The Voynich Ninja

Hi Morten St George,
I'm creating this thread for the discussion of the theory you present on your website, which is better than discussing it in the thread about protein analysis.

I'll admit I have not read your whole website, but just from the Q & A page you linked to, several problems are apparent.
Several of the assertions you make there are incorrect.

I don't have time to go into details this morning,but for starters, a simple factual observation:
you claim that the male character on 80r is the only one and that "no other males are depicted in the manuscript". This is incorrect: there are several men in the Voynich.
If you go over to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, you'll find that, per Koen Gh and Sam G's count, there are about 17% men in the zodiac section, including the obvious central figures of the male Sagittarius and one of the Gemini twins.
As for Quire 13, there appear to be 4 men depicted there.

(25-01-2018, 06:07 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Morten St George,
I'm creating this thread for the discussion of the theory you present on your website, which is better than discussing it in the thread about protein analysis.

I'll admit I have not read your whole website, but just from the Q & A page you linked to, several problems are apparent.
Several of the assertions you make there are incorrect.

I don't have time to go into details this morning,but for starters, a simple factual observation:
you claim that the male character on 80r is the only one and that "no other males are depicted in the manuscript". This is incorrect: there are several men in the Voynich.
If you go over to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, you'll find that, per Koen Gh and Sam G's count, there are about 17% men in the zodiac section, including the obvious central figures of the male Sagittarius and one of the Gemini twins.
As for Quire 13, there appear to be 4 men depicted there.

On the point you raise, I have corrected my Q&A page to read: "No other males can be clearly distinguished in the rainforest environment."

I am willing to debate my theories. The most critical elements, I feel, are the following:

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

BOTANY

I provide a Voynich depiction of a plant and modern photograph of a rainforest plant. Are they, or are they not, the same plant?

ZOOLOGY

I provide a Voynich depiction of an animal and modern photograph of a rainforest animal. Are they, or are the not, the same animal?


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

ZOOLOGY

I provide a Voynich depiction of an animal and a link to a modern photograph of a rainforest animal. Are they, or are the not, the same animal?

ENCRYPTION

I provide a snippet of Latin text and indications to where it aligns in the Voynich manuscript. Is this, or is it not, a valid Rosetta Stone for decoding the manuscript?


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

BOTANY

I provide the first Voynich depiction of a plant and the last depiction of a plant from a book called The Herball or Generall Historie of Plantes, published in 1597. Is there, or is there not, any connection between these two depictions?

That should be enough to get us started.

You say this is a tapir but it's actually a hole in the page:

(25-01-2018, 08:06 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You say this is a tapir but it's actually a hole in the page:

I thought exactly the same thing about the oven over on the 'The Strange Thing' thread!

Morten St George
Koen Gh's comment is not a matter of opinion. That is demonstrably a hole in the page.
If you need more evidence, please look at the two images below.
One is the hole in 102v1, and next to it are the roots of the plant on 102r2.
It is undeniably those roots we see peeking through the hole.

(25-01-2018, 07:41 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I provide a Voynich depiction of a plant and modern photograph of a rainforest plant. Are they, or are they not, the same plant?

If you go to the blog of Ivan Mikolji (the photographer), he explains that this is not a plant but two individuals from a colony of protozoans, Ophrydium versatile.
It is utterly impossible for protozoans to grow "a little green bud that offers every potential of blossoming into a flower."
Protozoans are single cell organisms.
They have zero potential of blossoming into a flower.
They don't have stems or tendrils or buds.
Here are some more pictures of Ophrydium versatile:


What is shown in Ivan Mikolji's photo cannot be described as a "rainforest plant": Ophrydium versatile can be found in freshwaters all over the world, in all climates. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, they are not plants.

So actually, EVEN if we were to consider the possibility that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a protozoan ON an aquatic plant, as in the photograph below, this would not point towards a Venezuelan "rainforest" origin.

Ophrydium versatile colony on an aquatic plant in the Netherlands.

Quote:From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Internally, Herball provides more evidence as it says things that we would never expect to find in a botany book, like
"Nostradami Salo-mensis Gallo-prouincie,"
And a Herball epigram begins with a reference to the Atlas Mountains,
"Define quae vastis pomeria montibus Atlas"

Why would you not expect to find poetry referencing the orchards of the Atlas mountains in a botanical book?
The verse goes:
DEsine, quae vastis pomaria montibus Atlas

Clauserat (Hesperij munera rara soli)
Auratis folijs auratos desine ramos
Mirari, & ramis pendula poma suis.

It's a bit of poetry upon the fertile end of Europe.

