06-07-2021, 12:01 PM
Pages: 1 2
06-07-2021, 05:37 PM
This subject is one that has often been visited.
To make sense of it, you first need to define the scenario under which somebody set out to create a meaningless manuscript.
Is it a modern creation designed to look old?
Or an ancient creation designed to flummox the wise?
Either way, such arguments tends to concentrate on the impenetrability of the text.
To make sense of it, you first need to define the scenario under which somebody set out to create a meaningless manuscript.
Is it a modern creation designed to look old?
Or an ancient creation designed to flummox the wise?
Either way, such arguments tends to concentrate on the impenetrability of the text.
06-07-2021, 10:54 PM
And that's the problem, isn't it? The text remains impenetrable. Sure we've got a lot of capable, in-depth analyses, but still no one can read it <to the satisfaction of a majority of investigators, shall we say>. So it's impenetrable: No text, but a visual code. And why just a single code? Why not run the full gamut. Not just alchemy, not just astrology, but include mythology and religion, history and tradition. And that includes heraldry. If anyone thinks that heraldry was not significant in European culture well over the times highlighted by the VMs parchment, C-14 dates, then they may not be fully aware of the knightly culture of that era.
There are a number of potential codes in the VMs. They can be substantiated by the degree with which they accord with actual history, traditions, beliefs, etc. However, when that information has been long lost in the dust bin of history, then there is another problem. And that is not the half of it! Because the creator of the VMs is intimately familiar with their perspective of the <C-14> current social media, as are their educated contemporaries, the creator has chosen not to visually expound on certain images, but rather to deploy them more subtly.
This is what is found in the investigation of the VMs cosmos. The visual code is based on structure. Structure is the underlying reality. Differences of appearance are an intentional disguise.
The cosmic structure in three parts: earth, stars, cosmic boundary, is unusual.
BNF Fr. 565, Harley 334 and the VMs. The first two were produced in Paris within the C-14 dates.
One of the significant, visual differences can be seen in the appearance of the cosmic boundary. The cloud band in the Oresme text (BNF) has an elaborate scallop-shell pattern. The later de Metz text has only a plain line with no other detail. The VMs used a line best defined as nebuly, according to heraldic terminology. And the very etymology of the word demonstrates its cloud-based derivation. The occurrence of 43 visually present undulations hints of stronger connections with the Oresme illustration.
The fact that there are bulbous undulations, that the cosmic boundary is cloud-base, that it is represented with the color blue, rather than pink or some other alternative, all help to tighten the connection. Investigations here have shown that there is a great diversity of cloud-band patterns. There are even cosmic boundaries based on fire, instead of clouds.
Provenance indicates the Oresme text was made c. 1410 in Paris, for Jean, Duc de Berry, (d. 1416, Paris). Another surviving text that this Valois duke owned was the Berry Apocalypse. Some of the images from this text have a cosmic boundary in the illustration and that cosmic boundary is composed of a simple nebuly line. Cosmic boundaries of this simplicity are quite rare outside this text. There are so many different variations.
So there we have two texts, ostensibly both in the Berry library at the same time. And in the VMs there are the two elements, the Oresme Cosmos, with the visually altered and greatly simplified cosmic boundary. Yet a boundary is a boundary is a boundary. Structurally equivalent but visually diverse. Just like the VMs versions of the earth and the stars.
Someone might have seen these two texts when they were together in the Berry library. Someone might have seen these two extant texts, now held in their modern collections. Then they would have to put the parts together. Imagine WMV when Newbold called the VMs cosmos Andromeda. He (WMV) would have known the source, if he had been the forger. Perhaps he might have called the VMs a precursor to Oresme.
The VMs creator knew the historical background that provides the hidden content in the illustrations. The VMs creator challenges the reader to recover the historical reality behind the disguised representations.
