04-01-2026, 12:56 AM
asteckley, you should probably know what the theory you support is 
(..I'm sorry, I'm a windup merchant)
I think some things here are countering ideas of people who had no bloody clue what they were on about. Frankly.
An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene and immediately said the writing was humanist (of northern Italy) which would place it at the very beginning of 15C, he also said the Zodiac names were added later using French spellings of the time, so far this seems to hold true.
This should also address - "That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory". My standard is expert opinion. I don't care what "internet guy" thinks, or "adjacent field guy" thinks. Well I do, that's a bit of a lie, but as "Likely Fact".. you know what I mean.
These are the opinions a theory should contend with, not some botanist (who knows nothing of manuscripts) or internet guy.. but people who actually know what they are on about. In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it. To think this was due to a 17C then turned 13C fake is very difficult for me to follow. (Though I am also "internet guy," so pinch of salt).
What is inconsistent?
The real inconsistences are with the characters of the "forgery story". Wilfrid makes a 17C manuscript, then removes (literally cuts out) all evidence of such.. but thinks armadillos and microscopes are funny to leave in, then facing a 17C manuscript that needs to be 13C.. and everyone needs to ignore the removed signature.. well, then he writes a letter. The letter directly links the manuscript to the 17C and Rudolph (STOP!) who happens to have a botanist who would be interested in herbals.. who's signature we just removed - hopefully to never be discovered! If I was near him at this time I would slap him! How stupid do you need to be?! "You could have written it from anyone in the last 600 years Wilfrid!!!.. You chose this guy?!!"
.. though in the next breathe he is a genius pulling off some 17C writing that fools everyone.
The story does not make sense. It's not believable.
You are a very good researcher and things you dig up I could never do myself so I have a lot of respect (I just tend to talk plainly.. probably rude at times which suggests otherwise). I don't care if the VMS is real or fake, I just walk where the compass points. In that respect I look forward to all your future updates on the blog, but I just can't follow the forgery stuff, so far for me it's not where the compass points. Maybe one day it will.
(..I'm sorry, I'm a windup merchant)I think some things here are countering ideas of people who had no bloody clue what they were on about. Frankly.
An expert in medieval writing was shown the VMS by Rene and immediately said the writing was humanist (of northern Italy) which would place it at the very beginning of 15C, he also said the Zodiac names were added later using French spellings of the time, so far this seems to hold true.
This should also address - "That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory". My standard is expert opinion. I don't care what "internet guy" thinks, or "adjacent field guy" thinks. Well I do, that's a bit of a lie, but as "Likely Fact".. you know what I mean.
These are the opinions a theory should contend with, not some botanist (who knows nothing of manuscripts) or internet guy.. but people who actually know what they are on about. In my research so far, everything (literally everything) comes back to early 15C, you can't escape it. To think this was due to a 17C then turned 13C fake is very difficult for me to follow. (Though I am also "internet guy," so pinch of salt).
What is inconsistent?
The real inconsistences are with the characters of the "forgery story". Wilfrid makes a 17C manuscript, then removes (literally cuts out) all evidence of such.. but thinks armadillos and microscopes are funny to leave in, then facing a 17C manuscript that needs to be 13C.. and everyone needs to ignore the removed signature.. well, then he writes a letter. The letter directly links the manuscript to the 17C and Rudolph (STOP!) who happens to have a botanist who would be interested in herbals.. who's signature we just removed - hopefully to never be discovered! If I was near him at this time I would slap him! How stupid do you need to be?! "You could have written it from anyone in the last 600 years Wilfrid!!!.. You chose this guy?!!"
.. though in the next breathe he is a genius pulling off some 17C writing that fools everyone.
The story does not make sense. It's not believable.
You are a very good researcher and things you dig up I could never do myself so I have a lot of respect (I just tend to talk plainly.. probably rude at times which suggests otherwise). I don't care if the VMS is real or fake, I just walk where the compass points. In that respect I look forward to all your future updates on the blog, but I just can't follow the forgery stuff, so far for me it's not where the compass points. Maybe one day it will.