The Voynich Ninja

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You do know that the "artist here" is me, right? In any case, as the artist, I can answer: Not much thought was put into strict distinctions past a certain level, it's just a cartoon.

I didn't know, but I understand and would just say that the possibilities for your argument gets even narrower - Wilfrid Voynich employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did.  I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo.  Of course there could still be, but the likelihood get smaller.

One thing that made me take a closer look was how careful the medieval armadillos from other documents were drawn in contrast to the common mix ups between sheep and goats and other creatures which they should have been very familiar with.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well if the identification was "obvious" as you say, we wouldn't be having these discussions at all!

It's an unusual animal in the first place.

Whatever the meaning is, it has something to do with the symbol of "heaven" that it's laying on.  This feature makes it very unlikely that either a 15th century author or a 20th century forger would have intended it to be an armadillo.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.* Above, two Kunstkammers which contain animals, plants and artifacts from (among other places in the world) the "New World". Many others suspect that the Voynich is a New World document... I do not, but I do accept the reasons that led those researchers to believe this possible: Many apparent New World plants and animals, including the armadillo. In short, as a book meant to appear as though it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., this imagery would be perfectly in context, and to be expected.

If the artist chose to simplify to such an extreme, perhaps the intent is for both "dragons" to be armadillos.  It still doesn't solve the "heavens" symbol under the 2nd creature.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., by Jules Janick and Arthur O. Tucker, (portion of) pages 167 and 168:

They've also pictured the nine-banded armadillo.  Of the two authors Jules Janick is 94 and Arthur O. Tucker has sadly passed away.   With all due respect to these others who found the VM worthwhile to research, I don't see how this point in their research stands up to scrutiny.

As a reference for forgery - how would Wilfrid even get a chance to look at the Flourentine Codex around 1900?  So the connection gets even weaker - in his attempt to depict a new world animal he choose to (incorrectly) draw a rare South American species instead of one commonly depicted (in detail) in 16th century documents.   Or he indeed tried to draw a banded armadillo to place it as an object from the Americas, but then further obscure it by using a cartoon shorthand style of drawing for the body (which he also used on fish and the dragon), and then he would place the armadillo on a symbol of the heavens.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But while I have you, I'll ask, "I have given a context within my overall hypothesis as to 'why' an armadillo would be used here*. Would you, similarly, have an overall context for the Voynich: meaning, geography, parallel usage, whatever... which you feel would explain the use of a dragon on f80v?".

I could add some guesses here such as an evil source of sickness descending through the rain, but I'm sure others can give much more informed opinions.   edit:  I would draw a parallel to the VM itself, on the foldout where there are 6 objects holding up the heavens.  That "heavens" is drawn in the same style as the "heavens" under the creature so I would equate those.

There are some sliders that are being tuned up or down depending on the argument that's being made.

One is the slider of "how naturalistic are the drawings?". When it concerns features the creature shares with armadillos but not pangolins, this slider goes way up. When it concerns features it doesn't share with armadillos, the slider goes to zero.

The other slider is "how competent of a forger is Wilfrid Voynich?" Which implicitly bounces between "world's greatest genius" and "buffon".

(12-01-2026, 06:24 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are some sliders that are being tuned up or down depending on the argument that's being made.

One is the slider of "how naturalistic are the drawings?". When it concerns features the creature shares with armadillos but not pangolins, this slider goes way up. When it concerns features it doesn't share with armadillos, the slider goes to zero.

The other slider is "how competent of a forger is Wilfrid Voynich?" Which implicitly bounces between "world's greatest genius" and "buffon".

Well I've made this argument, too, Koen, but in the opposite direction. I have always tried, and if I may say so, been somewhat successful, in applying a fairly even standard to all of my interpretations, and in filter those of others.

On the contrary, I have heard numerous arguments which reject good comparisons for bad ones, based solely on the C14 results... when they should not be. And, this is not my imagination, it is admitted when I am told "1420 Genuine is the baseline". That is, at the same time, admitting filtering opinions thought that bias... and gives rise to rejecting, for instance, the armadillo, for other animals which, point for point are worse candidates, because they would be "too new" for their paradigm.