There are a number of potential codes in the VMs. They can be substantiated by the degree with which they accord with actual history, traditions, beliefs, etc. However, when that information has been long lost in the dust bin of history, then there is another problem. And that is not the half of it! Because the creator of the VMs is intimately familiar with their perspective of the <C-14> current social media, as are their educated contemporaries, the creator has chosen not to visually expound on certain images, but rather to deploy them more subtly.
This is what is found in the investigation of the VMs cosmos. The visual code is based on structure. Structure is the underlying reality. Differences of appearance are an intentional disguise.
The cosmic structure in three parts: earth, stars, cosmic boundary, is unusual.
BNF Fr. 565, Harley 334 and the VMs. The first two were produced in Paris within the C-14 dates.
One of the significant, visual differences can be seen in the appearance of the cosmic boundary. The cloud band in the Oresme text (BNF) has an elaborate scallop-shell pattern. The later de Metz text has only a plain line with no other detail. The VMs used a line best defined as nebuly, according to heraldic terminology. And the very etymology of the word demonstrates its cloud-based derivation. The occurrence of 43 visually present undulations hints of stronger connections with the Oresme illustration.
The fact that there are bulbous undulations, that the cosmic boundary is cloud-base, that it is represented with the color blue, rather than pink or some other alternative, all help to tighten the connection. Investigations here have shown that there is a great diversity of cloud-band patterns. There are even cosmic boundaries based on fire, instead of clouds.
Provenance indicates the Oresme text was made c. 1410 in Paris, for Jean, Duc de Berry, (d. 1416, Paris). Another surviving text that this Valois duke owned was the Berry Apocalypse. Some of the images from this text have a cosmic boundary in the illustration and that cosmic boundary is composed of a simple nebuly line. Cosmic boundaries of this simplicity are quite rare outside this text. There are so many different variations.
So there we have two texts, ostensibly both in the Berry library at the same time. And in the VMs there are the two elements, the Oresme Cosmos, with the visually altered and greatly simplified cosmic boundary. Yet a boundary is a boundary is a boundary. Structurally equivalent but visually diverse. Just like the VMs versions of the earth and the stars.
Someone might have seen these two texts when they were together in the Berry library. Someone might have seen these two extant texts, now held in their modern collections. Then they would have to put the parts together. Imagine WMV when Newbold called the VMs cosmos Andromeda. He (WMV) would have known the source, if he had been the forger. Perhaps he might have called the VMs a precursor to Oresme.
The VMs creator knew the historical background that provides the hidden content in the illustrations. The VMs creator challenges the reader to recover the historical reality behind the disguised representations.
07-07-2021, 08:07 AM
(06-07-2021, 05:37 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Either way, such arguments tends to concentrate on the impenetrability of the text.
this is what i find interesting. because im coming from it rather from the perspective that the text is readable.
and so i kind of assume its legitimate until i found at least one possible element that seems anachronistic.
07-07-2021, 08:26 AM
(06-07-2021, 10:54 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And that's the problem, isn't it? The text remains impenetrable. Sure we've got a lot of capable, in-depth analyses, but still no one can read it <to the satisfaction of a majority of investigators, shall we say>. So it's impenetrable: No text, but a visual code. And why just a single code? Why not run the full gamut. Not just alchemy, not just astrology, but include mythology and religion, history and tradition. And that includes heraldry. If anyone thinks that heraldry was not significant in European culture well over the times highlighted by the VMs parchment, C-14 dates, then they may not be fully aware of the knightly culture of that era.
There are a number of potential codes in the VMs. They can be substantiated by the degree with which they accord with actual history, traditions, beliefs, etc. However, when that information has been long lost in the dust bin of history, then there is another problem. And that is not the half of it! Because the creator of the VMs is intimately familiar with their perspective of the <C-14> current social media, as are their educated contemporaries, the creator has chosen not to visually expound on certain images, but rather to deploy them more subtly.
This is what is found in the investigation of the VMs cosmos. The visual code is based on structure. Structure is the underlying reality. Differences of appearance are an intentional disguise.
