(19-11-2025, 04:19 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fundamental assumption in all of this is that the drawing is meant to depict a real animal, or that the artist was drawing well, neither which is truly justifiable. The manuscript is full of fantastical creatures (e.g. the creatures in the lower margin of folio 79v) so there's really no reason to assume that this must represent something real. All of the animals in the manuscript are marginal in some way - none are the primary focus of the illustrations. They may simply function like the hybrid creatures in, for example, the borders of a Book of Hours, which generally have no semantic meaning but are just there to entertain.
Hi Lisa: I've heard this explanation before, but I see it as another case of adjusting and varying standards of comparisons to support a position: In this case, to fit genuine and 1420, in this case excusing its similarities to an armadillo because of a supposed lack of skills on the part of the artist.
I've heard the contrary views that the artist was too good to draw an armadillo this poorly, therefore it is not an armadillo because they would have done better; and then also heard the argument that the artist lacked ability, therefore their poor skills mean this is not an armadillo.. it is something else and they didn't get it right. And believe it or not, I have heard both arguments, in one case, from the very same person! (not you).
And it is like that to "excuse" many such comparisons that work against 1420 Genuine: The artist was too good, and too bad, in different cases, for the things we see to be anything but expected in a 1420 work. It is sort of a "Goldilocks Rule": If it fits 1420 Genuine, then it IS what it seems to be. If it does not fit 142 Genuine, then it is NOT what it seems to be.... or, "added later", if that seems possible.
For instance, the women, the stars, the zodiac symbols and animals, the baths, the clothing and accessories, and many other illustrations are of a similar poor quality to the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. animal, but because they fit the C14 dating, they are accepted as what they look like. The armadillo does not fit that dating, therefore its similar poor quality is said to mean it can't be one. Then, that list of numbers is too new, so that must have added. The covers are 17th century? Added. The marginalia is too new? Added. When the ink tests show that marginalia is the same ink as the main text, then suddenly it isn't so new anymore. And on and on... the opinions on the evidence are constantly being adjusted to fit 1420 genuine.
Another point is, that when a person not versed in the Voynich, or the strong 1420 Paradigm assigned to it, that almost always looks like an armadillo to them. This is another indication that it is 1420 biases which cause people to reject that more obvious identification. Here is the list of excuses for the armadillo comparisons which I've listed in my blog post, "You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.". In the post I explain each one of these, the source of them if there is one, and even actual examples of where and how they have been used. This list was compiled in 2019, but perhaps there are more excuses for the poor beast:
Quote:1) “It looks too much like an armadillo to be one, because the artist was too inexpert to draw one accurately, therefore it is something else badly drawn.”
2) “It does not look ENOUGH like an armadillo, because the artist was good enough to draw an accurate one if they wanted to, so it is animal X, Y, or Z (which all look less like an armadillo)”.
3) “It looks much more like an animal in an illustration it was copied from, but we have not found or seen that source drawing yet.”- (paraphrasing) Ger Hungerdink
4) “Even if it looks more like an armadillo than X, Y, Z, it can’t be, because the Voynich is too old for it to be an armadillo”
5) “It only looks like an armadillo to those who have a post-Columbian Voynich agenda”
6) “It only looks like an armadillo to those who are familiar with one”
7) “It does look like an armadillo to our modern eyes, but would not, to a 15th century viewer, therefore it is not an armadillo”.
9) “It is not technically good enough to be an armadillo, as it combines features from curling and non-curling species, such as not having 9 bands”.
10) “To know the popular conception of an armadillo, we only have to do a Google search. We will see the curling, band-less, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal does not fit the first X number of hits.”
11) “It will look less like an armadillo, and more like A, B, C, or D, if I just photoshop it here, and there.”
12) “It does not look like an armadillo”
Another similar case to the "armadillo effect"... there are probably a few dozen of them... would be my comparisons of cylinders to optical devices. On a point-by-point basis they fit far better than the alternative suggestions, such as herbal or pharma jars. They have parallel sides, multiple diameters, rings at sections, recessed tops with blue and green tints, similar decorative motifs, and some have legs, even evoking the "delphini" motif which appears on several 18th microscopes. Yet this better set of comparisons is rejected on the basis that the Voynich is "too old" for them to BE microscopes. Substituted, off the top of my head, are jars, perpetual candles, soft soap containers, inkwells, cannons, windlasses, and many other far lesser comparisons.
I do not believe in adjusting standards to fit what we "want" or "believe" the Voynich to be. I think it is simply just what it looks like, and is telling us it is, and we should listen to that, and not continue to make excuses for it. Fitting a catoblepas or wolf on this page feels like a square peg in a round hole, while it fits You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., for all the reasons I've given.
Rich
![[Image: catoblepas-topsell-300x197.jpg]](https://ciphermysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/06/catoblepas-topsell-300x197.jpg)