- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Morten St George Theory
- Morten St George Theory
-
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 14-04-2019, 06:37 PM
(14-04-2019, 06:10 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the dipping of the ink, you again resort to something of low probability to defend a popular belief which, in this case, is that the marginalia is meaningless scribble.
What????? What are you talking about?
They used quill pens. Have you ever tried to write with a quill pen? It's HARD. First you have to learn to cut it properly, and it has to be trimmed with a knife every few folios because the tip wears down. Then you have to learn to dip it exactly right, or the amount of the ink flows too little or too much. It's VERY easy to dip slightly too far and get too much ink and if you don't dab it or wipe it, the ink flows in and fills the curves. Parchment is a difficult writing medium. No matter how carefully it's prepared, there are slight bumps and oily spots. The medium resists the ink in those places.
It has NOTHING to do with the marginalia being meaningless or being scribble. It has to do with the art of using a very difficult writing instrument.
Quote:It reminds me of how you resorted to the pangolin to negate the armadillo, without providing any evidence at all that the pangolin was known somewhere in Europe at some point during the Middle Ages. I do not have to do the same for authorship in the Americas because at that time the armadillos, with more than a dozen species of it roaming about, were seen everywhere.
Now you're twisting my argument. I did not argue that it was a pangolin. I said that the drawing resembles a pangolin more than an armadillo. Those are two different kinds of statements.
Quote:On the marginalia, other points of contention include whether "mich" means milk (and don't know how you connect that to plants) or is simply short for michel. Michel, of course, would be consistent with other marginalia pointers to a prophecy attributed to Michel Nostradamus.
Milk is not my interpretation. It is someone else's. It is a rational interpretation based on the way some dialects dropped consonants (I have seen it in manuscripts) and based on a saying that actually existed about "goose's milk" (goose's milk is a tongue in cheek reference in Germanic cultures to something that doesn't exist). Even though it's not the first thing I would interpret for that text (I've proposed about three different interpretations for the phrase at the bottom), I will support whoever suggested it because it can be defended on rational and cultural grounds.
Quote:Your technical capabilities are very valuable and much needed on this project. I only wish that you could take a more neutral stance on the interpretation of the data. You say you do, but many of your posts reveal little openness to new ideas.
I am very significantly more neutral than you are. You can't get away from the idea that it has to be Cathars and it has to be Nostradmus prophecies even though there's no evidence to support either suggestion. Your "evidence" is that you you pick only the interpretation that suits your theory and you don't look at other possibilities. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Paris > 14-04-2019, 08:06 PM
Morten St. George
In this YouTube video from Gérard Caye, you can see how to prepare a pen nib.
(unfortunately, it's in french)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It's not so easy to prepare.
If you watch other of his videos, you can notice how difficult it is to write correctly. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 14-04-2019, 08:28 PM
(14-04-2019, 06:37 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am very significantly more neutral than you are. You can't get away from the idea that it has to be Cathars and it has to be Nostradmus prophecies even though there's no evidence to support either suggestion. Your "evidence" is that you you pick only the interpretation that suits your theory and you don't look at other possibilities.
True. Not for one second would I give any credence to either goat's liver or goose's milk. It would be inconsistent with everything I've learned about the VMS and inconsistent with clear marginalia pointers to a specific prophecy. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 14-04-2019, 08:33 PM
(14-04-2019, 08:06 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St. George
In this YouTube video from Gérard Caye, you can see how to prepare a pen nib.
(unfortunately, it's in french)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It's not so easy to prepare.
If you watch other of his videos, you can notice how difficult it is to write correctly.
Paris, I think days if not months of preparation went into every stroke of that marginalia and thus I view an accidental spill of ink (as suggested by JP) to be highly unlikely. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
davidjackson > 14-04-2019, 08:40 PM
Quote:Morten St. George Wrote: On the dipping of the ink, you again resort to something of low probability to defend a popular belief which, in this case, is that the marginalia is meaningless scribble.
What????? What are you talking about?
Now then JKP you have to admit he's got you there - the scribe had 116 pages of practice to get used to his quill!
