The Voynich Ninja

(05-12-2018, 09:00 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I grew up around teepees and they don't look very much like that.

Real Indian teepees can be seen by all on Google:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So, if it's not a teepee, would you mind telling us what you think it is and where in Europe we can find it. Thanks.

It's not a teepee and we don't know what it is. If we did, it wouldn't quite be the "world's most mysterious manuscript".

(05-12-2018, 07:41 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And by the way, I do agree with Koen that one of the IDs for the "sunflower" that should be considered is a cereal crop. The leaves are right and the many small circles might represent grain kernels in a conceptual way (tipped over to show they are round and that there are many of them).

One does not need to be a botanist to surmise that the inner flower, stems, leaves, and roots depicted on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. come very close to the real thing:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Literally every part of that is wrong, even the roots. The sunflower you show has a central tap root with other roots attached. The VM plant has several equal roots all attached to the stem.

(05-12-2018, 11:52 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Literally every part of that is wrong, even the roots. The sunflower you show has a central tap root with other roots attached. The VM plant has several equal roots all attached to the stem.

Those minor discrepancies can be attributable to an artist drawing the sunflower from memory rather than having it in front of him at the time of drawing. The fact remains that the inner flower of this single-flower plant, its stem, leaves, and root (as seen on f93r) all resemble those of the sunflower whereas the multiple flowers and crazy roots seen on the other hundred or so plants depicted in the VMS generally do not resemble the sunflower even remotely. This strongly suggests that the VMS artist did in fact see a real sunflower at some point in his or her life.

(06-12-2018, 02:09 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-12-2018, 11:52 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Literally every part of that is wrong, even the roots. The sunflower you show has a central tap root with other roots attached. The VM plant has several equal roots all attached to the stem.

Those minor discrepancies can be attributable to an artist drawing the sunflower from memory rather than having it in front of him at the time of drawing. The fact remains that the inner flower of this single-flower plant, its stem, leaves, and root (as seen on f93r) all resemble those of the sunflower whereas the multiple flowers and crazy roots seen on the other hundred or so plants depicted in the VMS generally do not resemble the sunflower even remotely. This strongly suggests that the VMS artist did in fact see a real sunflower at some point in his or her life.

This demonstrates that you have not studied the VMS plants. One of the things the illustrator DID care about was leaf arrangement and even the margins of the leaves. Plants without serrations on the leaves are drawn correctly. Plants with serrations on the leaves are drawn correctly and even the SHAPE of the serrations is sometimes drawn in detail if it is relevant to the ID of the plant.

It's very easy to dismiss the way it's drawn, but these plant drawings are very measured, they are not haphazard even if they may seem strange in some ways. Some aspects of them are carefully observed and drawn and unless you study ALL of them in context, you are not likely to be aware of this. I already knew quite a few things about plants before I met the VMS, and yet I spent MONTHS studying the plant drawings before I made any attempts at ID because I wanted to know WHAT WAS IMPORTANT to the illustrator and what was not instead of guessing (as you are) which minor details might be wrong.

As I said before THERE ARE OTHER PLANTS THAT LOOK LIKE SUNFLOWERS in the Old World, depending on how you treat scale. You probably can't name a single one. Learn about plants before you accept at face value that it has to be a sunflower.

This is an Old World plant and it is not a sunflower:

[attachment=2549]

Notice how the "fringe" around the outer edge of the flowerhead is finer textured than the triangular bracts of the sunflower. It's closer to the VMS drawing than the edge of a New World sunflower. If there are Old World plants that resemble the drawing more closely than a sunflower (along with many of the other New World plant IDs that have been offered), it greatly weakens the argument for a New World origin.

(06-12-2018, 02:59 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Notice how the "fringe" around the outer edge of the flowerhead is finer textured than the triangular bracts of the sunflower. It's closer to the VMS drawing than the edge of a New World sunflower. If there are Old World plants that resemble the drawing more closely than a sunflower (along with many of the other New World plant IDs that have been offered), it greatly weakens the argument for a New World origin.

If the VMS artists are so precise in their depictions, as you indicate, why does Wikipedia, on referring to the 112 plant folios, say "None of the plants depicted are unambiguously identifiable." I think you should write to Wikipedia and tell them to remove that statement because you have identified the VMS plants as ordinary plants growing in Europe during the 15th century.

