The Voynich Ninja

(10-01-2026, 06:07 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Poor Marci was addicted to the sweet stuff, no wonder he got dementia.

Agarwal et al Wrote:Thus, every 10% increase in calories from total sugar may increase dementia risk by almost 40%. This model was controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, genetic factor, physical activity, and MIND diet.

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

Nooooo !!.. I refuse to sacrifice my Succulata™ Fruit And Nut chocolate bar...*reads paper*...mean age of 79.0 (±7.1) years. Phew, guilt free choco snacking for the next few decades 

(10-01-2026, 06:57 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Phew, guilt free choco snacking for the next few decades 

Sugar is sneaky. It's when you're 100% sure that it can't harm you that it finds a way. I was. No diabetes, not even elevated blood sugar and yet it can be very bad. I don't want to be off topic but just be careful when you reach the ripe old age of 56.0 (±7.1)...

On topic: Prague is 200 km from Leipzig.

Can any forgery experts here tell the difference between an armadillo and a pangolin?     It really says a lot when they are treated as if they're the same kind of animal.  Knowing how to tell the difference between animals and things would go a long way to eliminating some of the weakest points made here.  

Is the actual evidence of forgery being withheld or are these current guesses all there is?

(10-01-2026, 09:37 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can any forgery experts here tell the difference between an armadillo and a pangolin?     It really says a lot when they are treated as if they're the same kind of animal.  Knowing how to tell the difference between animals and things would go a long way to eliminating some of the weakest points made here.  

Is the actual evidence of forgery being withheld or are these current guesses all there is?

Hi, Legit: There are several points of comparison that I and others have used for both the armadillo and the pangolin to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal. In my opinion, the pangolin is "out" because it has a much fatter tail than the armadillo, and seems more to graduate from that animal's body shape, rather than be an appendage.

Photograph of a Pangolin bartender, refusing to serve an armadillo:

[attachment=13368]

But seriously, I think a Pangolin was not the animal being drawn on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. because a pangolin has fat legs with scales, much wider tail as part of the body at the top, the ears of a pangolin do not stand up, and are not pointy, and the scales are larger. Here is a pangolin:

[attachment=13371]

That being said, the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal has a sort of "wispy" tail, which could be seen as "un-armadillo-like". But on the other hand, that end of the animal... the tail... seems to drift off into the fold of the page. A friend pointed out a couple of other examples in the Vms in which details are similarly blurred as the artist approached the fold.

Anyway, here are my point-point-comparisons to a particular armadillo illustration: The Gesner armadillo. This particular one not only has the most number of comparable points (pointy ears, upturned snout, but also one very particular feature of both is the same: The scales are drawn backwards:

[attachment=13366]

And here is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal labeled:

[attachment=13369]

But there is a further possible connection: You know I suggest You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; and as I have explained, Voynich called it one of his favorite books, that he "knew it by heart"; and also, Voynich made a list of 19 or 20 names FROM "Follies...", so he definitely referred to that book's contents. Well it also turns out that the book with the armadillo in it, Gesner's 1551 "History of animals". From Bolton:

Quote:This "was first attempted in a scientific spirit by the "German Pliny," Conrad Gesner, Professor of natural history at Zurich, whose "History of Animals," published in 1551, is the basis of all modern zoology; his younger contemporary, Ulysses Aldrovandus, who held the chair of natural history at Bologna, published six large folio volumes illustrated with wood cuts of many of the animals, his descriptions being in part taken from the work of Gesner.

It is my suggestion that the fact that the highest number of armadillo features happens to be of an illustration which Voynich would have arguably been familiar with, is not a coincidence.

But if you are interested, here are some posts about this armadillo/pangolin/other identification possibilities:

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

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

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

[attachment=13370]

Which subspecies of armadillo are your drawings based on, Rich?

And if I might add, why is this not an armadillo too? (Its a 15C "Dragon")
[attachment=13374]

(10-01-2026, 11:11 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which subspecies of armadillo are your drawings based on, Rich?

Hi Koen: I assume you mean the Gesner engraving, and not my cartoons? If you mean Gesner, I think that was a stab at a Nine Banded Armadillo. But of course all early pictures of animals, like plants and anything else really, can be pretty inaccurate. That being said, I think the Nine Banded comes closest, as it has a narrow snout, pointed ears, similar eye position, although it may have 10 bands, not nine, the fuzzy tail and wrong orientation on the scales. But you can see a collection of real and drawn armadillos which I collected over over 15 years ago (I think) on this page:

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

I also had included the Gesner armadillo when compiling that list, but had not yet discovered that Gesner's book was mentioned in "Follies...", nor the implications of that. It was a surprise to me when I found out, that connection, I mean.

But if you meant my cartoon armadillos... I may as well answer in case you meant those... no particular one, they are just general impressions of the animal, and no more accurate than, say, Bugs Bunny is to rabbits!

Rich

Please explain the *squiggly* line and other markings underneath the critter.


BNF Fr. 13096 f 18

(11-01-2026, 02:02 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please explain the *squiggly* line and other markings underneath the critter.


BNF Fr. 13096 f 18

Hi Mr. Sale: I don't have a particular favorite explanation for those lines, nor the "pillow" like thing the animal is seemingly sitting on. I don't particularly favor or dislike the many varied idea of others, including yours. I think it was even in this thread, weeks or months ago, you outlined them? I believe your identificaion is a lamb, and you showed some good comparisons for the "squiggly" line.

But no, I don't have any personal proposal for the lines or pillow, myself.

Rich

Well, that is most unfortunate, because - given all the long years of discussion regarding the identity of the critter, there has been little discussion regarding the nature of the line, and the line *is* the key to the critter's identification.

The line is a nebuly line. The VMs artist's familiarity with the use of a nebuly line as a cloud band / cosmic boundary is demonstrated in the VMs cosmos. The failure to correctly name this line with proper heraldic terminology is why valid interpretation is perpetually thwarted.

Armadillos and pangolins have absolutely no association with nebuly lines in any context I have ever seen.