-
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 14-04-2019, 11:03 PM
Quote:Morten St. George: Paris, I think days if not months of preparation went into every stroke of that marginalia and thus I view an accidental spill of ink (as suggested by JP) to be highly unlikely.
Morten, the manuscript is full of ink spills (places where the letters filled in where there was too much ink). It's HARD to write with a quill, especially on parchment, even if you've done it for quite a while. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 15-04-2019, 07:13 AM
(14-04-2019, 11:03 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, the manuscript is full of ink spills (places where the letters filled in where there was too much ink). It's HARD to write with a quill, especially on parchment, even if you've done it for quite a while.
JP, I was only referring to the marginalia (circa 1600) and not to the main body of text (circa 1420). I wasn't kidding about a lot of preparation going into every stroke of the quill. In every way the marginalia is a cryptic masterpiece: Spanish words made to look like German words, real German words to make us think those Spanish words are German words, and an individual letter made to look like the result of an ink spill but not really so. What we see in the marginalia today is almost certainly exactly what they wanted us to see.
Surely there was no motive for creating the marginalia other than to help someone undertake a new decoding of the VMS, but not someone of their epoch, someone of the distant future who might be able to prevent the predicted annihilation (so they believed) of mankind. The devious nature of the marginalia can therefore be explained as an effort to bypass the Inquisition for a few centuries.
In the meantime, the marginalia can only be properly understood by someone who is familiar with the Nostradamus prophecies, which probably explains why I was able to make a little progress on it. Thus, while most scholars likely have no idea what the marginalia "untpfer" means, it only took me a few minutes to expand it into unt(er) Pfer(d) and see a seahorse carrying a stone across the great saline sea. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 15-04-2019, 07:18 AM
The handwriting style on 116v was prevalent in the early to mid-15th century.
Your contention that they faked 15th-century handwriting in 1600 will need proof, because there's no evidence to support the idea.
Quote:Morten St. George: In every way the marginalia is a cryptic masterpiece: Spanish words made to look like German words, real German words to make us think those Spanish words are German words, and an individual letter made to look like the result of an ink spill but not really so.
The Spanish words are not made to look like German words. The "Spanish" line LOOKS like a Romance language. It does not look like German in any way and I don't recall anyone trying to insist that it is German. -
RE: Morten St George Theory
Morten St. George > 15-04-2019, 03:18 PM
(15-04-2019, 07:18 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The handwriting style on 116v was prevalent in the early to mid-15th century.
Your contention that they faked 15th-century handwriting in 1600 will need proof, because there's no evidence to support the idea.
JP, You have yet to present any type of refutation of my analysis showing the many ways that the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. points to a specific prophecy first published in the year 1588/9. What do you want us to believe? That the 15th-century authors of the VMS were prophetic and able to foresee the contents of that 16th-century publication?
Also, you show no signs of having read my analysis of the marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (which you claim to be in the same handwriting as f116v) whereby I link its fleur-de-lis shield with the fleur-de-lis shield on the cover of the Herball encyclopedia of 1597, which in turn simultaneously points to a textual fleur-de-lis in Nostradamus and to a graphic fleur-de-lis in the interior of the VMS. Once again, are we to believe that the authors of the VMS were prophetic and foresaw the contents of that botanical publication of the late 16th century?
In addition, I'll mention that the cryptic logic employed by the marginalia author in the VMS is similar to the cryptic logic that he employs in his other writings of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But let's just leave it at that as this is no place, for the moment, to discuss the Authorship Question.
(15-04-2019, 07:18 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Spanish words are not made to look like German words. The "Spanish" line LOOKS like a Romance language. It does not look like German in any way and I don't recall anyone trying to insist that it is German.
What? Isn't it true that you guys fail to see the dot above "leber", so, instead of liber, you accept it as the German word leber, liver? And isn't it true that you guys are assuming the "mich" is a misspelling of the German word Milch, milk? -
RE: Morten St George Theory
-JKP- > 15-04-2019, 03:29 PM
Okay, Morten. I'm through. You keep throwing my interpretations in with many different people's interpretations as though they are all the same. They are not.
Secondly, each of your arguments is based on supporting your theory, not trying to find out facts, so we will never go anywhere except in circles.
I don't have time for merry-go-rounds.