The Voynich Ninja

(21-11-2025, 09:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you think the association of the golden fleece with a rain event is relevant? The images you link do have a lot of clouds with lines under them (although the fleece is on the wrong side...)

To me it could be relevant, since the golden fleece story derives from an actual practice of placing fleeces in mountain rivers to gather the gold dust that has eroded from placements exposed along the river. But I do not believe that is the story being told here, instead I think it is just regarding the water cycle, clouds, rain, downward flow, possibly other sediments besides gold, like the ones that would turn the nymph's hair green, (and possibly the fleece) like copper, for instance?

The fleece idea personally I don't find to be too compelling, though it would be nice for my idea about crowns.. anyway here is the fleece in a way that might be closer to the VM drawing. R.Sale identified it as the fleece, I have not checked myself.

[attachment=12564]

1521 about halfway down - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It's 'ram-ish', 'lamb-ish' and 'fleece-ish' all at once. 

The interpretation consists of three parts. All three parts have to fit and make sense with the two other parts in the given sequence. If the interpretation does all that, then it is worth considering. If the interpretation does not do that, then one is imposing their opinion on the evidence.

Just to be clear I meant the link to the VM, not the linked image I had reservations about, it seemed a very logical conclusion. But in any case, it seems I blindly trusted your expertise in the matter well!

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

[attachment=12566]

Also this image seems pretty close to the Habsburg insignia example

[attachment=12565]

(22-11-2025, 02:07 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fleece idea personally I don't find to be too compelling, though it would be nice for my idea about crowns.. anyway here is the fleece in a way that might be closer to the VM drawing. R.Sale identified it as the fleece, I have not checked myself.

1521 about halfway down - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The Order of the Golden Fleece began in 1430, so it is of the time period, and still exists today, in the realm of royal families, etc.  R. Sale links it to Philip the Good, who started the order, and his library, wherein he has found some of the imagery he describes, regarding Agnus Dei and the Mermaid, for instance, and if i understand correctly, one is to recognize all this and pull in all the political connections from the relationships of the people involved in the Order, as well as other prominent people such as cardinals from other visual associations. But I have not been able to follow the logic of this theory to its conclusion. 

Also, the golden fleece usually has curly horns, I don't see that in the vms, although yours has straighter horns, but is of the wrong time period for the carbon dating. I was reading that a bishop had declared the Order's fleece iconography to be that of Gideon, rather than of Jason and the Argonauts, but the Gideon portrayals are generally of either a stretched fleece or one being wrung out re the heavenly dew. 



Edit...


I think it has more to do with the dew, heavenly or not, however the nebuly lines get included quite often in the Gideon works re the heavenly connections.

(22-11-2025, 02:11 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's 'ram-ish', 'lamb-ish' and 'fleece-ish' all at once. 

The interpretation consists of three parts. All three parts have to fit and make sense with the two other parts in the given sequence. If the interpretation does all that, then it is worth considering. If the interpretation does not do that, then one is imposing their opinion on the evidence.

Can you please lay that out for me to its conclusion? I get parts of it, but I don't see the relevance of putting the three interpretations together, what conclusion is reached, nor how that is not imposing one's opinion on it.

Edit.. I believe I understand this much: 
1. It looks like a ram, partly. 2. It looks like a lamb from Agnus Dei tradition, partly. 3. It looks like a fleece due to the arched back, partly. Have I got the sequence correct? Put them all together and you get all three in one, and this means it is worth consideration as you have not imposed your opinion on it? And by the way the Fleece is connected to Philip the Good by 1430 and the book with the Agnus Dei drawing was in his library at the time as well, so they fit together that way too. Am I missing anything?

Edit 2.. The Agnus Dei 
drawing is in context of depicting the Lamb of God within a depiction of the opening of the sixth seal of the Apocalypse

This sixth opened seal launches horrific terrestrial and celestial disturbances that cause earth's mighty men to hide among the rocks of the mountains. These men call upon rocks to fall on them, hiding from the face of God and from the wrath of the Lamb. They know the day of the wrath of God and the Lamb has arrived.

Hmm tried to edit my post about the Order of the Fleece above but the updated imagery is not showing. 

This rendition of the Order of the Golden Fleece would likely be the closest to the carbon dating, and most likely the version that would be drawn if the vms was made close to this date, and if this has anything to do with it. Hmm. Possibly some artistic licence in turning the head as the Philip the Good paintings have him facing the other way, and the head there is is facing forward, not outward as it is here.

This was painted between 1428 and 1441, they say 1435. 

It has the head full on with two curly horns, with a very skinny gathering, unlike the one i posted earlier.



These are evidently all copies of a painting of Philip the Good after one done around 1450 which was since lost.



