• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Q2f14v Secret Writings

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Marginalia
  • Q2f14v Secret Writings
• Q2f14v Secret Writings

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  ReneZ > 28-02-2025, 02:50 AM

  Sorry, I got my numbers wrong!!
  (This is what happens when working from memory and not checking).
  
  When I started off with 15, it should say 18.
  
  So here goes again....
  
  The minim height of characters is typically 18 pixels.
  
  This is the height of characters without ascenders or descends, so typically i , e , o  etc. and this does not vary a lot across the various hands.
  The typical line thickness is around 6 pixels. The 7 above is close enough.
  
  Expressed in mm, 18 pixels is 1.1 mm and 6 pixels is 0.38 mm.
  The latter figure is right in the ballpark for modern technical drawing pens (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
  
  18 pixels is also only 3.2 points. A point as used in font sizes is 1/72 of an inch.
  The value given for a font is usually the height of a captial E or H (remarkably there does not seem to be a standard definition), which partly explains the discrepancy between this 3.2 and the normal point sizes we are used to (around 10). 
  
  The Voynich writing is largely comparable to print using a 7-8 point font. A bit larger in some Hand-1 pages.

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  Aga Tentakulus > 28-02-2025, 09:50 PM

  The subject of pixels.
  How big was the original? I have no idea. I haven't checked, but it wasn't that big.
  I did a little research on the magnification.
  The reading stone had a magnification of about 2:1, so it doubles the font. The disadvantage is that it has to rest on the surface and you can't write at the same time.
  See comparison at Wiki.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Rivet glasses in the 15th century had the same magnification. Advantage, the range of vision (good and sharp vision) 30-50 cm distance.
  They also allowed writing, but only had a magnification of 2:1, the same as the reading stone.
  Calculated according to the table and the glasses of the time.
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  eggyk > 01-03-2025, 12:59 PM

  (26-02-2025, 08:00 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (26-02-2025, 06:53 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only realisation that comes from such research is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain friendly.

  
  Offering a rational part- that the script was created or used by experienced alchemists from middle-aged Prague and irrational part- Golem being created by them- the most interest is focused on Golem- the irrational part of my discourse.
   Obviously the irrational part creates highest resonance in the bloggers. Some have it in the positive- others - in the negative or unfriendly quadrant...
  br: Vessy

  
  The reason for bringing up the experienced alchemists was your claim that they may have had advanced technology that allowed them to write and see smaller letters, correct? If they had such technology, why didn't they use that to write this micro-text instead of their normal pen/quill? If such technology was used, we would see clear letters when magnified. We don't see that. 
  
  Stating that we should not underestimate the abilities of the authors (within REASON) is a rational opinion to have, but even if they did have that technology, it's clearly not been used in this case. 
  
  So my questions are these:
  -Did they use advanced technology to draw these dots, or not?
  -If yes, why do we see nothing but blobs?
  -If no, why is them having technology relevant?

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  BessAgritianin > 03-03-2025, 05:23 AM

  (01-03-2025, 12:59 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stating that we should not underestimate the abilities of the authors (within REASON) is a rational opinion to have, but even if they did have that technology, it's clearly not been used in this case. 
  
  So my questions are these:
  -Did they use advanced technology to draw these dots, or not?
  -If yes, why do we see nothing but blobs?
  -If no, why is them having technology relevant?

  I will answer your questions with question:
  Who was the user/owner of the manuscript- Jakub a Tepance? Was he a gardener in Rudolf's garden, a devotional jesuit or- and, and and something else?
  
  Original thread question was- does someone read a text,  nested in "P" letter of Q2 f14v.
  If no one reads anything- then no use to continue the discourse.
  I was fair to provide my result. Future will show if I was right or wrong. 
  Why the botanists are silent?  Is this plant an acanthus or not, according their judgement?
  
  br: Vessy

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  Aga Tentakulus > 03-03-2025, 05:58 AM

  Why the botanists are silent?  Is this plant an acanthus or not, according their judgement?
  
