- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] VMS - a forgery?
- [split] VMS - a forgery?
-
[split] VMS - a forgery?
bunny > 14-12-2016, 08:31 AM
(14-12-2016, 06:24 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='9755' dateline='1481674532']
That's modern English. They didn't speak or spell English like this in the 15th century.
If you change even one letter, then the gematria number of the word changes and no longer matches the same word in Stellar's system.
For example, I've seen the word "money" in 16th-century documents, but only rarely and I haven't seen it in any 15th-century documents. It's a French word (and spelled variously), not English and certainly not spelled "money". In those days, they usually spoke of silver or ducats or pence or specific quantities rather than using a general term like "money".
Changing it to French spelling completely changes the gematria value, which means it wouldn't apply to the VMS word. Same with many of the other "decoded" words.
[/quote]
There is nothing that suggests to me it is factually a C15th manuscript in content and the language would be more modern. Of all the languages people have looked at in modern times they do seem to find contemporaneous word structure, again something I will be looking at in my hypothesis.
Bunny -
RE: Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r
-JKP- > 14-12-2016, 06:59 PM
(14-12-2016, 08:31 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is nothing that suggests to me it is factually a C15th manuscript in content and the language would be more modern. Of all the languages people have looked at in modern times they do seem to find contemporaneous word structure, again something I will be looking at in my hypothesis.
Bunny
I'm quite amazed to see someone say that.
The penwork, the zodiac-symbol shapes, the vellum and the way it was processed and stitched (they started using paper rather than parchment in the late 1400s for many documents of this kind), the pigments, the subject matter, the Latin abbreviation shapes, the text style of the marginalia, the style of drawing (which changed quite substantially by the Renaissance), and on and on, all suggest probable 15th century origin.
All this was apparent even before it was radio-carbon dated. -
RE: Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r
bunny > 15-12-2016, 09:43 AM
(14-12-2016, 06:59 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Really? (Amazed, that is.)(14-12-2016, 08:31 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is nothing that suggests to me it is factually a C15th manuscript in content and the language would be more modern. Of all the languages people have looked at in modern times they do seem to find contemporaneous word structure, again something I will be looking at in my hypothesis.
Bunny
I'm quite amazed to see someone say that.
The penwork, the zodiac-symbol shapes, the vellum and the way it was processed and stitched (they started using paper rather than parchment in the late 1400s for many documents of this kind), the pigments, the subject matter, the Latin abbreviation shapes, the text style of the marginalia, the style of drawing (which changed quite substantially by the Renaissance), and on and on, all suggest probable 15th century origin.
All this was apparent even before it was radio-carbon dated.
There are people who also think it is a modern forgery, and others who site astronomy of Tycho and Kepler in the folios, none of which agree with the apparent C15th scenario or authorship dating. No one disagrees that it has the hallmarks of the C15th dating or that it was written on apparent C15th velum according to what we know of the C14 dating, but the signals are all very mixed, it fits many different things but not exactly, and the attached letter has the hallmark of bearing a copied signature. I am almost amazed that you don't know of these research findings and alternative views.
Bunny -
RE: Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r
-JKP- > 15-12-2016, 10:12 AM
(15-12-2016, 09:43 AM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Really? (Amazed, that is.)
There are people who also think it is a modern forgery, and others who site astronomy of Tycho and Kepler in the folios, none of which agree with the apparent C15th scenario or authorship dating. No one disagrees that it has the hallmarks of the C15th dating or that it was written on apparent C15th velum according to what we know of the C14 dating, but the signals are all very mixed, it fits many different things but not exactly, and the attached letter has the hallmark of bearing a copied signature. I am almost amazed that you don't know of these research findings and alternative views.
Bunny
I do know about them. I've been studying the VMS for over 8 years and I don't agree with them. I don't give any credence to the theory that it's a modern forgery.
And Marci used a scribe (it has been suggested this may have been because his eyesight was failing). -
RE: Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r
bunny > 15-12-2016, 09:28 PM
There is indeed a split camp on it being a forgery versus a real manuscript. I don't think it's a forgery in terms of a hoax, maybe a later date but that's not the same thing. An interesting aside is that the museums and private collections are home to many fakes that have fooled even the experts and the dating and large sums of money paid, so I guess it does remain possible.
Bunny -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
ThomasCoon > 15-12-2016, 11:04 PM
(For convenience I split the forgery discussion into its own thread) -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
ReneZ > 15-12-2016, 11:37 PM
In many of these types of discussions, I think one has to ask oneself:
"Whom am I trying to convince?"
Is it the proponent of an untenable theory? He may not be susceptible to reason.
Is it the readership in general? They may have long understood that it is untenable.
The point about not being susceptible to reason may seem harsh, or overbearing, but one should understand that not all people reason by straight logic. Lots of people reason by free association.
Trying to argue with such people, by using logic, will not work.
I think we have seen quite a bit of that here already. -
RE: Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r
-JKP- > 16-12-2016, 02:22 AM
(15-12-2016, 09:28 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is indeed a split camp on it being a forgery versus a real manuscript....
There are all sorts of theories, but one has to look at the reasoning behind the theory, and at the person's credentials, track record, and credibility.
If Einstein puts forward some ideas on physics and some person who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about (whether they realize it themselves or not) puts out an alternate theory, obviously the first idea has more credibility.
Just because there are split camps does not mean the opposing ideas have equal value. You have to weigh them. -
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
stellar > 16-12-2016, 02:35 AM
I found a date its in my profile and I also put these guys to the test Bunny, regarding the VMS's authenticity. These people really are spot on here and have guided me in my blindness. Well I now think its still Gematria with a date for the VMS set at 1433. Thanks for the appraisal Bunny!
-
RE: [split] VMS - a forgery?
bunny > 17-12-2016, 12:00 AM
(16-12-2016, 02:35 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found a date its in my profile and I also put these guys to the test Bunny, regarding the VMS's authenticity. These people really are spot on here and have guided me in my blindness. Well I now think its still Gematria with a date for the VMS set at 1433. Thanks for the appraisal Bunny!
Again, I have to express that you have found a date that has been relevant to other researchers, who also used "unaccepted" methodology. You found 1546, though not by Gematria, which you link to Dee. It is also the date of birth of Tycho Brahe who has been a central theme in the VM to some researchers. 1546, another coincidence?
Your 1433 Gematria model, maybe along with druid influence, Wales and Ireland is where you seem to be heading and should keep going for sure. Others used different methods and assumptions to basically come up with some of the same results as you are finding. 1546 is a key element, not just for you. You see Dee (maybe on a hypercube, which is one layer I think the cube has there), others see Tycho, all factual layers of the same manuscript it seems.
Your piece on Dante is post 1433 and factual so bear that in mind, you may be covering a wider time range than expected.
Bunny