The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[eggyk]

Below is a screenshot of the first couple of "octembre" references look like- but it goes on for several pages like this, with a great many references to the word, between the 18th and the early 20th centuries:

Thanks. Yes, they are the ones I meant. All of the usage in there are quotes from the medieval period. I thought those books were not widely printed given the nature of their content, but I may be wrong. 

As for the octebre examples, other than the few examples of quotes (and I must insist those are buried within hundreds of pages of text so are not readily accessible), most are either smudges that were mis-scanned, or were obscure spelling mistakes. Such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., where one 'octubre' in the pages and pages of tables was mistakenly written octebre. I don't think an example like that should count, partly because such mistakes are genuinely niche, would be near impossible to parse out without a digital scan, and probably wouldn't have caught the attention of anyone.

But more importantly, the VMS uses octēbre with a macron, indicating a deliberate and attested shortening of 'octembre'. The only instance of octēbre with a macron that shows up in results is a 2001 david king book about astrolabes... in the context of the of the picardy dialect of french from medieval times. 

That specific book also happens to be the exact book I used to discuss the provenance and usage of the rare astrolabe with 'jong' for june that I talked about in my first reply! We've gone full circle here somehow!

9) But back to the July word: I did a search and found that some think it may be "iullio". IDK, but if so, it is sometimes used as "July", as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (also as Pope Julius). This is key, I think, for several researchers have noted that the spelling "iullio" has been found in old manuscripts... which is fine of course, and interesting. But again, it was also in some number of printed books before 1910, and therefore is NOT exclusive to rare old manuscripts or something, and does fulfill the requirements of my Theorem.

10) My best guess would be it is the word "iolloa" or "iollo", and I get nothing valuable.

Based on the internal logic of the handwriting, i'm confident that it is at least 'iolle-' (or 'jolle-'). The e matches the e's in both aberils and in octebre. The last character looks the same as the t in augst, but with the top damaged through the fold in the parchment. It certainly doesn't end with an o, no matter how you look.  

Indeed, julio was extremely common, and I believe i've seen jullio a lot too. But the word in the VMS simply isn't julio or jullio, it's missing the u, i and o. So if what lies in the VMS is jollet, and i'm confident that it is, I would argue that it simply can't fulfill the requirements of the theorem. However, I also can't say to you that it is an attested form from history, either... So as you said, it's a problem for everyone 

But no matter what, it is some form with 'joll--', which I believe also fits the same situation. I haven't found any forms like that either.  

Funnily enough, the cancer depiction -like the jollet below it- has never really been found either. I would imagine that this is the case for later printed works too, but that would take a lot longer to check vs month names. If you ever come across two lobsters connected like pisces, give me a shout!

As another example of this, for the NSA Historical Cipher Conference in 2017, I suggested that it was dangerous to limit one's attempts at decipherment by only looking at those ciphers and systems that they felt might have been used in the 15th century. And I still feel this way... no matter what one believes, they ought to expand their search into areas they don't believe possible, also. Michael Ventris solved Linear B exactly because of this... he was certain it was based on Phonetician, but tried Alice Kober's (sp?) Greek anyway... and it was the answer.

Another thing to realize: Those who insist you limit your own ideas and searches to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Paradigm have no answers of their own. They do not know when it was made, where it was made, for what purpose, what it says, who wrote it, and what it contains. After over 100 years of sticking to that very rigid and limiting set of standards, I think it is time people broke free of this, and tried some other ideas.

Here, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have always pushed to consider all time periods and all countries when doing my research, regardless of whether that time period or geographical area is considered relevant to most.  I believe we have been better served by that, learning and uncovering things we otherwise wouldn't have. I also have found many things/trends that I can conclusively say the VMS isn't, which has value too. 

My goal at some point is to track the likely time periods/areas for each of the zodiac sign designs independently from eachother to see if there is consistency. If that turns out to be 1600, it turns out to be 1600. If it's 1300, its 1300. But if it's 1420AD, that would be strong evidence for authenticity, as the forger wouldn't have known the dating of the parchment. They would have to have got very lucky for that to happen.