(07-10-2018, 05:38 AM)Diane wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco it doesn't matter where you happened to first notice an item or observation, but rather which person first made that observation or brought the detail to notice of Voynich research. Were it otherwise, half the world would be crediting wiki authors with having discovered an explanation for gravity.
The first observation that the diagram represented the Elements was by Rich Santacoloma; the second and quite co-incidental recognition that such reference was the diagram's intention was my own. The reason you were unaware of this is that in each case, later writers made use of our observations (Rich's and mine) without troubling to credit the contributions as one should. This is not because such credits are greedily sought; it is so that later-come readers (such as yourself) can go back and evaluate the original writers' thoughts, explanations and sources.
There's no proof yet that these represent elements. Even if they do, a picture of a poofy thing next to a picture of a red fire-like thing, next to a picture of a dirt-looking thing is the kind of imagery most people would recognize independently, especially someone like MarcoP who is keenly observant of patterns.
.
You also claimed that you were the first to identify the rosettes as a "map" and that turned out to be completely untrue. There were at least three other people who did so before the date you stated, and one of them posted extensive analysis and explanations for his interpretation. They were easily found on the Web. For someone who keeps telling us to hunt up the "original" discoverer, why didn't you do this yourself with regard to the map?