The claimed Voynich page

[Bernd]

Bernd, if you're in the mood to do it for completeness a comparison of Fabrizio's page with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the (admittedly cr@ptacular) NSA scan of their copy of Friendman's photostats wouldn't hurt. That would help rules in/out use of any of the copies derived from the Voynich photostats...(if someone has a better scan of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the Friedman or NYPL copies, please post). If you're interested in a higher res copy of the '04 scan, I can dig out the data crypt those files would likely be in and look for them. IIRC, I have the TIFFs  and converted the MrSids to JPEGs at some point.

Certainly, I'll gladly make a comparison with all images you can provide me with!

[Bernd]

Ok, after looking at the NSA scan. I'd be a bit more cautious.
   

It is surprisingly close to the 2004 scan, but appears more flattened. The text in the 2004 scan appears curved downwards, and even more so in Fabrizio's copy. It's amazing how the distance between words and their curvature shift between the NSA and 2004 scan. I think this is more due to wavy parchment than lens distortion. The effect is not as huge as between other scans and hard to see in overlay images. It is much better visualized in videos:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Plant-wise the NSA scan is a very good match for Fabrizio's copy maybe even better than the 2004 scan, yet not perfect. The barely readable text of the NSA copy would also explain some errors, including the fancy gallow serif in the area blacked out. However, I think overall the 2004 scan is a better match for the text.
   

What does this mean?
I'd revise my assesment that it's highly unlikely Fabrizio's copy was NOT copied from the 2004 scan. I am still convinced it was copied from a projection, but not necessarily from one of the scans we have looked into. The waviness and the downcurve of the last line in Fabrizio's copy as well as word-spaces do not match any known scan so far. I had attributed this to the artist re-writing the text free-hand but looking at the different scans, it may very well have been an extremely faithful copy of the text's position (but not the letters) on a more curved / less flat page of the VM. However the optical setup must have been quite close to the one used in the 2004 scan. So - no idea. Are there any other known images?

[ReneZ]

Apologies if this is already answered somewhere in the (long) discussions, but there is also the Friedman copy, which is a copy from Wilfrid's own photostats. Friedman sent further copies of it to a few friends, also in Europe.
Is this the same as the "NSA copy" mentioned above? I can dig up the one from this set of reproductions when I am back home, which is only end April.

[Koen G]

I don't think it can be the NSA scan. Look at the loss of detail in some parts, like the first word.

[ReneZ]

What I meant to ask is if the NSA scan is known to be Friedman's copy, i.e. a copy of Voynich's own photostats. These exist in several 'generations' of photocopying.

[kckluge]

What I meant to ask is if the NSA scan is known to be Friedman's copy, i.e. a copy of Voynich's own photostats. These exist in several 'generations' of photocopying.

It is definitely a copy at some unknown number of generations of recopying: see the written annotation "Punch just this" at the top of p. 120 of the PDF (f67r1).

I'm not suggesting that scan as a potential source -- the FOIA release date rules it out -- I was only suggesting it as the only source I had access to representing the "Voynich's photostats" lineage of potentially accessible images pre-2004 scans.

(BTW, looking through the NSA Museum Library catalog (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) I noticed "DK 129-08 KRISCHER, JEFFREY THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT" -- while this paper is only of historican interest at this point, folks have been looking for a copy for years. I'll have to reach out to the curator from the Zoom call to see about the possibility of getting a copy -- unfortunately the museum is temporarily closed to the public :-<)

[Fabrizio Salani]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All images are made by scanning a B&W microfilm of Yale University Library.

I enlarged the detail of the page stop and I believe it is the index finger (right and left) inside a thin cotton glove, the light of the exposure lamps makes the shape shine through.

---

[quote="Fabrizio Salani" pid='82195' dateline='1774952434']
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All images are made by scanning a B&W microfilm of Yale University Library.

I enlarged the detail of the page stop and I believe it is the index finger (right and left) inside a thin cotton glove, the light of the exposure lamps makes the shape shine through.
           

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Apologies if this is already answered somewhere in the (long) discussions, but there is also the Friedman copy, which is a copy from Wilfrid's own photostats. Friedman sent further copies of it to a few friends, also in Europe.

Rene, back in the mailing list days you sent me some B&W scans from some unidentified source. Is this the one you mean?

   

All the best, --stolfi

[ReneZ]

Undoubtedly, yes. This is also from Friedman's copy, i.e. a descendant of Voynich's photostats.

[Bernd]

The image Jorge posted again has a different distortion than the B&W NSA image I posted. Very confusing. It is a worse match for Fabrizio's reproduction than the B&W image I posted earlier. It is the same image, yet distorted. Don't ask me why.Did someone make a photo of a photo? Creating a consensus between the two photostat copies requires a 3D perspective transformation. It cannot be done by resizing or shearing the image.