Tisquesusa,
Thanks for your reply. I see from Helmut's suggestion, perhaps you have looked into the discussion history of the vms-list and the blog of H. R. Santa-Coloma. Meanwhile I was a subscriber to the list during that time, though I am not a proponent of the modern forgery hypothesis. If the is any 'real' forgery taking place IMO, it would be in the possibility that the VMs could have been produced a century or so after the actual parchment dates and perhaps the images and style used were intentionally out of date.
Let us examine the "blue mushrooms". What is this? Well, it might be mushrooms or it might be something else. Nothing is 100%, as you say. But if it is something else, it needs to be something that possesses an even greater visual similarity to the VMs illustration than that found in a possible representation of blue mushrooms. What could that something be? There have been no suggestions, not even bad ones, let alone better.
Given the potent nature of the VMs pharmacopoeia, as suggested by some investigators, there is some reason to suggest that the items represented in these illustrations are not inert ingredients. That is to say they were not perceived as inert ingredients at the time.
So how does a modern forger decide to put representations that strongly resemble blue mushrooms into a fake medieval 'composition'? How is this information available to such a person circa 1910? These are just questions raised by the illustrations. Should they be considered by modern forgery proponents?
In reference to the White Aries illustration, you say: 'Or anyone can use the illustration to conclude anything else. There is no 100% conclusive research on about anything. Only the zodiac seems to be represented and that similarity is quite strong. But even there there are problems; the order and missing folios."
Please indicate any examples where other researchers have used this illustration (f71r) to conclude something... anything. There is 100% certainty about some things - among them are certain historical facts. Hence the significance of a VMs illustration that establishes historical grounding. The illustration has a complex structure indicative of intentional construction. And yet this intricate, illustrated depiction of the historical origins of the tradition of the cardinal's red galero has been sitting on the page the entire time. And only the forger knew it was there.
Moreover, and ironically, the details of this historical grounding coincide with the times and the life of Roger Bacon. And while Voynich might have been willing to fabricate such a connection, for some unknown reason, he never made use of the data this illustration actually contains.
Thanks for your reply. I see from Helmut's suggestion, perhaps you have looked into the discussion history of the vms-list and the blog of H. R. Santa-Coloma. Meanwhile I was a subscriber to the list during that time, though I am not a proponent of the modern forgery hypothesis. If the is any 'real' forgery taking place IMO, it would be in the possibility that the VMs could have been produced a century or so after the actual parchment dates and perhaps the images and style used were intentionally out of date.
Let us examine the "blue mushrooms". What is this? Well, it might be mushrooms or it might be something else. Nothing is 100%, as you say. But if it is something else, it needs to be something that possesses an even greater visual similarity to the VMs illustration than that found in a possible representation of blue mushrooms. What could that something be? There have been no suggestions, not even bad ones, let alone better.
Given the potent nature of the VMs pharmacopoeia, as suggested by some investigators, there is some reason to suggest that the items represented in these illustrations are not inert ingredients. That is to say they were not perceived as inert ingredients at the time.
So how does a modern forger decide to put representations that strongly resemble blue mushrooms into a fake medieval 'composition'? How is this information available to such a person circa 1910? These are just questions raised by the illustrations. Should they be considered by modern forgery proponents?
In reference to the White Aries illustration, you say: 'Or anyone can use the illustration to conclude anything else. There is no 100% conclusive research on about anything. Only the zodiac seems to be represented and that similarity is quite strong. But even there there are problems; the order and missing folios."
Please indicate any examples where other researchers have used this illustration (f71r) to conclude something... anything. There is 100% certainty about some things - among them are certain historical facts. Hence the significance of a VMs illustration that establishes historical grounding. The illustration has a complex structure indicative of intentional construction. And yet this intricate, illustrated depiction of the historical origins of the tradition of the cardinal's red galero has been sitting on the page the entire time. And only the forger knew it was there.
Moreover, and ironically, the details of this historical grounding coincide with the times and the life of Roger Bacon. And while Voynich might have been willing to fabricate such a connection, for some unknown reason, he never made use of the data this illustration actually contains.