- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Morten St George Theory
- Morten St George Theory
-
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 24-03-2018, 05:56 AM
(23-03-2018, 03:45 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Recall that on page 85+ we see an unambiguous drawing of the fleur de lys so the VMS authors were clearly familiar with this symbol. Also, let me remind you that, historically, the fleur de lys is predominantly associated with France rather than Italy.
Everyone was familiar with fleur-de-lis symbols (they were based on iris and lily flowers, and sometimes on the shape of a blade grip), just as everyone was familiar with images of lions used on standards, coats of arms, tapestries, and clothing.
They have come to be associated with France, but in earlier times, they can be found in Italy and Greece, as well, on emblems, churches, coins...
Fleur-de-lis symbols (both heraldic and otherwise) were ubiquitous in medieval society, and not just in Europe... in India the fleur-de-lis was used on coins in the Ksahtrap Dynasty, 2,000 years ago. In Europe, it was already in general use by at least the 9th century. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 24-03-2018, 04:30 PM
(24-03-2018, 04:57 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-03-2018, 12:08 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....The animal depicted on page 80v shows no signs of having a very long tail and consequently is far more likely to be an armadillo than a pangolin....
That statement doesn't hold water in the context of medieval critter drawings. Someone else will say: "An armadillo has plates and a pangolin has scales, so it's much more likely to be a pangolin" and another person will come along and say it's a bumpy-wooled ram (there are bumpy-wool varieties of sheep), so it's more likely to be a ram than a pangolin or armadillo".
I've already linked my blog on how medieval illustrators drew animals, but in case you didn't read it, here it is again.
You really should look at the pictures before you interpret the "pangolin/armadillo/sheep/aardvark" critter too literally:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There are also threads on this forum investigating the little dragony critter that's nibbling or smelling a leaf. There's no agreement at all on either this critter or the "pangolin" critter even after very capable researchers spent months collecting medieval drawings and discussing them.
There can be no justification for the outright rejection of a well-drawn armadillo in favor of a badly-drawn something else.
The distance from northern Italy to the nearest natural habitat of the pangolin is roughly three thousand miles. Chances are greater that a group of naked female Europeans could have crossed the Atlantic undetected than having crossed the Islamic world to reach the pangolins undetected.
One way to settle the issue is to show the VMS drawing along with photographs of the armadillo, pangolin, and all the other animals you mentioned, to unbiased people, such as young children, and ask them to identify the animal. I'd be willing to bet that all or nearly all of them would pick the armadillo.
Let me clarify that I am not categorically stating that this VMS animal has to be an armadillo. I am only saying that it could be an armadillo and therefore constitutes one more piece of evidence pointing to authorship of the VMS in the New World. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Koen G > 24-03-2018, 04:34 PM
It's not a well drawn armadillo, various crucial features are missing. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 24-03-2018, 05:31 PM
(24-03-2018, 05:02 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-03-2018, 02:38 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
It surprises me that Wikipedia is continuing to insinuate that the VMS was composed in northern Italy. With this unfounded contention Wikipedia is doing severe harm to anyone trying to uncover the true origins of the VMS. I might cancel my donation next year
A substantial portion of the Wikipedia information on the VMS is taken from the Beinecke site and from the blogs of people on this forum (some of it is copied almost word-for-word from people's blogs).
Some of the information on the Beinecke site (including the statement about where the VMS originated) has been there for years and hasn't been updated. They're probably not motivated to update it until new information that can be verified with a high degree of certainty is put forward and that's not easy to do with the VMS.
Last year I saw a flick about the VMS that led me to conclude that the claims for composition in northern Italy are entirely based on the design of some of the defenses seen on the VMS depiction of a castle. If that is all there is, I would consider such evidence as too meager and flimsy for confidently determining place of authorship.
As far as I am aware, most medieval castles in northern Italy are still extant and no one has been able to identify any of them with the VMS castle. It is my understanding that the Cathar castles in southwestern France are also still extant though only as ruins, but these ruins likewise cannot be connected with the VMS castle.
The most notable medieval castle that is no longer extant, not even as ruins, is the Cathar fortress at Montségur, which must immediately make it a prime candidate for being the VMS castle.
Yesterday, I posted in this thread new evidence that the VMS castle is in fact the Cathar fortress of Montségur. And, obviously, if the VMS depicts Montségur in southwestern France, the argument for composition of the VMS in northern Italy collapses. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 24-03-2018, 05:39 PM
(24-03-2018, 05:56 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(23-03-2018, 03:45 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Recall that on page 85+ we see an unambiguous drawing of the fleur de lys so the VMS authors were clearly familiar with this symbol. Also, let me remind you that, historically, the fleur de lys is predominantly associated with France rather than Italy.
