No text, but a visual code

[Jorge_Stolfi]

There is no vessel theory, it is a fact, a piece of evidence.  It's not just the comparison with the vessels in the pharmaceutical section; there's a technical study based on medieval ceramics. Bluetoes101 presented it in another thread with illustrative drawings. I trust he'll share it again here.

Again, just because a drawing resembles some thing, we cannot say with certainty that the Artist intended to draw that thing.  Especially when there are other things that also resemble the drawing.  That will always be just a theory, not a fact.

A ceramic vessel can have any shape.  Peruvian and other cultures produced thousands of vessels shaped like animals, people, and other things.  

In any case, identifying every single detail isn't of great value. The point is to provide a coherent framework where all the images on a page or in the book fit together. I've provided that framework.

A coherent framework would interpret those six objects as towers.  That interpretation would fit the scale and nature of all other recognizable objects on that fold-out, which are buildings, or large landforms like volcanoes and cliffs.  Interpreting them as Brobdignagian vessels for totally imaginary "celestial essences" would make them an incongruous detail.

I have noted on other occasions that you discredit the originality of the Voynich Manuscript. Those who conceived it may have been inspired by some images seen in other manuscripts, but a simple glance through it is enough to perceive that we are dealing with a genuine and profoundly original work.

The script is probably an original creation of the Author.  

We cannot tell whether the text is original until we decipher it.  And as you know, I believe I have got proof that the Starred Parags section, at least, is not original, but an almost word-for-word transcription of a much older book. 

As for the images, there are two main types: (1) those that were clearly copied from other Medieval books, apparently with many basic mis-understandings; and (2) those for which we have not yet found a source. 

The claim that type (2) are "profoundly original" is not objective, it is a statement of faith.

All the best, --stolfi