No, there is no filter on Modern Forgery, it only looks at the best comparisons out there, and needs to reject no pre-1912 comparison.

And I have had people say... for instance, in this case, but in many others... the artist was both "too good" and "too bad" to have meant an armadillo! And, believe it or not, from the same person! That is, I was actually told that (paraphrasing) "If the person meant to draw an armadillo, they would have done a better job, and it would look more like one", then, in the same discussion, "The artist was so bad that we can't know what they were drawing here, it could be anything, and just happens to resemble an armadillo, by accident". You see? They were both "too good" and "too bad" to have meant an armadillo, when all I propose is they were just right to draw what it looks most like: An Armadillo.

No, I feel the artist was consistently "that bad", and no better, and in that range of "slider setting" they are quite consistent. I do not need to alter my standards to fit this identification, then change them to fit another. All my identifications fall well within the level of ability I believe was at play here. And also, it coincidentally (!!!) matches the ability and style of the one bit of "art" we know Voynich drew... his Sessa logo:

[attachment=13410]

(12-01-2026, 05:27 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You do know that the "artist here" is me, right? In any case, as the artist, I can answer: Not much thought was put into strict distinctions past a certain level, it's just a cartoon.

I didn't know, but I understand and would just say that the possibilities for your argument gets even narrower - Wilfrid Voynich employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did.  I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo.  Of course there could still be, but the likelihood get smaller.

One thing that made me take a closer look was how careful the medieval armadillos from other documents were drawn in contrast to the common mix ups between sheep and goats and other creatures which they should have been very familiar with.

I didn't copy all of your points, because of course they are all valid musings on your part, as mine are, for things we just don't know for certain. And we've given our alternate viewpoints on all these already.

But on the part I left, above: What did you mean by "Wilfrid Voynich employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did.  I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo.  Of course there could still be, but the likelihood get smaller."

I mean, where do you believe Voynich "... employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did..."? I mean, I do think this, in effect, but why do you say this?

And also, you wrote, "I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo." Did you mean the "same style" as the Voynich illustration, or the "same style" as mine?

Not being snarky, I'm really curious what you meant. Sorry I was confused...

Rich

Rich, a couple of posts ago, you write: 

Quote: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. [...] 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.

That's comparing the creatures to photographs or early modern scientific drawings of the animals. Slider way up. But the the slider is turned down again in order to ignore the fact that armadillos have plates and bands instead of fish scales, and that the supposed scales are on backwards. And that this artist draws animals' hind legs either almost unarticulated, or bending the wrong way like in the case of the bulls. 

As others have shown, medieval books have other creatures like this. Hard to identify monsters that kind of look like armadillos or whatnot. So what I'm saying is that its a bad drawing, and if one's argument is based on modern or early-modern images or even careful observation of nature, that's messing with the slider.

(12-01-2026, 07:54 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, a couple of posts ago, you write: 

Quote: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. [...] 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.

That's comparing the creatures to photographs or early modern scientific drawings of the animals. Slider way up. But the the slider is turned down again in order to ignore the fact that armadillos have plates and bands instead of fish scales, and that the supposed scales are on backwards. And that this artist draws animals' hind legs either almost unarticulated, or bending the wrong way like in the case of the bulls. 

As others have shown, medieval books have other creatures like this. Hard to identify monsters that kind of look like armadillos or whatnot. So what I'm saying is that its a bad drawing, and if one's argument is based on modern or early-modern images or even careful observation of nature, that's messing with the slider.

I absolutely disagree with most of what you wrote there, Koen:

1) "That's comparing the creatures to photographs or early modern scientific drawings of the animals. Slider way up."

How is that my "slider is way up"? If one is trying to identify what animal the person meant to draw, of course anyone would, and everyone does "compare them to photographs or early modern scientific drawings" of them. We do that with any drawing, from any age. It is done by people on both sides of the "forgery fence". It's normal to do. We look at both the drawing and what the animal actually looks like, then count up the similarities and differences.

