The Voynich Ninja

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The topography severely limits what could be built.

From the VMS depiction, we cannot determine the size of the fortress nor its precise location on the mountaintop though it seems logical that the tower would be on the same side as the pathway up the mountain.

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There have been archaeological excavations done and the old 13thC castle plan is known.

I'm quite sure I read that the dismantling of the Cathar fortress was so complete that they left no stone behind. Quite literally, every stone was removed from the mountain so I can't even imagine how your archaeological excavations could have any validity.

Please show me the original 13th-century blueprints for the construction of that fortress.

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way Morten, the article explains that the water storage was not up in a tower as you presume but in a cistern on one of the artificial terraces where housing was built below the castle.

The water tower comes as a logical conclusion from the circular tower depicted with blue color on top. Do you really believe a cistern was enough to supply five hundred people with water for a ten-month siege?

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.None of these inhabited terraces are visible in the VMS description: the "cliffs" are bare.

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This premise of yours that "it is not known, therefore I'm right" is a logical fallacy. Especially when things are known.

I am not claiming that it proves me right but that, upon proving others wrong, it increases the odds that I am right!

There were several cisterns, according to the archaeologists who wrote the article, about one per every three terraces.
The houses you show are not on the cliff-faces but on the other side, the flat "passage" between the two rosettes, no amount of cropping the image will conceal that... 
You have not proven me wrong. You are denying that the scholarly article written by a qualified professional based on years of on-site excavations and previous academic publications is valid. Your basis for this is some blue paint and hunches.

(03-03-2019, 11:07 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From the VMS depiction, we cannot determine the size of the fortress nor its precise location on the mountaintop though it seems logical that the tower would be on the same side as the pathway up the mountain.

I would have thought the entrance would be where the path would lead.

Quote:I'm quite sure I read that the dismantling of the Cathar fortress was so complete that they left no stone behind. Quite literally, every stone was removed from the mountain so I can't even imagine how your archaeological excavations could have any validity.

Wikipedia isnt necessarily the complete and true source of all knowledge. It does make more sense for them to have built on top of what was left. The original source of the information that 

The original Cathar fortress of Montségur was entirely pulled down by the victorious royal forces after its capture in 1244

Would have come from the victors. Would they say they knocked it all down and built their own, or would they say they rebuilt it? The former, i would think, even if the latter were true.

Quote:Please show me the original 13th-century blueprints for the construction of that fortress.

I think that info was already provided.

Quote:

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.None of these inhabited terraces are visible in the VMS description: the "cliffs" are bare.

That is not the cliff, that is the bridge to the next rosette, which you said was the heavenly realm.

Quote:

(03-03-2019, 09:49 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This premise of yours that "it is not known, therefore I'm right" is a logical fallacy. Especially when things are known.

I am not claiming that it proves me right but that, upon proving others wrong, it increases the odds that I am right!

But you have not proven anyone wrong, and you are ignoring the fact that information has been provided which opposes your view.

Quote:Morten: I also doubted anyone would completely destroy something at the top of a mountain...

Oh yes, they did!

There was CONSTANT warfare and utter destruction of entire villages was sometimes achieved. Many hilltop castles were completely destroyed. Sometimes to annihilate the existing culture and people, sometimes to carry away building materials.

(03-03-2019, 11:24 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There were several cisterns, according to the archaeologists who wrote the article, about one per every three terraces.
The houses you show are not on the cliff-faces but on the other side, the flat "passage" between the two rosettes, no amount of cropping the image will conceal that... 
You have not proven me wrong. You are denying that the scholarly article written by a qualified professional  based on years of on-site excavations and previous academic publications is valid. Your basis for this is some blue paint and hunches.

Though few drawings have survived, extensive written records of the fall of Montségur were made by the Inquisition and others. They tell us that the Cathars had anticipated the attack by the French army and made an enormous effort to store up enough food and water to last a very long time. Whether that effort included cisterns, I do not know. Montségur mountain was occupied for hundreds of years both before and after the brief time that the Cathars spent there. How were your archaeologists able to date those cisterns precisely to the first half of the 13th century?

The houses I showed you were clearly built on a steep slope and that depiction comes from the rosettes page close to the fortress. That does not prove those houses are on Montségur mountain but they certainly could be.

I really don't know what you think I'm trying to prove you wrong on. Archaeology alone can't prove that the VMS depiction isn't the Cathar fortress because the mountain was occupied for a millennium but the Cathar fortress stood there for no more than forty years and left no ruins. Historical records say the fortress was rebuilt and then "expanded" by the Cathars so surely it had to larger than the 17th-century chateau.

I'd classify those archaeologists as pseudo-scientists just like the Nazi archaeologists who went there searching for the Cathar treasure which was really no more than the VMS prophecies!

(04-03-2019, 02:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Morten: I also doubted anyone would completely destroy something at the top of a mountain...

Oh yes, they did!

There was CONSTANT warfare and utter destruction of entire villages was sometimes achieved. Many hilltop castles were completely destroyed. Sometimes to annihilate the existing culture and people, sometimes to carry away building materials.

I think you are trying to say that other mountaintop castles, one of which could have been the VMS castle, were destroyed. OK.

(03-03-2019, 11:45 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But you have not proven anyone wrong, and you are ignoring the fact that information has been provided which opposes your view.

Linda, I think you and the others should know that my theory about the Cathar fortress is not based solely on what we see on the rosettes folio. There are other pointers to the Cathars, including:

i. The men and women of the roundtables.



ii. The baptismal ceremony of consolamentum.



iii. Efforts to evade procreation.



iv. The legend that Christian Rosenkreutz was educated by the Cathars.



And more, a lot more. 

So you see, to my thinking, it has to be Montségur. End of story.

It's not the end of the story. It's arrogant to think that it is.

Koen Gheuens has provided a narrative for those images as well, and it is not the same as yours. You can't both be right and if I were forced to throw my lot in with one or the other, I'm likely to go with Koen because he relies more on observation and less on theories than you. In other words, he's more credible.

Regarding destroyed buildings it is important to realize that our respect for old buildings is a relatively recent thing. Even outside of the terrible effects of war, people were just too pragmatic. 

For example, I just learned that my home city used to have a magnificent medieval city gate close to where I used to live. It's been destroyed as recently as c. 1900 because they wanted to build a road there.

Things like that happened all the time. And renovations are just a s invasive. So many medieval buildings have gotten their current looks only after 1600, reflecting the evolving tastes of successive owners or creative renovations after periods of neglect.

That's why I'm dubious about finding the right visual parallel. Additionally, it would not be unusual if this were a "generic" castle or city image as is found on many medieval maps. That would make looking for its identity based on its appearance even more of a wild goose chase.

Not saying that it's impossible some identity is demonstrated one day. But it won't be easy.

(04-03-2019, 07:11 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not the end of the story. It's arrogant to think that it is.

Koen Gheuens has provided a narrative for those images as well, and it is not the same as yours. You can't both be right and if I were forced to throw my lot in with one or the other, I'm likely to go with Koen because he relies more on observation and less on theories than you. In other words, he's more credible.

JP, "End of story" was intended to convey that you guys have failed to convince me that the VMS does not depict Montségur and that you are unlikely to do so on current evidence. It was not intended to indicate that I'm right and you're wrong.

I'm interested in what Koen has to say and will check it out.