coded > 08-05-2017, 03:04 AM
coded > 08-05-2017, 04:49 AM
-JKP- > 08-05-2017, 05:59 AM
(08-05-2017, 03:04 AM)coded Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I found a reference for a tarot card from Edith Sherwood's' site and I guess this should go in astrology! The tarot card is similar to f67r2 and it's Ercole l D'Este's card.
Oringinal Ercole D'Este full Tarot Deck link.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
-JKP- > 08-05-2017, 06:18 AM
coded > 08-05-2017, 07:20 AM
-JKP- > 08-05-2017, 07:43 AM
(08-05-2017, 07:20 AM)coded Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ JKP I don't wish to argue with you and I don't know you, but I think your problem is you are not an artist. Perhaps you are then your not familiar with this. Sorry I don't know how to respond to this rude message.
coded > 08-05-2017, 08:06 AM
(08-05-2017, 07:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(08-05-2017, 07:20 AM)coded Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ JKP I don't wish to argue with you and I don't know you, but I think your problem is you are not an artist. Perhaps you are then your not familiar with this. Sorry I don't know how to respond to this rude message.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I won so many art awards before the age of 24 that I lost count (and many more since then), including national contests.
And if you think I'm rude, that's too bad. What I said is not half as rude as the half-baked "findings" you continually post on this board that wastes the time of other researchers who are more thorough and rational about what they post.
You posted close-ups of the letters you supposedly found, some of which are not even shaped like Voynich glyphs, they are somewhat "close" but not close enough. You didn't post a wide shot to show how you were choosing (not finding, but choosing) shapes that support your point of view.
When other people post speculative information, they make it clear that they're not sure of what it means—which is perfectly fine. You don't do that. You are trying to CONVINCE us you are right by showing only what supports your idea. We all do this occasionally, it's human nature, but you do it habitually. That is not research, that is storytelling.
davidjackson > 08-05-2017, 08:10 AM
Koen G > 08-05-2017, 08:11 AM
coded > 08-05-2017, 08:16 AM
(08-05-2017, 08:11 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, JKP is one of the few members who still takes the effort to try and argue with you, the others just look at your umpteenth theory and sigh. JKP is criticizing your methodology (or lack thereof) which is fine, but you must always turn it into something personal.
Also, pleeeeeease keep your theorizing out of unrelated threads and stick to the thread about your theory. If you cannot do this, I won't hesitate to ban you again.
Edit: David beat me to it by a few seconds, seems like we're on the same line