2) "But the the slider is turned down again in order to ignore the fact that armadillos have plates and bands instead of fish scales, and that the supposed scales are on backwards."

Well the second thing one does, or should do, after comparing any one illustration to various animals (as in #1, to decide what animal it may be), the second thing would be to see if which illustrations... good or bad illustrations... have the most similar features. In this case, I had already thought the Gesner illustration matched closest to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal. And, by the way, one of those features IS the backward scales. It is a good point of comparison. Another is the "fish like" scales, rather than plates, on both.

I didn't draw the Gesner armadillo, nor the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal... I have to work with what we all see here, and for me it is a two step process as I've outlined above. There is really no way else to do it: Chose which animal you think the artist wanted to represent, based on number of "hits", then look at other versions of that animal to see if that will tell you anything.

I do understand the difference in our thoughts on this... I know you do a global search of all old drawings... but still, you do compare to images of other animals first. Your excellent analysis of the Zodiac Cancer animals... crayfish or lobsters, rather than crabs... on your site. You knew they were probably meant to be those because it fulfills a constellation symbol. But if they looked like, for instance, mice, or dolphins, you would not go there. That is, "what" a real dolphin looks like is obviously part of the identification process, so my, or anyone's, looking at real pangolins, armadillos, sheep, or whatever, is completely valid. And no "slider" necessary... it is a point by point comparsion.

Then, exactly as you did for your crayfish, we look at other illustrations of them, so see if we can date them or locate their origins. All normal, all done by everyone.

Where your "sliders" come into play, and become a problem, would be in accepting or rejecting any animal with changing settings, and I insist I do not do that, and others need to. In fact, you have actually co-opted a major argument of mine, which I use often, as you should remember: To argue the Voynich as genuine 1420, one must apply widely varying, inconsistent, and often hypocritical standards... the artist is good here, the artist is bad here; this looks old and is good, this looks new, so it is added; this expert agrees with me, so they are acceptable, those experts don't agree with 1420, they are bad experts; this construction/material/style is normal, proving 1420; this construction/material/style is not normal for 1420, meaning we just have not found another example, but it exists; this item looks exactly like this 1420 thing, so it is from 1420, but that item looks more like a 16th/17th/18th/19th century thing, so NOW the artist is a bad one. And so on...

On the contrary, Modern Forgery has to make NO alterations to standards in order to work: All the art work is of the same level of talent; all the observations as to content, materials, methods of construction, ages, all fit perfectly, and do not need any rationalization... no adjustment of "sliders", or standards. All the expert opinions fit, because they are (virtually) all correct: Everything they see is in there.

(12-01-2026, 07:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-01-2026, 05:27 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-01-2026, 08:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You do know that the "artist here" is me, right? In any case, as the artist, I can answer: Not much thought was put into strict distinctions past a certain level, it's just a cartoon.

I didn't know, but I understand and would just say that the possibilities for your argument gets even narrower - Wilfrid Voynich employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did.  I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo.  Of course there could still be, but the likelihood get smaller.

One thing that made me take a closer look was how careful the medieval armadillos from other documents were drawn in contrast to the common mix ups between sheep and goats and other creatures which they should have been very familiar with.

I didn't copy all of your points, because of course they are all valid musings on your part, as mine are, for things we just don't know for certain. And we've given our alternate viewpoints on all these already.

But on the part I left, above: What did you mean by "Wilfrid Voynich employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did.  I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo.  Of course there could still be, but the likelihood get smaller."

I mean, where do you believe Voynich "... employed the same cartoon symbol for armadillo hide as you did..."? I mean, I do think this, in effect, but why do you say this?

And also, you wrote, "I searched and couldn't find any other modern artist that used the same style for an armadillo." Did you mean the "same style" as the Voynich illustration, or the "same style" as mine?

Not being snarky, I'm really curious what you meant. Sorry I was confused...

Rich

The artist of the Florentine Codex when he simplified the complex shapes of an armadillos hide drew a curving grid.  The theory is that Wilfrid drew an armadillo with wavy lines the way you did.