As for the first bit about Nostradamus, if you read the whole quotation (I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing, here's the last paragraph which is the bit you're talking about):

Quote:qui cum decipi velit, decipiatur: in cuius fallacias per apposite finxit et cecinit olim hos versiculos eruditissimus col­lega D Jacobus Paradisus nobilis Gandauensis alludens adnomen tanti versutissimi herois Nostra­dami Salonensis Gallo-prouinciae,

Nostra-damus, cum verba damus, quia fallere nostrum;
Et cum verba damus, nil nisi Nostra-damus.

The author is referring to a play on words by D Jacobus laughing at Nostradamus. The play on words is difficult for me to translate, but uses the name of Nostra-Damus to warn against accepting words at face value.

Nostra­dami Salonensis Gallo-prouinciae is simply "Nostradamus S. the French speaker".

You say that

Quote:which turns out to be a term (along with its Berber name "Fez") used to link works written in the French, German, Latin and English languages.

Nah.

I'd also suggest you look up the Greek myth of Atlas and his connection to the African mountain range before trying to interpret Shakespeare.

Koen, fascinating about Ophrydium versatile.

(26-01-2018, 01:24 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(25-01-2018, 07:41 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I provide a Voynich depiction of a plant and modern photograph of a rainforest plant. Are they, or are they not, the same plant?

If you go to the blog of Ivan Mikolji (the photographer), he explains that this is not a plant but two individuals from a colony of protozoans, Ophrydium versatile.
It is utterly impossible for protozoans to grow "a little green bud that offers every potential of blossoming into a flower."
Protozoans are single cell organisms.
They have zero potential of blossoming into a flower.
They don't have stems or tendrils or buds.
Here are some more pictures of Ophrydium versatile:


What is shown in Ivan Mikolji's photo cannot be described as a "rainforest plant": Ophrydium versatile can be found in freshwaters all over the world, in all climates. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, they are not plants.

So actually, EVEN if we were to consider the possibility that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a protozoan ON an aquatic plant, as in the photograph below, this would not point towards a Venezuelan "rainforest" origin.

Ophrydium versatile colony on an aquatic plant in the Netherlands.

Thanks. I found the photographer's comment about this:

Hi Everybody, 
I have a very curious anecdote to share; I know you will find quite interesting. 
I sold a stock image some time ago and by coincidence found where it wound up. Supposedly I took an image of an extraterrestrial life form!  Can any of you identify the green alien? 
 
Below is the link: 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
 
A while later after posting the image on facebbok, a facebook friend called Lucien Bal wrote to me. "Is it possible, that it's not a plant but a colony of protozoa growing on a plant ? A colony of protozoans likeOphrydium versatile ? "
 
Right then, I found out that like most of us... I was still a photographer from this world.

**

At the time I acquired a license for it, he described it as freshwater plant from the Morichal district of Venezuela. The bud, however, was in the photograph. I did not put it there.  So I plan to leave the photo on my site until someone can convince me that the bud is not there. 

Why would it be a bud? People here pointed out that these are colonies of tiny animals. They will never produce a stem, as you wonder on your site, and certainly no flowers.

Also, in scientific debate it's up to you to provide evidence for your claims. Proposing outlandish theories based on misinterpreted grainy photographs and then digging your heels in is conspiracy theorist territory.

(26-01-2018, 11:44 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St George
Koen Gh's comment is not a matter of opinion. That is demonstrably a hole in the page.
If you need more evidence, please look at the two images below.
One is the hole in 102v1, and next to it are the roots of the plant on 102r2.
It is undeniably those roots we see peeking through the hole.

Thanks. I have modified my web page to call it a "cutout" rather than a drawing. It does not need the roots to be a tapir. It still has the correct shape and tail. BTW, was this hole there when Voynich owned the manuscript? Do other folios have large holes?

Note that the tapir and the plant (or protozoa) are not essential. The naked women in green, plant infested water in combination with depictions of more than a hundred tropical plants will suffice.

---

(26-01-2018, 11:44 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St George
Koen Gh's comment is not a matter of opinion. That is demonstrably a hole in the page.
If you need more evidence, please look at the two images below.
One is the hole in 102v1, and next to it are the roots of the plant on 102r2.
It is undeniably those roots we see peeking through the hole.

Thanks. I have modified my web page to call it a "cutout" rather than a drawing. It does not need the roots to be a tapir. It still has the correct shape and tail. BTW, was this hole there when Voynich owned the manuscript? Do other folios have large holes?

Note that the tapir and the plant (or protozoa) are not essential. The naked women in green, plant infested water in combination with depictions of more than a hundred tropical plants will suffice.