|
Dana Scott wrote:
> Now that you have analyzed the margins of f1r in great detail, can you
summarize your findings and interpretations?
Certainly; thanks for asking! : )
I started out just trying to get more detail of the alphabet table along
the right side.
Dennis kindly sent me a much darker copy of the folio for that
purpose.
Here are my findings to date:
a s
b
c r
d f
e
.
g
h
i
k
l
.
.
o y
p
q
s
.
.
.
.
x
y g
.
That's less than what I posted before, but using Photoshop has shown me I
may
be seeing artifacts instead of letters. But I'm not finished yet.
I read where a date of "1*33" had been seen somewhere above the table,
and I was
looking for that, as well. I tried reversing the .jpg, and that's when the
"1708" jumped
out at me. I agree it looks more like "1 7o 8". That the white background
can be
seen between the loops of the "8" and the "0" are telling points about the
reality
of the numbers, along with Nick's addition of a bar across the "7".
I've also noticed what seems to be writing across the middle of the top of
the folio,
but I haven't worked with it, yet.
There are some other suspicious areas on the folio, but again, I haven't
looked at them
carefully yet.
> Do you feel that the author of the VMS also penned the border entries
or that they are contributions from a
> postanalyst? Thank you for your thoughts.
I think they were added in post production. The letters in
the alphabet table
and the 1708 are different from the folio writing, and
look a lot alike. If my
suspicion is correct, someone got
the manuscript in 1708, and added
the table as part of his research.
But that's getting ahead of myself. I need the reality
confirmed, first.
Robert
|