Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

MSG: In brief, you have failed to convince me that Shakespeare could not have written the marginalia on page 17r where we find a fleur de lys shield pointing to his pedestal."

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was pointing out, have been pointing out all along, that you tend to choose only the explanation that fits your theory and don't look at all the possible explanations for each of these observations, even when there is stronger evidence for a different interpretation.

That's not science. It's not good research. I don't know what it is, other than trying to impose your preferences on the data rather than letting the data lead you to the answer.

My response on objective evaluation of the evidence is as follows: The animal depicted on page 80v shows no signs of having a very long tail and consequently is far more likely to be an armadillo than a pangolin.

I have a new contention to make: The bright colors and patterns seen on the vials in the pharmaceutical section bear greater resemblance to the work of native American artisans of the early 15th century than they do to the work of European artisans of the same period.