The cosmic structure in three parts: earth, stars, cosmic boundary, is unusual.
BNF Fr. 565, Harley 334 and the VMs. The first two were produced in Paris within the C-14 dates.
One of the significant, visual differences can be seen in the appearance of the cosmic boundary. The cloud band in the Oresme text (BNF) has an elaborate scallop-shell pattern. The later de Metz text has only a plain line with no other detail. The VMs used a line best defined as nebuly, according to heraldic terminology. And the very etymology of the word demonstrates its cloud-based derivation. The occurrence of 43 visually present undulations hints of stronger connections with the Oresme illustration.
The fact that there are bulbous undulations, that the cosmic boundary is cloud-base, that it is represented with the color blue, rather than pink or some other alternative, all help to tighten the connection. Investigations here have shown that there is a great diversity of cloud-band patterns. There are even cosmic boundaries based on fire, instead of clouds.
Provenance indicates the Oresme text was made c. 1410 in Paris, for Jean, Duc de Berry, (d. 1416, Paris). Another surviving text that this Valois duke owned was the Berry Apocalypse. Some of the images from this text have a cosmic boundary in the illustration and that cosmic boundary is composed of a simple nebuly line. Cosmic boundaries of this simplicity are quite rare outside this text. There are so many different variations.
So there we have two texts, ostensibly both in the Berry library at the same time. And in the VMs there are the two elements, the Oresme Cosmos, with the visually altered and greatly simplified cosmic boundary. Yet a boundary is a boundary is a boundary. Structurally equivalent but visually diverse. Just like the VMs versions of the earth and the stars.
Someone might have seen these two texts when they were together in the Berry library. Someone might have seen these two extant texts, now held in their modern collections. Then they would have to put the parts together. Imagine WMV when Newbold called the VMs cosmos Andromeda. He (WMV) would have known the source, if he had been the forger. Perhaps he might have called the VMs a precursor to Oresme.
The VMs creator knew the historical background that provides the hidden content in the illustrations. The VMs creator challenges the reader to recover the historical reality behind the disguised representations.
thanks for your reply.
im not sure i fully understand your point here, because theres so much uncertainty in whether the text is a copy of an older text or not.
and i havent yet checked out these other MS your talking of.
wikipedia says Oresme lives c1320-c1382 so a 1410 text would be a copy by someone else too (assuming wikipedia correct about his death).
But i can see there might be more context to your answer about structure that i fully dont understand either.
Im interested in things that ppl think are smoking guns, that really shouldnt be there.
I interpret your answer as that you think this might be one too.
I think there may also be a textual one, but there is some uncertainty in the translation too.
But possibly less than one might initially think if i said that.
07-07-2021, 11:14 PM
The hoax is that the objects of scientific, historical, and traditional contact have been disguised and made ambiguous in the illustrations of the VMs. The problem is that these disguised objects of scientific (etc.) contact have a hard time functioning after all the intervening centuries have bought about the modern world. Who would know the actual structure of the BNF Fr. 565 version of the 'Oresme cosmos'?
The Oresme dates are correct; de Metz was a century before him, but Harley 334 is c. 1430 or later. There is one other Oresme cosmos in BNF Fr. 1082, with some similarities, but it has no stars. It is not a three-part cosmos when it has no stars. De Metz has a lot of 'attributed' illustrations. None of them are anything like the inverted T-O illustration in Harley 334. The similarity is between the two Paris-sourced illustrations and the comparison is with the structure of the VMs cosmos. All three share a structure of the same three parts, with certain subtle, and certain glaring differences in visual representation. It is clearly not the standard, poly-concentric, all seven planetes, and all, that was current in the 'scientific', cosmic diagrams at the C-14 dates.
