Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

Morten, I've created FOUR transcripts of the VMS script. I have looked at EVERY SINGLE glyph in the manuscript many many times and there is nowhere in the manuscript where m is drawn like that or combined like that.

It does not look like m at all (or m combined with long-c). It does look like a normal medieval rotated-m or z. I've looked at THOUSANDS of manuscripts so I'm familiar with what they did and what they didn't do and your idea is quite far outside anything I've seen in the VMS. A few of the glyphs are a bit mangled, but they are not mangled like that. They vary in predictable understandable ways. Your glyph idea simply isn't close enough to reality.

Other than the "c" which is a normal Latin letter, the letters in this word do not look like Voynich glyphs. There IS a possible Voynich glyph in the next word.

I think we are both seeing what we want to see.

So far, I have found the symbol half colored-in in the marginalia of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but it is fully colored-in on f17r:



It seems you are unable to envision a colored-in eight-figure on the top of your rotated m and my biggest gripe about your viewpoint is that I am unable to detect any separation between the c and the rotated m. This causes me to  assume an elongated c which is a VMS symbol and not a Latin letter, and if the elongated c is a symbol then likewise for the following character. Or are you saying that there are two macrons, one connecting the c and the rotated m and another one above the two of them?

Perhaps you have these figures in a better resolution than what I have (which is horrible)? If so, please post it and maybe you can convince me.