This reasoning was to determine if it is a common way a cartoonist/artist would represent this animal?  If I had found lots of cartoons drawn the same way, I could say it was a common way to perceive an armadillo (and I'm being overly pedantic) and use that as support that the intention of the drawing in the VM was an armadillo.  Instead this makes it increasingly unlikely that anyone drawing an armadillo would use wavy scale shapes since your cartoon was the only one I could find.

Here's another perspective. The artist has intentionally drawn a pareidolic object. It's not the first one. 

The purpose of the pareidolic object is to express two different concepts simultaneously, while perpetually frozen on the page. The basic idea of the VMs Agnus Dei interpretation compares only with singular structure of BNF Fr. 13096 f 18. An old manuscript in the Burgundian library for a time.

The second interpretation is also Burgundian, based on the Order of the Golden Fleece (1430), the critter is also a fleece. Dead and alive at the same time. Isn't that interesting? Don't you love those oxymorons? Check the VMs cosmos - seriously.

It's not about appearance. It's about structure. Here are fleeces that are *intended to look like fleeces*. Look at the artistic variation. Is the VMs outside that realm of variation? Especially given its intentional duality / ambiguity / pareidolia.

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

"The dude has been playing over our heads," you might say. The artistry contains these strangely valid, historical Easter Eggs. Some even coincide with the C-14 dates, others are earlier, and there are a few hints of later, that might be interesting, but not that late.

(12-01-2026, 09:36 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The artist of the Florentine Codex when he simplified the complex shapes of an armadillos hide drew a curving grid.  The theory is that Wilfrid drew an armadillo with wavy lines the way you did.

This reasoning was to determine if it is a common way a cartoonist/artist would represent this animal?  If I had found lots of cartoons drawn the same way, I could say it was a common way to perceive an armadillo (and I'm being overly pedantic) and use that as support that the intention of the drawing in the VM was an armadillo.  Instead this makes it increasingly unlikely that anyone drawing an armadillo would use wavy scale shapes since your cartoon was the only one I could find.

No, not at all, Legit. You have totally misunderstood the purpose of my cartoon. It was, as I said, just a cartoon... meant to be a lighthearted, loose interpretation of the imagined "battle between the Pangolin and the Armadillo" for the place of identification as the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal. So the theory is not at all that "Wilfrid drew an armadillo with wavy lines the way you did." I seem to remember thinking of (alternatively) drawing a cartoon scene of an armadillo and pangolin in a ring, boxing. But never with any consideration as to any of the reasons you are thinking were my intent. I mean, last I saw, pangolins don't work in bars, anyway! But maybe armadillos do drink... many animals do. Deer love rotten apples in the fall, they get drunk. 

My cartoon has absolutely nothing to do with why I think Wilfrid drew the armadillo the way he did. For that, I would say it was simply his loose interpretation of how his imagined 17th century artist might draw one, based on his understanding of what a real one looked like, perhaps, combined with how the Gesner armadillo was drawn. That's it.

And the "Florentine Codex" reference is from the work of the good Janick and Tucker, not me. Off the top of my head, I can't remember even if Wilfrid could have seen it anyway... but that is a moot point to my theory. 

When I draw cartoons, as opposed to attempting to draw genuine animals/people/objects, I am not thinking of how others would draw them, or did draw them, they are "on the fly" and loose interpretations of that thing. They are just trying to humorously describe a real situation in an allegorical, fanciful way, and not meant to be "real" in any sense at all.

Here is one I did to send to my daughter years ago, teasing her about contacting me more often, and sending me a picture I wanted... i.e., that I was just "Chopped Liver" to her. No, I don't look like a can of chopped liver, and clams don't have eyes, and she does not look like that, etc...

[attachment=13413]

(12-01-2026, 09:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My cartoon has absolutely nothing to do with why I think Wilfrid drew the armadillo the way he did. For that, I would say it was simply his loose interpretation of how his imagined 17th century artist might draw one, based on his understanding of what a real one looked like, perhaps, combined with how the Gesner armadillo was drawn. That's it.

How does the cosmos and the rain under the creature fit in this theory?