The Voynich Ninja

(06-03-2019, 11:23 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A.A. Davenport reported that the Amalricians were burned at Les Champeaux, outside of Paris, Nov. 20, 1210. That's probably what is in the drawing.

We can see a painting about this event :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[attachment=2712]

We can see the king Philipp II on the left side.

But the Amauricians have nothing to do with the Cathars, right? Their ideology is significantly different (almost opposite, in some ways).

It was outside the walls then, now in the center of Paris (Les Halles).
Probably a generic illustration by someone who wasn't there.
The slope of the roof of the two towers makes no sense for the south of France anyway.
The nice painting by Jean Fouquet shows la Tour du Temple that didn't exist in 1210: illustrations can't be trusted.

Thanks for the pointers in reading the text, everyone, i had a bit of it, but not enough to get the details out. 
So it seems it does not even portray Cathars? Interesting. Funny how everyone attributes it as such, like shutterstock and all the Cathar websites that use it. It reminds me of a billboard the town church put up which is meant to be pro life but which ironically uses a famous picture of an aborted child to denote a live one.

(06-03-2019, 01:08 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the Amauricians have nothing to do with the Cathars, right? Their ideology is significantly different (almost opposite, in some ways).

As much as I know there's no relationship between cathars and Paris.
Cathars lived in south of France ; far away from Paris.
The construction of a castle we can see behind is probably the castle of the Louvre (disappeared nowadays).
[attachment=2713]

(06-03-2019, 02:16 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The construction of a castle we can see behind is probably the castle of the Louvre (disappeared nowadays).

Nope: gibet de Montfaucon.

(06-03-2019, 01:01 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(06-03-2019, 11:23 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A.A. Davenport reported that the Amalricians were burned at Les Champeaux, outside of Paris, Nov. 20, 1210. That's probably what is in the drawing.

We can see a painting about this event :
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

We can see the king Philipp II on the left side.

Thanks, Paris, for your excellent research and for confirming (earlier) that the red ink does in fact bear some relationship to the drawing above.



The Wikipedia caption reads: "The burning of the Amalricians in 1210, in the presence of King Philip II of France. In the background is the Gibbet of Montfaucon and, anachronistically, the Grosse Tour of the Temple. Illumination from the Grandes Chroniques de France, c. 1255-1260."

As I have been screaming for weeks (it seems), kings were normally depicted wearing a crown as is Philip II in this illustration.

Note that there is no mountaintop fortress here.

In light of these new developments, I am forced to retract my concession on the first drawing. I am again maintaining that it depicts Montségur and that is why its tower so closely matches the tower depicted in the VMS.

(06-03-2019, 01:59 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks for the pointers in reading the text, everyone, i had a bit of it, but not enough to get the details out. 
So it seems it does not even portray Cathars? Interesting. Funny how everyone attributes it as such, like shutterstock and all the Cathar websites that use it. It reminds me of a billboard the town church put up which is meant to be pro life but which ironically uses a famous picture of an aborted child to denote a live one.

Linda, Thanks to Paris' decoding of the red ink, we now know that the illustration cannot be depicting what is said to be depicted. Possibly not having a drawing of the 1210 burning available, they decided to substitute a drawing of the Montségur burning instead.

(05-03-2019, 06:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Time to evacuate. Beam me up, Scotty.

Having nothing to do with guys being tough debaters, I'm afraid I've been called into the cold for nine days during which time I will be beaming down only sporadically.

(06-03-2019, 04:27 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Linda, Thanks to Paris' decoding of the red ink, we now know that the illustration cannot be depicting what is said to be depicted. Possibly not having a drawing of the 1210 burning available, they decided to substitute a drawing of the Montségur burning instead.

I figured you would say something like that, about it still being Montsegur in your eyes. I suppose you could put together a hypothesis like you outlined above about the illustration actually being about Montsegur due to it being closer in time to the creation of the St Denis manuscript than the earlier events, but i think your theory would stand stronger without it, especially since it was in a subsequent edition, it was not a photograph, and there was not enough of any building or landscape showing to identify it confidently.  You can still have the vms castle being identified as an imagined Montsegur, given the timing difference between the events and the creation of the vms, that is more believable to me than a comparison to a tower top illustration with all the problems that brings into it.

You are now armed with more knowledge to further shape your theory into a stronger one. You havent lost anything, anything that seems like loss was never there, and was actually a loose stone in the foundation of your theory.

Stay warm on your trip into the cold.