  If you ask so nicely.
  Do you mean this acanthus?
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Then it's not right at all. The leaves are not right. But you will find them correctly drawn on other VM plants.
  The flower isn't right either. Clearly way off the mark.
  
  The pill nettle is the closest match. Less well known in the north, but already known in the south.
  ‘The oily fruits, which were available in most pharmacies in earlier centuries, were used as a tonic and invigorating agent[4].’
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  eggyk > 03-03-2025, 10:37 AM

  (03-03-2025, 05:23 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I will answer your questions with question:
  Who was the user/owner of the manuscript- Jakub a Tepance? Was he a gardener in Rudolf's garden, a devotional jesuit or- and, and and something else?
  
  Original thread question was- does someone read a text,  nested in "P" letter of Q2 f14v.
  If no one reads anything- then no use to continue the discourse.
  I was fair to provide my result. Future will show if I was right or wrong. 
  Why the botanists are silent?  Is this plant an acanthus or not, according their judgement?
  
  br: Vessy

  
  Try answering the questions with an answer. Your "answer" literally does not address anything I said. 
  
  I asked 3 simple questions about your assertions in this thread:
  Were these dots written with advanced tech?
  If yes, why do they look like blobs and not letters?
  If no, why did they not use their advanced tech?
  
  and you have replied:
  "Who was the author?"
  
  This is borderline disrespectful. The reason I am asking these is because it shows a flaw in your logic that I am trying to help you see. Please think about these questions and answer them directly. 
  
  I am really trying to be open and honest with you; to not dismiss or insult or reject your ideas. But you can't expect continued respect when you do not engage with people's criticisms or questions.

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  Ruby Novacna > 03-03-2025, 01:04 PM

  (03-03-2025, 10:37 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....you do not engage with people's criticisms or questions.

  
  I'm still waiting for the alphabet, too.

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  BessAgritianin > 04-03-2025, 04:15 AM

  (03-03-2025, 10:37 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Try answering the questions with an answer. Your "answer" literally does not address anything I said. 
  
  I asked 3 simple questions about your assertions in this thread:
  Were these dots written with advanced tech?
  If yes, why do they look like blobs and not letters?
  If no, why did they not use their advanced tech?
  
  and you have replied:
  "Who was the author?"

  
  - Were these dots written with advanced tech?- This is incorrect question.
  "Advanced tech" is a modern term for today's times.  If you think it in this way the answer would be NO. 
  -If it concerns "advanced for middle ages- I think -Yes.
  -If you take careful look at many blobs you will notice, that some of them are real blobs - rough and rounded, and others are not, but have some form like letters, as in the case. 
  -If no, why did they not use their advanced tech?- In certain places they used it and why, I cannot answer now.
  
  Would you answer now my question- "Who was the user/owner of the manuscript?" Or with other words- what is the profile of Jacub Horcicky z Tepence?
  Was he an ordinary Jesuit healer or was he an experienced alchemist?
  In the last case we may have advanced techniques in the VM.
  br: Vessy

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  BessAgritianin > 04-03-2025, 04:24 AM

  (03-03-2025, 01:04 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (03-03-2025, 10:37 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....you do not engage with people's criticisms or questions.

  
  I'm still waiting for the alphabet, too.

  
  I'm still waiting for the alphabet, too.- I am not finished with the alphabet myself.
  The problem is that one (so called "Gallows" by some of the researchers) symbol seems to correspond to several variants of Latin letters. Whether this is the ciphering, or is due to writing inexperience- I do not know. 
  When I finish my complete letter symbols correspondences I promise to publish it. But for now You may follow my word for word interpretations in f67r1.
  br: Vessy

• RE: Q2f14v Secret Writings

  Ruby Novacna > 04-03-2025, 08:52 AM

  (04-03-2025, 04:24 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm still waiting for the alphabet, too.- I am not finished with the alphabet myself...

  
  You have already published the translation of several pages, so you can publish the phonetic values that you have assigned to the glyphs of these pages. It's not magic.
  If, along the way, you add or replace these values, you can always add them in your explanations.
• Next Oldest Next Newest