There are more but for the most part they match these and the one in the earlier painting above.

The attempt to identify the VMs critter is complicated by the ambiguity in the way the critter itself was drawn. Fortunately, there is more information in the other parts of the illustration. The nebuly lines are clear according to the definition. However, the third element, the vertical markings are difficult to interpret without further information.

If the nebuly lines represent a cosmic boundary, then the critter must be an animal that was compatible with a cosmic boundary, that limits the possibilities somewhat, with Agnus Dei illustrations being a good possibility. Among the images originally posted <by JKP> is the one from BNF Fr. 13096 f. 18. This image has the same three artistic elements in the same sequence: critter - cosmic boundary - droplets of blood. It explains what the vertical markings in the VMs drawing represent.

Going back to the critter itself to better understand its ambiguous appearance, it is an artistic fusion of an Agnus Dei lamb with a fleece-like influence from the Order of the Golden Fleece. Originally the order was based on the story of Jason and the Argonauts, but not too long afterwards the reference was changed <Christianized> to Gideon.

The VMs artist has been shown to maximize visual difference in an apparent attempt to thwart the "looks like" investigation. In the example of the VMs cosmic comparison, the pictorial Earth images of BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334, have been replaced by a linguistic version. This has created total and absolute visual differentiation without necessarily changing the content represented. The VMs critter is similar. Judging by appearance, it's hard to identify. Judging by content and structure, it's the best interpretation we've got so far. It works as a whole and it is not anachronistic. If there's something better, what is it?

It's tempting to ask "show me something better", I want to do it all the time, but I'm afraid that's not the most useful approach to Voynich imagery. I'm afraid this will need to be an iterative process, taking on board new insights and replacing old ones until we understand the whole page in a way that feels right.

I am now on team fur, but the image is still far from clear-cut. I refer again to the creature's different paws, for example, or the shape of the tail, or the fact that an intense looking person with a red object is positioned underneath.

(22-11-2025, 08:01 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This image has the same three artistic elements in the same sequence: critter - cosmic boundary - droplets of blood. It explains what the vertical markings in the VMs drawing represent.
...
It works as a whole and it is not anachronistic. If there's something better, what is it?

Ah, the drops of blood is what I was missing from your view, I had in mind it was the table top similarity in both.

OK, so now that I have more clarity, I still have questions. 

You said 

Quote:The interpretation consists of three parts. All three parts have to fit and make sense with the two other parts in the given sequence. If the interpretation does all that, then it is worth considering. If the interpretation does not do that, then one is imposing their opinion on the evidence.

So let's say these indeed fit and make sense with the other two parts and is worth considering. What are we considering beyond the likenesses? That this drawing is showing the Lamb of God who has just opened the sixth seal and is about to impart his wrath on those not of the body? What are the nymphs doing that would signify this? They are not men so are not hiding in the rocks, but what are they doing then? Witnessing?

It's OK if the answer is yes, it is just a surprise to me as I never saw it that way until trying to do so now, i had been able to envision the sheep, but hadn't considered the rest of the drawing's meaning at the time. But, let's say one of the interpretations is off, like, I am not sure I see the blood connection, i always thought of the vertical lines as depicting water droplets. I also have a problem with the ram lamb fleece, because that appears to be a goat's tail, and generally rams have curly horns, as do the Order icons, and lambs have none. I could see it as a compromise, and perhaps the tail was bobbed, as they often are.

Thank you for clarifying about the blood, I did once know about that but must have put my own interpreted similarity of your reference in place of yours. If you can help me see your view of the page as a whole i would like to consider it further. 

I don't find my view to be anachronistic beyond having compared the drawing to a satellite photo, it was merely to show that a similarity exists now, but that would mean it did then too, it just wasn't as easy then for people to directly compare. However i do think the artist(s) were cartographically skilled, re asteckley's resonse. But an expected response if no similarity exists is "it doesn't look like that at all to me". But it does, doesn't it? The non-anachronistic comparison to Vesconte's Alps of 1320 seems pretty similar to me too. There are others. The comparison to the scales of mountains and endemic ibex pose traditions from c.1180 seem plausible to me also as a way to indicate the meaning, if not visual similarity, even though there is, but you said it youself, a play on what it is, versus what it looks like, which not too many had seen represented before, so wouldn't have expected to be recognized as such. But if it proves to be so, they likely have a good run at being declared to be the first to show so much detail. So, my ibex is your sheep, my water is your blood, and my nebuly cloud vapour is your nebuly cosmic boundary. I'd say we are not that far away from each other's interpretations, mountains and maps are part of the apocalyptic tradition too, I mentioned the Beatus mountains, your reference's source is just on a different page of the same 1100 year old book as mine.