Qasr mosaic leopard and VMS Leo/August image

[ReneZ]

I just think that it would be better for the discussion if concrete, relevant arguments were provided instead of attempting to shoot down reasonable debate by shoving forward a supposed authority and hiding behind it.

I find the work presented earlier this year by Marco Ponzi and Darren Worley totally convincing.
In parallel JKP had independently made very similar analyses. The links may be found together here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(scroll down a bit).

Not only is this very convincing, it is also fully consistent with the professional opinion that was already stated many
years before.

Now I don't want to discourage anyone from any discussions on their favourite topics.
But how does one deal with a big corpus of evidence, backed up by scholarship, that seems contradictory
to ones ideas?

One wouldn't want to 'sweep it under the carpet'.


It is of course interesting to consider that the Voynich MS illustrations might be direct copies of sources that are more than a millennium older. The idea that they are just a product of their time (early 15th C) based loosely on material generally available (and that undoubtedly traces back through the ages) is perhaps quite boring in comparison.

But how does one then explain the various other MSs that have been shown as comparison? I think in particular of:
Cod. Sang 827
(BAV) Pal.Lat.1369
Cod.Sang.402
and in fact (BAV) Reg Lat 1324, the (probably French) Aratus MS also from the 15th C?
Would these also be direct copies of classical sources?