ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.

[Davidsch]

The text anomalies are very interesting, but really, let's not draw to conclusions from any visual presentation.

I can create visuals for any other letter and picture in the manuscript. 
Placing them in a particular order will not suddenly "reveal" how a character has evolved. In particular not if the anomalies are not on the same page.

Nor does it show anything for other characters that resemble the anomalies! There is no founded basis for that.

It does show what could be possible with imagination and a graphic editor, but it certainly does not show any chronological or other logical sequencing for the characters.

We can't make very many assumptions about chronological sequencing because:

1. We don't know the original intention as far as binding is concerned.
2. We don't know in which order the pages were written (many big projects like this one are not done in sequence).

For some things, if there is a significant evolution between consecutive pages on the same folio sheet, it might be possible to make some guesses about sequencing, but that happens rarely.


But I assumed it was obvious that we don't know the sequence. That doesn't mean we can't point out interesting patterns. In time, it might help sort out which marks are significant and which are not.

For the people who are willing to follow logical reasoning you can see that there are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and classifications.


Based on simply the letters in the word you can see, which rules there are in the ENTIRE MANUSCRIPT. 

Looking at strikes, dots, lines and smears will not tell you anything about the evolution of a character. 

The evolution of characters is INSIDE REPEATED WORDS or chains of words, not by looking at glyphs.


Although there is no harm in having fun with glyphs and dreaming about the possible meaning and/or evolution, it is not really logical science. 

If you want to know how a dinosaur may have walked, you do not stare at mummified remains /fossils but you try to build a dinosaur based on the bones you collected.
Then you compare the skeleton with animals of which you do actually do know how they walk and move and compare that.
Based on similarities you will then draw conclusions which will be the best logical explanation for things.

The manuscript holds the "bones", those are the words. The glyphs are the fossils, and in my opinion the errors, the flaws and no information can be retrieved from them.