The de Metz illustration is further involved in the situation because of its 'mermaid' illustration. The connection between the two source texts shows that the connection is to Paris
What this indicates is that these VMs illustrations were created by a person familiar with the details of this uncommon cosmic structure, then able to present an alternative construct with minimal visual similarity, yet one that does not contradict the three-part structure. There is ambiguity in the VMs illustrations, there is trickery. There is also the substitution of a stumbling nebuly line for the elegant scallop-shell pattern of BNF Fr. 565. The investigator who does not recognize this equivalency will stand at a disadvantage.
A similar situation can be demonstrated for several other VMs illustrations. The illustrations have a superficial purpose as a distraction. And they also contain the objects of scientific, historical and traditional contact subtly placed within the façade, if those old contacts can be re-activated. Having the appearance of a normal text from an exotic cultural source is the hoax that the VMs presents. Finding actual history hidden by intentional artifice is the puzzle pathway to a potential VMs solution. Heraldry is a part of that solution.
Perhaps you were looking for glaring anachronisms?
The Oresme dates are correct; de Metz was a century before him, but Harley 334 is c. 1430 or later. There is one other Oresme cosmos in BNF Fr. 1082, with some similarities, but it has no stars. It is not a three-part cosmos when it has no stars. De Metz has a lot of 'attributed' illustrations. None of them are anything like the inverted T-O illustration in Harley 334. The similarity is between the two Paris-sourced illustrations and the comparison is with the structure of the VMs cosmos. All three share a structure of the same three parts, with certain subtle, and certain glaring differences in visual representation. It is clearly not the standard, poly-concentric, all seven planetes, and all, that was current in the 'scientific', cosmic diagrams at the C-14 dates.
The de Metz illustration is further involved in the situation because of its 'mermaid' illustration. The connection between the two source texts shows that the connection is to Paris
What this indicates is that these VMs illustrations were created by a person familiar with the details of this uncommon cosmic structure, then able to present an alternative construct with minimal visual similarity, yet one that does not contradict the three-part structure. There is ambiguity in the VMs illustrations, there is trickery. There is also the substitution of a stumbling nebuly line for the elegant scallop-shell pattern of BNF Fr. 565. The investigator who does not recognize this equivalency will stand at a disadvantage.
A similar situation can be demonstrated for several other VMs illustrations. The illustrations have a superficial purpose as a distraction. And they also contain the objects of scientific, historical and traditional contact subtly placed within the façade, if those old contacts can be re-activated. Having the appearance of a normal text from an exotic cultural source is the hoax that the VMs presents. Finding actual history hidden by intentional artifice is the puzzle pathway to a potential VMs solution. Heraldry is a part of that solution.
Perhaps you were looking for glaring anachronisms?
08-07-2021, 12:20 AM
Why are you looking for proof of something you don't believe? It's a bit like asking: I know the earth isn't flat, but what are some indications that it is?
08-07-2021, 12:30 AM
When you move around Holland it is quite flat. 
08-07-2021, 07:40 AM
(08-07-2021, 12:20 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why are you looking for proof of something you don't believe? It's a bit like asking: I know the earth isn't flat, but what are some indications that it is?
i guess because its still conceivable that it could be a hoax.
one of the things that is often mentioned when the hoax idea comes up is it couldve been Voynich hoaxing it to make money,
but im more open to an even more modern hoax than that, for different intent.
so although the carbon dating as well as the history makes it strong evidence for VMS being legitimate,
i havent completely ruled out the hoax theory. however it would require the dependency of those two things being hoaxed.
one can easily conceive of a hoaxer using old parchment and ink,
but one must make a substantial jump to conceive of the history being hoaxed as well.
so whilst it is true that i basically place a low probability in it being a hoax,
there are a couple of idiosyncrasies ive noticed.
so i guess the purpose of the post was to see if others had noticed any.
sometimes these are mere illusions, vapors of the mind,
but who knows if maybe one could be a diamond in the rough?
Youd be surprised at how open i would be to a strong argument that the earth is flat, if only for an opportunity to rebuke it.
08-07-2021, 08:41 AM
Pages: 1 2