I initially viewed the VMS plants as the product of European migrants to the New World wanting to catalog the mysterious plants they encountered. I no longer think that. I now view the VMS as a missionaries' handbook, whereupon the pretty fantasy plants are displayed to attract the attention of potential converts while the missionary talks about his religion of love. Thus, I see no reason to make an issue out of the sunflower.

(01-12-2018, 08:27 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, if we all say JKP is right, will it become more acceptable to you?

Upon checking for new posts on the Morten St. George Theory thread a couple of days ago, I was surprised to find myself looking at the following snippet from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and a discussion on whether the first letter of the second word was an unfinished g or a y.



I soon realized that, due to poor eyesight, I had opened up the wrong thread under Voynich Talk.

My theory of gates is still in the initial stages of development but when complete, I think I will be able to convince you guys that the mystery character is neither an unfinished g nor a y but rather the glyph v turned upside down and combined with the glyph ')'.  Though the positioning of components of gates is generally standardized throughout the VMS, that does not have to be the case as I have seen exceptions. Components can be in any position.

Look at the third character from the right in that word. You guys take it to be the glyph x but not so. It's missing the vertical shaft. Instead, it's likely a gate combining the glyph i turned into a horizontal position with the glyph v (the same glyph we see turned upside down in the first letter).



Remember this? You guys say the first character is the Latin letter l (L) but I see a gate there: it's merely an alternative way of writing k whose first stroke is really an i turned vertical and elongated.

The concept of 'gates' (the combination of two letters) first arises in a Hebrew classic called Yetzirah. I was drawn to this book by a German publication of 1614 that, among other things, provided brief biographical details (usually out of context) of the decoders of the VMS. This is an English translation of the relevant sentence: "The first of this Fraternity which died, and that in England, was I.O., as Brother C. long before had foretold him; he was very expert, and well learned in Cabala, as his Book H witnesseth."

It goes without saying that gates are likely to prove helpful for decoding the VMS.

(06-12-2018, 01:47 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-12-2018, 02:59 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Notice how the "fringe" around the outer edge of the flowerhead is finer textured than the triangular bracts of the sunflower. It's closer to the VMS drawing than the edge of a New World sunflower. If there are Old World plants that resemble the drawing more closely than a sunflower (along with many of the other New World plant IDs that have been offered), it greatly weakens the argument for a New World origin.

If the VMS artists are so precise in their depictions, as you indicate, why does Wikipedia, on referring to the 112 plant folios, say "None of the plants depicted are unambiguously identifiable." I think you should write to Wikipedia and tell them to remove that statement because you have identified the VMS plants as ordinary plants growing in Europe during the 15th century.

I initially viewed the VMS plants as the product of European migrants to the New World wanting to catalog the mysterious plants they encountered. I no longer think that. I now view the VMS as a missionaries' handbook, whereupon the pretty fantasy plants are displayed to attract the attention of potential converts while the missionary talks about his religion of love. Thus, I see no reason to make an issue out of the sunflower.

A lot of the info on Wikipedia has been copied off of Voynich researchers' blogs. Some blogs are better than others. Their opinions are the same as everyone else's... opinions.


The sunflower is an issue because certain researchers made it in issue.


From the Purdue University news site:

"Illustrations of the sunflower and armadillo are viewed by the authors [Janick and Tucker] as hard proof of a post-Columbian manuscript."

In support of their New World theory, Janick stated: '“Simply put, there is no way a manuscript written on vellum that contains a sunflower and an armadillo could have been written before 1492.”

Unfortunately, there is not much support for his idea that the plant and animal are unequivocably a sunflower and an armadillo. Most people familiar with armadillos think the animal looks more like a pangolin (plus there are other possible interpretations) and those who know plants know that sunflower is not the only possible identification.

(06-12-2018, 03:54 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Remember this? You guys say the first character is the Latin letter l (L) but I see a gate there: it's merely an alternative way of writing k whose first stroke is really an i turned vertical and elongated.

No, if you read my various posts on this, you will see that I am not certain the first letter is "l". It has a bend in it. It might be b or k. It's more likely to be "l" but it's not for certain.

Quote:Morten: it's merely an alternative way of writing k whose first stroke is really an i turned vertical and elongated."

Do you realize how truly weird this statement is? ALL letters are various other strokes turned or elongated or shortened. That's how letters evolve. That's how they are designed. The letter b is the letter d mirrored. An ell is i elongated without the dot. A medieval f is a medieval s with a crossbar. Noticing a similarity in shape means nothing. You have to DEMONSTRATE that there is a relationship between them that goes beyond the similarity in shape and you haven't done that. You've only pointed out the obvious.