+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: f116v is a decryption attempt? (/thread-5910.html)
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - bi3mw - 03-08-2026
(03-08-2026, 04:56 PM)JoeyB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Side question, is "suß" here "süß" (sweet) or "sust/sonst" (otherwise)?
I think “sonst" (otherwise) is correct.
... oder so er suß nit luter ist ...
... oder wenn er sonst nicht klar ist, ...
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - Koen G - 03-08-2026
Hey Joey, always happy to discuss "so nim"
Your interpretation seems correct. And yeah, there's no sweetness involved, just clarity, using the goat milk to knock out impurities.
About its power as a parallel, we honestly don't know what "so nim gasmich" is about. The point I often make though, is that "so nim" likes to be followed by an ingredient, which your example illustrates as well. The eggs also illustrate that point, as do countless other "so nim ingredient" in recipes.
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - JoJo_Jost - 03-08-2026
No one doubts that "geismilch" = goatmilk exists. “So nim” means “so take,” and it can refer to all sorts of things—including, of course, goatmilk.
But even with sentences like: “So nim es von mir” (“So take it away from me”) or “So nim dich in Acht” (“So watch out”), etc.—you can deduce Nothing from “so nim.”
But it’s difficult to turn “gasmich” into “geismilch”—or, in this case, more likely “gaismilch.” There would be two errors: the missing “i” and the missing “L.” That simply makes it very unlikely—too many assumptions without evidence...
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - JoeyB - 04-08-2026
I was reading Nick Pelling's blog (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and came across his 2022 suggestion of raking IR on f116v, and I wondered whether the AI could get anywhere with the 2014 multispectral set (Dr. Davis wrote up here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and which is freely downloadable) to see if pen furrows would come out.
So the method (get the AI to take multiple images of the same surface and subtract stuff to produce the topographic image, like a shading gradient) works... it doesnt simulate raking (which I thought it might, anyway I thought this was interesting to see how far AI stuff has come with image processing) but there's just no furrow there to find at this lighting. Shallower rake on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could show if there were any furrows at all, which Nick indicated in his blog could help figure out if the marginalia is one hand or two or three from different periods and if a later hand bit differently into the surface as it stiffened over time.
TLDR: AI combines and processes real big image files of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. fast, and into smaller cool composite image file and also does math stuff about it. Consumes much researcher time noodling about it, creates post fodder.
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - ololololo - 04-08-2026
That’s very interesting, @JoeyB! But I don’t know much about this, so I don’t really understand what this shows.
Could you please explain? The only thing I can say about these photos is that the second one looks more Voynich‑like....
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - nablator - 04-08-2026
It looks like the photogrammetry technique produces a nicely shaded map. Pen furrows are too small to be visible at this scale.
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - Jorge_Stolfi - 04-08-2026
(04-08-2026, 03:39 AM)JoeyB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was reading Nick Pelling's blog (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and came across his 2022 suggestion of raking IR on f116v, and I wondered whether the AI could get anywhere with the 2014 multispectral set (Dr. Davis wrote up here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and which is freely downloadable) to see if pen furrows would come out.
So the method (get the AI to take multiple images of the same surface and subtract stuff to produce the topographic image, like a shading gradient) works... it doesnt simulate raking (which I thought it might, anyway I thought this was interesting to see how far AI stuff has come with image processing) but there's just no furrow there to find at this lighting.
Great images, thanks!
For each dominant wavelength, the Lazarus multispectral imaging project team took three images of the page, using two light sources located at some angle (very roughly 45 degrees) from the camera axis: one tilted towards North (top edge of the page), one towards South (bottom edge). The third image (usually first in their numbering) was taken with both sources.
This third image should be redundant, since the physics of light scattering and the camera transfer function are supposed to be linear. That is, the image with both lights should be just the sum of the other two. It would have been more useful to use three sources at three independent directions (say, N, SE, SW). Then one could easily determine the local surface inclination and the vellum color at every pixel. This is the so-called "photometric stereo" method, first devised in the 1980s (but used informally much earlier to get relief maps of the Moon surface).
One can do photometric stereo even with only two light directions (as shown in JoeyB images C and D) but the theory says that the results will not be very reliable.
Quote:Shallower rake on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could show if there were any furrows at all.
In theory, the relief map produced by photometric stereo does not depend on the inclination of the light sources. If there is a bump or dimple 1 mm tall, it will show as 1 mm tall in the resulting relief map, no matter where the sources are located.
