VViews > 25-01-2018, 06:07 AM
Morten St. George > 25-01-2018, 07:41 PM
(25-01-2018, 06:07 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Morten St George,
I'm creating this thread for the discussion of the theory you present on your website, which is better than discussing it in the thread about protein analysis.
I'll admit I have not read your whole website, but just from the Q & A page you linked to, several problems are apparent.
Several of the assertions you make there are incorrect.
I don't have time to go into details this morning,but for starters, a simple factual observation:
you claim that the male character on 80r is the only one and that "no other males are depicted in the manuscript". This is incorrect: there are several men in the Voynich.
If you go over to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, you'll find that, per Koen Gh and Sam G's count, there are about 17% men in the zodiac section, including the obvious central figures of the male Sagittarius and one of the Gemini twins.
As for Quire 13, there appear to be 4 men depicted there.
Koen G > 25-01-2018, 08:06 PM
Morten St. George > 25-01-2018, 11:01 PM
VViews > 26-01-2018, 11:44 AM
VViews > 26-01-2018, 01:24 PM
(25-01-2018, 07:41 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I provide a Voynich depiction of a plant and modern photograph of a rainforest plant. Are they, or are they not, the same plant?
davidjackson > 26-01-2018, 07:26 PM
Quote:From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Internally, Herball provides more evidence as it says things that we would never expect to find in a botany book, like
"Nostradami Salo-mensis Gallo-prouincie,"
And a Herball epigram begins with a reference to the Atlas Mountains,
"Define quae vastis pomeria montibus Atlas"
Quote:qui cum decipi velit, decipiatur: in cuius fallacias per apposite finxit et cecinit olim hos versiculos eruditissimus collega D Jacobus Paradisus nobilis Gandauensis alludens adnomen tanti versutissimi herois Nostradami Salonensis Gallo-prouinciae,The author is referring to a play on words by D Jacobus laughing at Nostradamus. The play on words is difficult for me to translate, but uses the name of Nostra-Damus to warn against accepting words at face value.
Nostra-damus, cum verba damus, quia fallere nostrum;
Et cum verba damus, nil nisi Nostra-damus.
Quote:which turns out to be a term (along with its Berber name "Fez") used to link works written in the French, German, Latin and English languages.Nah.
Morten St. George > 27-01-2018, 07:19 AM
(26-01-2018, 01:24 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(25-01-2018, 07:41 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I provide a Voynich depiction of a plant and modern photograph of a rainforest plant. Are they, or are they not, the same plant?
If you go to the blog of Ivan Mikolji (the photographer), he explains that this is not a plant but two individuals from a colony of protozoans, Ophrydium versatile.
It is utterly impossible for protozoans to grow "a little green bud that offers every potential of blossoming into a flower."
Protozoans are single cell organisms.
They have zero potential of blossoming into a flower.
They don't have stems or tendrils or buds.
Here are some more pictures of Ophrydium versatile:
What is shown in Ivan Mikolji's photo cannot be described as a "rainforest plant": Ophrydium versatile can be found in freshwaters all over the world, in all climates. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, they are not plants.
So actually, EVEN if we were to consider the possibility that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a protozoan ON an aquatic plant, as in the photograph below, this would not point towards a Venezuelan "rainforest" origin.
Ophrydium versatile colony on an aquatic plant in the Netherlands.
Koen G > 27-01-2018, 07:38 AM
Morten St. George > 27-01-2018, 08:20 AM
(26-01-2018, 11:44 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St George
Koen Gh's comment is not a matter of opinion. That is demonstrably a hole in the page.
If you need more evidence, please look at the two images below.
One is the hole in 102v1, and next to it are the roots of the plant on 102r2.
It is undeniably those roots we see peeking through the hole.
(26-01-2018, 11:44 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten St George
Koen Gh's comment is not a matter of opinion. That is demonstrably a hole in the page.
If you need more evidence, please look at the two images below.
One is the hole in 102v1, and next to it are the roots of the plant on 102r2.
It is undeniably those roots we see peeking through the hole.