[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[oshfdk]

I have posted many other examples on this thread.  Again, name any page, I bet I can find some evidence that can't be easily explained in some other way. 

I think I've seen all the images you posted, we just don't agree on what they show.

But there are examples where the good glyph can be discerned from under a retraced hapax weirdo.  Like (D) on the clip from f1v below
That glyph as it stands is not only a weirdo, but it uses a "reverse plume" stroke that does not seem to be used anywhere else.  

Yes, the reverse plume is rare. I can find a calculus textbook that would use a lot of Δ's and would en passant mention PDF's on one page and use a ∇. Obviously, it was retraced, right? Poor guy couldn't even copy a proper delta.

I cannot "discern" the "good glyph" in this example. The reverse plume looks quite deliberate and properly executed.

The (I) cese is similar.  The o with a detached plume must be very rare, if not unique.  My reading is that the original glyph was an s, but an insect ate away the right half of the plume and a bit of the e body.  The Retracer apparently did not see the plume, and restored what remained of the body as an o.

This does not look like a plume, but like some dirt or stain on the vellum. I think it goes all the way down to the bottom of h. Doesn't look like a deliberate stroke.

But, if confirmed, the MRT would help a lot!  It would let us ignore many baffling details (like the crowns and the robot tentacle) as spurious late interventions, and conversely let us consider readings and theories that we can't consider if we assume that All Ink Is Original (and, worse, All Ink is Intentional). 

It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.