- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The claimed Voynich page
- The claimed Voynich page
-
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Fabrizio Salani > 30-03-2026, 11:18 AM
(30-03-2026, 09:46 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(29-03-2026, 09:23 PM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, these are theories I've heard before, and they're all American in origin. They don't take into account the fact that the parchment was located in Italy, inside a "madia" at an antiques market in Narni, Umbria. That said, we can hypothesize that a 20th-century "American" created the parchment, brought it to Italy, and placed it in a "madia" in Narni, hoping someone would find it and, more importantly, recognize it. Now, given that the theories about the manuscript's creation (from what I've read) range from the Cathars, to Nostradamus, to a young Leonardo da Vinci, to Filarete, to Woynich himself, and to aliens, then this American theory also has some plausibility.
For example, regarding the "Narni" story, some have challenged me, saying, "But you're the one saying that; there's no real evidence for what you're claiming." True. You have the financial means to have it made by one or more skilled forgers. This is also true (even though I don't know any forgers).
Motivations?
1 - As a joke. Thanks, but I have other things to do than make fun of people, and my morality and seriousness (in every human and professional field) cannot be questioned.
2 - To deceive MS scholars. Scholars weren't waiting for a Fabrizio Salani, and in any case, if you're a serious scholar, you do your research and then draw your own conclusions, and if you're a scientist, you want scientific proof, not words.
3 - To sell it and defraud a buyer. I've never tried to sell it, and in any case, IT'S NOT FOR SALE (no ifs, ands, or buts).
I just want to say that there are many many many potential scenarios for this scan to be a modern copy and for there to be no foul play, joking, or deception. As I am researching this, I am doing so firstly under the impression that you have honestly provided your information and story. I (and i'm sure others) continue to appreciate your openness in this topic.
For example, a hobbyist who found the images online or from media, that decided to make a realistic copy for their own interest and later decided to sell it for a small amount of money to their local market. You could talk about potential costs, but there are many who spend the same amount on collecting figures, stamps, or historical recreation. Like the gentleman from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., who surely spends a lot for his hobby. (any guesses why I watched that video?
)
So, the person who did this does not necessarily have to be american, and did not necessarily have to have had any prior motivation when copying the VMS. And even if someone had bad intent for some crazy reason, that does mean that you are implicated in any way. So please don't take that as an attack against your character!
Of course not, I'm not annoyed at all; if anything, I'm amused by all this. However, I want to be honest and precise, and what fascinates me most is that everyone is so keen to dismantle the story and the parchment. Great, that way they try to dispel as many doubts as possible.
-
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Koen G > 30-03-2026, 11:30 AM
Just for the record, Fabrizio, I am 100% convinced of your honesty and also appreciate your openness.
But I also believe that currently, the most likely explanation is that someone made this as a craft project. Decent color scans have been available worldwide since 2004. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Bernd > 30-03-2026, 12:02 PM
(30-03-2026, 05:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now when talking about the direct use of scans, I guess the 2004 ones should be preferred since we know the parchment existed before 2014.
Ah, I made a mistake assuming the 2004 and 2014 scans were almost identical. The images here on the Folio browser are also from 2014, right? I feel dumb but how do I download whole images from Jason Davies site? I only get tiles.
Here a low res comparison showing the 2004 scan from Jason's Voynich Manuscript Voyage. I think itis the best match so far. But I'd like to have a higher resolution.
I do not know what the Japanese B&W image is but it appears different from all other scans and is definitely not the Yale microfilm. I'll look into it this evening. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Fabrizio Salani > 30-03-2026, 03:22 PM
(30-03-2026, 11:30 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just for the record, Fabrizio, I am 100% convinced of your honesty and also appreciate your openness.
But I also believe that currently, the most likely explanation is that someone made this as a craft project. Decent color scans have been available worldwide since 2004.
If you're a 21st-century amateur, the question of aging camping ink still remains. Camping inks from the last 60/70 years are made with high tannins to prevent discoloration and color shifting over time, mixed with biocides (not present), gum arabic (not present), rock alum (not present), chromium salts (not present), copper sulfate (not present), and acetic or oxalic acid (not present).
Then I imagine that in the last 30/40 years everything can be falsified. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
kckluge > 30-03-2026, 03:36 PM
(30-03-2026, 09:25 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(29-03-2026, 09:59 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do we have a higher quality copy of the Yale microfilm?
Seconded! The lighter areas on the text could also explain some of the very interesting glyph choices, such as that on the first line. Also, the lack of tail on the l glyphs line up with a lack of visibility on the microfilm. A higher quality scan would help.
(30-03-2026, 09:17 AM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found this Japanese site that provides B/W images of (I think) the MS microfilm and they are of good quality
I don't believe that is the same microfilm image, surely? One has significant fading in areas and this one doesn't. There is also what appears to be a square around the text, as if composited onto the image. Perhaps a clearer image of the text imposed upon the microfilm image? Or perhaps enhanced for the text areas?
It must be from the same source -- the clip (holding the page down?) on the lower left side of the page is visible in the PDF my screencap was from, it just got clipped in doing the screenshot. If the Japanese image isn't from the Yale microfilm, I'm not sure where it came from. I'm assuming that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a (not terribly high quality) scan of a copy of Item 1600 in the William Friedman Collection @ the Marshall Institute ("Anonymous, The Voynich Manuscript, A photostatic copy of the Ms."). The clip on the left side is not visible in those images. Per the finding aid (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.):
Quote:On May 25, 1944 WFF wrote a letter to the widow of Dr. Wilfred M. Voynich, who was the discoverer of this famous Ms, requesting a photostatic copy. This request was granted and a complete copy was made from a negative photostatic copy provided by Mrs. Voynich. In her letter, dated May 31, 1944, she stated that photostatic copies were extremely rare. One is in the NYPL, another is in the BM; another was given to Father Petersen of St. Paul’s College; another was given to a scholar whom Mrs. Voynich did not identify; finally Mrs. Voynich, herself, had a copy. With the copy in the FC, there now appears to be all six copies in the world.
