No text, but a visual code

[Linda]

I didn't say read the text, but rather interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript.

This was just replied to in the post previous to yours. The graphical languages we see in many other manuscripts of the time aren't used here, or if they are, are used in different ways.

In the early 15th century, educated people would have known how to do so. Two hundred years later, when Baresch lived, it might have been a bit more difficult for them. However, Baresch knew it was a medical book, and that is what it is. It is not an encyclopedic compendium of various subjects, but a codex with a single theme.

I think this is a more individualized work, ie the mnemonics employed are meaningful to an individual, not to the educated, many, per se. It's a medical book? It surprises me that you say this? I thought it was about star influence on plants? That it was all astrological or astronomical?

 

Baresch’s description is minimal. He did not mention the Rosettes foldout, but he did speak of alchemical content—surely referring to the female figures in Quire 13. He did not see women bathing.

I agree that the description is minimal and we can't even be sure he was talking about this book. But yet you do a complete turnaround to use his words toward proving your stance, so i will point out that he used the word chemical, not alchemical, and regardless, your theory incorporates neither of these as far as I know? You are just saying he didn't see women bathing, so it must be that they are stars influencing plants? That doesn't follow. Seems like a logical fallacy at play again.

   

It matters very little to me if I’m called arrogant at my age, something I have never been. It strikes me as more arrogant to say, as Oscroft does, that it is not necessary to present an alternative idea in order to reject a hypothesis. You simply reject it because you feel like doing so.

It is arrogant to say something can be nothing but what you say, knowing full well many people reading your posts have offered up other takes on it. It is not arrogant to say that it is not necessary to offer up an alternative idea in order to provide criticism of your explanation. Oscroft merely told you that to say it can be nothing but is an example of the Holmesian fallacy, and did not reject your hypothesis in so doing, but merely rejected your statement that it can be nothing but. You would have to prove that without employing logical fallacies.

   

ololololo, I’ve seen your wonderful Rosettes treasure map, with two cities, the sea, a mountain, a lake, and three temples. And in the center, the island with the treasure that must be guarded, with all these cannons surrounding the coast. What do you want me to say? It’s what would have occurred to a child.

What is 'what would have occurred to a child'? Ololololo's take, or yours? A child's take might be completely appropriate, for all we know it might have been meant for a child. To me they are both varying takes on a very difficult iconographic diagram. But at least i can see where Ololololo gets the ideas, i can see the canons, castles, rocks. I think what Ololololo is going for is something that can be seen to have evolved from some known iconography, like asking how can you prove or at least better describe how the moon rosette depicts the moon, and same for the others, why would tents be used to depict planets? I can see where the temple idea comes from the tents, but as to which planet is which, i think we are waiting for further explanation, but afaik you haven't fully identified the rest as to which is which or how they would influence anything from these locations? Do the closer ones to the earth influence more than others? Do they regulate the influence of the ones farther away through the pathways? It seems complicated. There is much left unexplained.