The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

What about the nebuly line? Where were all the experts?

The recovery of historical terminology provides the explanation.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, and I'm no "expert" on this area of symbolism, but I've always thought your ideas have merit. The heraldry comparisons, the galero (sp?), the "nebuly line", and so on. So I don't in any way argue against these things being what you think they are.

The thing is, if you are correct, I think they are there for different reasons than you do. It is like that for me and many expert and amateur opinions, even those held by 1420 Genuine adherents, when it comes to "what they think we are all looking at". I rarely argue with what is observed by many, because I believe this is a "hodge-podge" of items and images and styles from the history of manuscript and printed literature.

And as you know, I've long suggested you look for an overall context which would explain your various observations, and your opinions on them. The "why?" would these things be in there? If you have such a context, which fits with everything else we see in an explanatory way, then it would go a long way to accepting that as the correct solution.

But for me, yes, I think you very well could be correct, and this symbolism is in the Voynich. Other ideas for Voynich content I believe credible, but without favoring their overall explanation for the age, authorship and or purpose of the Voynich are:

- Jules Janick and Arthur Tucker, who famously described dozens of plants, animals, and characters in the Voynich. They even adopted my phrase "Bird Glyph" for their New World herbal theory, denoting the prominent character on f1r. I agree it is meant to be the paragraph marker known as a "Calderon", and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And, the armadillo. Jules and I are friends, and have argued our theories at length... Because while I do think many of the things they see in there are in there, I think it is because the work sources that imagery to create a faux manuscript to look like it was discussing New World stuffs.

- The Comegys brothers: They, too, have made a good case for Nahuatl influenced content, I think, and I also accept this is possible, but for different reasons than they do.

- Robert Teal: My late friend Robert made good cases for various constellations and other astronomical content, along with various historic figures in the field.

- Charles Singer, of course, felt the work was 17th century, and "Paracelsian" in nature. I agree with his thoughts on this, I do think THAT is in there.

- Most of the other early experts, like Singer, above, who saw content and influences on content from the 14th through late 17th centuries. Yes, I think most of what they saw is actually in there, again, for reasons different than they speculated on.

- Those who think Hildegarde Bingen (sp?) has influenced the content.

- Those who think the New Atlantis influenced the content.

- Glen Claston: Gone for so many years now, but he also made credible cases for mid 16th century medical content, and embraced previous theories this was an Anthony Askam work. I agreed with many of his opinions.

- Berj Ensanian felt there was evidence of 19th century scientific content in there, including the "Pleiades-Moon" curve, which is striking, and I think more than coincidental. I don't agree with him this is a 19th century work, though.

I could go on and on, these are just a smattering of examples. Yes, most of what everyone thinks they have seen in the Voynich is probably there, and in that, I think they are all correct. I agree, therefore, with more amateur and expert opinions than anyone I have heard of or met, for this reason. I only don't agree with their varied and usually contradictory reasons that content would be in there... I explain it all under one roof: Modern Forgery. That umbrella is majorly inclusive.

And I like your ideas, also. I just have a different reason to explain why I think you could be right, than you do.

Rich