Rosettes and Revelations Pt.1: The Holy City - Koen Gheuens and Cary Rapaport

[Mark Knowles]

What you like to do is disconnect from that and invent your own thing, then look down on people who refer to actual imagery.

This is becoming ad-hominen when you assert that I am "looking down on people".
I have looked at numerous maps of the period and seen how water is frequently illustrated. I am hardly inventing my own thing in this instance. So I have referred a lot to actual imagery, but I also don't believe that everything illustrated in a manuscript is merely a copy of something illustrated in another manuscript, which I think is an approach too readily taken by some other Voynich researchers.
I feel like the problem here is that whilst I am prepared to admit that I could be guilty of confirmation bias you seem unprepared to consider that you could also be guilty of confirmation bias. You have clearly invested time and effort in your "Holy Jerusalem" theory and it is natural that you have some attachment to it. I think most and probably all Voynich researchers, including myself, have a tendency towards confirmation bias as it natural for someone to prefer to be right in their thinking than wrong; the key thing is whether they feel that they can be honest and self-aware enough to admit it to themselves and others.
I think referring to real photos of real places that were visible to people at the time is not inventing your own thing, though I think the authors illustrations were a function of seeing illustrations in other manuscripts I think the author also found influence in other things that they saw with the naked eye and to some extent in their own imagination.
Anyway this conversation looks to be taking a dangerous downturn when you accuse me of looking down on people, because I question some aspects of way some researchers approach the analysis of drawings in the manuscript.