Pre- the 2004 scans, other than a limied number of pages that Yale had made color photos of AFAIK all images derived either from the Yale microfilm or Voynich's photostats.
In terms of the 2004 scan, while I have the .MrSids & .tiffs somewhere in my digital archives, all I have readily at hand is a lower res jpeg:
-
RE: The claimed Voynich page
kckluge > 30-03-2026, 03:43 PM
(30-03-2026, 12:02 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The 2014 scan is at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(30-03-2026, 05:26 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now when talking about the direct use of scans, I guess the 2004 ones should be preferred since we know the parchment existed before 2014.
Ah, I made a mistake assuming the 2004 and 2014 scans were almost identical. The images here on the Folio browser are also from 2014, right? I feel dumb but how do I download whole images from Jason Davies site? I only get tiles.
Here a low res comparison showing the 2004 scan from Jason's Voynich Manuscript Voyage. I think itis the best match so far. But I'd like to have a higher resolution. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Bernd > 30-03-2026, 08:10 PM
Thank you for the higher resolution image from the 2004 scan! I know about the 2014 one from Beinecke but mistakenly thought the one on the Voynich Ninja folio browser was the 2004 one. So I skipped dealing with Jason Davies' tiles - which was a huge mistake. I stand by my assessment that the 2004 scan is by far the best match. Look at this. An untouched overlay, merely scaled. I wish I had a larger 2004 VM scan that wouldn't require downscaling Fabrizio's image. There is some slight shift and distortion in the text which is unsurprising considering it is not a very good copy of the original. The image itself - while purposefully improved by the artist - is extremely well aligned with the 2004 - and only the 2004 scan. The image below is a compromise between text and plant. Moving the 2004 scan up a bit, the plant overlay is almost perfect down to the root-tubes aligning with the roots in Fabrizio's copy.
Image morph video:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The Japanese image is different from the Yale microfilm, the 2004 and 2014 scan and Fabrizio's reproduction. It is not a very good match and closer to the 2014 than the 2004 scan yet has unique distortion. Japan - white, Yale microfilm - black
So I'm not saying the 2004 scan has to be the source of Fabrizio's reproduction - but how parsimonious is the hypothesis that someone makes a freehand copy - or a copy with an optical aid - that matches an existing scan of the source so well? It is not a perfect copy, there is some minor residual distortion. But compared to the other known scans of the VM which have a considerable offset, this is extremely good. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
kckluge > 30-03-2026, 08:56 PM
(30-03-2026, 08:10 PM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you for the higher resolution image from the 2004 scan! I know about the 2014 one from Beinecke but mistakenly thought the one on the Voynich Ninja folio browser was the 2004 one. So I skipped dealing with Jason Davies' tiles - which was a huge mistake. I stand by my assessment that the 2004 scan is by far the best match. Look at this. An untouched overlay, merely scaled. I wish I had a larger 2004 VM scan that wouldn't require downscaling Fabrizio's image. There is some slight shift and distortion in the text which is unsurprising considering it is not a very good copy of the original. The image itself - while purposefully improved by the artist - is extremely well aligned with the 2004 - and only the 2004 scan. The image below is a compromise between text and plant. Moving the 2004 scan up a bit, the plant overlay is almost perfect down to the root-tubes aligning with the roots in Fabrizio's copy.
Image morph video:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The Japanese image is different from the Yale microfilm, the 2004 and 2014 scan and Fabrizio's reproduction. It is not a very good match and closer to the 2014 than the 2004 scan yet has unique distortion. Japan - white, Yale microfilm - black
So I'm not saying the 2004 scan has to be the source of Fabrizio's reproduction - but how parsimonious is the hypothesis that someone makes a freehand copy - or a copy with an optical aid - that matches an existing scan of the source so well? It is not a perfect copy, there is some minor residual distortion. But compared to the other known scans of the VM which have a considerable offset, this is extremely good.
Thank you and kudos for the work you've put into the comparisons. I'm still wondering where the heck the Japanese images came from. One relevant observation -- whatever that black thing on the lower left is, it's on the left in both recto and verso pages so it's not a clip holding the outer edge of the folio down in the actual mss. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
kckluge > 30-03-2026, 09:24 PM
Bernd, if you're in the mood to do it for completeness a comparison of Fabrizio's page with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the (admittedly cr@ptacular) NSA scan of their copy of Friendman's photostats wouldn't hurt. That would help rules in/out use of any of the copies derived from the Voynich photostats...(if someone has a better scan of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the Friedman or NYPL copies, please post). If you're interested in a higher res copy of the '04 scan, I can dig out the data crypt those files would likely be in and look for them. IIRC, I have the TIFFs and converted the MrSids to JPEGs at some point. -
RE: The claimed Voynich page
Koen G > 30-03-2026, 09:32 PM
Great work, Bernd. I should have noticed sooner that the 2014 scans were not the most relevant since they did not yet exist.
With that chronology in mind, I would have predicted the 2004 scans as the most likely source. It's good to see that they line up.