17-05-2026, 09:02 AM
I see that you make a large number of assumptions, the first being that the Voynich is not a single work. For me, however, it is clear that all parts are related, as I have always said and tried to convey in my last posts.
The fact that you think this way is because you don't give any importance to the imagery in the codex, which for you is mere decoration that does not convey ideas. To suggest that a medieval image is merely filler and conveys nothing is absurd in my opinion, especially given the large number of images we see in the Voynich.
I suppose you don't value the Voynich imagery because it clearly and unequivocally points to a Western European work, which makes your Chinese theory of the supposed text less credible. Like so many other researchers of the codex, you are obsessed with the script and don't see beyond it, when, as I maintain, any enlightened contemporary of the Voynich era would know what the book means just by looking at its images.
The fact that you think this way is because you don't give any importance to the imagery in the codex, which for you is mere decoration that does not convey ideas. To suggest that a medieval image is merely filler and conveys nothing is absurd in my opinion, especially given the large number of images we see in the Voynich.
I suppose you don't value the Voynich imagery because it clearly and unequivocally points to a Western European work, which makes your Chinese theory of the supposed text less credible. Like so many other researchers of the codex, you are obsessed with the script and don't see beyond it, when, as I maintain, any enlightened contemporary of the Voynich era would know what the book means just by looking at its images.