• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?
• Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  Pepper > 11 hours ago

  Where do you host images to post? I just tried the bingo card on a recent thread. Didn't quite get a bingo but I crossed off six squares!

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  nablator > 11 hours ago

  (11 hours ago)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Where do you host images to post? I just tried the bingo card on a recent thread. Didn't quite get a bingo but I crossed off six squares!

  
  There's an Attachments area below the edit box, when you post a new reply, where you can upload images to host on the forum.

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  oshfdk > 10 hours ago

  Yes, I just drag and drop images to the special area under the edit box, and then use a button to insert them into the post. This doesn't work with the "Quick Reply" box for me, I have to click on "New Reply" button first.

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  oshfdk > 10 hours ago

  (11 hours ago)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Without going into details I will note that the upper image is artificial. The grammar of the manuscript text is broken. The ligatures and ligature groups are lined up horizontally.
  “Jumping” ligatures and ligature groups determine their order of writing and reading. I have already written about this earlier with examples.

  
  Are you up for a friendly challenge? I can create a set of six images, some of them genuine from the manuscript, some of them scrambled. I'll use some popular word combinations to make it hard to actually find which ones I used. Do you think you will be able to spot the correct ones?

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  Pepper > 10 hours ago

  (11 hours ago)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (11 hours ago)Pepper Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Where do you host images to post? I just tried the bingo card on a recent thread. Didn't quite get a bingo but I crossed off six squares!

  
  There's an Attachments area below the edit box, when you post a new reply, where you can upload images to host on the forum.

  
  How did I miss that 

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  Koen G > 8 hours ago

  For the bingo to be actually playable we'd each need a differently shuffled board though. But that might be a bit mean spirited. We can play cooperatively on the standard board 

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  Hider > 8 hours ago

  (10 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (11 hours ago)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Without going into details I will note that the upper image is artificial. The grammar of the manuscript text is broken. The ligatures and ligature groups are lined up horizontally.
  “Jumping” ligatures and ligature groups determine their order of writing and reading. I have already written about this earlier with examples.

  
  Are you up for a friendly challenge? I can create a set of six images, some of them genuine from the manuscript, some of them scrambled. I'll use some popular word combinations to make it hard to actually find which ones I used. Do you think you will be able to spot the correct ones?

  
  I don't like games and other contests.
  But I'll take you up on your offer.
  With the condition that the images must be high resolution (2400 dpi or higher).

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  oshfdk > 8 hours ago

  (8 hours ago)Hider Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't like games and other contests.
  But I'll take you up on your offer.
  With the condition that the images must be high resolution (2400 dpi or higher).

  
  Thank you! I'll take the original TIFFs and keep it without scaling, that's the highest resolution I can get. Might take a few days, my schedule is a bit unpredictable now.
  
  Note that this exercise won't do any harm to your theory, since if you cannot correctly identify the wrong pieces, this could just as well mean that I, when trying to arrange them naturally, put them in the way that they actually should go. On the other hand, if you identify the wrong pieces correctly, this adds credibility to your reading. So in a sense it's possible win and zero loss game for you.

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  nablator > 8 hours ago

  (8 hours ago)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'll take the original TIFFs and keep it without scaling, that's the highest resolution I can get.

  
  Useless: they're 400 dpi. Hider's theory is: micro-strokes represent letters.

• RE: Should we have a thread to refer theorists to?

  oshfdk > 7 hours ago

  (8 hours ago)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Useless: they're 400 dpi. Hider's theory is meaningful micro-strokes inside of each stroke.

  
  I can get MSIs, they seem to be ~600 DPI, but that's the highest resolution publicly available, I think. What's the proper technology for micro-strokes detection, clairvoyance?
• Next Oldest Next Newest