned is correct and which one isn't it leads to a logistical blackhole- to which I'm sure most people just default to "well surely the height and widths just got inverted."- But which version is correct, the JSTOR or the LOC, I mean, they're both academic sources referring to the exact same piece of material? How does one choose? Is the portrait orientation correct or the landscape? The Map has folds, how do we know what orientation it was meant for? Without proper dimensional notations, it becomes impossible to discern with any of that with any degree of certainty.
*Parchment (calculated at a 1:1 conversion):
(JSTOR) 40 cm x 28cm [total area 1120 cm2]
(LOC) 29 cm ×41 cm [total area 1189 cm2]
Percent change = ((1189 − 1120) / 1189) × 100 = 6.16%
Differences:
(JSTOR->LOC)- (40cm height->29cm height; 27.5% change)
(JSTOR->LOC)- (28cm width->41cm width; 46.43% change)
total change: ~73.93%
If you were to go the other way around
(LOC->JSTOR)- (29cm height->40cm height; 37.68% change)
(LOC->JSTOR)- (41cm width->28cm width; 31.71% change)
total change: ~69.39%
*Cumulative Percentage Change:*
[*]JSTOR -> LOC: +6.16%
[*]JSTOR <- LOC: −5.81%
So while the overall change to total cm2 area of ~6% is small, the internal variance is still absurdly high.
*Map (calculated at a 1:1 conversion)
(JSTOR) 19cm x 26 cm [total area 494 cm2]
(LOC) 22cm× 19cm = [total area=418 cm2]
Percent change = ((418 − 494) / 494) × 100 = −15.38%
Differences:
(JSTOR->LOC)- (19cm height->22cm height; 15.8% change)
(JSTOR->LOC)- (26cm width->19cm width; 26.92% change)
total change: ~42.72%
If you were to go the other way around
(LOC->JSTOR)- (22cm height->19cm height; 13.64% change)
(LOC->JSTOR)- (19cm width->26cm width; 36.84% change)
total change: ~50.64%
*Cumulative Percentage Change:*
[*]JSTOR -> LOC: -15.4%
[*]JSTOR <- LOC: 18.2%
Again, the overall change to total cm2 area of ~15% is comparatively small, the internal variance is still absurdly high.
While I can't argue statistical significance with such a small sample size with any real legitimacy, I'd say that's a pretty high discrepancy in description. I can't imagine passing a paper with that much variation. Anyway, all that to say, the lexicology isn't the only lack of consistency contributing to my confusion here because no official academic recording of it is consistent.
____________________________________________________
*All calculations have now been updated correctly to reflect the properly reported JSTOR size of "52.5cm x 43.5cm" as opposed to the calculations based on the incorrect "42.5cm x 43.5cm"* [10:47pm]
*As per a following conversation, an additional error was pointed out and correction is needed for the numbers above; to be updated 3/9/26, sometime in the AM; for now,the images are probably what you're looking for. [2:00AM]
*All numbers have been updated to reflect necessary changes to properly demonstrate the point [2:42PM]
[*]*Added cumulative percentage changes, since 'total change' means nothing mathematically [8:50PM]
_____________________________________________________
Now, as far as the scale.. sorry for the delay, but extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence or whatever it is, so I gotta put my best forward. Sometimes you'll see silence. I'm just putting myself through the hassle. Nothing on the right hand margin changes, the only real change we see is the overlap on the islands- the staining features on the right hand side are still consistent.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
*If any of these mathematical calculations are inaccurate, please let me know so I may adjust them to the truth*
RE: 'P' is the key - eggyk - 09-03-2026
(09-03-2026, 05:49 AM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JSTOR:
Parchment: 52.5 x 43.5 cm
Size of Map (velum): 26.5 x 25.5 cm
LOC:
vellum (map): 22 x 19 cm
on sheet: 29 x 41 cm
If you're saying Parchment=Sheet, where has the other 23.5cm height & 2.5cm width gone? That's almost half the height gone, and would be a huge reduction in overall size. I'm not implying this is the V.M. page- I am asking this as a straightforward question. If you can point to any work or documentary errors that might have caused that sort of reduction I would like to read that because that's a pretty significant trimming.
The height went nowhere; you have quoted the measurements for a different document. The measurements are at the end of each section, so you -for some reason- have used the measurements directly before the relevant section (the pantect map).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As already quoted here by oshfdk (thank you btw), the measurements in the JSTOR article are:
full size of parchment - 40 X 28 cm;
size of map (maximum extent measured) 19 X 26 cm.
Either way, I have -to the best of my ability- tried to align the paper in the same way as in your images. They don't actually match other than both having dark stains. his would apply to thousands of manuscript pages that have staining.
If you think that I haven't aligned it correctly, please show a closeup of how specific features match.
RE: 'P' is the key - Loose_Spell_9313 - 09-03-2026
Quote:The height went nowhere; you have quoted the measurements for a different document. The measurements are at the end of each section, so you -for some reason- have used the measurements directly before the relevant section (the pantect map).
You are correct, I will notate that it needs to be updated. Thank you for pointing that out. Good catch. It has been a long day defending myself and I'm a little tired. I apologize. Would certainly explain my initial measurements as opposed to the edited ones.
Again, I'm tired- so I won't be going in to verify proportions at this hour. That said, you're showing one very small portion of the image and not showing the correlation underneath, which shows consistencies- my collages demonstrate this. And as a counter proposal, I would like for you to demonstrate how well it aligns with other stains, because I think that's the best way for you to prove your point on this one. Without another match it's just a hypothetical.
