22-08-2025, 12:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-08-2025, 12:41 AM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
(21-08-2025, 02:08 PM)Bernd wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is obviously an AI generated image or video that does not depict real plants. Look at the woody stem connecting to the lotus flower (which is also inaccurate). The red fruit are likely supposed to be rose hips but again, it's AI.
The video and the plant may be AI-generated, but the flower is a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., at most shightly beautified.
The fruit indeed seems to be dried rosehip.
Quote:[The second one is] You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from South Africa. Unknown in Europe until the early 19th century.
I did not mean "these may be the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. plant"! My point was that, if you ignore the blue paint and those pitiful petals, the "flowers" look more like fruits than flowers.
Quote:I am unsure about any retracing but currently I cannot see it
Once I found out what to look for, I now see retracing almost everywhere. I am sure you will see it too some day.
[/quote]Quote:not in a significant amount that significantly changes the overall picture.
Indeed it does not make much difference to us. The Retracer (the first one at least) obviously tried to preserve not only the contents but also the looks, at well as he could. He did occasionally change some glyphs into other glyphs or into new weirdos; but any transcription has errors anyway, so it only made the "errors" problem a bit worse.
On the other hand, retracing could explain many otherwise puzzling things, like why the 4 x 17 sequence does not repeat exactly and why some nymphs have crowns.
All the best, --jorge