| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 421 online users.
» 8 Member(s) | 408 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex, Aga Tentakulus, Antonio García Jiménez, magnesium, Oocephalus, quimqu, Rafal
|
|
|
| "Dragon" 25v |
|
Posted by: Bluetoes101 - 18-06-2024, 11:42 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (51)
|
 |
I do apologise for links, I have forgotten how to insert images so that they work.
I started with the idea what the VM artist copied "[b]Title : [/b]Liber de plantis. [b]Publication date : [/b]1440-1460", but very badly / incorrectly.
Manuscript link - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The foot placement being almost forcibly attached to the plant image, left foot on the right side of the roots drew me to this conclusion
Page of Manuscript link - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In attempting to recreate/prove this copy and "mistake" that lead to the "downstairs mixup" (I'm sorry I'm a mightyboosh fan and it was too tempting), I proved myself wrong. At least I believe I did. I would be interested to hear others thoughts. Either, the artist copied the feet first then realised their mistake in composition which made adding a tail cause all sorts of visual issues (initial thought), or they are trying to show one wing behind the other, and a "clubbed" tail. Which I now think is most likely. Either option shows the artist to be an amateur (not understanding which background lines to omit from foreground), and the "dragon" to be a "dragon", Not a dog, armadillo, ant-eater, ...cat(?!) or others that I have seen mentioned. It either has 2 wings and "clubbed tail", or a long tail, and artist messed up the foot then added a quick fix with the foot poking from behind belly, presumably to be rectified later (or they just didn't care), either in my opinion makes this a dragon.. or the most messed up bird..
In the middle line of images I tried to recreate the image best I could with the VM artists thought process in mind when/if copying, obviously this is a destructive process, it was only done to try understand artistic choices/order of working, but ultimately lead me to believe this was not a copy. The need for the left foot of a dragon to be touching the right side of a root.. is quite a unique scenario though (I haven't seen elsewhere) and I would be shocked if that element of the composition wasn't copied / in the mind of artist.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If the links don't work let me know, and if you could remind me how to embed stuff so it works again Id be v much appreciative
|
|
|
| This video reminded me of Voynich "I'VE SOLVED IT!" manuscript, cases so much |
|
Posted by: Bluetoes101 - 14-06-2024, 12:40 AM - Forum: Fiction, Comics, Films & Videos, Games & other Media
- Replies (4)
|
|
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Its so eerily familiar when I think about some posts on youtube, or other sites on the VM, and the creators responses.
Hopefully you guys find this entertaining/funny. My personal favourite was "Science is about reproducibility, I can have the most brilliant, crazy, fun, idea ever and if I perform and experiment and no one else can duplicate that experiment? It belongs in the trash heap. It's me in my own world thinking I have landed on objective truth when in fact I haven't, that's how science works! The reproducibility of results."
|
|
|
|
| Religious references |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 11-06-2024, 08:27 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (7)
|
|
While some investigators have indicated a lack religious references in the VMs, there may be more than those two crosses first recognized as potential objects of reference to medieval religious beliefs, but their full interpretation remains unclear.
Something that goes unnoticed, because it is not present, is the 'absence' of planetary spheres in the VMs cosmos. What is revealed by this absence? The "scientific" knowledge of the planetary spheres is simply not presented.
This simplified structural representation of the universe is seen in the cosmic diagrams from BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334, which share a (1400-1450) provenance that starts in Paris. The VMs artist adopts the cosmic structure, totally alters the appearance, and then plays hide and seek with the 43 undulations that match the 'Oresme' version from the BNF. It's as clear as the cosmic wheel that some level of deception has been used. The use of duality on VMs White Aries was intentional and the prior placement of the two tubs with the papelonny patterns was no accident.
The VMs cosmos shares the structure of the anti-scientific *Parisian* cosmic diagrams produced coincident with the VMs C-14 dating. After the French disaster at Avignon (1415), many noble families were headed by women. BNF Fr. 565 went to Marie de Berry who was Duchess of Auvergne.
Does the potentially anti-scientific VMs cosmic diagram indicate the possibility of a more pro-religious inclination for the VMs text in general?
|
|
|
|
| Folio 78r Quire 13 binding anomolies |
|
Posted by: Linguistics of Flowers - 11-06-2024, 12:33 AM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (2)
|
|
I am doing research on the binding anomalies in Quire 13, around Folio 78r. I thought someone did a paper on this subject... now can't find it. Can anyone help?
The translation I am working on references that the authors intentionally placed holes and possible rewove this section unusually. ???!!
|
|
|
|
| Scientific Progress |
|
Posted by: Mark Knowles - 09-06-2024, 06:57 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (60)
|
|
There seems to be some debate as to how ideas move forward in research.
It seems to me what is crucial is people forming hypotheses and constructing theories that may not yet be completely proven. And that the competition between these competing theories leads some to be overturned and some integrated together to form a more complete theory.
I think the idea that knowledge is built up gradually layer upon layer is often not the case, though sometimes it happens like that.
It seems to be that hypotheses are formed and asserted by different people and that as evidence builds up, and so some hypotheses are then refuted.
When it comes to Voynich research I would suggest that having multiple theories is actually a good thing even if it may be frustrating at times. Clearly the stronger the evidence to support a given theory the better.
So I would question some peoples ideas as to how Voynich research should proceed.
|
|
|
|
| Who is the author of VM? |
|
Posted by: BessAgritianin - 07-06-2024, 06:28 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (36)
|
|
Hello everybody!
You may believe me or not. (Since there are too many "translators" of the manuscript, if one tells the truth, nobody believes him.)
The author's name stays on the first foil of VM.
Anyone who believes to have translated the text should answer you this simple, simple question- who is the author?
If he/she does not answer it -be sceptical for the rest. I have asked several persons and- no answer at all.
Tell me what is your opinion- who is the author (not the writer/user) of the manuscript?
Be healthy and know, that the answer of this question will explain a lot!
I know the author, but will not disclose it until I may show the other things, that I have a translation of.
The Script is mostly in Moravian. There are other languages however too.
BR
|
|
|
|
|
