Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

The handwriting style on 116v was prevalent in the early to mid-15th century.

Your contention that they faked 15th-century handwriting in 1600 will need proof, because there's no evidence to support the idea.

JP, You have yet to present any type of refutation of my analysis showing the many ways that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. points to a specific prophecy first published in the year 1588/9. What do you want us to believe? That the 15th-century authors of the VMS were prophetic and able to foresee the contents of that 16th-century publication?

Also, you show no signs of having read my analysis of the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (which you claim to be in the same handwriting as f116v) whereby I link its fleur-de-lis shield with the fleur-de-lis shield on the cover of the Herball encyclopedia of 1597, which in turn simultaneously points to a textual fleur-de-lis in Nostradamus and to a graphic fleur-de-lis in the interior of the VMS. Once again, are we to believe that the authors of the VMS were prophetic and foresaw the contents of that botanical publication of the late 16th century?

In addition, I'll mention that the cryptic logic employed by the marginalia author in the VMS is similar to the cryptic logic that he employs in his other writings of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But let's just leave it at that as this is no place, for the moment, to discuss the Authorship Question.

The Spanish words are not made to look like German words. The "Spanish" line LOOKS like a Romance language. It does not look like German in any way and I don't recall anyone trying to insist that it is German.

What? Isn't it true that you guys fail to see the dot above "leber", so, instead of liber, you accept it as the German word leber, liver? And isn't it true that you guys are assuming the "mich" is a misspelling of the German word Milch, milk?