No text, but a visual code

[Jorge_Stolfi]

There's no evidence of [retracing].

I understand that the Retracing Theory is hard to disprove, because, when you say "I don't see any sign of retracing there", I could always reply "it is because the Restorer was very careful and skilled and retraced everything perfectly". 

But in fact there is evidence, all over the place.  Evidence that cannot be explained away as the Scribe going back over his own work.  

I understand that some people find the Retracing Theory not just unlikely but unpleasant.  Even though it would have rather limited consequences for the basic riddle.

It would basically explain away some puzzling details here and there, and actually simplify some analyses.  For instance, weirdos that occur only once or twice can be dismissed as retracing errors, even if they look deliberate (like that (P) glyph in the previous post); and then either excluded from the data, or transcribed as "?", or replaced by the most likely original glyph.

The claim would have a significant impact on attempts to interpret the images in Bio/Cosmo/Zodiac that give much importance to specific details.  Like the crowns of Zodiac, or the cross and fish of f79v. I believe that many of those attempts have been mostly a tragic waste of time, because they focused on details that (in my view) are very late additions or distortions.

And that goes in particular to the attempts to decipher f116v.  I indulged in that game myself for a while.  (My first idea, in the previous millennium, is that it was an intentionally undecipherable anagram, like those that Galileo sent to Kepler to ensure priority in his discoveries without letting them out.)  But since I saw that big stain on the ultraviolet images, not long ago, I have concluded that there is nothing (literally) to decipher there, except the "oror sheey" that barely escaped the wash-out.

My other two main theories -- that the language is "Chinese", and that the Herbal plants were partly made up by the Scribe -- would have a much bigger impact on Voynichology.  That is why I am not pushing the first one (much) until I have good evidence. But the second, I think, should be taken seriously by everybody.

All the best, --stolfi