02-07-2026, 10:16 PM
I agree with several of your points. The complete neglect of the planets certainly implies a lack of interest in astronomical information and science in general. And also, that this particular type of cosmic structure came from the Parisian studios of the relevant artists.
Looking at the VMs cosmic drawing, was the artist incompetent or deceptive? The VMs artist drew the same three-part structure as in BNF Fr. 565. 1) A central Earth with *inverted* T-O divisions, 2) a surrounding field of stars, and 3) an all-enclosing wolkenband cosmic boundary with 43 undulations. Where does "incompetence" come into play?
This cosmic diagram does not have the same internal structure.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Does the VMs look different than the 565 cosmos? It absolutely does. Does that make it 'something' different? Does it change the cosmic structure? I guess that's your call.
Even for something as simple as water, variations in appearance are all over the place.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But the VMs artist is not a crapy copier. The VMs cosmic artist is not a copier at all. Clearly, as the central Earth of 565 is a pictorial representation, then the copy of a pictorial representation is another pictorial representation. The VMs Earth is shown with written Voynichese words. It is clearly an alteration of appearance and if the disguise was intentional, that implies deception. Or maybe this scribe can't draw water.
Once is accidental, twice is coincidental, three times and you're stuck with it. Cosmos, Melusine, Agnus Dei, Fieschi popes, the Muses in the half-arcaded tub. The VMs artist is just full of valid historical incompetence, errr - trickery.
Looking at the VMs cosmic drawing, was the artist incompetent or deceptive? The VMs artist drew the same three-part structure as in BNF Fr. 565. 1) A central Earth with *inverted* T-O divisions, 2) a surrounding field of stars, and 3) an all-enclosing wolkenband cosmic boundary with 43 undulations. Where does "incompetence" come into play?
This cosmic diagram does not have the same internal structure.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Does the VMs look different than the 565 cosmos? It absolutely does. Does that make it 'something' different? Does it change the cosmic structure? I guess that's your call.
Even for something as simple as water, variations in appearance are all over the place.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But the VMs artist is not a crapy copier. The VMs cosmic artist is not a copier at all. Clearly, as the central Earth of 565 is a pictorial representation, then the copy of a pictorial representation is another pictorial representation. The VMs Earth is shown with written Voynichese words. It is clearly an alteration of appearance and if the disguise was intentional, that implies deception. Or maybe this scribe can't draw water.
Once is accidental, twice is coincidental, three times and you're stuck with it. Cosmos, Melusine, Agnus Dei, Fieschi popes, the Muses in the half-arcaded tub. The VMs artist is just full of valid historical incompetence, errr - trickery.