I'd agree that npcompl33t's processed images are among the clearest I have ever seen, so thanks for that!
But I noticed something odd. Your last b&w image shows a strong discrepancy in the word between what looks like 'te' and 'cere'.
In the false color image above - and all multispectral or true color images I have seen - the word between 'te' and 'cere' displays some odd fused glyphs in the middle like 'c8av', but in your b&w image, these weirdos disappear, leaving a faint but much less ambiguous 'c8v'. What was your workflow for this b&w image?
See also oshfdk's multispectral viewer that easily lets you cycle through wavelengths:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The issue still remains that we have a lot of highly ambiguous letters that look like the scribe changed his mind half-way or later amended them. Which glyphs are latin and which are voynichese is debatable, but as you said, some look like voynichese 'ch'. Some are completely odd like the o with ^ attached. That's why I'm extremely careful with any proposed readings.
But I noticed something odd. Your last b&w image shows a strong discrepancy in the word between what looks like 'te' and 'cere'.
In the false color image above - and all multispectral or true color images I have seen - the word between 'te' and 'cere' displays some odd fused glyphs in the middle like 'c8av', but in your b&w image, these weirdos disappear, leaving a faint but much less ambiguous 'c8v'. What was your workflow for this b&w image?
See also oshfdk's multispectral viewer that easily lets you cycle through wavelengths:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The issue still remains that we have a lot of highly ambiguous letters that look like the scribe changed his mind half-way or later amended them. Which glyphs are latin and which are voynichese is debatable, but as you said, some look like voynichese 'ch'. Some are completely odd like the o with ^ attached. That's why I'm extremely careful with any proposed readings.