[Conference] Voynich Zoom CFP

[proto57]

It was really great to hear first-hand from Barabe. My takeaway is just how I've always interpreted the McCrone: there's nothing that directly indicates the inks and pigments are modern. There are some unexplained results, but nothing that indicates the manuscript is not fifteenth century.

Well, technically accurate. But there is also "nothing [in the ink] that indicates" any age at all, from the radiocarbon dates to the day the ms. was announced by Wilfrid. And so, there is also "nothing that indicates", in the ink, that the ink came from the fifteenth century, either. Yes, AFAWK it could be from then, but there is nothing in the inks and pigments to indicate this was the era they were from.

So far, it is only from clues outside the ink and pigment contents from which age guesses for the ms. are made. The ink, so far, tells us nothing about that. 

And yes, he did describe the various additional elements and compounds as "unexplained", and also "mysterious", "head scratching", "problematic". For one substance, he said, "I don't understand this, it is not in the McCrone catalog". He expressed surprise there was "potassium lead oxide", yet "no lead"... as, he explained, lead is usually found with the former. For the green he tested, he said that it is "the most mysterious" to him, something about the "clorides", I think. He said, it was "not your typical iron gall ink", and that the presence of potassium was "odd".

And he also has changed his mind on the "unusual copper and zinc", as he wrote in the 2009 report: He seems to no longer feel that a brass inkwell is a possible source any longer, as brass will leach zinc, but not the copper. So, he still feels the "unusual copper and zinc" is unexplained, even speculatively. And much more.

My point is that, despite accurately describing the results as "unexplained", they much more than that, and may afford clues to the age and origin of the inks and pigments. Mr. Barabe agrees with me. But nevertheless... and this was the point of that segment of my talk... the inks continue to be misleadingly described, in lectures and videos, blogs, articles and books... as "perfect", and "from the 15th century", with "nothing unusual found" in them, and so on.

Clearly, and as I have been saying for well over a decade now, and even up to the very talk on Wednesday, right before Barabe by some cosmic coincidence,
the inks have much that is unusual about them, and very important information is being missed by not reporting on that fact. And now, I was very heartened to see, the man himself, the expert who provided those tests, absolutely agrees with these assessments. Like me, he wants further testing, further examination of the results we have, exactly because the results are so unusual. I hope that these realities about the ink don't continue to be brushed under the rug. We should all want these mysteries explained, and not ignored any longer.

Rich.