09-03-2026, 11:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2026, 02:31 AM by Loose_Spell_9313.)
The measurements (official measurements, not my measurements) have been updated correctly after some much needed rest.
I have now, in full, laid out my evidence for my arguments- from Solar/Lunar positioning, to linguistic consistencies (we'll use the '8'-bindings as the metric here, since the syntactic structure is speculative until decoding), to the staining. In a very simple to follow, and straightforward, explanation of the Voynich.
The primary arguments against me have been:
[1] The Proto-Clock could mean anything, to which I have openly challenged others to find another location that can be deduced- this has not happened.
*In lieu of a later comment, please- by all means, feel free to use whatever logic you feel fits your interpretation as long as it's rational and reproducible. That's not the point- the point of this is to see if a different location can be deduced by any rational form of logic. I don't know if it can-I just know the location I deduced. Please, prove me wrong. Mine is rooted in historical models, so I think it's pretty grounded, but again- I very genuinely would like to know if another location can be deduced. If I'm wrong, my argument loses validity (which I'm okay with).
[2] The stains could match anything/they match nothing, to which I have openly challenged others to find another stain match with the same rigor I have applied- or to show that there is no significant overlap with the same rigor- this has not happened.
-This one your match would need to also fit contextually, because that's an important part of the argument that is being overlooked.
*The easiest consistency to track here is the green transect in the Voynich image. Notice how the stain never really crosses the boundary.
the other constant artifact is the red staining at the upper fold blue line/green line transect.The staining from the VM also perfectly
bleeds into the the broad shape of the [i]MWS stain; notice both terminate at the Asian script, although slightly harder to see. [/i]
*If you're having issues viewing the images at scale, I recommend viewing them directly via ImgBB as it should automatically scale to
~260% browser magnification and an additional image zoom without blur or additional scaling irregularities.
[3] Nothing on my note about the '8' consistencies
Instead, we're now circling the drain trying to get me caught up on semantics- and admittedly, you did for a moment with the measurements at the height of my restlessness.
That said, I'm not going to waste time in spats. Going forward, if you would like to contest my evidence- do so with evidence of equal weight, not just statements. I have presented evidence to support mine, so at this point, words and hypotheticals do nothing to argue against me. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.
No- "It could be any page/any stain" will not work.
-If you have made this claim, it is that- a claim; and the burden of proof for your claim, is on you.
No- "I don't see it as a clock" will not work.
No- "I don't see any stains" will not work.
Evidence. I will respond to that- and only that.
P.S: I didn't ask for your respect- I asked for you to be respectful if you choose to engage. Two entirely different sentences.
I have now, in full, laid out my evidence for my arguments- from Solar/Lunar positioning, to linguistic consistencies (we'll use the '8'-bindings as the metric here, since the syntactic structure is speculative until decoding), to the staining. In a very simple to follow, and straightforward, explanation of the Voynich.
The primary arguments against me have been:
[1] The Proto-Clock could mean anything, to which I have openly challenged others to find another location that can be deduced- this has not happened.
*In lieu of a later comment, please- by all means, feel free to use whatever logic you feel fits your interpretation as long as it's rational and reproducible. That's not the point- the point of this is to see if a different location can be deduced by any rational form of logic. I don't know if it can-I just know the location I deduced. Please, prove me wrong. Mine is rooted in historical models, so I think it's pretty grounded, but again- I very genuinely would like to know if another location can be deduced. If I'm wrong, my argument loses validity (which I'm okay with).
[2] The stains could match anything/they match nothing, to which I have openly challenged others to find another stain match with the same rigor I have applied- or to show that there is no significant overlap with the same rigor- this has not happened.
-This one your match would need to also fit contextually, because that's an important part of the argument that is being overlooked.
*The easiest consistency to track here is the green transect in the Voynich image. Notice how the stain never really crosses the boundary.
the other constant artifact is the red staining at the upper fold blue line/green line transect.The staining from the VM also perfectly
bleeds into the the broad shape of the [i]MWS stain; notice both terminate at the Asian script, although slightly harder to see. [/i]
*If you're having issues viewing the images at scale, I recommend viewing them directly via ImgBB as it should automatically scale to
~260% browser magnification and an additional image zoom without blur or additional scaling irregularities.
[3] Nothing on my note about the '8' consistencies
Instead, we're now circling the drain trying to get me caught up on semantics- and admittedly, you did for a moment with the measurements at the height of my restlessness.
That said, I'm not going to waste time in spats. Going forward, if you would like to contest my evidence- do so with evidence of equal weight, not just statements. I have presented evidence to support mine, so at this point, words and hypotheticals do nothing to argue against me. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence.
No- "It could be any page/any stain" will not work.
-If you have made this claim, it is that- a claim; and the burden of proof for your claim, is on you.
No- "I don't see it as a clock" will not work.
No- "I don't see any stains" will not work.
Evidence. I will respond to that- and only that.
P.S: I didn't ask for your respect- I asked for you to be respectful if you choose to engage. Two entirely different sentences.