The ice cube on f102v

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The Mc Crone analysis was a prove that the pigments are authentic to 15 century, this refutes the claim that they are 20 century edition and also the person painting them might have not been ignorant of their meaning.

Not really.  McCrone did not date the pigments or determined that they were "authentic" in any sense.  They did not even completely identify the pigments.

They only said that, in the dozen tiny samples that they collected, they did not see any synthetic pigments that would have became available only in later centuries.  

But all the pigments that they did identify, like the blue one, have been available all the time.  Those paints could have been made and applied in 1910 as well as in 1430.

And they could not identify some of the pigments,.  Like, about the main green pigment, they could only say that it contained copper and was not crystalline, so they guessed that it was some organic compound.

Crucially the paint transferring of facing pages proves the colors were applied while the manuscript was bound.

I am not sure whether that has been established yet.  The transfers could have happened while the manuscript was still a bunch of unbound bifolios.

But if the painting did happen only after the book was bound (which is precisely what the evidence of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. folio number says!) , that implies that the painting was not original.  Because, for one thing, the folios were clearly bound in the wrong order; and it is hard to imagine that the Author would have let that mistake happen, if he was still around.  Then it is most likely that the drawings were colored decades or centuries after the drawing outlines were drawn.

All the best, --stolfi