New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - Printable Version

+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" (/thread-4407.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - Mark Knowles - 01-01-2025

(01-01-2025, 03:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(31-12-2024, 07:06 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also mentioned those as part of a more general point. It would be nice if everytime someone comes across a manuscript or document that is not digitised and which they think is interesting they could add it to a list with a brief reason why they think it is interesting.

The problem is that it's very hard to know for sure whether a MS is interesting. Take my Willehalm research for example. This MS was not digitized when I wrote my blogpost, but now it is: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Before, I had only one image from it, and at a glance I already noticed that the style was very different from the VM. Still, seeing the images of the embracing couple in there would have been interesting, but it doesn't add anything to our understanding. It's not even worth mailing the library about.

For me to know of a MS that might actually be worth the effort, I would need to know that it is the "missing link" I'm after. And that is very tricky. In practice, it turns out than none of the MSS I could have looked for are of much help. It's kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack, but you don't know if the needle is there. Getting to see more pieces of hay probably doesn't help much.

Of course, there can be instances where you have a very good idea of a single potentially interesting document. But in that case, I try to reach out to the library directly.

I can tell of my experience of research into early 15th ciphers. There are some ciphers which can now be found online like the Tranchedino and the Urbinate. There are some ciphers that are contained in books or articles which can be now be downloaded like the Meister books. There are some ciphers in books which cannot be downloaded like Lydia Cerioni books. There are some ciphers which are referred to in listings in books or articles for which it is necessary to contact the archives to which the listing refers to request photoreproductions of those ciphers like the ciphers referred to in Meister. There are some ciphers for which references can be found through googling and for which it is necessary to contact the archives to request photoreproductions such the Pileo de Marini ciphers in the Genoa Diocesan archives or the Albertoni cipher ledger. There are some ciphers which I learnt of by being referred to them by other academic researchers such as the Milanese ciphers in the BNF. There are some ciphers that I learnt of from archivists from archives that I contacted. I have seen all the ciphers that I know of, except for the 14th century Genoese accounting cipher which I haven't bothered to track down. Now, I am left with references to ciphers that I have not seen and don't know if they survive and if they survive where precisely they survive such as the 1431 Milanese enciphered letters intercepted by the Papacy which may survive in the Vatican archives and the 1427 Milanese cipher referred to in Luigi Osio's book. This leaves me with the desire to search the Vatican archives for examples of early 15th century ciphers and try to trace which Milanese archive the 1427 cipher might be in if it has survived. I know that if I had only limited myself to ciphers that I could find online then this would have drastically reduced the amount of ciphers that I could find. As it is, it is still a very difficult task as so much of the cipher records that existed have been destroyed in fires or other ways, so overall very little survives.

RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - Koen G - 03-01-2025

I moved a number of posts here at nablator's suggestion: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I'll also move this thread to Voynich Talk.

RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - zachary.kaelan - 07-03-2025

(23-11-2024, 02:11 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But Rene -- it is precisely BECAUSE the presence of anatase would have been such a major find and everyone involved knew it (presumably), that we would expect their report to be particularly specific on details regarding titanium compounds! They would go out of their way to be explicit on whether it did or did not contain anatase, or if they were simply unable to identify that fact one way or the other.

The titanium was found in the writing ink, and we can all clearly see that the writing ink isn't white.

(29-11-2024, 03:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But O'Neil actually told us that, "The most startling identification… …was folio 93, which is quite plainly the common sunflower.

A sunflower has petals. The flower on folio 93 clearly doesn't. It looks more like a mushroom than a sunflower.

RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - Dana Scott - 07-03-2025

(07-03-2025, 11:07 PM)zachary.kaelan Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(23-11-2024, 02:11 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But Rene -- it is precisely BECAUSE the presence of anatase would have been such a major find and everyone involved knew it (presumably), that we would expect their report to be particularly specific on details regarding titanium compounds! They would go out of their way to be explicit on whether it did or did not contain anatase, or if they were simply unable to identify that fact one way or the other.

The titanium was found in the writing ink, and we can all clearly see that the writing ink isn't white.

(29-11-2024, 03:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But O'Neil actually told us that, "The most startling identification… …was folio 93, which is quite plainly the common sunflower.

A sunflower has petals. The flower on folio 93 clearly doesn't. It looks more like a mushroom than a sunflower.

Sunflower without Petals:

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

Filename: Sunflower Without Petals.jpg Size: 10.67 KB 07-03-2025, 11:42 PM

RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?" - zachary.kaelan - 09-03-2025

(07-03-2025, 11:43 PM)Dana Scott Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sunflower without Petals:

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

I again see more resemblance to a mushroom. No spikes or outgrowths of any kind, and the lines at the edges and little bump at the top look more like a mushroom. Obviously a mushroom doesn't have leaves, but the general consensus is that there's a combination of features of multiple plants among the drawings.