21-11-2017, 01:00 AM
It seems clear that the three-part cosmos of Oresme differs significantly from the standard representation that showed the sun and moon and all the known planets. The three-part representation is not wrong, within the perspective of geocentric systems. It is, however, excessively simplified. It’s like a cosmic illustration for dummies, ironically being presented to the French King Charles V, ‘the Wise’.
An interesting discovery in the investigation of Nicole Oresme is the fact that although the name is referenced twice in the 1960 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there is no personal biography for him. While this could have been an oversight, it seems more likely that it was a judgment based on Oresme’s perceived lack of significance. And if Oresme lacked significance in 1960, then what about earlier, in the time of Voynich and Newbold? If the Oresme illustration had been known then, why would VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. have been interpreted as the Andromeda galaxy? And if the VMs is a Voynich forgery, how does an unrecognized representation of the Oresme cosmos get used in the forgery process.
This conundrum is very similar to the situation found of VMs White Aries. There was a historical connection between Ottobuono Fieschi and Roger Bacon. White Aries shows the Fieschi connection with the origin of the Catholic tradition of the red galero. The intention of WMV was to promote his manuscript as a book by Roger Bacon. Yet this relevant supporting information was never used or mentioned – as if it were unknown – because it was unknown. So who put it in the manuscript?
So far there is no cosmos like Oresme’s that is similar in schematic plan and in the design detail of the parts - *other than what is found in the VMs.* Furthermore, the VMs offers an opportunity to improve the comparison with the Oresme illustration, if the reader is willing to substitute the scallop-shell cloud band from the VMs Central Rosette. Many are not willing, apparently, to consider that possibility. And that is not necessarily invalid, if it were based on a single instance with no other examples. But the VMs is replete with examples of trickery. There are various places that present cogent motivation to get off the train and abandon a line of investigation. That is the purpose – to deceive and to conceal. Intentional ambiguity is used to dissuade the investigator. The optical illusion of VMs White Aries is the prime example. The separation of the cloud band from the other parts of the cosmos (f68v) is another. The quasi-heraldic patterns on the tubs in the outer ring of VMs Pisces provide certain clues and at the same time attempt to dissuade the half-hearted investigator before reaching the papelonny patterns – assuming the investigator has a sufficient knowledge to recognize and name the evidence presented. And the clear presence of that evidence has not even been accepted for what it is because the modern perspective is not properly informed on the valid facts and specific details of well-known traditional and historically verifiable information that was familiar in certain scholarly circles at the time of the VMs creation.
An interesting discovery in the investigation of Nicole Oresme is the fact that although the name is referenced twice in the 1960 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, there is no personal biography for him. While this could have been an oversight, it seems more likely that it was a judgment based on Oresme’s perceived lack of significance. And if Oresme lacked significance in 1960, then what about earlier, in the time of Voynich and Newbold? If the Oresme illustration had been known then, why would VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. have been interpreted as the Andromeda galaxy? And if the VMs is a Voynich forgery, how does an unrecognized representation of the Oresme cosmos get used in the forgery process.
This conundrum is very similar to the situation found of VMs White Aries. There was a historical connection between Ottobuono Fieschi and Roger Bacon. White Aries shows the Fieschi connection with the origin of the Catholic tradition of the red galero. The intention of WMV was to promote his manuscript as a book by Roger Bacon. Yet this relevant supporting information was never used or mentioned – as if it were unknown – because it was unknown. So who put it in the manuscript?
So far there is no cosmos like Oresme’s that is similar in schematic plan and in the design detail of the parts - *other than what is found in the VMs.* Furthermore, the VMs offers an opportunity to improve the comparison with the Oresme illustration, if the reader is willing to substitute the scallop-shell cloud band from the VMs Central Rosette. Many are not willing, apparently, to consider that possibility. And that is not necessarily invalid, if it were based on a single instance with no other examples. But the VMs is replete with examples of trickery. There are various places that present cogent motivation to get off the train and abandon a line of investigation. That is the purpose – to deceive and to conceal. Intentional ambiguity is used to dissuade the investigator. The optical illusion of VMs White Aries is the prime example. The separation of the cloud band from the other parts of the cosmos (f68v) is another. The quasi-heraldic patterns on the tubs in the outer ring of VMs Pisces provide certain clues and at the same time attempt to dissuade the half-hearted investigator before reaching the papelonny patterns – assuming the investigator has a sufficient knowledge to recognize and name the evidence presented. And the clear presence of that evidence has not even been accepted for what it is because the modern perspective is not properly informed on the valid facts and specific details of well-known traditional and historically verifiable information that was familiar in certain scholarly circles at the time of the VMs creation.