Time being so short for Voynich things now, it is often easier for me to add my notes as comment on another person’s posts on a given item.
As example – re the illumination in the copy of Oresme’s work, as noted by Ellie Velinksa, and about which I wrote here a post on methodology.
Robert Teague had also troubled to count the ‘ins and outs’ of the border and found their number to be the same as the Voynich diagram’s.
From this he concluded (rightly, in my opinion) that this was no co-incidence.
We differ, though, in the inferences drawn from that non-random correspondence.
In Robert’s post of October 9th., which I first saw yesterday, Robert counted the number of ‘waves’ as being in both cases – 43.
Because the ring of waves must have 360 degrees, and by considering how many allusions occur in MS Beinecke 408 to the customs of mariners and maritime chart-makers, I wondered if the number 43 (or 86) would coincide with measures used by eastern mariners. It came close enough to being a measure in isba’, whether the number was taken as 43 or as 86.
Because Robert is chiefly interested in the Voynich stars, I wondered if he might have done the same already, but his reply said he had no explanation for the two manuscript’s use of that number of divisions, while he evidently supposes it proves that one is directly copied from the other. It could be so, but since there is the possibility that both simply refer to a once-common convention, I added a comment, as below: