![[Image: attachment.php?aid=16570]](https://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=16570)
Hi Radim, I'd just like to offer a few thoughts based on that image comparison and your idea that "
When the text mentions lions, the root resembles a lion..." etc.
The VMS does show plant roots in the forms of animals, that appears to be widely acknowledged. And that one is indeed somewhat lion-like (though without a mane). But I just don't see the strong connection the way you do. How many manuscripts have contained pictures of lions over the centuries? Why is this one special? Yes, the Enoch text mentions lions (once), but it also talks about angels, kings, wolves, horses... so why doesn't the root look like an angel, king, wolf, horse...? From my reading, the Enoch text is actually about angels showing up and driving kings (of the Parthians and Medes?) into action. The "as lions" mention seems incidental, and not core to the text. The text is not *about* lions, even though it is illustrated by one.
Yes, maybe the VMS author simply copied the Enoch illustration... but why so differently, giving it a plant for a head, if the story is about angels and kings (and when there's no mention of plants on the Enoch page)? In short, the VMS image doesn't come close to illustrating the Enoch story.
So all I can see you have shown here is that a VMS page shows a plant root that looks like a lion... and there's another text somewhere illustrated with a picture of a lion. Can you see why sceptics might want to see a lot more than that?
Now, I know you've found a number of other potential matches - though some of them really do seem to need a stretch of the imagination. And yes, statistics can definitely count in your favour, so the more matches you can find, the better. So here's one suggestion...
Can you produce a table matching VMS illustrations to Enoch illustrations, and provide some sort of statistical correlation? How many good matches are there, how many tentative matches, and how many don't appear to match at all? If you can show statistics that are significantly above what we might expect by chance (though I've no idea how to work out what chance expectations might be), then you could be on to something.
You place store on what the text says and how it matches the images, and obviously that's only Enoch text - as we have no idea what the VMS text says. So here's another suggestion...
Can you find a version of the Enoch text from around the time the VMS was written, in whatever was the likely language of the time? If so, can you match any text patterns between the two? From the above example (which is an English translation, so it's far from ideal), I'm seeing three paragraphs in Enoch but only two on the VMS page. I suggest that searching for matches with a contemporaneous version of Enoch - in terms of paragraph count, text length, and patterns of repeated words and glyphs - could be a fruitful avenue of research.
I mean, maybe the VMS text actually says: "
Pooh and Piglet went for a walk in Hundred Acre Wood looking for interesting plants. "Look", said Piglet, the roots of this one look a bit like a lion!" "Oh yes, so they do", said Pooh, as he reached a paw into his hunny jar..."
I'm being deliberately slightly facetious here, and I hope you'll indulge me. But my point is that there's a near infinite list of possibilities for what the VMS text says... almost all of which would blow your theory out of the water.
So you have an idea based on illustration similarities between two texts, and that can be a great start. But it's only the bones of an idea, and I really think you need to build some meat on those bones. So far, I really don't think you have much beyond "Look, a lion (etc)".
Looking forward to seeing perhaps some quantitative/statistical developments...
Best regards,
Alan