10-05-2019, 12:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2019, 12:08 AM by Emma May Smith.)
p2 He claims the plants are inventions rather than real.
p3 He states he hasn't bothered reading existing research.
p4 He already knows that certain images are "allegories".
p5 He says that's he's going to ignore the carbon dating of the manuscript.
p6 He claims that the manuscript is a palimpsest.
p8 He says the imagery "looks like" "looks like" "looks like" "looks like".
p9 He decides that the first letters of his imagery guesses are cryptographically important.
p10 He claims that the lines of a drawing should be read as characters.
p11 He claims that he's found a date which reads 1615 in Roman numerals and therefore refers to 1585.
p12 He could read the name CALLYADVARTEYUS disguised as a goat, and it refers to Edward Kelly.
p13 He reckons a picture of a boob can be read as "E".
p14 He says, "if my assumption is right," but you can guess that as the PDF continues for another 178 pages that his assumption sure wasn't found to be wrong...
p3 He states he hasn't bothered reading existing research.
p4 He already knows that certain images are "allegories".
p5 He says that's he's going to ignore the carbon dating of the manuscript.
p6 He claims that the manuscript is a palimpsest.
p8 He says the imagery "looks like" "looks like" "looks like" "looks like".
p9 He decides that the first letters of his imagery guesses are cryptographically important.
p10 He claims that the lines of a drawing should be read as characters.
p11 He claims that he's found a date which reads 1615 in Roman numerals and therefore refers to 1585.
p12 He could read the name CALLYADVARTEYUS disguised as a goat, and it refers to Edward Kelly.
p13 He reckons a picture of a boob can be read as "E".
p14 He says, "if my assumption is right," but you can guess that as the PDF continues for another 178 pages that his assumption sure wasn't found to be wrong...