31-01-2021, 12:57 AM
31-01-2021, 12:57 AM
31-01-2021, 01:04 AM
Ahh I'm not allowed to view it 
Google books is always unpredictable...
Google books is always unpredictable...
31-01-2021, 01:09 AM
@JKP
Here's something for your collection. It's possible that you already have it.
The Pisces and the Capricorn are interesting.
Here's something for your collection. It's possible that you already have it.
The Pisces and the Capricorn are interesting.
31-01-2021, 02:23 AM
Thanks Helmut and everyone.
So the third quarter would start at 1450, only 12 years after the single source C-14 calculation and even less of a problem using a two source calculation.
While it may seem improbable, it is not inconceivable that a single person might have seen the various illustrations cited in many of these VMs discussions. It would have taken a fair bit of traveling, but that is not out of the question.
The astrological / biblical associations listed by Koen show there are still some things in need of explanation.
So the third quarter would start at 1450, only 12 years after the single source C-14 calculation and even less of a problem using a two source calculation.
While it may seem improbable, it is not inconceivable that a single person might have seen the various illustrations cited in many of these VMs discussions. It would have taken a fair bit of traveling, but that is not out of the question.
The astrological / biblical associations listed by Koen show there are still some things in need of explanation.
31-01-2021, 03:46 AM
(30-01-2021, 10:53 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Taurus: what is this? You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The biblical motives are actually referred to in the accompanying text. In most cases it is stated that these events occurred in the respective month and have something to do with the name of the sign, e.g. Jacob "fought like an ox".
31-01-2021, 07:48 AM
31-01-2021, 08:50 PM
Rene,
Of course, you are familiar with the standard method of calculation for the C-14 data. Based on the fairly large margin of error inherent in the measurements, it is a potentially valid assumption that all four samples of parchment *could* have been produced at a certain time - within a specific, limited range of years, let's say (1404-1438).
However, given the extent of the uncertainty in C-14 testing, even though its accuracy in the 1400s is better than in other periods of time, the test is not able to distinguish between parchment samples that were made, five, ten, even twenty years apart. Such a difference is difficult to measure regarding C-14, but would be much more significant regarding parchment production as it relates to the time of VMs composition.
Of the four samples taken from the VMs, there is one, the most recent one, that stands somewhat apart from the other three. This could be due to various factors involved with the testing procedure, in which case the single-source hypothesis would still be applicable. *OR* it could be indicative of parchment that actually was produced in a second and somewhat newer batch. The C-14 test is just not sufficiently sensitive to make that determination. However, in terms of VMs composition and completion, having a second and more recent parchment source would move the final date for the entirety of VMs parchment manufacture out of the first quarter of the 1400s and into the second or perhaps the third quarter. If this were the case, it would allow for elements of the VMs to be influenced by and connected to sources somewhat outside (newer than) the single source time span and still be part of a "genuine" document.
Of course, you are familiar with the standard method of calculation for the C-14 data. Based on the fairly large margin of error inherent in the measurements, it is a potentially valid assumption that all four samples of parchment *could* have been produced at a certain time - within a specific, limited range of years, let's say (1404-1438).
However, given the extent of the uncertainty in C-14 testing, even though its accuracy in the 1400s is better than in other periods of time, the test is not able to distinguish between parchment samples that were made, five, ten, even twenty years apart. Such a difference is difficult to measure regarding C-14, but would be much more significant regarding parchment production as it relates to the time of VMs composition.
Of the four samples taken from the VMs, there is one, the most recent one, that stands somewhat apart from the other three. This could be due to various factors involved with the testing procedure, in which case the single-source hypothesis would still be applicable. *OR* it could be indicative of parchment that actually was produced in a second and somewhat newer batch. The C-14 test is just not sufficiently sensitive to make that determination. However, in terms of VMs composition and completion, having a second and more recent parchment source would move the final date for the entirety of VMs parchment manufacture out of the first quarter of the 1400s and into the second or perhaps the third quarter. If this were the case, it would allow for elements of the VMs to be influenced by and connected to sources somewhat outside (newer than) the single source time span and still be part of a "genuine" document.
31-01-2021, 09:22 PM
Aga, yes, I have it since March 2016, but thank you for the alert.
01-02-2021, 05:50 AM
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
However, it isn't correct that one sample stands out as being newer.
However, it isn't correct that one sample stands out as being newer.
01-02-2021, 08:40 AM
The specific data for each of the four C-14 samples is somewhat different. Of course the general inaccuracy of the test process renders those details somewhat moot. Still there was one example that had a test result that was centered on a date that was newer than the other three. Because of the inherent inaccuracy of the C-14 test, it is not possible to guarantee that all samples were produced at the same time. There could have been in one batch. There could have been two batches within a time period too close together for C-14 results to clearly distinguish, when there is a margin of error at plus or minus 30 years. It will just overlap in part with the other results. That makes the four sample average *possible, but not mandatory*. It cannot be determined either way by current information, but the two batch scenario still could be a factual possibility. And if one sample did come from a second batch of newer parchment production, then it cannot be validly averaged with the other three, and furthermore that would be the sample that sets the date for the final completion of VMs parchment production.