The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

You've misunderstood something.
Autopsies (Latin: obductio) were performed at universities throughout Europe from the 14th century onwards, but only in winter.

Ah! Autopsies! You should have explained this, why the brains were being removed from rotting bodies only in winter. NOW it makes perfect sense, thank you. But you ought to tell us if you are seriously saying you think the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal is a "brain". Do you?

The green aliens are an allusion to
seeing what you want to see. There is always a way to explain something, Tucker and co.

If you mention Atlantis, you should also think about aliens. Both are absurd.

You either know you are purposefully misstating my ideas, which is not nice for one thing, and also counter-productive to any useful discussion- or you are doing it innocently. Let me know which it is, OK?

Assuming the latter (innocence), no, I do not "mention Atlantis", not now, not ever. It was never part of any of my (3 major) hypotheses. For a time I did theorize that the Voynich was someone's early 17th century "homage", or art, or somehow influenced by Francis Bacon's fictional utopian work, "The New Atlantis". I was not the first person to suggest this, not that it matters. But others, then I, noted that the Voynich has many observed and suggested elements that also appear mentioned in Bacon's work. Among them are:

- Fantastic hybrid plants and animals
- Advanced optics
- Utopian cities (The Rosettes map is very similar to early illustrations of Utopias)
- Microcosm and Macrocosm
- Grafted plants (many Voynich plants appear to show stem grafting)
- The New World
- Glossolalia, in a book only readable by those spiritually viable
- New Atlantis mentioned in the Kinner/Kircher letter
- Medicinal cures, such as pills and baths

... those are off the top of my head. It has been a long time since I gave up that theory, but I still do believe the New Atlantis may have had some influence on Voynich when he created his forgery, but of course now believe those similarities are mostly do to Bolton, as they almost all also appear in his book, and more. In fact, Bacon's New Atlantis is mentioned in "Follies in Science in the Court of Rudolf II".

Anyway, point being, "Atlantis", as in the probably fictional island, mentioned in Critias as related by Plato, is most probably an invention (perhaps based loosely on some lost culture); while Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis", a fiction of course, has inspired much art and literature. That is, there are precedents for its influencing other works, and that is what I was exploring. 

You can believe in an armadillo.
1. It doesn't fit in the book. And it's not comparable to the other images.

In the context of my hypothesis, it very much fits, as another reference to New World items, animals, plants, styles, which the Voynich is (arguably) rife with.

2. Pillows and sky lines? The only time I've seen an animal with the lines was the bull as a star pattern. Again, no reason for an armadillo.
3. If you consider the VM to be a forgery, of course, then anything is possible for you.

That is a straw man, as my theory in no way would allow "anything" to be possible. It is one specific type of forgery I suggest, with a very specific range of content, noted by me and many others, which fits one overriding context. You just claiming it allows "anything to be possible" is entirely incorrect.

The 1910 Forgery Theory: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I don't do that, so it has to fit with the Middle Ages.
No Mexico, Atlantis, aliens, and no armadillos either.

Now that is fine, and your opinion, and I have no problem with that of course. But why do you get so upset about my ideas? Why do they bother you so much, if you think they are so ridiculous? And why do you feel the need to use mockery and sarcasm, and strawmen, and so on, when arguing against my theory? If it is so weak, why not explain why it is weak, instead of going on about aliens and Atlantis and so on, which have nothing to do with my theory?

And also, as always, I would love to see your overall hypothesis as to what the Voynich actually is. Is it online somewhere that you can point me to, so I can read about it?