- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Book Switch Theory
- The Book Switch Theory
-
RE: The Book Switch Theory
Jorge_Stolfi > Today, 11:06 AM
(Yesterday, 02:21 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't matter whether you knew about N18 or not. What's important is that the numbering has the same characteristics as the others.
But it doesn't. Numbers #7 and #8 are very different from #4 and #19.
Quote:But if he knew about it, he should have expected that there would also be another N19. A counterfeiter would never have done this based on a mere assumption, as he has no knowledge of what else might be in the archives.It's not a banknote where the same serial number doesn't stand out.
As I wrote, maybe he had some reason to believe that #19 would never be found.
But I think that he just gambled. Like forgers and con artists do all the time. Because they trust that, if someone finds evidence of the fraud, they will be able to talk their way out of trouble. It is one of the basic and necessary skills of the "trade".
Victor Lustig was a 19th century con man who, among other exploits, sold the Eiffel tower to a scrap metal dealer, by pretending to be a representative of the city's department which had decided to demolish it. Check what he did when the dealer became suspicious and confronted him.
"So you say your experts found that in the library of the Zapadákov Monastery there is another book with Jacobus's ex-libris, numbered 19 too? How strange. Could it be that, when he acquired #20, Jacobus forgot that he already had #19? Or maybe he gave #19 away at some point, and reused the number for his next acquisition. Or maybe he erased the name and reused the number because he thought he could get in trouble if someone found that he had taken possession one of Rudolf's most precious books. Or perhaps ... I don't want to offend anyone, but could that ex-libris out there be a forgery by some unscrupulous book dealer?"
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
eggyk > 5 hours ago
(Yesterday, 02:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as "vague traces of parts of the signature", it is actually quite better than that. Yes, my 2013 photograph, which still seems to be the only one on the internet, does give that impression.
The original files are on the online yale university library. You can download the (very high resolution) photos here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
It certainly could be missed by anyone who simply flipped through the pages. I'm reminded that even here on this forum, certain new marks are still noticed now and then, and that's with an entire community scouring the document for every detail. Look at this page, with everything else going on the potential faint signature is the last thing i'm noticing.
In my opinion, it isn't all that inconcievable that the few people who owned the manuscript did not mention the signature. In candle lighting settings, I would imagine the visibility would be even worse.
Actually, the only potential difference that I noticed is that the T on Tepenecz has some marks above, but that may just be the parchment. It does remind me of the signiture on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. though.
-
RE: The Book Switch Theory
oshfdk > 5 hours ago
(5 hours ago)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
If something is visible on a photograph, especially on a black and white photograph, this doesn't necessarily mean it was visible just as well with a naked eye. B&W photography often employs many techniques to enhance contrast.
As far as I remember, this also was mentioned by Voynich himself, that he first was able to notice the signature on the photograph and only then checked the page. I can't find a source, but Lisa Fagin Davis mentioned this: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Book Switch Theory
proto57 > 2 hours ago
(5 hours ago)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 02:24 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as "vague traces of parts of the signature", it is actually quite better than that. Yes, my 2013 photograph, which still seems to be the only one on the internet, does give that impression.
The original files are on the online yale university library. You can download the (very high resolution) photos here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The signature is indeed visible before chemical treatment, and appears to be the same in all visible aspects. It is very faint though. Its obvious that it is there if you're looking for it, but honestly not that obvious if your attention is drawn to the rest of the content.
Thank you, eggyk: Yes that seems to be an original negative film strip, which I am not sure was online in 2013 or not. If so, I missed it! No matter, it is great, and possibly the source of the "pre-treatment photograph" positive which I photographed in 2013. But also, if you look at the positive I photographed, the tape is in a different place:
Anyway, I disagree that the name would not be obvious. This is unprocessed, by me, and taken directly from the link you provided:
All the letters, I think, are there. It may be hard to make out the "z", but all the rest are readable. I think at 1:1 view, this name would be very visible, and readable. But it would certainly draw attention of anyone who saw this negative, and by projecting the image with a film strip projector, even be very readable.
But when I reverse it into a positive image... which of course negatives were intended to do... and in printing, it would have lost no information. I have photographed and processed hundreds of feet of various black and white films, from Pan-X, to Tri-X, lithographic, and more... and it is a very easy matter to control contrast, tone, brightness... in other words, see what we can see today, by reversing the negative into this positive on my computer:
I have not altered the brightness, contrast, nor sharpness of that reversal. And I can clearly read the name... although perhaps I might leave off the "z", and write it as, "Tepenec". I think, close enough to see who was being referred to... and, not an "unknown person" to those of the era of discovery of the Voynich.
Rich