Everyone was familiar with fleur-de-lis symbols (they were based on iris and lily flowers, and sometimes on the shape of a blade grip), just as everyone was familiar with images of lions used on standards, coats of arms, tapestries, and clothing.
They have come to be associated with France, but in earlier times, they can be found in Italy and Greece, as well, on emblems, churches, coins...
Fleur-de-lis symbols (both heraldic and otherwise) were ubiquitous in medieval society, and not just in Europe... in India the fleur-de-lis was used on coins in the Ksahtrap Dynasty, 2,000 years ago. In Europe, it was already in general use by at least the 9th century.
The fleur de lys is directly mentioned in the sacred text so, like the scorpion, it would have to be something with eternal existence in the spiritual world. This could help to explain Cathar interest in botany and why the fleur de lys was chosen to be part of the pedestal shield. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 24-03-2018, 05:40 PM
(24-03-2018, 05:31 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....As far as I am aware, most medieval castles in northern Italy are still extant and no one has been able to identify any of them with the VMS castle. It is my understanding that the Cathar castles in southwestern France are also still extant though only as ruins, but these ruins likewise cannot be connected with the VMS castle.
...
Many still exist, but many have been heavily remodeled, sometimes numerous times, and it's usually the towers, battlements, and other upper levels that get remodeled most often. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 24-03-2018, 11:24 PM
(24-03-2018, 04:34 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not a well drawn armadillo, various crucial features are missing.
I read the following on a VMS website called "1910 Theory":
"And the famous 'armadillo' rears it's pretty head. The interesting thing is, this looks much like an armadillo to almost everyone who does not know of the Voynich, nor care when it was made, but looks nothing like one to anyone who believes the Voynich was written and illustrated before Columbus. It becomes a pangolin, wolf, or one of many other creatures that were known to Europeans in the 15th century.
... the majority of those who thought this could not be an armadillo were the same people who believe the Voynich was pre-Columbian. This strongly implies that the 'expert opinion' of Voynich dating is colored by it's own prejudices and projections, and should be taken with some reservation."
But the author of these words discredits himself by effectively agreeing with the "experts" that it was impossible for Europeans to cross the Atlantic prior to Columbus. Are they afraid of losing their job for merely mentioning such a possibility? -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Koen G > 25-03-2018, 05:54 AM
People who say it's an armadillo do so because they are much more familiar with this species than with the pangolin.
You know, in Dutch, the armadillo and pangolin are called gordeldier and schubdier respectively. Belt-animal and scale-animal. That's because the armadillo has bands, while the pangolin has large scales.
Look for any early armadillo drawing. It will have bands. When an armadillo drawing has no bands, it ignores one of the species' defining features and is hence unreliable. The VM creature's scales are huge, only three are needed to cover top to bottom.
Its tail is split, setting it apart from both armadillo and pangolin. And lizards. This implies again that the image - like any medieval animal drawing - is not scientifically accurate and canot be used as a supporting pillar of one's theory. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 25-03-2018, 03:35 PM
(25-03-2018, 05:54 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.People who say it's an armadillo do so because they are much more familiar with this species than with the pangolin.
You know, in Dutch, the armadillo and pangolin are called gordeldier and schubdier respectively. Belt-animal and scale-animal. That's because the armadillo has bands, while the pangolin has large scales.
Look for any early armadillo drawing. It will have bands. When an armadillo drawing has no bands, it ignores one of the species' defining features and is hence unreliable. The VM creature's scales are huge, only three are needed to cover top to bottom.
Its tail is split, setting it apart from both armadillo and pangolin. And lizards. This implies again that the image - like any medieval animal drawing - is not scientifically accurate and canot be used as a supporting pillar of one's theory.
I very much doubt that you can find an unbiased zoology expert anywhere in the world who would say that an armadillo could not have been the intention of the VMS drawing. The fact that some other type of animal could have been the real intention does not negate the possibility that an armadillo could also have been the intention.
At the moment, the MSG Theory maintains that the encryption system and many of the drawings were created by Cathars during the 13th century, with botanical and herbal research in the Americas continuing into the 14th century. In the early 15th century, an exact copy of their writings (the current VMS) was made by native American converts to Catharism using buffalo skin for parchment.
If you wish to refute this theory, you should try to find academic or scholarly sources saying that it is impossible to use buffalo for parchment, or that buffalo and cows are so different that it is impossible to confuse their proteins in protein analysis. Continuing to argue that the armadillo might not be an armadillo gets you nowhere because that is only a small piece of the puzzle. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 25-03-2018, 04:21 PM
You seem to think it's up to us to disprove your theory.
It's not.
It's up to you to prove it, and you keep using arguments that can be refuted or which aren't specific enough to support your theory (which could apply to many other circumstances).