- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
- [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
-
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Aga Tentakulus > 21-11-2025, 10:03 AM
No matter how hard he tries, you can always tell. -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Jorge_Stolfi > 21-11-2025, 10:36 AM
-
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
oshfdk > 21-11-2025, 10:48 AM
(21-11-2025, 10:36 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Like this?
To me this (and the other one from 80r) are the strongest arguments against the systematic retracing hypothesis. These are very clear unambiguous examples of retracing, I agree. I don't know if this happened immediately after writing or later. The fact that the same two examples are given over and over again tells me that there are no more than a handful of these in the whole manuscript, which means that either the retracing was performed with absolutely incredibly heroic effort to hide all evidence of it or no systematic retracing was performed.
I assume, you have spent quite some time looking for examples of retracing in the manuscript. In this case it can be inferred that the lack of evidence is the evidence of absence (of obvious unambiguous examples that would work for anyone), what do you think? -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Aga Tentakulus > 21-11-2025, 10:59 AM
@Jorge
Yes, exactly.
Where did you find it? -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
oshfdk > 21-11-2025, 11:03 AM
(21-11-2025, 10:59 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Jorge
Yes, exactly.
Where did you find it?
It's right on 1r, mid page, beginning of a line. I know this because these are the only two examples I'm aware of. The other one is 80r, mid page, beginning of a line too.
I think it's likely both are at the beginning of a line because the scribe started writing, realized that the ink is too weak and retraced a part with new ink. -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Aga Tentakulus > 21-11-2025, 11:24 AM
@oshfdk
Thanks, I found it.
I would say the same thing. As it stands, it's the only time it appears on this page, even though there are plenty of reasons to do it more often. But the page is also in poor condition. -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Koen G > 21-11-2025, 11:50 AM
I'm pulling this over here to avoid the Irish thread going too far off-topic. You write (emphasis mine):
(21-11-2025, 09:54 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Actually we do not know what the inks are. We only know that they are iron-based (except the quire numbers, that are probably lampblack, and the red ink of f67r2, which AFAIK has not been analyzed yet), but apparently not iron-gall.
The McCrone report writes (p.3):
I just... find this very difficult to look at. Has expertise really lost all meaning?
It's good to be critical. O'Neill was specialized in sedges and aerial photography of vegetation. When he makes a claim about a medieval document without much argumentation, we should probably not regard that statement as very authoritative.
But McCrone specializes in exactly this kind of analysis. We have a lot of newcomers on the forum. If you just proclaim that it is not iron gall ink while our best, most specialized and expert resource says that it is iron gall ink, then that will cause confusion.
I'm not saying that making such claims is against forum rules or something (just to clearly separate this from the other discussion), but as a researcher I regret this kind of undermining of what should be a rare foothold in the misinformation free-for-all that is the study of this manuscript. -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Jorge_Stolfi > 21-11-2025, 12:19 PM
(21-11-2025, 11:50 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The McCrone report writes
Yes, the McCrone techncian wrote that.
But I have explained elsewhere on this forum that their instruments cannot positively identify iron-gall ink. They can only tell that the ink contains iron. So that statement was just what they thought was the most likely possibility. Which would be a safe bet for any ordinary manuscript on vellum.
But we know that the VMS is not an ordinary manuscript...
And I have also pointed out that the multispectral images clearly show that it is not iron-gall ink. Based on data from experts in distinguishing iron-gall ink from ochre ink by multspectral image analysis.
Quote:Has expertise really lost all meaning?
One of the great things I learned while hacking at the VMS was Charles Forte's Law of Expert Action and Reaction: "For every expert there is an equal but opposite expert."
Just consider how long it took for the Vinland Map to be recognized as a forgery after McCrone's initial report. There were good experts on both sides of that debate...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Koen G > 21-11-2025, 12:38 PM
(21-11-2025, 12:19 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just consider how long it took for the Vinland Map to be recognized as a forgery after McCrone's initial report. There were good experts on both sides of that debate...
Certainly, but now there is a critical mass that clearly leans in one direction, and I don't think there's any coming back from that. It's like nobody will start believing in Santa Clause again. And I would argue that we have reached a similar state with the VM, many times over. Only, there are many holdouts from pre-critical mass times that still have their own axe to grind.
It used to be the case that people didn't even have decent color scans of the whole manuscript. There was a lot of empty space to fill in, and the best thing many could do was build elaborate personal theories, because there wasn't much else to go on.
But gradually, over the years, we have built up a better understanding of the manuscript, with more actual data at our disposal. The stubborn rejection of such data in favor of personal preferences is not ideal, though I assume everybody does this at times.
I think we just have to be careful that "experts disagree with one another" does not become "there is no more expertise". I will keep naively assuming that the people at McCrone know what they are talking about. -
RE: [split] Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings
Jorge_Stolfi > 21-11-2025, 02:41 PM
(21-11-2025, 10:48 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that the same two examples are given over and over
Quite the opposite. My big problem is that I don't have time to post all the evidence that I see. I posted at least half a dozen image clips to this thread, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which show several cases more patent than that daiin. Like nymphs with three legs and robot tentacles, glyphs turned into weirdos, etc. They can be found on almost every page, if one is not a priori set to deny the possibility...
Take the 14x17 "almost"-periodic sequence of f57v. If you assume that all the text is just as the scribe wrote it, you have the problem of justifying the discrepancies between the first period and the other three. And why those glyphs that look like main Voynichese are crooked. You you admit that the text may have been retraced at a late date, it easily makes sense...
All the best, --stolfi