Morten, those hats are berets.
It's been a popular style from the medieval period to the present day. There's nothing unusual about them. In the Middle Ages they were sometimes a bit poofier that modern ones (especially if the wearer was wealthy) but even then, many were the same as they are now.
I really wish you would RESEARCH things before making up your mind about how important they are. Look up "beret" on Google images.
Berets were especially popular in France and eastern Germany, but they are found many places.
I have numerous examples, but I don't have time to post them all, here is one from a German manuscript, but you'll find them in other countries, as well:
[
attachment=2904]
(06-05-2019, 05:09 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, those hats are berets.
It's been a popular style from the medieval period to the present day. There's nothing unusual about them. In the Middle Ages they were sometimes a bit poofier that modern ones (especially if the wearer was wealthy) but even then, many were the same as they are now.
I really wish you would RESEARCH things before making up your mind about how important they are. Look up "beret" on Google images.
Berets were especially popular in France and eastern Germany, but they are found many places.
I have numerous examples, but I don't have time to post them all, here is one from a German manuscript, but you'll find them in other countries, as well:
I guess you are trying to say that there is nothing helpful with the depicted clothing because, unlike our modern epoch, the clothing styles of the Middle Ages changed little across time. Fair enough.
The beret bumps shown on the Aries page (I now count four of them) look more exaggerated than the one you depict and I was thinking they might represent layman clergy or something like that. For example, do a Google image search on "Jewish medieval hats" to see another type of hat protrusion. But if, as you say, the beret bumps were worn by everybody across centuries, there would be nothing there that we could count on.
I'm pretty sure that the stars (attached to the hand) indicate dead people (similar to our "gone to heaven" concept) so the depicted clothing might date all the way back to the 12th century. For the dead people depicted under Aries, do you think they were born in the month April or did they die in the month of April? Astrology normally relates to the date of birth but I can envision escape from reincarnation (occurring on the death of a "perfect" person) as a type of rebirth.
No, I didn't say it wasn't helpful. I said you shouldn't decide whether it's important or not until you have researched it. You obviously hadn't researched it and yet you made pre-judgments about how useful it might be.
Just research and stop trying to second-guess the data. The data will lead you in the right direction. It doesn't work very well the other way around, trying to construct the past out of your imagination as a substitute for seeking out facts.
(06-05-2019, 10:52 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, I didn't say it wasn't helpful. I said you shouldn't decide whether it's important or not until you have researched it. You obviously hadn't researched it and yet you made pre-judgments about how useful it might be.
Just research and stop trying to second-guess the data. The data will lead you in the right direction. It doesn't work very well the other way around, trying to construct the past out of your imagination as a substitute for seeking out facts.
JP, A hundred years of research (fact seeking) has failed to resolve the mysteries of the VMS. A little bit of imagination may be just what is required to make some progress.
To further clarify: the data we need is not available. No amount of research will ever find it because it was destroyed by the Inquisition in the 13th century. We must therefore try to make sense of what the VMS shows us and in that regard a little imagination might prove helpful.
(06-05-2019, 02:58 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (06-05-2019, 10:52 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, I didn't say it wasn't helpful. I said you shouldn't decide whether it's important or not until you have researched it. You obviously hadn't researched it and yet you made pre-judgments about how useful it might be.
Just research and stop trying to second-guess the data. The data will lead you in the right direction. It doesn't work very well the other way around, trying to construct the past out of your imagination as a substitute for seeking out facts.
JP, A hundred years of research (fact seeking) has failed to resolve the mysteries of the VMS. A little bit of imagination may be just what is required to make some progress.
To further clarify: the data we need is not available. No amount of research will ever find it because it was destroyed by the Inquisition in the 13th century. We must therefore try to make sense of what the VMS shows us and in that regard a little imagination might prove helpful.
It really doesn't matter what I say...
Having a theory is more "glamorous" than doing research.
Inventing things is more fun that seeking facts that may be hard to find.
Pretending that all the information was destroyed in the Inquisition is something you made up to justify avoidance of the less-fun nitty-gritty nose-to-the-ground research.
You are seeking ONLY those bits of information that confirm your bias. You don't care about facts because they aren't fun as fiction. I get it now.
I wonder if I may be allowed to be a bit off-topic in this thread.
(06-05-2019, 02:58 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JP, A hundred years of research (fact seeking) has failed to resolve the mysteries of the VMS. A little bit of imagination may be just what is required to make some progress
I am more used to seeing a similar statement: "statistics haven't solved the Voynich MS", implying that statistics are not useful, can be ignored, or whatever.
However, this is a wonderful example of a non-sequitur.
The Voynich MS mystery has not been solved. Period.
Necessarily this means that it has not been solved by *any* method.
This would imply that *all* methods are useless.
Not just statistics, or fact-seeking, but everything.
Also interestingly, I daresay that:
A hundred years of plentiful and unbounded imagination has failed to resolve the mysteries of the Voynich MS.
Am I the only one who thought it hilarious that JKPs post about him having great eyesight is in a tiny font?
(06-05-2019, 07:20 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Am I the only one who thought it hilarious that JKPs post about him having great eyesight is in a tiny font?
I see the font as normal
On an unrelated note, I just learned about a thing called
Brandolini's law, which JKP's patient efforts in this thread and others reminded me of.
(06-05-2019, 07:20 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Am I the only one who thought it hilarious that JKPs post about him having great eyesight is in a tiny font?
I have poor eyesight and didn't notice.
(06-05-2019, 07:32 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (06-05-2019, 07:20 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Am I the only one who thought it hilarious that JKPs post about him having great eyesight is in a tiny font?
I see the font as normal
On an unrelated note, I just learned about a thing called Brandolini's law, which JKP's patient efforts in this thread and others reminded me of.
The redirect on Brandolini's law in wiki was pretty funny in itself.
I was going to say that i think Morten, and indeed anyone who receives criticism on their theory, should always address it, either by providing very good reasoning to sticking to the originally presented ideas, with a good explanation as to why the criticism is unfounded, or letting said assumptions go, in favour of something better supported by evidence, in order to better bulletproof the theory. I for one would have far more respect for a theory that could not easily be refuted, even if overall i found it to be unbelievable, as i would need to keep the door open a crack for the possibility that it could be correct, since it would just be a feeling that it was wrong, nothing concrete to work with.
Ie the energy required to refute would increase exponentially, if some of these problematic hypotheses were removed or exchanged for more widely acceptable ideas. Thus it could only benefit Morten to take these criticisms seriously and allow his theory to evolve into a stronger version of itself, rather than to constantly add to a string of just ax questionable assumptions to support the one being criticized . To his credit, he has made some changes in the past, so perhaps we shall still see this happen.