Morten St George Theory

[-JKP-]

It most certainly could have been written before 1492 if the vellum derives from bison, a close relative of domestic cattle. In fact, bison and cows can interbreed and produce healthy offspring that can also procreate. One must therefore conclude that bison and cows have similar proteins and, presumably, produce similar vellum.

The bison theory is supported by a VMS drawing that looks more like a native American teepee than anything else recognizable. Note that teepees and bison hunting go hand in hand: the bison were always on the move and the teepee provided mobile housing.

Meanwhile, as far as I know, your evidence for cow vellum consists of nothing more than a very dubious claim that 'mich' means 'milk'.

I have never said anything about the VMS vellum. Only those with access to the manuscript (and pieces of the manuscript for testing) can speak intelligently about that.

Plus, I don't think the text on the last line of 116v has anything to do with the vellum.

And the interpretation of "mich" as milk is not mine, but it is a valid one because I know there were areas where the vernacular had a lot of dropped syllables, so, for whoever suggested it, it's not unreasonable. I doubt if whoever suggested it was trying to connect the interpretation of the word to the vellum production.

A serious problem with your pangolin theory is that this animal did not live in Europe (nor even close to Europe) where you are alleging the VMS was compiled. You can lend support to your theory by finding an entry for the pangolin in a medieval zoological catalog from either Europe or the Islamic world.

MORTEN, I DON'T HAVE A PANGOLIN THEORY. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.

The point is LOGIC.

One cannot make logical claims, as Janick and Tucker have done, that it is a New World manuscript based on faulty identifications that have EQUAL OR BETTER analogs in the Old World.

I'm not saying the critter is a pangolin. I have a fairly long LIST of things it might be. What I am saying is that researchers cannot claim it is an armadillo if it looks MORE like a pangolin. You see? That doesn't mean it's a pangolin. It means the LOGIC is faulty. This same logical flaw permeates all their research claims.