Raking light would let one see the bump without any processing, but will not reveal bumps that could not be detected with other lighting. In fact, for photometric stereo it is important that every point of the surface be illuminated by enough sources, since the math does not work on parts of the surface that are in shadow.
The angles between the lights would affect mainly the the "noise" in the map. The ~90 degree separation used in the Lazarus project images would in fact be very good in that regard. If only they had used three sources instead of just two...
Quote:which Nick indicated in his blog could help figure out if the marginalia is one hand or two or three from different periods and if a later hand bit differently into the surface as it stiffened over time
That might work for ballpoint writing on paper. But velum or parchment is stiff tough leather, like a drum membrane. I don't think that the sharpened and split tine of a quill pen would be able to scratch or dent it at all. And even the darker ink traces on the VMS are very thin layers, as one can see in the McCrone macrograph below (172 pixels/mm, ~4300 pixels/inch). Too thin to be detectable by photometric stereo (or raking light).
(Beware that the right ~2/3 of this image is out of focus.)
Instead of raking light, it would be much more useful to have images with at least that much resolution of well-chosen spots on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and on other chosen pages. Those images could be captured even with a toy hand-held microscope, without any special lighting or mounting, without even touching the book. But I suppose that the Beinecke managment is so fed up with Voynich weirdos that they would not allow even that.
A pity, because such images would definitely prove or refute the various "retracing" and "magic ink" theories, including the "Big Wipe-off" theory for f116v, and reveal practically everything one could ever know about the original traces.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - oshfdk - 04-08-2026
(04-08-2026, 10:31 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A pity, because such images would definitely prove or refute the various "retracing" and "magic ink" theories, including the "Big Wipe-off" theory for f116v, and reveal practically everything one could ever know about the original traces.
Would they? I remember arguing about this very macro image, I was saying there were clearly no signs of retracing here and the way dark ink perfectly transitioned to the faint stroke in the flourish of r made it impossible to be an instance of later retracing, while if I'm not mistaken you were arguing for the opposite.
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - Jorge_Stolfi - 04-08-2026
(04-08-2026, 12:24 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-08-2026, 10:31 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A pity, because such images would definitely prove or refute the various "retracing" and "magic ink" theories, including the "Big Wipe-off" theory for f116v, and reveal practically everything one could ever know about the original traces.
Would they? I remember arguing about this very macro image, I was saying there were clearly no signs of retracing here
Indeed you claimed that there was a smooth transition between the dark, medium, and faint traces. Even though in several places (like the right foot of the k and the edges of the e) the traces were not aligned, and the ink always transitioned abruptly from one color to another -- just like it would if they were distinct but overlaying traces.
Quote:and the way dark ink perfectly transitioned to the faint stroke in the flourish of r made it impossible to be an instance of later retracing
And I explained how the dark ink "wicked" for a short distance into the plume, because the vellum surface is weakly hydrophobic (water-repellent) whereas ink, even old one, is hydrophilic (water-attracting).
The dark ink in that r is clearly a single stroke from top to bottom. Your explanation would have the Scribe tying to draw the plume as a second stroke after that, but the magic quill and magic ink suddenly switched to "faint" after 0.1 mm, and then hiccuped between "faint" and "medium" for the rest of the plume. And the Scribe was OK with that...
All the best, --stolfi
RE: f116v is a decryption attempt? - oshfdk - 04-08-2026
(04-08-2026, 01:13 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The dark ink in that r is clearly a single stroke from top to bottom. Your explanation would have the Scribe tying to draw the plume as a second stroke after that, but the magic quill and magic ink suddenly switched to "faint" after 0.1 mm, and then hiccuped between "faint" and "medium" for the rest of the plume. And the Scribe was OK with that...
Scribe was OK with that because the magic ink is magic: it looks perfectly uniform when applied but then with time (decades or more) some parts of it stay dark and some parts of it become faint or nearly invisible. The secret of the magic ink has been lost, but the effect probably can be reproduced with a poorly mixed iron gall ink and some other unstable colorant. In the fresh ink the colorant will prevail and the writing will look uniform in darkness, but with time the colorant will fade and only the blobs of the proper iron gall ink will remain dark.
Anyway, for me it looks likely that no amount of microscopy can disprove the retracing hypothesis. It will just shift the discussion to the properties of different macro lenses and how they don't capture the right phlogistons or something. I'm not a physicist.
EDIT: also I'm not sure I ever claimed there was smooth transition between the traces. I claimed that they are too well aligned to it to be retracing. The only place where I talk about smooth transition, I'm talking about working with wet ink, and I immediately say there that the transition can be abrupt as well: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.