The Voynich Ninja

Morten,
you say:
"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! "

This is outrageous.
The conclusions of the article I linked are confirmed by numerous other studies by various other archaeologists, and have been confirmed many times over. Of course, some details will never be known, but things like the number of towers and layout of the walls and the basic floorplan are well established, and have been since the 1980's. They do not match the Voynich castle.

The plans of the 13th century castle can be found online. I won't put up any more links here, nor provide any more free research for you, since you have decided that anything that contradicts your theory is "pseudo-science". The author of the article I linked earlier is a professor emeritus at the top school of social sciences in France: to call him a pseudo-scientist and compare him to a Nazi is absurd. Ironically, his archaeological work on Montsegur was praised by Henri Paul Eydoux, who was an eminent historian of medieval architecture... and a decorated member of the Resistance during WW2.

I understand it is upsetting to have one's theory dismantled by actual academic research, but if your reaction to facts is to say that it is then the scientists who must be engaging in "pseudo-science" and to compare them to Nazis.... wow.
It takes a lot of  bad faith to reach such a conclusion.
I really regret wasting my time digging up facts for you, since you obviously are oblivious to them.

(04-03-2019, 08:43 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

To definitively resolve the castle and other issues, we really need to decode the VMS. I'm working on new ideas for approaching the decoding.

(04-03-2019, 02:09 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten,
you say:
"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! "

This is outrageous.
The conclusions of the article I linked are confirmed by numerous other studies by various other archaeologists, and have been confirmed many times over. Of course, some details will never be known, but things like the number of towers and layout of the walls and the basic floorplan are well established, and have been since the 1980's. They do not match the Voynich castle.

The plans of the 13th century castle can be found online. I won't put up any more links here, nor provide any more free research for you, since you have decided that anything that contradicts your theory is "pseudo-science". The author of the article I linked earlier is a professor emeritus at the top school of social sciences in France: to call him a pseudo-scientist and compare him to a Nazi is absurd. Ironically, his archaeological work on Montsegur was praised by Henri Paul Eydoux, who was an eminent historian of medieval architecture... and a decorated member of the Resistance during WW2.

I understand it is upsetting to have one's theory dismantled by actual academic research, but if your reaction to facts is to say that it is then the scientists who must be engaging in "pseudo-science" and to compare them to Nazis.... wow.
It takes a lot of  bad faith to reach such a conclusion.
I really regret wasting my time digging up facts for you, since you obviously are oblivious to them.

I was working under the assumption that the VMS depiction had some connection to the Cathars who escaped the siege on March 14, 1244, and, having lived there, those Cathars would have had a good idea of what that fortress looked like.

The only medieval image of Montségur that I was able to find does not disagree with the VMS depiction (to the extent of the tower that is visible), and I found nothing in Inquisition records of the siege that would lead me to believe that the VMS depiction was inaccurate.

Common sense tells me that when there are no ruins (as I said, the stones of the Cathar fortress were removed from the mountain), there is little archaeologists can do. I also know that stone cannot be dated, so if there were any foundations there, it would be impossible to determine if it was the foundation of the pre-Cathar fortress of the 12th century or a post-Cathar foundation.

And not for one second do I believe that these archaeologists found the original, genuine blueprints for the construction of the Cathar fortress. If such a thing ever existed, the Inquisition would have burned it.

Know that Montségur, like the VMS, is a major field of quackery and scientists are not immune. So let's just leave it that you go your way and I'll go mine.

Quote: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.

There is not a smidge of evidence to identify these as Cathars other than your saying so.
In my mind they are representatives of various societies.

Quote:ii. The baptismal ceremony of consolamentum.

There is not a smidge of evidence to identify these as Cathars other than your saying so.
*If* it is a baptism, it could be Catholic just as easily as Cathar. I dont think it is a baptism at all.

Quote:iii. Efforts to evade procreation.

There is not a smidge of evidence to identify these as Cathars other than your saying so.
*If* it is related to procreation, it could be anyone. I don't think it is related to procreation at all.

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

And this relates to the vms how and proves what?

Quote:And more, a lot more. 

More of the above? More of nothing but your sayso? All you are doing is picking out visuals, placing a story on them that is not necessarily there, and presenting this as evidence.

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

Yep i guess that is end of story if you are going to hold onto your beliefs in the face of obvious problems with them being pointed out, supported with actual evidence (I am referring to Vviews' information about Montsegur).

(04-03-2019, 02:44 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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!

Wow just so much wrong there. Vviews must have touched your cognitive dissonance bone.

1. You say the archeologists are pseudoscientists.

As opposed to your own scientific method of projecting stories onto pictures, then ignoring contrary evidence?

2. You say they are just like Nazi archeologists.

By that i think you mean Otto Rahn. I would put an asterisk beside Nazi, and beside archeologist. No plural. Unless you count his French friend, the Cathar historian, who lived nearby Montsegur and gave him a tour. Are you saying he was a Nazi too? Or do you mean his later employers?

3. You say the Nazi archeologists went searching for the Cathar treasure.

It seems so regarding Otto, although i get different dates, 1929, 1931. The result of which were books telling stories about other books. Those books got him hired by the Ahnenerbe in 1936, he died in 1939, after not getting on so well with his employers.

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

On March 16, 1944, on the 700th anniversary of the fall of Montsegur, Nazi planes are reported to have flown patterns over the ruins--either swastikas or celtic crosses, depending upon the sources. The Nazi ideologist, Alfred Rosenberg was reputed to be on board one of the airplanes.  None of these reports have been satisfactorily proven.

