Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

Morten St George,

To answer your question, as far as I remember, the only other hole in the manuscript is the one on f34r&v. (ETA: there is another one on f116r&v)

Now back to the plants:

"At the time I acquired a license for it, he described it as freshwater plant from the Morichal district of Venezuela. The bud, however, was in the photograph. I did not put it there.  So I plan to leave the photo on my site until someone can convince me that the bud is not there."

The fact is that these single cell organisms cannot grow buds. 
The Ophrydium versatile in the photo is visibly on a surface that is covered in moss and other vegetation. What you see (and interpret as a bud) is there, but it is not a part of the protozoan.
It cannot be a bud, because these protozoans can't make buds or flowers, as I have explained in my previous post.
It can't even be a "baby" Ophrydium versatile, because that is not how these protozoans reproduce: they reproduce by binary fission,  dividing themselves into two individuals of identical size.
So whether or not there is a green fleck or strand near the blob, it cannot be a "bud", or even belong to the same species.
That is just fact.

you said:
"The most critical elements, I feel, are the following:" before presenting the tapir and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. examples.
After we debunked both, you then flip to say:
"Note that the tapir and the plant (or protozoa) are not essential."
...   


You say:
The naked women in green, plant infested water in combination with depictions of more than a hundred tropical plants will suffice. "
There are swamps all over the world: if we accept your idea that the women are in a swamp, that alone does not lead to the conclusion that this swamp is located in Venezuela.
Nowhere on your website do you provide other identifications of specific amazonian plants, not even a single one.
If you are going to claim that all these plants are tropical, please provide the identifications to back up that claim.

That "hole" on page 34 looks like nothing more than a slit. I think Yale would have cut away the entire tapir section if not for a desire to retain the quire number on the bottom right! 

Regarding the plant, it seems that the photographer, not wishing to associate himself with my aliens, has changed his mind about what he photographed. He asked on his Facebook page what else it could be and someone, who probably was not a botanist or biologist, suggested your protozoa. That is hardly a reliable source!

Nonetheless, I have inserted the following paragraph into my web page

"Very recently, however, it was brought to my attention that this green, jelly-like blob could be an animal and not a plant at all. I agree. But then this confirms that the Voynich artists are depicting real things, leaving the Amazon rainforest as pretty much the only place on Earth that could have produced real plants and flowers of such enormous diversity as we see depicted in the Voynich manuscript."

I found an article online that begins as follows:

"This Chapter is based on three published works: (1) a paper by Hugh O Neall (1944) that identifies two New World plants (sunflower and chili peppers) in the Voynich manuscript; (2) a paper of Tucker and Talbert (2013) which identified 39 plants in the Voynich as indigenous to the New World; (3) a paper by Tucker and Janick (2016) which extended the list to 59 species."

You can find the full article here:

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

You are welcome to point me to articles supporting your contention that the VMS depicts plants growing in the Netherlands, or even to plants growing in northern Italy as your colleagues contend.