27-01-2018, 11:02 PM
Morten St George,
nobody is arguing for any specific origin in this thread.
We are simply pointing out that your observations about various elements of the manuscript are erroneous.
Koen Gh's last image shows beyond doubt that the hole in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not shaped like a tapir. Seriously, just look at it.
As for the star count, even if you discount the smaller star, that still leaves 162 red stars, not 161. And keep in mind that there are two folios missing, so I reiterate that there were probably even more red stars originally, since there are between 5-10 red stars on every other page of Q20.
What we are carrying out in this thread is the closest thing you will get to a proper peer review of your writings on the Voynich.
Nobody has discussed your conclusions about origins here, because before we even get to those, we are providing you with a fact-check of the observations which your theory is founded upon.
As it turns out, several of these are simply incorrect.
nobody is arguing for any specific origin in this thread.
We are simply pointing out that your observations about various elements of the manuscript are erroneous.
Koen Gh's last image shows beyond doubt that the hole in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is not shaped like a tapir. Seriously, just look at it.
As for the star count, even if you discount the smaller star, that still leaves 162 red stars, not 161. And keep in mind that there are two folios missing, so I reiterate that there were probably even more red stars originally, since there are between 5-10 red stars on every other page of Q20.
What we are carrying out in this thread is the closest thing you will get to a proper peer review of your writings on the Voynich.
Nobody has discussed your conclusions about origins here, because before we even get to those, we are providing you with a fact-check of the observations which your theory is founded upon.
As it turns out, several of these are simply incorrect.