In 1947, the French government made some restorations of the fortress walls.  Between 1964 - 1976 an extensive archeological dig was conducted at Montsegur and its vicinity.  Many of the artifacts recovered can be seen today in the village museum

4. You say the Cathar treasure was the vms

Your sayso again.

5. You say the vms holds prophesies.

And again. 

So to summarize, you characterize the archeologists that spent 12 years digging onsite to be equivalent to a guy who once visited the site with a guide. 

All of whom you say were searching for the wrong type of treasure, which had by your account already been found in 1912, but none of these Cathar historians knew it, or even considered such a thing to be the case, instead choosing to continue their investigations into actual artefacts related to the Cathars.

(04-03-2019, 03:24 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I was working under the assumption that the VMS depiction had some connection to the Cathars who escaped the siege on March 14, 1244, and, having lived there, those Cathars would have had a good idea of what that fortress looked like

I think you were working under the assumption that because the Cathar castle is said by many to have been completely destroyed and not one single stone left, that there would be no refute to your ascribing the tower(s) seen in the bonfire photo to the vms castle.

I have since learned there were catapults on the top of the mountain but i dont think the second tower was built by the catapultists as an aiming assist. 

Quote:The only medieval image of Montségur that I was able to find does not disagree with the VMS depiction (to the extent of the tower that is visible), and I found nothing in Inquisition records of the siege that would lead me to believe that the VMS depiction was inaccurate.

It does disagree. There is another tower. That, if it is a true rendition, exists after the Cathars are burned, so you cant say something happened to it before they could record it. It just doesn't work. Plus the fact that the rest of the castle just isnt there, so there is no way to equate it with anything, or say a so-called depiction thereof is accurate or inaccurate in any way, but in fact, that is what upholds your belief in your view that it does.

Speaking of which, where and when does this painting originate? For all we know it is an imagined scene, drawn well after the fact, by which time there would be nothing to copy. I have seen it used to depict other occurrences as well but cannot find in what manuscript it is found.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.php
This site includes various reconstructions, none of which resemble the vms castle.

Quote:Common sense tells me that when there are no ruins (as I said, the stones of the Cathar fortress were removed from the mountain), there is little archaeologists can do. I also know that stone cannot be dated, so if there were any foundations there, it would be impossible to determine if it was the foundation of the pre-Cathar fortress of the 12th century or a post-Cathar foundation.

If no archeology had been done, this might be a valid assumption.

If they spent 12 years unearthing everything and can reasonably put a picture together of the chronology of what has been left behind which refutes this no stone left behind assertation, then it is not so valid.

Quote:And not for one second do I believe that these archaeologists found the original, genuine blueprints for the construction of the Cathar fortress. If such a thing ever existed, the Inquisition would have burned it.

Know that Montségur, like the VMS, is a major field of quackery and scientists are not immune. So let's just leave it that you go your way and I'll go mine.

Don't expect many to go your way if that is your stance.

Quote: 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.

The Spanish city of Almería has the largest Moorish fortress in Europe, even larger than the Alhambra, and the heart was built in 955.
It wasn't properly protected by government decree until 1985; up until 1965 the exterior city walls were still being quarried for building materials. And just two years ago the (unqualified but a cousin-of-a-politician) director of the site allowed contractors to drill into a thousand-year wall to put up a temporary stage for a music festival. Fortunately, after a major outcry, she got fired.

(04-03-2019, 08:43 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have since learned there were catapults on the top of the mountain but i dont think the second tower was built by the catapultists as an aiming assist. 

I agree. I thought of aiming assist because I couldn't see a cup there but I have since discovered that in the 13th century they used sling catapults. That's what I now think your second tower is: a sling catapult.

I imagine that the tower with balcony would lie above the main entrance. The motive for putting a tower with balcony above the entrance is pretty obvious: from the balcony they would be able rain down arrows, rocks, boiling oil, whatever, upon those below trying to break down the door.



This medieval drawing supports the idea that tower lies above the main entrance because the tower is depicted alongside the pathway that we see in the upper right hand corner, so it is logical to assume that the pathway climbs up to the tower.

The doorway that you see in the VMS drawing (on the opposite side of the fortress from the tower) would therefore be the one opening up to the friendly village that shared the mountaintop with the fortress.

I just remembered something else. Part of the fortress had to stretch out to the steepest slope. That is how a group of Cathars managed to escape just two days prior to surrender: the slope was so steep that the French soldiers didn't bother to guard it.

Take special notice of the tower with a cone-like top, a balcony, and window below the balcony. I've found a similar tower. Guess where? In the VMS.

Let's make a deal. You find a tower that looks like that in northern Italy and I'll concede that you guys have a valid argument. Otherwise, you stop nagging me with questions on this matter and we move on to other themes.

Deal?

(05-03-2019, 01:17 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....


Let's make a deal. You find a tower that looks like that in northern Italy and I'll concede that you guys have a valid argument. Otherwise, you stop nagging me with questions on this matter and we move on to other themes.

Deal?

This is a remarkable statement. You don't seem to think that people have a right to question unsupported or poorly argued assumptions on a research forum?

Wow.

(05-03-2019, 01:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is a remarkable statement. You don't seem to think that people have a right to question unsupported or poorly argued assumptions on a research forum?

Wow.

Correct. On a research forum comprised of professionals, I consider it inappropriate to raise questions that reflect a careless misunderstanding of prior statements or that include blatant ad hominem attacks. I always respond to questions that I feel have merit.

And a few of Linda's questions did have merit and have proven very helpful. Thus, I would very much welcome her continued participation in this thread.

You have found swallowtail merlons in northern Italy. Now show me a coned tower with balcony from northern Italy and you win.