Tomorrow I will go through and highlight those regions though, and we can get back to it.
Catch you then! Have a wonderful evening.
RE: 'P' is the key - eggyk - 09-03-2026
(09-03-2026, 09:37 AM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are correct, I will notate that it needs to be updated. Thank you for pointing that out. Good catch. It has been a long day defending myself and I'm a little tired. I apologize. Would certainly explain my initial measurements as opposed to the edited ones.
What were your initial measurements again?
(09-03-2026, 09:37 AM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, I'm tired- so I won't be going in to verify proportions at this hour. That said, you're showing one very small portion of the image and not showing the correlation underneath, which shows consistencies- my collages demonstrate this.
I showed both the full image and the entire stained area on the right. Your collages (which are tiny images that are impossible to see detail in) show no consistencies at all other than a broad stained area in both.
(09-03-2026, 09:37 AM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And as a counter proposal, I would like for you to demonstrate how well it aligns with other stains, because I think that's the best way for you to prove your point on this one. Without another match it's just a hypothetical.
You appear to be accidentally copying the part of the answer meant for you. You are the one claiming that the stains match.
RE: 'P' is the key - Loose_Spell_9313 - 09-03-2026
The measurements (official measurements, not my measurements) have been updated correctly after some much needed rest.
I have now, in full, laid out my evidence for my arguments- from Solar/Lunar positioning, to linguistic consistencies (we'll use the '8'-bindings as the metric here, since the syntactic structure is speculative until decoding), to the staining. In a very simple to follow, and straightforward, explanation of the Voynich.
The primary arguments against me have been:
[1] The Proto-Clock could mean anything, to which I have openly challenged others to find another location that can be deduced- this has not happened.
*In lieu of a later comment, please- by all means, feel free to use whatever logic you feel fits your interpretation as long as it's rational and reproducible. That's not the point- the point of this is to see if a different location can be deduced by any rational form of logic. I don't know if it can-I just know the location I deduced. Please, prove me wrong. Mine is rooted in historical models, so I think it's pretty grounded, but again- I very genuinely would like to know if another location can be deduced. If I'm wrong, my argument loses validity (which I'm okay with).
[2] The stains could match anything/they match nothing, to which I have openly challenged others to find another stain match with the same rigor I have applied- or to show that there is no significant overlap with the same rigor- this has not happened.
-This one your match would need to also fit contextually, because that's an important part of the argument that is being overlooked.
*The easiest consistency to track here is the green transect in the Voynich image. Notice how the stain never really crosses the boundary.
the other constant artifact is the red staining at the upper fold blue line/green line transect.The staining from the VM also perfectly
bleeds into the the broad shape of the [i]MWS stain; notice both terminate at the Asian script, although slightly harder to see. [/i]
*If you're having issues viewing the images at scale, I recommend viewing them directly via ImgBB as it should automatically scale to
~260% browser magnification and an additional image zoom without blur or additional scaling irregularities.
[3] Nothing on my note about the '8' consistencies
Instead, we're now circling the drain trying to get me caught up on semantics- and admittedly, you did for a moment with the measurements at the height of my restlessness.
That said, I'm not going to waste time in spats. Going forward, if you would like to contest my evidence- do so with evidence of equal weight, not just statements. I have presented evidence to support mine, so at this point, words and hypotheticals do nothing to argue against me. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.
No- "It could be any page/any stain" will not work.
-If you have made this claim, it is that- a claim; and the burden of proof for your claim, is on you.
No- "I don't see it as a clock" will not work.
No- "I don't see any stains" will not work.
Evidence. I will respond to that- and only that.
P.S: I didn't ask for your respect- I asked for you to be respectful if you choose to engage. Two entirely different sentences.
RE: 'P' is the key - eggyk - 10-03-2026
(09-03-2026, 11:01 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The stains could match anything/they match nothing, to which I have openly challenged others to find another stain match with the same rigor I have applied- or to show that there is no significant overlap with the same rigor- this has not happened.
The same rigor? You have literally just overlayed f68 over the map and said "look, when I arbitrarily overlay the stains on these 2 pages, they are in the same place" . I have done this multiple times in this thread to a more vigorous standard and shown that there are NOT consistencies. Every time I do so you say that I haven't, and then post another blurry image saying that its evidence. It's not.
The burden of proof is on you to show matches, not us to prove that there aren't matches.
(09-03-2026, 11:01 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No- "It could be any page/any stain" will not work.
How about "Your evidence is wrong. When you line up the image in the way that you did nothing closely matches". Show us things that match, specific things that match, or you have no evidence to back up anything you have said.
(09-03-2026, 11:01 PM)Loose_Spell_9313 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[1] The Proto-Clock could mean anything, to which I have openly challenged others to find another location that can be deduced- this has not happened.
So because noone has made a different prediction using your framework, your framework must be true? This isn't even close to being logical.
Your answers have hallucinations in them, you are constantly confusing who is claiming what (you were literally asking for better evidence for a match when that is supposed to be what you are doing). You have insulted me, multiple times!! Accused me of lying, accused me of spreading misinformation, and you have now convieniently deflected what I was saying and called it "semantics". Those "semantics" are the underpinning of your entire image analysis.
And all of that after you explicitly asked for respect? Respect is earned.
In the interest of my sanity (and the sanity of the mods, probably) I will no longer be engaging with this thread.