Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

What I did was disagree, offer another interpretation and offer my argument. I am not into this right-and-wrong thing. Saying that I disagree (even if I do so passionately) is not the same as saying the other person's interpretation is wrong. I present an argument as best I can and then TIME and MORE RESEARCH will bear out whether it's right or wrong. I never assume I'm more right than the other person until my argument is out there and has a chance to be reviewed, rebutted, and then we move toward the truth.

What you say here is pretty much my own attitude on it all.

As for pox being over-inked. Maybe it is, but it's not the only possibility. It's possible a little too much ink got on the quill when the writer dipped it, and it blobbed on the curve. Either way, I've never absolutely assumed it was an "x", as can be seen by the way I wrote about it on the blogs.

On the dipping of the ink, you again resort to something of low probability to defend a popular belief which, in this case, is that the marginalia is meaningless scribble.

It reminds me of how you resorted to the pangolin to negate the armadillo, without providing any evidence at all that the pangolin was known somewhere in Europe at some point during the Middle Ages. I do not have to do the same for authorship in the Americas because at that time the armadillos, with more than a dozen species of it roaming about, were seen everywhere.

On the marginalia, other points of contention include whether "mich" means milk (and don't know how you connect that to plants) or is simply short for michel. Michel, of course, would be consistent with other marginalia pointers to a prophecy attributed to Michel Nostradamus.

Your technical capabilities are very valuable and much needed on this project. I only wish that you could take a more neutral stance on the interpretation of the data. You say you do, but many of your posts reveal little openness to new ideas.